It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

By Jon Gold
10/23/2006

A lot of us within the 9/11 Truth Movement spend an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out the crime that took place on 9/11. We want to figure out who, what, when, why, and where. Simply put, no one within this movement has the proper access to the information we need in order to do that. We don't have access to classified documentation, the Air Traffic Controllers, the pilots, the NORAD officers on duty that morning, the individuals within the PEOC, and many other facets that would need to be looked at in order to solve this crime.

Sure, we have an idea of who was involved. Sure, we have an idea of why they were involved. However, we could spend an eternity trying to figure out the what, when, and where, and never accomplish anything.

Most of us "joined" the movement when we realized that our Government was covering up aspects of the crime. There are a plethora of examples that show this.

The following list shows the signs of a cover-up involving our Government, and the attacks of 9/11:

  • Colin Powell promised a "white paper" that would establish the guilt of Osama Bin Laden and associates. That never came.
  • Dick Cheney and George Bush asked Tom Daschle to "limit the scope" of the Congressional Inquiry.
  • The Congressional Inquiry released a report with 28 redacted pages.

(more after the jump..)

  • The family members had to fight "tooth and nail" against the Bush Administration to create a commission to investigate the attacks.
  • The Bush Administration appointed Henry Kissinger to lead the Commission. A man known for too many secrets.
  • After the families' forced Kissinger's resignation, the Bush Administration appointed Thomas Kean, someone "who will be easily controlled by the administration" to head the Commission.
  • The Bush Administration appointed Lee Hamilton to be the co-chair. Hamilton chaired the Iran Contra Congressional Investigation, and "was shown ample evidence against Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, but he did not probe their wrongdoing."
  • The Bush Administration appointed Philip Zelikow to be the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission. A man who served on the Bush Transition Team. A man who was a good friend of Condoleezza Rice's. A man who is a self described expert at creating "public myths."
  • The families submitted well researched questions to the 9/11 Commission in the hopes that they would be answered. The Commission touched on, at best, 30% of their questions.
  • The families asked for Zelikow's resignation, but were denied.
  • The 9/11 Commission was underfunded, and had a limited amount of time to conduct their work.
  • Very few individuals that testified before the 9/11 Commission, did so under oath. In fact, the Vice President, and the President refused to do so. They testified together, not in public, and no recordings were allowed. The families requested the transcripts of their meeting, but were denied.
  • The 9/11 Commission turned away whistleblowers with pertinent information.
  • One whistleblower they were forced to see by the families', Sibel Edmonds, is now the "most gagged person in American History." She testified for 3 hours before the 9/11 Commission and received a footnote in the back of their report.
  • The White House vetted each and every chapter of a report that was supposed to be independent, and bi-partisan.
  • On October 21, 2003, Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, two senior Commission staff members, and a representative of the executive branch, met at Bagram Base, Afghanistan, with three individuals doing intelligence work for the Department of Defense. The work they were doing was in regards to Able Danger. Something that was completely omitted from the 9/11 Report.
  • A July 10, 2001 meeting that took place between former CIA Director George Tenet and then National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice was completely omitted from the 9/11 Report.
  • The CIA Inspector General’s report, “CIA Accountability With Respect To The 9/11 Attacks” has not been released to the public.
  • World Trade Center 7 was not mentioned in the 9/11 Report, even though it was one of the three buildings that collapsed that day. NIST has yet to release a report explaining the collapse of that building.
  • Upwards of 5 wargames were taking place on the morning of 9/11. Only one received a footnote in the back of the 9/11 Report.
  • Pakistan's involvement in the 9/11 attacks was not even mentioned in the 9/11 Report even though it was one of the questions submitted by the families.
  • The 9/11 Commission thought that following the money behind the 9/11 Attacks was "of little practical significance."

Given the loss of civil liberties, the war that "won't end in our lifetime", the bankrupting of this country, and the threat to our Democracy, don't you think it's time we found out what they are trying to cover-up?

we can prove the coverup,

we can prove the coverup, and with a bit of work we could get everyone to stop the coverup together (anti-war, peace groups...). Unfortunately we are all too focused on theories for them to attack it seems.

STOP THE COVERUP!

how can these

how can these conspiracysmasher type shills sit there and pretend that something isnt very wrong with the official story? its unreal how dense some them are.

the Pay-off

Some of these people are just getting an extra dose of fluoride in their water but the others are probably just getting an extra boost to their walets.... wether directly or indirectly by investing in these warmongering corporations.

Halliburton stock bought a good friend of mine a brand new Porsche.... he buys the government line

Only the MSM can break the

Only the MSM can break the cover-up, by exposing it on the front-pages and thus making it undeniable for the pretenders in the White House and Congress that they have finally "heard" the questions.

They are also the only one with enough resources to track down all those families who allegedly lost people abord Flights 11, 175, 77 - and please not Ted Olson again this time: where are they? why have they never made any public statement except so few of them (like Ellen Mariani), who put them under a gag order?

The fake passengers + the fake DNA is the key to the whole crime. The PM debunkers and their other conspirators will forever ask "then where are the passengers now?", until someone can crack this part of the puzzle.

part of the puzzle

The general lack of passenger family members seems quite noteworthy, Greg.

Mz. Mariani wanting truth vs. Ted "moving on".... makes for a draw in the minds of the masses. Where the heck are the rest?

Excellent list Jon! Keep up the great work!

!

A few more...

Destruction of physical evidence should still be mentioned here - especially regarding WTC - as well as the refusal to release video footage. Then we have the 'classified' blueprints of the buildings, all this stuff which would theoretically support the official story. The fact that the Government is relying on Pop Mechanics to disprove controlled demolition theories instantly suggests something is very wrong...

There's also the manner in which they handle Al Quaeda members in custody - anyone remember Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? The guy who supposedly, like, planned everything, and supposedly has no problem talking about it, and has been in US custody for years now, without a single piece of evidence so suggest he is even still alive? Plus the guy they refused to let testify in the German hearings, as well as all the anonymous inmates at Gitmo... if Al Quaeda is not, in fact, a Western intelligence front, you'd think they'd have busted enough people to prove that by now...

The amount of information being withheld makes it a fact, not a theory, that there is a coverup. The question is what are they covering up?
Anyway, great blog.

I am ..

from Germany and found over "Loose Change" the things that hurt me until today. I think its very good to re-think all what happened on that day. And I can*t deny that I got much fear until today, because of this uncontrolled guys which made this act. I am thankful for this blog because it helpes me to understand all the different views and facts about 9/11. Thank you !

Very cool...

I love reading what foreigners have to think.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Thanks all...

The reason I wrote this is because I think there's a misunderstanding between the public and us.

I think the public thinks that one day, we just thought to ourselves, "Hey, let's go investigate 9/11. It should be fun, exciting, and interesting all at the same time."

No... that's not the reason. Far far from it. It was the obvious cover-ups that did it. That drove us to do what we do today.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

nah, its just cause i really

nah, its just cause i really hate Bush, you know. Or so they say. Im in the last stage of a Bush hater, apparently. Whats next, i wonder?

Israel cover-up

What about Israeli involvement?

What about...

Max Cleland? What about Robert Wright? What about several other things that I left out... I didn't want to write a book, just a clear understanding of the cover-up.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

What about the media's insistence...

Of only covering 1) Theories regarding the Pentagon, and 2) Theories regarding Controlled Demolition?

That's a major sign of a cover-up.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Makers of Loose Change,

Makers of Loose Change, please take note.

I'm not.

Qualified to talk about the structural collapse of a building.

Incidentally, in regards to Improbable Collapse, I seem to remember writing someone, and telling them how great I thought the music was.

As far as my "incessant lobbying for Press For Truth", I will continue to lobby everyone, and ask that they show this movie before any other. I do not agree with your characterization that it is supportive of the OGCT. I think that's ludicrous.

As far as your statement, "WTC demolitions are basically what 9/11 is all about", I disagree, and it pains me to even see you type something like that.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

The murder of...

2973+ people.

And I don't think it was just the administration. However, it's a DAMN GOOD place to start.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Actually...

I rarely talk about either the hijackers, or the planes.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

I appreciate your work. I

I appreciate your work. I just feel that Israel is a major piece in this puzzle. Keep up the good work!

Excellent list, Jon Gold!

Jon,

this is an excellent list.

I think this list should be re-used over and over when we comment in other forums (like in the feedback section of www.Digg.com or www.YouTube.com or video.google.com or similar).

We are now in a position that allows us to penetrate other political and semi-political discussion groups. And we can make a lot of people suspicious without ever mentioning "conspiracy" to them.

Once they start thinking with their own brain, they'll soon think "conspiracy" all on their own.

It is all the more effective in this short span of pre-election weeks that is left now.

We just should come up with a strategic list of the most popular forums. Can someone with a personal overview start to compile one?

Let's roll!

Somebody picked up the above list & re-used it in Digg comments

Somebody picked up the above list and relayed it to this Digg story:

http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Complete_911_Timeline#c3542924

Toxic

George, Colin, Ari, and Condi all just hated any questions about the Pakistani connection. Like poison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up6QCYIbv5A

Show "Quite simple, actually" by JohnGault

Can't you...

TV Fakery people stay in your own blogs?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Show "move along people..." by JohnGault

You're right...

Absolutely nothing.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Show "hey, you there, stop that..." by JohnGault

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

In Internet terminology, a troll is usually someone who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive, offensive, off-topic or otherwise disruptive messages designed intentionally to annoy, stimulate or antagonize the existing members or alter the flow of discussion, including the personal attack of calling others trolls e.g. Mr. Seven and Leicester Lantern. Often, trolls assume multiple aliases, or sock puppets.

In general, conventional wisdom advises users to avoid feeding trolls, and to ignore temptations to respond. Responding to a troll inevitably drives discussion off-topic, to the dismay of bystanders, and supplies the troll with the craved attention. When trollhunters pounce on the trolls, ignorers reply with: "YHBT. YHL. HAND.," or "You have been trolled. You have lost. Have a nice day." However, since trollbaiters (like trolls) are often conflict-seekers themselves, the loss usually is not on the part of the trollhunter; rather, the losers are the other forum-users who would have preferred that the conflict did not emerge at all.

"repetitive"

.... singing all day long with the same note.

Ok.... TeeVee is fake... got it. Thanks.

Can anything more be added to that? Please.

Since you asked...

The question is not whether or not "TeeVee is fake", but rather, did the NETWORKS broadcast faked videos on 911 in order to a) conceal or 'mask' a real object, such as a missile, hitting the WTC and/or b) create the belief that an airplane hit the WTC when, in fact, it did not? Either way, it would be, to say the least, a serious problem.
Please take the time to view the DVD frame-by-frame.
and decide for yourself.
My reason for posting a comment here was to comment on the blog entry and point out an inaccuracy is his statement regarding the availability of information needed to expose the 911 myth. That others, as they often do, choose to ridicule and belittle this important issue is disappointing but not unexpected.

Great points! It would be

Great points!

It would be indeed good to have a video exclusively focussed on the cover up.

It's amazing, each aspect of 911 requires its own video now. There are just so many inconsistencies.

Human Nature in Politics

I recently observed how my supervisor, who was promoted from a coordinator to a Manager position at a top law firm, has been testing the boundaries of her power. She applies the exact same techniques that Bush employs in making whatever she says reality, without regard for reality, because it suits her whim. She also employs lying and covering up, and often uses ambiguity as a tool as an "out" for her in case she's cornered in a lie. Her growing militant tone and complaints over petty matters, and desperate investigations over ridiculous things are all attempts to feel control and power over me because no attorneys complain about me, haven't in 2 years since I've been there. She wants to create problems for me, because the Firm doesn't want to hand out huge bonuses to its staff.

I recently complained about her abusive, disrespectful tone and a few other things and she was in total and complete denial. She lied her way through the HR meeting and continued with her militant tone, treating me like someone below her as insubordinate. She even lied saying that I said "no" when she told me to come to her office - a flat out lie. She didn't recall conversations I spoke of in the meeting, and was trying to make me out to be someone lying about her.

They took my observations and complaints about this manager, and turned it around in the meeting, twisting reality to their whim. This is what people in positions of power are doing these days, is molding reality to their whim to make their lives easier, while disregarding anything people below them say as rubbish. Isn't that a form of tyranny really? Absolute power? This manager's heritage is from a foreign country in the Eastern block and she would have made a great Nazi officer, the kind who would have definitely followed Adolf Hitler - no doubt whatsoever.

When you take your experiences of these kind of people in every day life, you gain some perspective that it's the human condition that is causing these problems today, not as much the individuals at the top. The abuse of power, lies and cover-ups are part of the game people of power have always employed, as it is nothing but a game to most of them. Our country got too powerful to manage these power mongers at the top, and it's just all a sign to me of what always happens in history, a civilization's decilne, erosion due to greed.

As Above, So Below

This just reinforces my belief in fractals and the old hermetic saying, "As above, so below". I'm not surprised more and more of these people are popping out of the woodwork...after all, they have Bush to use as a template!

~Lux Vestra--Let Your Light Shine~

Your boss, cmerrill.

A man named Paul Levy (any Breakfornews archive grazers here?) talked about "malignant ego-phrenia". The description of your boss, cmerrill, seems exactly that. An escalating spiral, where one person begins to mimic the neuroses of another. When ego is on the line, whom better to mimic than this gang of thugs in high power today?

They feed off of each other.... no forethought or vision, no introspection, nor self critique (even in complete privacy)... no such thing for the Power Mad. No thought of consequence, pay-back, BLOW-back.... or of someday having to pay the piper. There may be no one more wrong for the job of leadership... and few people more draw to it like flies to shit.

e

"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

Yea... I ran into that in

Yea... I ran into that in college when I refused to be institutionalized.... needless to say I do not have a degree.... or any debt.

I should have answered the questions the way everyone else did instead of exploring the depth of the material that the department chair hadn't even studied.

I guess I was just trying to prove that I was smarter than SHE was..... Just keep your head down and you will get through this world without confrontation.

but now they have decided they can walk on my FREEDOM!

great book called The Cheating Culture

basically lots of people are saying these days, everyone's doing it, why should I be the only chump who isn't?

truly there are more sick people around us than many realize...

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

This is so weird...I was

This is so weird...I was thinking of doing the exact same thing. Great work.

I agree

I agree Jon. That is why I spend so little time trying to figure out what hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon. When people start doing that they are just spinning their wheels. Nothing is accomplished. The cover-up that stands out in my mind is WTC7. I didn't see it happen that afternoon on 9/11/01 because I had gone to work. I didn't even know the building had collapsed until three years after the fact. It was never mentioned on TV or in the newspaper after it was shown the afternoon of 9/11. All I ever saw was the Twin Towers being hit. Day after day they would play that, never mentioning WTC7. Even the 9/11 commission failed to mention it in their report for obvious reasons. A blind man could see that building was brought down by controlled demolition. That is absolute proof of an inside job.

Great post, jon gold. Will

Great post, jon gold. Will def use the list for future reference. I believe 9/11 was an inside job and we're all anxious to inform newbies with what we've discovered. I think it's best to introduce them to the overwhelming evidence of the cover-ups, gag orders, opposition of independant investigation and the deceptions by the bush administration. Other good introductions are the impausibility of "intelligence failure" and the exploitations of 9/11 by the bush administration as it is already widely believed that bush uses the 3000 fallen for political gain.

Oh yeah, and "where's

Oh yeah, and "where's Osama?" ;)

you asked for it

Watch Colin Powell promise

Watch Colin Powell promise the "white paper" that links Osama & "al Qaeda" to 9/11 on Meet the Press, and then Scott McClellan the next day tell reporters at the White House that Powell never said that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up6QCYIbv5A

Show "Jon Gold demonstrates he has no evidence." by Anonymous (not verified)

First, a crime WAS committed

First, a crime WAS committed on 9/11. Killing 2973 people IS a crime, apparently you were blinded by your own animosity.

As we have seen, Jon will not discuss the NIST, FEMA, or ASCE reports,
And second, NIST, FEMA, and ASCE did nothing to discuss the lack of response by NORAD, the failure to arrest the 19 hijackers, the failure to allow them into the country, the failure to screen them properly, and about a hundred other things related to 9/11. YOU are so obsessed with the 'conspiracy theory' of controlled demolition that you let it blind you from what is at the very least criminal neglect of this administration.

Perhaps if you could stop obsessing with the controlled demolition theory you would have a better understanding of what this movement is really all about, until then you come off as more of a nut than some of those whom you obsess over. Take C.D. off the table (and the pentagon, etc.) and there is still PLENTY to justify a criminal investigation into this administration.

'Not a crime' - you should be ashamed of yourself.

Show "Why can't any of you read?" by Anonymous (not verified)

is the based on the

is the based on the FOUNDATION of controlled demolition

that is completely incorrect. that is your assertion, and not based in reality.

this movement was around for 2+ years before controlled demolition became the sort of hot theory theory it is now. you just cant see the forest for the trees which is easy to tell given the fact that you ignored the entire article written but instead still thought it was all tied to control demolition.

Show "Yes, NEED controlled demolition" by Anonymous (not verified)

Tell me...

What are they covering up in regards to 9/11?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Show "I'm still waiting for you to tell us" by Anonymous (not verified)

Here You Go...

Evidence
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Sorry, dodger.

Cat's still got your tongue, Jon. Grow up and support your claim.

BTW, it wasn't smart to impersonate James Fetzer on your site.

I have...

And do on a regular basis, and I have no idea what you're talking about in regards to Fetzer, nor would Jim Fetzer be someone I would "impersonate."

I just put forward evidence that 9/11 was an "inside job."

See? Exhibit A.

Answer this question... what is being covered up by this Administration in regards to 9/11? You're so smart... tell us.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

How stupid

There\'s NOTHING there but your CLAIM it is OK to make an \"assumption.\"

God, how dense can you get. You are just as bad as a Creationist.

Talk about someone who doesn\'t KNOW what the word \"evidence\" means.

Wake up, Jon. PRODUCE ACTUAL EVIDENCE,

Why?

You ignore it.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Jon, the consummate dodger.

Your very own post, the one you linked to as \"evidence\" is NOT evidence - it is a claim that you are allowed to make an assumption without evidence, totally contrary to any standard of the rules of evidence.

Either you are a liar or simply INCREDIBLY stupid. Given you behavior here for months, the former is far more plausible.

But it\'s on record and everyone can see you are far from credible. You have no shame.

Tell me...

What the Bush Administration is obviously covering up then in regards to 9/11.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

YOU TELL ME

YOU are the one making the claim.

If you're not intelligent enough...

To see based on the article that I wrote that this Administration is covering up a WHOLE MESSA THINGS in regards to 9/11, then you have outted yourself as a scared little coward who is afraid that we are the ones telling the truth in this fight, and you can't face up to it.

You're a joke.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Yet you can\'t tell us

It\'s amazing that all you can do is make claims and assertions and get upset when we ask you for EVIDENCE to back them up.

Amazing. You are just like a Creationist.

You NEED to back up YOUR claims; you CANNOT just claim there is a \"cover up\" LEADING to a conclusion that \"9/11 was an inside job\" WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE, NITWIT.

How many times do I have to DRILL that FACT into your hapless, denying brain???

funny how your telling me

funny how your telling me what the foundation of 9/11 skepticism is.. you know, since you aren't a 9/11 skeptic and all.

well, i guess that's no different than me saying that the foundation of you being a troll is you liking to bath in dog feces.

You know I'm right.

Evidence

I'll be glad to present the evidence. There are hundreds of tonnes of evidence available. All the rubble from the buildings placed in local dumps will contain proof of demolition, if demolition was the cause of the collapses. There will clearly be chemical residue from the explosives and/or thermate, there will be pieces of steel that are burned through or exploded through and there will be pieces of the detonators.

All you have to do is go dig it up and analyze it. In fact I'll be glad to do it for you, just give me a phone number where I can get permission to go through this evidence. Unless of course, this evidence is not accessable.

The first thing you have to realize is that 911 is a conspiracy and a cover up, no matter who did it.

.

What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say. ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

Any intelligent fool can make things better, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius, and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. ~ Albert Einstein

We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes. ~ Gene Roddenberry

History is an account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers, mostly knaves, and soldiers, mostly fools. ~ Ambrose Bierce

You've always been refuted

I'll remind you that you have already been refuted entirely on your claims.

You're just afraid to admit every study done, of which there are DOZENS, on the dust and the debris, failed to come up with ONE SINGLE PIECE of evidence of explosive residues of any type.

You can look them up yourself by going to Google Scholars and searching and READIN the papers yourself.

I would appreciate that you stop lying about the facts, No Truth for a Change.

Lying

I don’t remember being refuted on these claims, would you reference it for me?

I am the first to admit I may be misinformed, but I am not lying. I’m not sure how asking questions can be lying. Please explain how asking questions can be considered lying.

As far as I can tell the first study done was to see if the air was safe to breathe at ground zero. The study said the air was safe. Subsequent evidence seems to indicate that the air was very unsafe. That’s a big difference, safe turning out to be deadly.

I assume that this test analyzed the particulate matter in the air, this of course would be the dust. This is the only study I know of dealing with the content of the dust. The reality is that they got it wrong. Not only wrong, but completely opposite. This study is obviously flawed, would you not agree.

This of course would make any reasonable person doubt the accuracy of following studies. This is pretty simple logic that anyone with average intelligence can conclude.

I searched through st911.org as you requested. The only reference I found was "We are studying residues found in solidified slag as well as in dust from the WTC collapses, in order to determine the nature of the reactions which produced this molten material." This was in the article "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" Can you please post the st911 articles that studied the dust for explosives residue?

I have also heard that NIST was going to analyze the rubble to determine if there are traces of explosives, but I didn’t know it had been released yet. Can you please post where this NIST study is?

Can you please post any independent articles that are studies of explosive reside in the rubble?

Personally, I would like an independent study done. I would like it to be done by people that don’t have a personal stake in this matter. This would eliminate bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the US government, the US politicians, the US military, The governments of the US coalition, the governments of NATO, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Stephen Jones(although I don't think he had a personal stake in it at the beginning, I think he might have one now), David Griffith, Jon Gold, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Anonymous, aliens, Alex Jones, well, I think you see my point. Trying to find a way to have a truly independent investigation would be difficult, but not impossible. The proven level of public mistrust surrounding the events of 911 should make the creation of an independent inquiry important to stop this speculation.

What I can’t understand is why the rubble is not freely available for study. It would seem that the government would be the first ones to want everyone to research the rubble. If what they say is true, then let’s look at the rubble and figure it out. But instead, there seems to be an effort to keep this evidence covered up. This is similar to sealing the JFK hit evidence until 2039, it doesn’t prove anything one way or the other, but hiding or covering up evidence is suggestive of a cover up and the typical actions of the guilty party. Innocent people want evidence studied as much as possible since it would exonerate them.

Can you please give me the name and phone number of the person I can talk to, that can give me permission to have access to the rubble of the WTC buildings.

.

Insanity in individuals is something rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule. ~ Nietzsche

Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards. ~ Vernon Saunders Law

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done. ~ Louis Brandeis

Be kind; everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle. ~ Unknown

Where do you get your information?

\"As far as I can tell the first study done was to see if the air was safe to breathe at ground zero.\"

There were MANY independent studies done to map the exact chemical composition of the dust at the site and off-site starting in October 2001.

\"The reality is that they got it wrong. Not only wrong, but completely opposite. This study is obviously flawed, would you not agree.\"

Since you haven\'t even bothered to read the studies, you cannot make that claim. The studies were FACTUAL chemical analysis - what was done POLITICALLY with the studies is an entirely different story. You cannot make the claim the studies were flawed without evidence.

\"I searched through st911.org as you requested.\"

I NEVER made any such request. I asked you to go to http://scholar.google.com/, Google\'s search engine for scholarly papers. Type in a keyword phrase like \"wtc dust\".

\"Can you please post any independent articles that are studies of explosive reside in the rubble?\"

ALL of the studies you will find have the purpose of establishing that EXACT chemical composition of the dust. What do you think the purpose was other than to FIND OUT what the dust was composed of. If explosive residue were there it would have been found and the analysis would have determined what kind of explosive had been used.

But NO explosive residue was found in any of the studies. Even Steven Jones admits this! That is why he first focused on the Thermite/Thermate \"scenario\" to explain WHY no explosive residues were found, but when he found out that many processes COULD HAVE produced Thermite/Thermate under the conditions of 9/11, he was forced to find another \"scenario\", this time a particular chemical found in Thermite/Thermate. He screwed up there also, having been shown the chemical is also a component of computer cases of which there were thousands at WTC.

\"Personally, I would like an independent study done. I would like it to be done by people that don’t have a personal stake in this matter.\"

How many MORE independent studies do you want???? Don\'t you yet realize that ALL of the studies done of the dust were independent? Don\'t you know that all of the government-sponsored studies were made up of a MAJORITY of independent structural engineers, forensic scientists, and chemists, including NIST, ASCE, and FEMA? And that all of the data, evidence, methodologies, and conclusions are COMPLETELY open to their peers around the world to criticize, refute, or affirm? And that NONE of them have challenged the conclusions?

\"What I can’t understand is why the rubble is not freely available for study. It would seem that the government would be the first ones to want everyone to research the rubble.\"

Since you haven\'t done much research on your own, let\'s see if you can up with a credible basis for that claim. I would suggest that you sit down and have a heart to heart talk with yourself about why you are getting your information so wrong and relying on a bunch of politically-motivated 9/11 conspiracists instead of doing your own research and understanding the actual data.

It would go a long way to showing you the importance of not believing on faith those with an agenda - like Steven Jones and James Fetzer - but questioning them as we do. I think a reading of several of those papers on the dust composition is going to raise a lot of questions in your mind about what you have believed to date and why.

I See

So you are not disagreeing with me that the dust study was to determine if the air was safe. And you agree that the government said it was safe and it wasn’t safe. Glad you agree. I hope you see why other studies are in doubt too. Good for you.

I went to scholar.google.com and took a look at a search for “wtc dust”. Seems like the vast majority of the articles say how dangerous the dust was and how may people are gravely ill because of it. The abundance of proof says it was deadly. Thanks for the insight into how wrong the government got it. I now suggest you search scholar.google.com and look at the evidence you suggested I look at. It’s a bit amusing that you refer to something that supports the truthers argument. Interesting.

The first search I did was for “wtc dust” in quotes. It returned “Results 1 - 75 of 75 for "wtc dust". I did a word search for the 75 entries for the word explosives. The word explosives was not found in any of the returns. So you see why your point is dubious.

I then searched for ‘wtc dust’ without the quotes. Results 1 - 100 of about 2,700 for wtc dust. I started searching for explosives in these returns.

Somewhere around 220 was the first article that included explosives. It was titled “The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True, by David Ray Griffin”.

I continued searching. About 810 articles into the search results was listed another that included the word “explosives”. ([BOOK] Crime Science: Methods of Forensic Detection J Nickell, JF Fischer - 1998 - books.google.com ... 230 Explosives 233 Case Study: The World Trade Center Bombing 237 Page 8) I think this has to do with the 1993 WTC bombing.

I continued. The next article was at about 1050 articles in. (Improving Performance of HVAC Systems to Reduce Exposure to Aerosolized Infectious Agents in … - group of 4 » PJ HITCHCOCK, M MAIR, TV INGLESBY, J GROSS, TOT DA … - BIOSECURITY AND BIOTERRORISM: BIODEFENSE STRATEGY, PRACTICE, …, 2006 - liebertonline.com ... Terrorists have used high explosives to destroy or damage the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and ... filters, such as MERV 5, are used to prevent dust and lint ...) I think this has to do with the 1993 WTC bombing too.

That was the end of the results. I searched through a thousand articles and only ONE had the word explosives in it and it said explosives were used at the World Trade Center. Any chance you see the irony in this fact? Is there any chance you might see why some people have a hard time believing the official theory?

I then searched for “WTC dust” in quotes and the word explosives. Results 1 - 5 of 5 for "wtc dust" explosives. The first article said, “Efforts were made to qualitatively and quantitatively define the Ground Zero atmospheric environment. The environmental readings that were eventually obtained were confusing, contradictory, and difficult to correlate with human health risk analysis”, not related to explosives residue in the dust. The second article listed did not include the word “explosives. The third article addressed the possibility the explosives were used in the initial impact of the airplanes saying that the expansion of the impact fireballs were not caused by explosives. It made no mention of explosives regarding the collapse or the dust. The forth article was a repeat of the third article on a different website. The fifth and final article was a repeat of first article.

Sigh, well, what now, I searched all of what you asked. In all the articles returned, I found six articles that mentioned "wtc dust" and explosives. One said explosives were used and five were not related to explosives and dust in relation to the collapse of the buildings.

We have a problem, don’t we. All the relevant articles (100%) said explosives were used. Please feel free to duplicate your suggestion and come up with the same results. You seem like you are a bright guy (or girl) and I hope you are of sufficient honor to come back and say ”Gee, Truth for a Change, I guess you seem to have a point.” Or “Here are the articles I was talking about.”

I guess I have to ask you again. Can you please show me some studies that tested the dust for explosives? And by the way, I didn’t say that proof of explosives has been found, I said if conventional explosives were used, there would be a chemical trace found. You see the difference, right?

I have now done the research you suggested, and found the exact opposite of what you believe. I hope you do the same. By following your suggestion, I found that ALL the articles that related to “wtc dust” and “explosives” suggested that explosives WERE used.

I just sat down with myself and had a heart to heart talk with myself. I said “WTF” to myself. How could you have possibly got your information so wrong. Any chance you can see a pattern here. Any chance that you can see why so many people are confused and in disbelief about this situation? I think we are both smart enough to understand this.

I guess we are back at me asking you to find me the phone number of the person that will give me permission to have access to the WTC rubble.

Thanks for your effort, but as you can see, it just made things more confusing for me.

P.S. [your quote – “It would go a long way to showing you the importance of not believing on faith those with an agenda - like Steven Jones and James Fetzer - but questioning them as we do.] You say, “questioning them as we do”. Who exactly are “we”? What group is the “we” you are talking about?

.

While the word is yet unspoken, you are master of it; when once it is spoken, it is master of you. ~ Arab proverb

If fifty million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. ~ Anatole France

If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading. ~ Lao tzu

The believer is happy; the doubter is wise. ~ Hungarian Proverb

Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers. ~ Alfred, Lord Tennyson

If 9/11 wasn't a crime...

Then what was it?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Show "Chicken" by Anonymous (not verified)

In other words...

You can't answer the question, and can only resort to name calling.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Show "You're still dodging, Jon." by Anonymous (not verified)

the US government?

I would say the prime suspect is Larry Silverstein, followed by select members of the administration and a number of foreign agents from one or more countries.

that anyone is accusing "the USG" of anything is an a priori aburdity, since it is not a monolithic entity acting with singular intent or agency.

Any questions?

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

All you do...

Is type a lot of words that say absolutely nothing. Other than insults, etc...

To say there is no facts or reason to think that "9/11 was done, aided, known by, or facilitated by the U.S. Government" shows how obtuse you really are.

I'm done with you troll.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Show "You can\'t articulate any reasons, Jon, so stop whining." by Anonymous (not verified)

Here's an articulation...

Go fuck yourself troll.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Show "You\'re outed, Jon" by Anonymous (not verified)

Yawn...

...
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

9/11 Truth

the crimes, in no particular order

Arson
Conspiracy
Murder (first degree)
Obstruction of Justice
Insurance Fraud (among other fraud)

That's for starters. Any questions?

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

A reminder for you 9/11 Deniers.

Another...

Sign that there is a cover-up.

As we all know, nothing in regards to Able Danger was mentioned in the 9/11 Report.

Recently, the "Inspector General" of the Pentagon "found no evidence it [Able Danger] had identified ringleader Mohamed Atta or any other terrorist who participated in the 2001 attacks."

I wonder if the "Inspector General" bothered to look at the fact that Eliot Spitzer, the Attorney General for New York that REFUSED to act on the "Petition Of Solidarity" that called for "a new investigation of unsolved 9/11 crimes, and the full prosecution of those found responsible" (another sign of a cover-up), REFUSED to allow Dietrich Snell to testify before Weldon's 9/11 hearings?

Dietrich Snell worked on the 9/11 Commission as an investigator. Today he is one of Eliot Spitzer's "closest advisors."

On July 12, 2004, Dietrich Snell met one of the Able Danger team members and witnesses, the actual hands-on head of the operation, Capt. Scott Phillpott, who told him that Able Danger had identified and planned offensive operations against four of the eventual 19 hijackers as part of what they called the "Brooklyn Cell." According to Lt. Col Shaffer, Dietrich Snell said, "What do you want me to do with this information, we go to print in 10 days?"

New York Republican State Chairman Stephen Minarik said that, "Mr. Spitzer needs to come clean, and tell us what is more important than the safety and security of New Yorkers."

Nothing ever came of this. It's something else the media didn't bother to cover.

Makes you wonder why 2.5 terabytes of data regarding Able Danger, "as much as one-fourth of all the printed materials in the Library of Congress," was destroyed (another sign of a cover-up).
__________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

In case you didn't know...

Eliot Spitzer won the Governorship this past election.



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

There are...

So many examples that there is a coverup regarding the events of 9/11.

Take for example Max Cleland who was a 9/11 Commissioner.

He said:

"As each day goes by," Cleland said, "we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before September 11 than it has ever admitted.... Let's chase this rabbit into the ground. They had a plan to go to war and when 9/11 happened that's what they did; they went to war."

He eventually stepped down as a 9/11 Commissioner.

How about another 9/11 Commissioner named Bob Kerrey?

He said:

Mr. President, you knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat. Didn't do anything to harden our border security. Didn't do anything to harden airport security. Didn't do anything to engage local law enforcement. Didn't do anything to round up INS and the consular office, and say we have to shut this down, and didn't warn the American people. What did you do? Nothing so far as we can see.

This is a pretty good indication that part of the cover-up has to do with prior knowledge of the attacks.

We have cover-ups from everything to NORAD to the funding behind the attacks.

All of them a proveable cover-up.

What are they covering up? What could it be... what could it be?

I am reminded of Bob Bowman's saying. If the Government has nothing to hide, then why do they hide everything?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Funding

On page 172 of the 9/11 Report, it says, "To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance."

The 9/11 Commission released an addendum a couple of months after the release of the 9/11 Report.

CNN reports, "The monograph reveals in detail how the hijackers received money from wire transfers, cash and traveler's checks, and credit or debit cards for overseas bank accounts. The report says most of the funds were sent by Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, a nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed."

However, two things it points out is that they are still saying "the origin of 9/11 funds is unknown", but now they are sure to mention that "no money for the attacks was raised in the United States."

According to 9/11 family member Bill Doyle, the 28 redacted pages within the Joint Congressional Inquiry might mention United States funding to Pakistan.

If that's true, then the origin of the funds becomes VERY significant.

ESPECIALLY when you take into account that Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head, at the time of the 9/11 attacks of the Pakistani Intelligence apparatus known as the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), allegedly ordered Omar Sheikh to wire transfer $100,000 to the alleged lead hijacker Mohammad Atta, met with "unspecified officials at the White House" AT THE TIME OF THE ATTACKS.

The 9/11 Families submitted 100's of questions to the 9/11 Commission in the hopes that they would be answered. The ISI connection to 9/11 was one of them.

22) On the issue of state sponsored terrorism:


  • Why did Mahmood Ahmed, Director of Pakistan's secret service, the (ISI) order Saeed Sheikh to wire $100,000 to hijacker Mohamed Atta?
  • What was Mahmood Ahmed's relationship with Al Qaeda?
  • Where did the money come from?
  • Did officials in Pakistan know in advance about the terrorist attack?
  • On September 11 th, Mahmood Ahmed had a breakfast meeting in Washington, D.C., with House and Senate Intelligence Committee chairmen, Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham. What were they discussing?

Since the 9/11 Report doesn't bother to cover any of this, and instead denies any knowledge of it, it is reasonable to assume that they are intentionally covering up the White House's relationship with someone who may have helped to finance the 9/11 attacks.

Do you think that's significant?

___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

When do you get to the evidence?

When do you get to the part when you have shown an ACTUAL coverup instead of listing things which you CLAIM is evidence of a coverup? When are you going to stop making CLAIMS? Do you not yet understand what \"evidence\" means, Jon?

You haven\'t given us anything, much less that there was coverup and a coverup was meant to coverup that Bush caused, allowed, facilitated. knew of, perpetuated the destruction on 9/11.

You continue to commit logical fallacies like this: \"Since the 9/11 Report doesn\'t bother to cover any of this, and instead denies any knowledge of it, it is reasonable to assume that they are intentionally covering up the White House\'s relationship with someone who may have helped to finance the 9/11 attacks.\"

You seem to have no concept that you haven\'t given anyone any reason to assume A caused B. You NEED to understand your own fallacious argumentation otherwise you will keep going around in circles for the rest of your life.

Here are some good places to start:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
http://www.criticalthinking.org/
http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/main.html

The best book on the subject in my mind is this:

http://www.amazon.com/Attacking-Faulty-Reasoning-Practical-Fallacy-Free/...

If you would spend two weeks absorbing this and applying what you learn to your own thinking, you\'ll see where you are going wrong. It would be one of the best two weeks you could spend.

Duh...

"I'm a debunker. I completely ignore any information that shows the Government is lying in regards to 9/11, and I call anyone who questions those lies, logically fallable. I do this because it's impossible to argue against the truth. The only weapon we have are really long paragraphs filled with insults, and no substance. I'm pathetic aren't I?"
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

You haven\'t shown any evidence

I\'m really beginning to feel sorry for you, Jon. It is abundantly clear to any rational person and scientist who are skeptical by nature that you have YET to provide ANY evidence supporting your claims - despite us asking you to do so for months. You must be so seriously out of touch with reality that you cannot intellectually distinguish what you believe happened from the necessity to provide EVIDENCE for it.

Innuendo, questions, claims, assertions - all do not constitute evidence.

I\'ve given you advice to help you understand your problem. You can take it or leave it. But, as we\'ve seen elsewhere today, where you got your butt handed to you AGAIN, continuing with your utterly-confused thinking will get you nothing more than laughs, derision, and, yes, true pity.

Come out of your fog, man. Join the real world.

Information...

Does.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Definitions of Circumstantial Evidence on the Web:

All evidence except eyewitness testimony. One example is physical evidence, such as fingerprints, from which an inference can be drawn.
http://courts.delaware.gov/How%20To...%20proceedings/

All evidence of an indirect nature. Testimony not based on actual personal knowledge or observation of the facts in controversy.
www.utcourts.gov/resources/glossary.htm

Statements or information obtained indirectly or not based on first-hand experience by a person. Circumstantial evidence can include, in part, inferences about an event that was not seen. For example, if you walk outside and the ground is wet, and you didn't actually see it raining, you could infer that it had rained while you were inside. See also Direct evidence.
www.larrykinglaw.com/glossary.htm

This is trial evidence that is not directly from an eyewitness or participant in the events. In other words, the facts can only be proven using some reasoning.
www.attorneykennugent.com/library/c.html

Evidence from which a fact is reasonably inferred, although not directly proven. Evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events which afford a basis for reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue.
www.aapa.org/manual/judicial/glossary.html

Evidence of some circumstance(s) which provide indirect evidence of some fact where direct evidence is absent.
http://hjem.get2net.dk/safsaf/glossary.html

evidence providing only a basis for inference about the fact in dispute
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence is the result of combining seemingly unrelated facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

Seems to me, you're the one who really doesn't know what evidence is.
__________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality.

Evidence is evidence whether it is physical or circumstantial. You have not even provided ANYTHING qualifying as circumstantial evidence. ALL you have done is taken things here and there and made CONJECTURES by fiat that they constitute \\\"evidence.\\\" Everyone with a brain sees you haven\\\'t made any case at all. That YOU are BLIND to that is why I recommended some very EXCELLENT reading to get you out of your perpetual delusions.

You\\\'ve obviously chosen to keep your head buried in the sand. That\\\'s your choice and why you are to be pitied.

Would you...

Like an autograph?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

The man

Has provided mountains of irrefutable evidence.

You on the other hand simply refuse to acknowledge it due to your severe cognitive dissonance.

Why exactly does someone so delusional keep coming to this site I wonder?
You sound like a Limbaugh wannabe, you tell lie after lie after lie, refuse to listen to facts, and keep repeating bald faced lies thinking sooner or later someone is going to believe you.

Sorry, not going to happen here.

Thanks...

...
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

No he hasn\'t

All Jon has succeeded in doing is show us he hasn\'t a CLUE what constitutes evidence.

Neither do you. I spanked you so many times with reality, you\'re still whining.

So while you all continue to whine that \"9/11 was an inside job\", we know that you are unable to support it. It\'s the nature of the beast.

End of subject.

Didn't I...

Show you yesterday that you're the one who doesn't know what evidence is?

What are you doing... coming by once a day to tell me how stupid I am? How crazy? How logically fallable I am?

Thanks... It's good to know I'm on your mind so much.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

You need an education, Bubba Jon

I showed YOU don\'t know what evidence is. I\'ve given you the resources to help you show yourself. And to show you a whole lot more.

That\'s what education is all about.

Tell me...

Is any of the information I wrote about in this article untrue?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Another sign...

There is a cover-up...

How much of this has the media and the Government addressed?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

A Challenge To All "Debunkers"

Answer this very simple question.

Is there a cover-up regarding the events of 9/11 being perpetrated by the United States Government?

A yes or no will suffice.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Don't...

Everybody answer at once.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Have I found "Debunker's Kryptonite?"

Any idiot knows the Government is covering up several aspects of 9/11, yet, the "Debunkers" don't seem to be able to address it, or acknowledge it.

I wonder why...
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Show "I'll Tell You What You've Found...." by StillDiggin

Question...

Did you name yourself after an ordeal you had on a toilet?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Did...

The History Channel touch on any of this?


Donate To 9/11 First Responders