A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks
Jon Gold
8/24/2007
The 9/11 Commission's mandate is/was as follows:
The Commission's mandate is to provide a “full and complete accounting” of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and recommendations as to how to prevent such attacks in the future.
Specifically, Section 604 of Public Law 107-306 requires the Commission to investigate "facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001," including those relating to intelligence agencies; law enforcement agencies; diplomacy; immigration, nonimmigrant visas, and border control; the flow of assets to terrorist organizations; commercial aviation; the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation; and other areas determined relevant by the Commission for its inquiry.
Here is a partial list of things omitted from the 9/11 Report:
- Sibel Edmonds' testimony
- John M. Cole's testimony
- Bogdan Dzakovic's testimony
- Behrooz Sarshar's testimony
- Melvin A. Goodman's testimony
- Gilbert Graham's testimony
- Coleen Rawley's testimony
- Robert Wright's testimony
As I said, that's just a "partial list" of things omitted from the 9/11 Report. There is A LOT more. This proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the 9/11 Commission failed its' mandate to provide a "full and complete accounting" of the 9/11 attacks. This is reason enough alone to reopen the investigation.
The History Channel would lead you to believe that Controlled Demolition, a missile hitting the Pentagon, Flight 93 being shot down, and a few other things is all the 9/11 Truth Movement is about. This is nothing new. The media have been pushing this perception of us on the public for years now. However, I would like to thank the History Channel for proving that I am doing the right thing. By continuing the "trend", they have done nothing more than pushed me to work harder.
The majority of us in this movement have dedicated our lives to ending the nightmare brought on by the events of September the 11th.
Most of us started out just like everybody else. "The terrorists are attacking... Let's go carpet bomb the Middle East!!!" We waved our flags, and said "U.S.A... U.S.A..." and we cried. MAN did we cry. The images of all of those people holding up the pictures of their loved ones, hoping against hope that someone may have seen them. Or the rescue workers who worked day and night looking for survivors. Or the memorial services that were shown all over the networks for the fallen.
We cried, and we hurt, and to this day, we still do.
People within the 9/11 Truth Movement do what we do for six reasons:
- We figured out we were being lied to by members of this Government regarding the attacks of 9/11, and that didn't sit well with us.
- We saw that this Government was using that tragic day to further agendas that have no place in this country, or on this planet.
- We believe the family members who lost loved ones that day deserve closure, and justice as does the rest of this country.
- We know that either allowing or orchestrating the attacks against us IS WRONG. PERIOD.
- We know those responsible MUST be held accountable, and safeguards need to be put in place to stop it from ever happening again.
- We want the best possible futures for our families, our friends, our planet, and ourselves.
Before we go to war with Iran, or something worse, can we PLEASE get a "full and complete and accounting" of the day that has been used as a pretext for all of the bullshit that's going on in the world today?
PLEASE?
- Jon Gold's blog
- Login to post comments
Great Points...
You made great points regarding the 911 truth movements motives. The process you laid out is basically the process of realization that 911 truthers go through. In my opinion, the most relevant point that you made regarding our fight against state sponsored terror is this:
"We know that either allowing or orchestrating the attacks against us IS WRONG. PERIOD."
This point is really important concerning the recent warning of a false flag operation. Orchestration or allowing attacks against us is wrong. Therefore...we could argue...that government real life simulations of terrorist attacks within local communities is WRONG. Not only does it scare the sit out of the local residents, we also know that government simulations during a real terrorist attack are common.
Great piece, thanks.
http://digg.com/political_opinion/A_Full_And_Complete_Accounting_Of_The_...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://TruthSeeker.us
Spread the word! Many hands make light work! EMA: educate, motivate, activate.
Improve your activist toolkit and get your free RCFPs here http://www.RockCreekFreePress.com
Let's not forget........
Mineta's testamony !
And...
The source of the funding behind the attacks, and all of those in Washington D.C. connected to it.
And...?
Donate To 9/11 First Responders
"it's time to stop singin"...
"and time to start swingin".
Someone said "power cedes nothing without a struggle".
"they" will not *give* us a real investigation. Therefore we must stop asking. Somebody needs to set up a fund to bankroll a class action lawsuit or something to start a real discovery process in COURT. People will stop calling you "twoofers" when they get their lies shoved down their throats on CourtTV. We have to stop being nice people. The democrats are part of the coverup. Maybe the only thing that will come of it is just the guilty parties perjuring themselves before the world to coverup their role in 911. That's OK. We need them on record as liars.
It is Time.
Oh, and let's not forget
the report doesn't mention Willie Rodriguez, Building 7, or the fact that the Commission failed to even acknowledge the multiple letters from Scott Forbes, much let had him testify.
Oh, wait, I know why Jon Gold omitted those facts. Jon Gold is the guy who's trying to have us believe that there was no controlled demolition at the WTC. He's trying to fool readers here into giving up the strongest single incontrovertible historical contention of the 9/11 movement. He's also trying to get those of us here to think that the real cause of 9/11 was Muslim fanatics, and that the Bush regime's fault in all this is that it's too tolerant of its allies among the Muslim regimes.
If that isn't disinformation (suspiciously sounding like the Mossad agenda), I don't know what is.
Jon Gold tries to argue that
Jon Gold tries to argue that the WTC was not demolished... where?
I have argued...
That Controlled Demolition shouldn't be the first thing mentioned when promoting 9/11 Truth because it's the #1 thing that "debunkers", and the media love to use against us, and I've argued that this is not the "Controlled Demolition Movement", and I've argued against those that make it seem as if we should disregard other information about 9/11, and instead, completely focus on the idea of Controlled Demolition, and I've argued against those that say you must believe in the idea of Controlled Demolition in order to be a member of this movement, and I've argued against those that aren't qualified to say so, promoting the idea of a Controlled Demolition on National Television, however...
I have never written anything to "debunk" Controlled Demolition because I'm simply not smart enough to do it. I have also said on numerous occasions that people like Steven Jones, Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan make compelling points as to why it might have been Controlled Demolition, and that they have earned the right to be heard in any new investigation. I have also heavily promoted Willie Rodriguez and his story. So much so that Willie calls me when he has specific new news. I've done my part for the idea that either explosives of some kind were in those buildings, or that they may have been brought down by Controlled Demolition.
Personally, at this stage of the game, I don't like getting into "debates." Controlled Demolition always ends up in a debate. Some may say, "there is no debate about it", however, I see people that spend hours upon hours upon hours on different 9/11 forums just discussing that. Over and over again. I think my time can be better spent doing other things.
Who Is? Archives
narrow the discussion, and
narrow the discussion, and control the dialog.
Around and around we go.
CD is not going to get you a new investigation.
It can be PART of a new investigation.
But it will never be at the forefront.
/////////////////////
http://www.swatcash.com/dhs