9/11 - the big cover-up? (Guardian comment)

Six years after 9/11, the American public have still not been provided with a full and truthful account of the single greatest terror attack in US history.

What they got was a turkey. The 9/11 Commission was hamstrung by official obstruction. It never managed to ascertain the whole truth of what happened on September 11 2001.

The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority;
and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges.

Despite the many public statements by 9/11 commissioners and staff members acknowledging they were repeatedly lied to, not a single person has ever been charged, tried, or even reprimanded, for lying to the 9/11 Commission.

From the outset, the commission seemed to be hobbled. It did not start work until over a year after the attacks. Even then, its terms of reference were suspiciously narrow, its powers of investigation curiously limited and its time-frame for producing a report unhelpfully short - barely a year to sift through millions of pages of evidence and to interview hundreds of key witnesses.

The final report did not examine key evidence, and neglected serious anomalies in the various accounts of what happened. The commissioners admit their report was incomplete and flawed, and that many questions about the terror attacks remain unanswered. Nevertheless, the 9/11 Commission was swiftly closed down on August 21 2004.

...

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2007/09/911_the_big_coverup.html

but to talk about the first one is strictly verboten.

by a leadership (political, business and military) which has always been altruistic, honest, forthright and truthful in its dealings with the people. That way, when questions might arise about significant events like the half-assed 9/11 (non)investigation that might otherwise raise questions in peoples' minds as as to cover-ups of wrong doing and/or malfeasance by high officialdom, everyone just knows that this behavior would be totally out of character for this particular government. Therefore, they must be given the benefit of the doubt, and it remains a wise and safe course to accept the Official Conspiracy Theory without examination, question or doubt (even if it is the ONLY conspiracy theory deserving of such treatment).

yes, that was an effective strategy to adopt, why has everything always lead to the same end, a cover-up of
scandal to protect the status quo. Is there anyone in DC, who is not a loyal Bushie, I guess we will have
to wait for the latest: I was a stooge for Bush book to be published to find out.

Holding hands, not under oath.

No Norad.

Flying the Bin Ladens out of the country.


There is a list a mile long. And Americans just don't even think to lift their heavy and comfortable heads enough to look.

"911 Mysteries." put out by "support@avatarproducts.com." It repeats everything David Day Griffin researched and published, "The Second Pearl Harbor." This DVD supports Griffin's findings, plus more by connecting all the dots. It can also be viewed on Google, under '911 mysteries.'

I'm particularly good at this stuff. I'm also a mechanical engineer, for what that may be worth. I've spent a lifetime breaking and fixing things. I watch Mythbusters just so I can predict the outcome of their "experiments". I'm always correct. I even find flaws in their logic most of the time.
Nine minutes into the Google video, it's pretty obvious what didn't and did happen to those towers. Just as I had thought.

But that's just me talking about my intuition. But then, the professionals in the video back up that hunch.

This is so sick, if true. And there is little doubt that it isn't true. But it's some "wild" thinking by conventional standards. Even I can't get my head around how those towers came down. I'll watch the rest now. Thanks. I had tried to watch this a year ago, but only now do I have the broadband to do so.


Edit- I really do need to add that I fully accept being wrong. Not everything is as it seems. One big reason I tend to follow the conspiracy thinking of a building collapse is because of the behavior of the administration. Something unrelated to engineering is affecting my thinking of how the towers came down. The video isn't foolproof. They relate apples and oranges. But the two are not wholly different from one another. They're both small and round. Fruit. And deeelicious. What I'm saying is I don't really know. But it's very very suspicious. And now back to the video...

Edit- The more I watch this the more I find flaws in their logic. The free fall evaluation, which includes a software engineer thinking outside his profession. I am looking at this with an open mind, which I rarely have the ability to do. I can see all kinds of ways certain parts of this could be explained. However, I there is still something very wrong with the entire collapse scenario. I am open to all explanations. But I am totally unconvinced that the towers fell due to those planes hitting, alone. None of the explanations add up. The fire. The location of the plane strike on the number two tower. Yet they fell. I can try and keep an open mind as to how the towers fell and to how they were made to fall. I just don't have an answer. And it seems very fishy. It's not the Windsor Tower of Madrid. That wasn't 130 stories. I don't think that's a valid comparison. Yet that fire RAGED. And the fire in the trade center was up high. So in a way it IS a comparison with respect to the number of floors ABOVE the fire. I'll keep watching the video...

The lobby. That is maybe the most important piece of evidence I've heard yet. Explosion in the basement.

That it stinks to high heaven but nobody does shit about it. They just call you a conspiracy nut and ridicule you. When you ask them "How come they don't show another video of the Pentagon?" They have no logical answer. Facts and physics all disappear. I Still wonder about the 2.3 Trillion dollars that went missing Sept 10th 2001???????? No conspiracy there either.

NEADS Northeast Air Defense Sector, look at the article from Vanity Fair it even has audio tapes from that day posted there.

For the neads crew, 9/11 was not a story of four hijacked airplanes, but one of a heated chase after more than a dozen potential hijackings—some real, some phantom—that emerged from the turbulence of misinformation that spiked in the first 100 minutes of the attack and continued well into the afternoon and evening. At one point, in the span of a single mad minute, one hears Nasypany struggling to parse reports of four separate hijackings at once.

<snip>
08:37:52
BOSTON CENTER: Hi. Boston Center T.M.U. , we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.
POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?
BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.
http://www.vanityfair.com/mp3/politics/083752.mp3

Powell's question—"Is this real-world or exercise?"—is heard nearly verbatim over and over on the tapes as troops funnel onto the ops floor and are briefed about the hijacking. Powell, like almost everyone in the room, first assumes the phone call is from the simulations team on hand to send "inputs"—simulated scenarios—into play for the day's training exercise.

Boston's request for fighter jets is not as prescient as it might seem. Standard hijack protocol calls for fighters to be launched—"scrambled"—merely to establish a presence in the air. The pilots are trained to trail the hijacked plane at a distance of about five miles, out of sight, following it until, presumably, it lands. If necessary, they can show themselves, flying up close to establish visual contact, and, if the situation demands, maneuver to force the plane to land.
<snip>

"When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" Nasypany later told me. The day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a "traditional" simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum. "I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed to be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled. (The fact that there was an exercise planned for the same day as the attack factors into several conspiracy theories, though the 9/11 commission dismisses this as coincidence.



That day there were up to 5 exercises going on in the military & FEMA including the live fly Hijack exercise ( actual planes were used to simulate hijacked aircraft ) Some believe it was actually orchestrated by Chenny!

Now how did Bin Laden learn that was happening so as to plan an attack when the confusion factor would be so high?
Read the entire article then watch Norman Minettas testimony

" When I got to the White House, it was being evacuated. I met briefly with Richard Clark, a National Security Council staff member, who had no new information. Then the Secret Service escorted me down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, otherwise known as the PEOC."I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

What were the orders from the Vice President that a lowly Airman questions them? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

Madame Speaker could call for another investigation. Of course that might put impeachment on the table.

"...this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges."

But they changed their minds when they instead chose to live.

that's its hard to fathom the sequence of events and understand how something so bizarre could happen and how most of the nation bought into the alibi that had been given to it's people.

While some of the other issues raised by the Guardian poster are undoubtedly true, the 9/11 commission led by Keane and Hamilton had no authority to bring criminal charges against anyone. I doubt very much that Keane & Hamilton ever wrote or said those words.