9/11 - the big cover-up?

From the Guardian, one of Britain's largest newspapers . Please post supportive comments, as the author is taking alot of flak by the disinfo boys for writing the article.

Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission now admits that the official evidence they were given was 'far from the truth'.

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.

I do not believe in conspiracy theories. I prefer rigorous, evidence-based analysis that sifts through the known facts and utilises expert opinion to draw conclusions that stand up to critical scrutiny. In other words, I believe in everything the 9/11 Commission was not.

The failings of the official investigation have fuelled too many half-baked conspiracy theories. Some of the 9/11 "truth" groups promote speculative hypotheses, ignore innocent explanations, cite non-expert sources and jump to conclusions that are not proven by the known facts. They convert mere coincidence and circumstantial evidence into cast-iron proof. This is no way to debunk the obfuscations and evasions of the 9/11 report.

But even amid the hype, some of these 9/11 groups raise valid and important questions that were never even considered, let alone answered, by the official investigation. The American public has not been told the complete truth about the events of that fateful autumn morning six years ago.

What happened on 9/11 is fundamentally important in its own right. But equally important is the way the 9/11 cover-up signifies an absence of democratic, transparent and accountable government. Establishing the truth is, in part, about restoring honesty, trust and confidence in American politics.

There are dozens of 9/11 "truth" websites and campaign groups. I cannot vouch for the veracity or credibility of any of them. But what I can say is that as well as making plenty of seemingly outrageous claims; a few of them raise legitimate questions that demand answers.

Four of these well known "tell the truth" 9/11 websites are:

1) Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which includes academics and intellectuals from many disciplines.

2) 250+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns' a website that cites over 250 pieces of evidence that allegedly contradict, or were omitted from, the 9/11 Commission report.

3) The 911 Truth Campaign that, as well as offering its own evidence and theories, includes links to more than 20 similar websites.

4) Patriots Question 9/11, perhaps the most plausible array of distinguished US citizens who question the official account of 9/11, including General Wesley Clark, former Nato commander in Europe, and seven members and staffers of the official 9/11 Commission, including the chair and vice chair. In all, this website documents the doubts of 110+ senior military, intelligence service, law enforcement and government officials; 200+ engineers and architects; 50+ pilots and aviation professionals; 150+ professors; 90+ entertainment and media people; and 190+ 9/11 survivors and family members. Although this is an impressive roll call, it doesn't necessarily mean that these expert professionals are right. Nevertheless, their scepticism of the official version of events is reason to pause and reflect.

More and more US citizens are critical of the official account. The respected Zogby polling organisation last week found that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe President Bush and Vice-President Cheney regarding the truth about the 9/11 attacks; 67% are also critical of the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the bizarre, unexplained collapse of the 47-storey World Trade Centre building 7 (WTC7). This building was not hit by any planes. Unlike WTC3, which was badly damaged by falling debris from the Twin Towers but which remained standing, WTC7 suffered minor damage but suddenly collapsed in a neat pile, as happens in a controlled demolition.

In a 2006 interview with anchorman Evan Soloman of CBC's Sunday programme, the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, was reminded that the commission report failed to even mention the collapse of WTC7 or the suspicious hurried removal of the building debris from the site - before there could be a proper forensic investigation of what was a crime scene. Hamilton could only offer the lame excuse that the commissioners did not have "unlimited time" and could not be expected to answer "every question" the public asks.

There are many, many more strange unexplained facts concerning the events of 9/11. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to be puzzled and want an explanation, or to be sceptical concerning the official version of events.

Six years on from those terrible events, the survivors, and the friends and families of those who died, deserve to know the truth. Is honesty and transparency concerning 9/11 too much to ask of the president and Congress?

What is needed is a new and truly independent commission of inquiry to sort coincidence and conjecture from fact, and to provide answers to the unsolved anomalies in the evidence available concerning the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Unlike the often-stymied first investigation, this new commission should be granted wide-ranging subpoena powers and unfettered access to government files and officials. George Bush should be called to testify, without his minders at hand to brief and prompt him. America - and the world - has a right to know the truth.

Show "2) 250+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns'" by KT

"Killtown", you're not

"Killtown", you're not wanted here please take your "no planes hit the WTC" garbage some place else, like to hell or something.

what happened to the freedom of expression?

He's as entitled to his opinion as you or me.

For the record: I do not share that opinion.

Boris Epstein

OMG now I know why Shilltown

OMG now I know why Shilltown is here, this article links to his website and from what I can tell Fetzer’s website also WITH LINKS TO “SEPTEMBER CLUES”!!!!! NOT GOOD!! In fact if this is the gay rights leader I think it is then I wonder if Andrew Lowe Watson contacted him or some shit because I think he was gay also, perhaps he tried to do some outreach to the gay community with disinfo and this suckers took the bait.

Sick or what....

They even have Judy Woods "kakka" above DRG and others far more noteworthy, not that her "kakka" has any worthiness at all, just the opposite.

Who knows they might have him "over-a-barrel" or a dodgy video etc.

The links get a bit better the further you go down, that's if you have not switched off by then, or thrown-up.

Something's rotten in the state of Denmark (or the Guardian) rather.

Thanks DBLS and best wishes

references

Someone should email him a reasonable list of references -

http://stj911.org/resources/index.html

A lot of times these people don't realize what it is they are linking to . ..

Why the Hell.....

did'nt Hamilton get specific with Mineta?

That confounds me also

While Mineta had just opened up a can of worms any Kojak or Columbo would relish, Hamilton just continued in his disimpassioned, procedural manner. Mineta's first-hand, eyewitness testimony supporting the idea that Cheney ordered a stand down is pretty solid. Apparently, Hamilton was given instructions not to pursue ... but we have it on tape forever-- along with a lot of other damning bits of testimony and evidence. When the time comes, the bastards will be held accountable.

Guardian and Observer, Biggest Sellers of Death.

The Observer, which is the Sunday edition of The Guardian had information about the illegality of the Afghanistan war.

Even though it pubilshed a bombshell of a report on Dec. 16, 2001, it failed to ask the serious questions and failed to follow up on it.

The article they published was based on multiple intelligence sources, yet, the most serious question was never asked. After your read this Observer article, "Bin Laden videotape was result of a sting" ask yourself this simple question; if Bush was so close to bin Laden, close enough to tape him, what wasn't bin Laden caught?

It would have been very easy for The Observer and its army of so called experts and investigators to follow up on the article and write something very similar to the following "Osama's Confession; Osama's Reprieve" but they did not.

Jason Burke, one of the authors of the article, went on to write extensively about Al-Qaeda and crowned himself a terrorism expert. He made tons of money while innocent civilians and innocent soldiers were dying.

A single instance, such as the article you are referring to, does not begin to wipe the blood on their hands.

Best,
Maher Osseiran
www.mydemocracy.net

In peace

An Open Letter to the US Marine Corps

An Open Letter to the US Marine Corps about 9/11
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_070911_an_open_letter_t...
OpEdNews - Newtown,PA,USA
by Jim Fetzer Page 1 of 2 page(s) Smedley Butler didn't like for the Marine Corps to be abused, and neither do I. Indeed, I can't think of a more serious ...

Fetzer made...

... a number of good points, I must say. And he didn't write about no planes. Hmm...

Indeed, likely for a reason

Of course, he needs to worm his way back in before a new generation realizes what already happened. Keep the truth alive. The purpose of hoax promoters occassionally including good stuff is to lure people in and fool them until it counts to dump their baggage of crap, like on an anniversary on FOX News, or when it's time to destroy a good thing.

Peter Tatchell the author of

Peter Tatchell the author of this is a very famous gay rights leader in the UK as well I think.

Tatchell, Human Rights, and Gay Rights

Yes, you are right and you can see his profile if you go to the article page and click on profile.
I just emailed him and send him the same material I sent The Observer last week. They still have not responded.

In peace,
Maher

Carpe diem

These are the kinds of openings that must be utilized to the full. Please post comments to the article and email thanks to the journalist and The Guardian.

Some People Say the Tables are Starting to Turn

Kudos to The Guardian,Tatchell and of course, Bob Fisk.
I subscribed to Guardian Weekly for years and always thought it was a decent, relevant window on the world.
So, obviously, this is a bit late. A small step ? Or a giant leap ?
It's fascinating to read the Guardian comments and see many 'commenters' (shills?) who don't think there should be an inquiry to answer legit questions into the death of thousands and thousands of people from all over the world.
Who are these commenters ? What do they want to hide ? If you've done your homework - you know. Perhaps identifying the shills should be a new objective of the Truth movement.
'Follow the money'. The 911 Commission certainly didn't. UMMM ...who paid for the flight lessons ?
No one cares. Especially not Congress.
And it's absolutely pathetic that Evan Soloman's interview from a feeble CBC Sunday show seems to be the only questioning of Lee Hamilton and the 9-11 Commission.
Does no other press from around the world consider this newsworthy ? No follow-up Evan ? Sixty Minutes ? Daily Show ? LOL !!!
This is a bit scary.

Questioning Hamilton won't go anywhere

We need Hamilton's witnesses questioned under oath.

Hamilton will keep repeating the same defensive posture: We didn't have time to investigate every lead. We didn't have enough money or access to classified files. Blah blah blah.

Get Cheney and Bush under oath. Then you've got something.

Hamilton's Commission report

Hamilton's Commission report is crap and full of holes
This is what needs to be publicized by the MSM, and then hopefully one thing will lead to another.

Peter Tatchell responds

to all the naysayers and boogers in the comments section of his article. Read it here...

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2007/09/911_the_big_coverup.html#comment-809857 or below :)

The crude bid by some to dismiss me as a conspiracy theorist or an apologist for conspiracy theorists, does not stand up.

Indeed, my article was explicitly critical of conspiracy theorists. This is what I actually wrote:

"I do not believe in conspiracy theories. I prefer rigorous, evidence-based analysis that sifts through the known facts and utilises expert opinion to draw conclusions that stand up to critical scrutiny....

"The failings of the official investigation have fuelled too many half-baked conspiracy theories. Some of the 9/11 "truth" groups promote speculative hypotheses, ignore innocent explanations, cite non-expert sources and jump to conclusions that are not proven by the known facts. They convert mere coincidence and circumstantial evidence into cast-iron proof. This is no way to debunk the obfuscations and evasions of the 9/11 report....

"There are dozens of 9/11 "truth" websites and campaign groups. I cannot vouch for the veracity or credibility of any of them. But what I can say is that as well as making plenty of seemingly outrageous claims, a few of them raise legitimate questions that demand answers...."

This is what I actually wrote. Period. Misrepresenting me as a conspiracy theorist, and linking me to various wacky ideas, will not wash.

Some of my critics seem to saying: you may have reasonable queries, but don't dare raise them because you will give a boost to "nutters" and "weirdos".

Is that the logic of a democracy? Is it right to tell people they should shut up and go away, because their concerns may encourage others to talk nonsense?

Judge me on my words, not on how others may misuse them. Or is it now guilt by association that rules on CIF?

It is a sad day when supposed progressives don't believe in open government and freedom of information, and when they don't want to even consider the concerns expressed by the leaders of the official 9/11 Commission.

If the Commissioners have doubts and unanswered questions, then a new inquiry seems entirely appropriate and proper.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to want a full and frank inquiry. It is surely the best way to clear up doubts and debunk wild, unfounded speculation.

More than half of the American public have doubts and concerns about the official 9/11 report. They deserve answers and reassurance. That is what democratic, accountable government is supposed to be about.

Great

We need to convert more journalists. Don't give up.

I mean, he makes a good point here when he says even the commissioners doubt the official story. I guess in Screw Loose Change terms that makes them "9/11 deniers" too huh?

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

This is the key

"It is a sad day when supposed progressives don't believe in open government and freedom of information, and when they don't want to even consider the concerns expressed by the leaders of the official 9/11 Commission."

BINGO! Shame on the progressives who toss around ad hominems and essentially attack us for demanding government transparency in a democracy.

It's not too bad

It's not that bad an article. Well done to Tatchell for writing it and the Guardian for publishing it.

Peter is not being sincere,more bullshit.

He makes this comment on his blog.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2007/09/911_the_big_c...
I am very surprised and disappointed by the way some of the posts on this list have seriously misrepresented what I wrote in the article above.

They have used the insinuation of "conspiracy theorist" (which I am not and which I reject) as a convenient way to evade serious engagement with the issues I have raised.

What I tried to do in my article is make a clear distinction between wild, unfounded conspiracy theories, and legitimate, credible questioning of the official account - mostly based on the publicly expressed concerns of the US government's own 9/11 Commissioners. Their concerns ARE evidence that a new inquiry is needed.

Contrary to what some posters are saying, I did NOT say, and do NOT believe, that the attacks were fakes, perpetrated by the CIA, an anti-Islam plot etc etc. I reject the bizarre claims made by some, and made this very clear in my article.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to realise that there are serious unanswered questions concerning the 9/11 attacks. To point this out, and to ask for answers, does not make me or others a conspiracy theorist. Indeed, I explicitly criticised in my article the conspiracy theorists and the sloppiness of some of the 9/11 truth websites.

Contrary to some insinuations on this thread, asking questions and seeking answers is not a sign of conspiratorial madness. An inquiring mind used to be the axiom of progressive politics. To hold government to account was once a good thing. Not anymore for some people. Seeking answers and the truth now, apparently, marks one as a loon. My, how quickly the worm has turned.

wtc7 and Peter

I did NOT say that WCT7 building was bought down by a controlled explosion. I merely highlighted the obvious fact that WTC7 was not attacked and did not suffer sufficient damage from the Twin Towers to cause its collapse and, in particular, to cause it to collapse so neatly. I don't have an explanation but I would like to have one. Is that really an unreasonable, irresponsible request?

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

you know don´t sit on the fence Peter.

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

The crude bid by some to dismiss me as a conspiracy theorist or an apologist for conspiracy theorists, does not stand up.

Indeed, my article was explicitly critical of conspiracy theorists. This is what I actually wrote:

"I do not believe in conspiracy theories. I prefer rigorous, evidence-based analysis that sifts through the known facts and utilises expert opinion to draw conclusions that stand up to critical scrutiny....

"The failings of the official investigation have fuelled too many half-baked conspiracy theories. Some of the 9/11 "truth" groups promote speculative hypotheses, ignore innocent explanations, cite non-expert sources and jump to conclusions that are not proven by the known facts. They convert mere coincidence and circumstantial evidence into cast-iron proof. This is no way to debunk the obfuscations and evasions of the 9/11 report...

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

ok last word from Peter.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2007/09/911_the_big_c...
I also regret mentioning the bit about WTC7 collapsing, as if in a controlled demolition. I was trying to make the point that the 9/11 Commission's non-explanation of why and how WTC7 collapsed was odd, and that other explanations concerning falling Twin Tower debris did not seem plausible. I did not mean to imply that I believed that WCT7 was blown up by the CIA, Osama or anyone else. All I was attempting to say was that the standard explanations for WTC7 collapsing do not seem credible.

The 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean

was not independent from the World Trade Center. As an ex-Governor of New Jersey he had a vested interest in the operations of the Port of Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority) who owned the land.
In 1998 The Port Authority issued a September Press release which announced the first successful landing at their Newark Airport using only the new technology called Global Positioning System.
3 days later they released another Press release announcing a HISTORIC SHIFT in policy and put the World Trade Center on the open market for sale.
Of course nobody would buy it because as a semi-governmental agency the Port Authority did not have to have buildings up to the building codes. The asbestos that had been sprayed on during the construction had been declared unsafe and there were many privately owned buildings that lost a lot of money when they were forced to remove the asbestos that had been sprayed on theirs.

Christen Todd Whitman - EPA Director that made the announcement that the air was safe to breath is also an ex-governor of New Jersey. She appointed Lewis Eisenberg to the Board of Directors. Lewis Eisenberg signed the leases with Mr Silverstein and Lowy. Each of them made muliti-million dollar deals in 2004 after the December 2003 - WTC3 insurance settlement with the Hotel which does not even get mention in the Port Authority's 2003 financial statements. However there is a new "affiliate" called WTC Retail LLC that comes into the picture.
Lowy gave himself a raise from $13 million a year to $14 million a year. Lowy was and is involved with Westfield who leased the Retail Space at the World Trade Center at the same time Silverstein leased the buildings. Lowy had also been involved in a bank fraud with the Prime Minister of Israel in 2004.