I am not a truther. (And as Gore Vidal noted famously) nor am I a conspiracy theorist; I’m a conspiracy analyst. The official story of 9/11 is folklorish and mythological. It’s beyond unbelievable and is, like Napoleon’s definition of history, a set of lies that people have agreed upon. If you’ve never spent any time deconstructing the amazing rewriting of the physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, the laws of gravity, physics, structural engineering, architectural science, piloting, aerodynamics, evidence, common sense — well, you’ve missed one of life’s rare events.
But there’s no evidence of it being a US government “inside job” or false flag or state-sponsored. There. Feel relieved? I know that’s what bothers many Americans, especially those in the Ted Baxter sockpuppet media. I mean, when has the government ever lied about its knowledge or complicity? Heavens! Now, that’s not to say it’s not a possibility or unlikely or even far-fetched. No, certainly not. There’s simply no evidence of it. Nor is there evidence of motivation, goal or intended results or beneficiaries. Cui bono? Cui prodest? I think we know, certainly. But that’s not evidence of anything. Notwithstanding a mountain of fascinating facts and data that scream out for further investigation and review. Think a permanent Russell-Sartre Tribunal of sorts. Anything but the dog and pony show of Congress. And on a personal, individual level, and from having spent my life investigating reality versus “history” I do not believe that President Cheney or his manservant Dubya knew anything in advance or were involved directly in any aspects of our day of horror. Aside from the lack of evidence indicating such, there’s the benefit of plausible deniability and the absolute folly that would involve their involvement. While I believe also that Pearl Harbor was not as recorded or believed, I do not believe FDR was directly involved or had knowledge beforehand. Know when to be detective; know when to be juror. Suspicion versus the weighing of probity. Just because you have an Aha! moment in determining that a piece of evidence as advanced is not what you believe to be true, culpability is not assigned thereafter. Dig?
The 9/11 Omission (ahem) was a bad joke. ‘Twas an enfeebled and reckless attempt to rush through what appeared to be an investigation (à law the Warren Commission of note) and even the commissioners found it, to put it mildly, problematic. the following is a marvelous compendium from WashingtonsBlog that I commend to you as it’s replete with citation and reference. Go ahead. Give it a look over.
The 9/11 Commissioners publicly expressed anger at cover ups and obstructions of justice by the government into a real 9/11 investigation:
- 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue
- The 9/11 Commission chair said the Commission was “set up to fail”
- The Commission’s co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”
- 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”
- 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”
- 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”. When asked in 2009 if he thought there should be another 9/11 commission, Cleland responded: “There should be about fifteen 9/11 commissions”
- The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened“. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”
- No wonder the Co-Chair of the congressional investigation into 9/11 – Bob Graham – and 9/11 Commissioner and former Senator Bob Kerrey are calling for either a “PERMANENT 9/11 commission” or a new 9/11 investigation to get to the bottom of it.
Some examples of obstruction of justice into the 9/11 investigation include:
- An FBI informant hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000. Specifically, investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House. As the New York Times notes:
Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House on Tuesday of covering up evidence ….The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.
- The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Official Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 said that Soviet-style government “minders” obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating witnesses (and see this)
- The 9/11 Commissioners concluded that officials from the Pentagon lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements
- The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times
- As reported by ACLU, FireDogLake, RawStory and many others, declassified documents shows that Senior Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001
Both the 9/11 Commission Investigation and 9/11 Trials Were Based on Unreliable Evidence Produced by Torture
The CIA videotaped the interrogation of 9/11 suspects, falsely told the 9/11 Commission that there were no videotapes or other records of the interrogations, and then illegally destroyed all of the tapes and transcripts of the interrogations.
9/11 Commission co-chairs Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton wrote:
Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.
The chief lawyer for Guantanamo litigation – Vijay Padmanabhan – said that torture of 9/11 suspects was widespread.
And Susan J. Crawford – the senior Pentagon official overseeing the military commissions at Guantánamo told Bob Woodward:
We tortured Qahtani. His treatment met the legal definition of torture.
Indeed, some of the main sources of information were tortured right up to the point of death.
Moreover, the type of torture used by the U.S. on the Guantanamo suspects is of a special type. Senator Levin revealed that the the U.S. used Communist torture techniques specifically aimed at creating false confessions. (and see this, this, this and this).
And according to NBC News:
- Much of the 9/11 Commission Report was based upon the testimony of people who were tortured
- At least four of the people whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators information as a way to stop being “tortured”
- One of the Commission’s main sources of information was tortured until he agreed to sign a confession that he was NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO READ
- The 9/11 Commission itself doubted the accuracy of the torture confessions, and yet kept their doubts to themselves
If the 9/11 Commissioners themselves doubt the information from the government, why should we believe it?