Posts Tagged ‘September 11th’

BobGraham

“There’s no question that the Bush administration covered up for the Saudis.”

-Fmr. Senator Bob Graham

This is the man who WROTE the 28 redacted pages from the Congressional Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks. He has never wavered since his December 2002 PBS interview:

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Yes, going back to your question about what was the greatest surprise. I agree with what Senator Shelby said the degree to which agencies were not communicating was certainly a surprise but also I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States.
-PBS

Nytimes_hq

“White House officials say the administration has undertaken a review on whether to release the [28 redacted] pages but has no timetable for when they might be made public.” -NY Times

A convincing case can be made that Barack Obama decided to protect the Saudi sponsors of the September 11th attacks as soon as he won the presidency in 2008:

Justice Dept. Backs Saudi Royal Family on 9/11 Lawsuit

Obama literally had his “Justice” (sic) Department aid and abet the Saudi terror financiers and stood against the American victims of the 9/11 attacks. Obama sided with Saudi terrorists over US victims of 9/11, in one of the most shameful displays in the history of this country, something I will “never forget,” nor forgive. Obama betrayed America, as proven beyond any shadow of a doubt in the above link from May 29, 2009. But many, many people also betrayed America. The president is not alone there.

Today’s Times:

“[Senator Bob] Graham has repeatedly said it shows that Saudi Arabia was complicit in the Sept. 11 attacks. “The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11, and they point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier,” Mr. Graham said last month as he pressed for the pages to be made public.

NY Times, of course, allows Zelikow to LIE:

“Philip D. Zelikow, the executive director of the national commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks after the congressional panels, said the commission followed up on the allegations, using some of the same personnel who wrote them initially, but reached a different conclusion.”

Far from following up Zelikow FIRED a Commission staffer for simply getting a copy of the 28 pages and reading it. Where’s that part of the story, NY Times?

History Commons:

Two investigators on the 9/11 Commission, Mike Jacobson and Dana Leseman, compile a list of interviews they want to do to investigate leads indicating that two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, were linked to elements of the Saudi government. The list is submitted to Philip Zelikow, the commission’s executive director, for approval. However, a few days later Zelikow replies that the twenty interviews requested is too much, and they can only do half the interviews. Leseman, a former Justice Department lawyer, is unhappy with this, as it is traditional to demand the widest range of documents and interviews early on, so that reductions can be made later in negotiations if need be.
‘We Need the Interviews’ – Leseman tells Zelikow that his decision is “very arbitrary” and “crazy,” adding: “Philip, this is ridiculous. We need the interviews. We need these documents. Why are you trying to limit our investigation?” Zelikow says that he does not want to overwhelm federal agencies with document and interview requests at an early stage of the investigation, but, according to author Philip Shenon, after this, “Zelikow was done explaining. He was not in the business of negotiating with staff who worked for him.”
More Conflicts – This is the first of several conflicts between Zelikow and Leseman, who, together with Jacobson, had been on the staff of the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry and had researched this issue there. Shenon will write: “Leseman was that rare thing on the commission: She was not afraid of Zelikow; she would not be intimidated by him. In fact, from the moment she arrived at the commission’s offices on K Street, she seemed to almost relish the daily combat with Zelikow, even if she wondered aloud to her colleagues why there had to be any combat at all.” [SHENON, 2008, PP. 109-111]
Later Fired, Evidence Deleted from Final Report – Zelikow will later fire Leseman from the commission for mishandling classified information (see April 2003and (April 2003)) and will have the evidence of the Saudi connection gathered by Jacobson and Leseman’s successor, Raj De, deleted from the main text of the commission’s report (see June 2004).

cover2c

 

Kevin Ryan has a list of suspicious characters, and he exposes more of the 9/11 cover up.  Vital information shows how lies and cover-up have warped the discussion of the World Trade Center destruction from the first minutes.

Kevin Ryan Exposes 911 Demolition-Crews

 

images_wtc_9-11_the_twin_towers_right1

by Joe Giambrone

I have personally pushed to uncover the truth behind the attacks of September 11th since the summer of 2002. It was then that my wife took me to a little library in Moreno Valley, California, a tiny desert town. There we viewed a documentary film / evidentiary presentation called The Truth and Lies of 9/11, by former LA police detective Michael C. Ruppert. This is a fantastic film, and it changed my life, noting how Ruppert gathers a vast amount of evidence and brings an authority and a scrutiny to many claims and counter claims. That film is an excellent resource to introduce people to the myriad gaping holes in the US government’s stories concerning those paradigm-changing attacks. Ruppert touches on the complete collapse of the US air defenses, massive insider trading on the airlines and WTC firms through a bank connected to a high-level CIA official, and also the head of the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI), Lt. General Mahmud Ahmad, who was exposed for allegedly ordering money transfers to the lead hijacker: Mohamad Atta in Florida!

I wrote extensively on government information clampdowns such as the disappearances of the planes’ black boxes from evidence after firefighter Nicholas DeMasi had already told the press that he recovered three of the four units. The unprecedented destruction of evidence, the structural steel from the towers, should have been considered Obstruction of Justice and tampering with a crime scene. Malfeasance by the unelected Bush regime, they were warned about the upcoming attacks so many times that their refusal to act is beyond suspicious and appears to be prima facie evidence of high treason. The cover-up of Saudi agents who assisted the hijackers here in the USA, such as Omar Al Bayoumi, similarly establishes that treason occurred and continues to occur under two successive administrations. I may pen a future book entitled The Age of Treason.

With that out of the way, not everything said and typed out there on the wild and wooly web turns out to be true, supportable, or in context. More than that, the farther out there a claim sounds the more substantiation and hard evidence it needs to pass scrutiny. The statements people make about the attacks of September 11th need to be kept to an extremely high standard, a standard that resists “debunking,” the favorite term of the opposition. This opposition remarkably opposes “truth,” and their largely anonymous trolls regularly disparage the very idea of seeking the truth. This would be a comical situation if not for its direness, as the 9/11 attacks are trotted out repeatedly when America wants to wage wars of aggression abroad and steal protected freedoms here at home. The attacks are now a rationale for Washington to seize power and shirk accountability, and this, I believe, was the main motive that allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place.

Most people who talk about the September 11th attacks in a critical fashion today tend to focus on WTC Building 7 and the apparent controlled demolition there. This is not the only aspect to the attacks that invites scrutiny, and much more can and should be said. But one thing that does not in any way prove complicity by the government is a specific interview segment by Larry Silverstein, then owner of the World Trade Center. Silverstein stood to gain large insurance settlements from the attacks, and his authority would likely have been a factor if the buildings were pre-wired for demolition ahead of the attacks. Silverstein is a suspicious character, but not for the reason usually cited.

16-Larry-Silverstein-interview

The famous Silverstein quote, which first circulated widely due to its inclusion in the film “Loose Change,” goes as follows:

“I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. (America Rebuilds…)”

It is highly problematic to claim that Silverstein meant “pull the building,” as if this was an admission of controlled demolition. That is completely out of context, and in fact makes zero sense for several reasons. Now, I have argued this point previously and was confronted by the irrational rather than by any analytical approach to this issue.

If Larry Silverstein was a co-conspirator in demolishing his buildings, then he had no incentive to admit this on a taped interview for public television. How stupid can people imagine him to be? He can’t be a brilliant criminal mastermind and a complete idiot simultaneously. That’s cognitive dissonance.

But the logistical specifics of his conversation are glaring and at odds with that claim anyway. Silverstein talked to a “fire department commander,” not to a demolition company. Fire department commanders fight fires. They do not blow up buildings in the middle of the greatest terrorism attack in US history. If anyone demolished Building 7 it was certainly not a NY City fire department commander.

The fire department commander discussed “loss of life” as in thousands of dead firemen, those actual victims of these overwhelming attacks. Silverstein acknowledged this loss of life in the call and proceeded to suggest they stop, as the building was of less value than the lives.

The entire out-of-context claim against Silverstein is that the single word “it” refers to “the building,” as opposed to the word “it” meaning “the firefighting operation.” The two competing statements would read, “…maybe the smartest thing to do is pull the building,” or conversely, “…maybe the smartest thing to do is pull the firefighting operation.”

Silverstein’s full quote clearly implies that “it” refers to the firefighting operation and not to controlled demolition, and that is what Silverstein himself clarified in a press release shortly after the controversy spread. The claim that he meant something other than what he himself says he meant is specious, and that claim certainly would not count for anything in an actual court of law. It is a red herring then, proof of exactly nothing.

Further, the final phrase of that exchange, “…and we watched the building collapse,” is the official story! There is nothing incriminating about this exchange whatsoever. Using it as some kind of gotcha blurb can only destroy the credibility of the person making the claim.

Credibility counts when pressing for the truth in a sea of misinformation and disinformation. That is a battle I have fought tooth and nail for over a decade now. Weak claims are just that: weak. False claims are the worst, and unfortunately this Silverstein “pull the building” claim is demonstrably false on its face. This is the type of mistake, or sloppy reasoning, that the “debunkers” capitalize on to discredit the entire 9/11 Truth Movement. If you care about the integrity and credibility of the movement and want it to actually succeed then reexamine what evidence you push out there on the world and what exactly it proves or does not prove.

#

Continued…

 

saudi-bush-presstv

This is huge.

An attempt to [sue] Saudi Arabia in 2002 was blocked by a federal court ruling that said the kingdom had sovereign immunity. That ruling was reversed Thursday by a three-judge federal panel.

9/11 Families ‘Ecstatic’ They Can Finally Sue Saudi Arabia

 

Recall that Obama’s Justice (sic) Dept. helped the fucking Saudis weasel out of the lawsuit.  This put Mr. Slick firmly on the wrong side of the high treason question.  It remains to be seen what barriers will be erected next to thwart justice for the 9/11 attacks and to stop the truth from emerging.

These are the people whom Barack Obama and War Inc. wish to aid by bombing the government army in Syria.  In fact they have already been helping them for two years.  Why do you think they have so many guns?

Is Barack Obama fit to remain President of the United States another day?

Happy September 11th.

Syrian Al Qaeda / Al Nusra terrorists…

ana-april-11-600x350

syria_us_rebels_november_29_2012

201251451213203734_20 - Copy

 

emvideo-youtube-n4Oz6lII240_0 - Copy

 

1 - Copy

 

nosra - Copy

 

al_nusra_business_insider

nusra-syria

 

Continue picture show of wonderful US allies in Syria.

9780520258716

 

This is what really happens, and what most people in America would rather ignore.  Ignorance, willful ignorance, is preferable for some unfathomable reason.  They would rather believe whatever comes out of the mouths of proven liars, professional liars, than to invest the energy required to find out the real facts and to understand what is being covered up and why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRO-aNLrkOI&feature=relmfu