It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Where is the conspiracy in the 9/11 commission report?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Link to article



Members of the Commission, your staff is prepared to report its preliminary findings
regarding the conspiracy that produced the September 11 terrorist attacks against the
United States. We remain ready to revise our understanding of this subject as our work
continues. Dietrich Snell, Rajesh De, Hyon Kim, Michael Jacobson, John Tamm, Marco
Cordero, John Roth, Douglas Greenburg, and Serena Wille did most of the investigative
work reflected in this statement.
We are fortunate to have had access to the fruits of a massive investigative effort by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies, as well intelligence
collection and analysis from the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security
Agency, the State Department, and the Department of Defense.
Much of the account in this statement reflects assertions reportedly made by various 9/11
conspirators and captured al Qaeda members while under interrogation. We have sought
to corroborate this material as much as possible. Some of this material has been
inconsistent. We have had to make judgment calls based on the weight and credibility of
the evidence. Our information on statements attributed to such individuals comes from
written reporting; we have not had direct access to any of them.





This is reading that anyone who feels that there is no Al-qeada or has quesions as to how 9/11 occured. This shows that it was not Bin LAden who thought the project but approved it, and how it progressed after the 93 bombing in NYC.

It also gives the targets that were chosen which tells us where 93 was .ed and that there was no intention to hit WTC 7.

How did they get in to the country to plan and carry out the attacks?

Link to article

This document basically shows the intel failures that led to the creation of DHS. The commission interviewed over 1,200 people in 10 countries and reviewed over two and a half million pages of documents, including some classified national security documents. Before it was released by the commission, the final public report was screened for any potentially classified information and edited as necessary. the commission has also released several supplemental reports on the terrorists' financing, travel, and other matters.

The only people that were problematic were the FAA and the Pentagon in regards to certain testimony. It was also used as a political tool in the 2004 election to make Bush look bad. There is a trove of information that does not implicate our government but shows how self centered and egotistical thinking will lead to a wake up call as we recieved on 9/11.

So I ask, Where is the conspiracy behind the 9/11 commission report and why is it so discredited in the CT circle?




posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Ok, I'll bite

I don't discredit everything in the report,
but I have serious trust issues with it.

I believe the conspiracy starts here:

September 20, 2002: In the wake of damaging Congressional 9/11 inquiry revelations, President Bush reverses course (see May 23, 2002) and backs efforts by many lawmakers to form an independent commission to conduct a broader investigation than the current Congressional inquiry. Newsweek reports that Bush had virtually no choice. "There was a freight train coming down the tracks," says one White House official. [Newsweek, 9/22/02] But as one of the 9/11 victim's relatives says, "It's carefully crafted to make it look like a general endorsement, but it actually says that the commission would look at everything except the intelligence failures." [CBS, 9/20/02]

con't..

Rather than look into such failures, Bush wants the commission to focus on areas like border security, visa issues and the "role of Congress" in overseeing intelligence agencies. The White House also refuses to turn over documents showing what Bush knew before 9/11. [Newsweek, 9/22/02] Perhaps Bush's true stance on the inquiry can be seen by calls the Vice President made to try and stop it earlier in the year (see January 24, 2002).

source
They didn't even want it investigated!
Please don't ask the Prez what he knows..
someone might actually be held responsible.


March 26, 2003: Though the investigation into the space shuttle Columbia tragedy cost $50 million and the Ken Starr investigation of Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky ran $64 million, the White House balks at increasing funding beyond $3 million for the 9/11 Commission's investigation into the worst terror attack ever. The latest effort to curtail funding has angered victims of the attacks. "The White House decision was another in a long line of efforts to water down or shrink the panel's role." [Time, 3/26/03, MSNBC, 9/20/06]

Wasn't properly funded..
What the hell do they care, right?
Responsibility, accountability? HAh!


Able What?

A secret military operation named Able Danger identifies four future 9/11 hijackers, including lead hijacker Mohamed Atta, as a potential threat and members of Al Qaeda. Yet none of this is mentioned later in the 9/11 Commissions' final report.

source
Ooohh, Able Danger.. you don't need to know anything about that.
con't..

When questioned, the 9/11 commission's chief spokesman initially says that staff members briefed about Able Danger did not remember hearing anything about Atta. Days later, however, after provided detailed information, he says the uniformed officer who briefed two staff members had indeed mentioned Atta. Officials say that the information was not included in the report because the account had sounded inconsistent with what the commission knew about Atta. [New York Times, 8/11/05]

source
I don't remember, maybe somethin about
known unknowns and unknown unknowns?


Nov 17, 2005: Former FBI Director Louis Freeh: "The Able Danger intelligence, if confirmed, is undoubtedly the most relevant fact of the entire post-9/11 inquiry. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it 'was not historically significant.' This astounding conclusion—in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings—raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself." [Wall Street Journal, 11/17/05]

"the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded
that it 'was not historically significant.'
Nice!


Why are we still asking questions?
Because they continue to deny,
hide, lie, and obscure information.

Why is there an entire forum, a
"trove of information" if you will,
dedicated to information not exactly
held within the Gov't sponsored report?

The conspiracy behind the 9-11 report is
the fact they didn't even want it investigated.
We asked possible criminals to investigate themselves
and expected them to give us an honest report..

A new investigation is warranted.

I mean come on, if most people were made
privy to half the information here on ATS,
they would be infuriated at our Gov't.
"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

I think my signature says it all..



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I am asking for honest repsonses so I thank you for your time. There are things surrounding the commission that I do not agree with, but nothing to lend credibility to the fact that the US was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Able Danger is one of the greatest intel failures ever. This is a nice chart showing that we were aware but unsure of motive.

Link



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
but nothing to lend credibility to the fact that the US was behind the 9/11 attacks.


With all due respect, nothing at all?
History of Terrorism, al Qaeda connection to CIA
Debunk This Video

I would say there is a trove of information that
DOES implicate our government AND shows how
self centered and egotistical they truly are.

I'm curious, do you have any comments
to the information in that video and/or threads?

Also, do you think 9-11 should be re-investigated?

Thank you in advance.


By dismissiveness and lack of investigation
we are most likely letting criminals continue
to drive this country into the ground. (IMO)
"I don't pay taxes to buy lies."

I happen to be reading Tom Paine's 'Common Sense'
at the moment, and I think he would have
started a second revolution by now.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Find the book 102 minutes and check it out. It will make what happened that day more real in the eyes of a skeptic. It is nothing but the stories of thse in hte buildings that day.

A reinvestigation in my eyes would be a waste of time, money and resources. It was an intel failure, the commission report made recommendations and the DHS was created. There is no lack of cooperation or pissing contests that can detract from intel sharing between agencies.

Al-qeada planned and executed this operation and we were at their mercy. This is not about oil, as the price pf gas would still be where it is at now. This is not about having to go to war because we were going wether or not 9/11 happened, I look at it as a pre-emptive strike against the US. Warlords were killed in the days leading to 9/11 and everyone went into hiding.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   
How about a simple question that warrant a new investigation: Why didn't Bush and Cheney testify under oath? And why wasn't the interview recorded?

Bush and Cheney did not testify before the panel -- they were not under oath and there was to be no recording made of the session nor a stenographer in the room.

The two members of the White House counsel's staff were expected to take notes during the session, and the commission members were also allowed to take handwritten notes.

Bush brushed off a question from a reporter Thursday on whether 9/11 families were entitled to a transcript of the session.

"You asked me that question yesterday," Bush replied. "I got the same answer."

He did not repeat the answer, but the White House has said there will not be a transcript of the session. Bush said he expects details of his "conversation" with the commission to go into its final report.
- Source

Thats a start.

BeZerK



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   
So no comment on the video or information in those threads?

I don't find it odd the skeptics avoid great threads like those..

Are you free of all doubts that it wasnt a deliberate
intelligence failure, that lead us into this war, which is,
in my opinion, a waste of time, money and resources?


This is not about oil, as the price pf gas would still be where it is at now.

No, I don't think you can say that honestly..


October 21, 1995: The oil company Unocal signs a contract with Turkmenistan to export $8 billion worth of natural gas through a $3 billion pipeline which would go from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan. Political considerations and pressures allow Unocal to edge out a more experienced Argentinean company for the contract. Henry Kissinger, a Unocal consultant, calls it "the triumph of hope over experience." [Washington Post, 10/5/98]

source


August 13, 1996: Unocal and Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia come to agreement with state companies in Turkmenistan and Russia to build a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan, the agreement is finalized the next year. [Unocal website, 8/13/96] The Boston Herald later reports that, "The prime force behind Delta Oil appears to be Mohammed Hussein al-Amoudi" and that his business interests are "enmeshed" with those of Khalid bin Mahfouz. [Boston Herald, 12/10/01] The two are later included in a secret United Nations list of financiers funding al-Qaeda. [Los Angeles Times, 12/24/02, UN report, 12/19/02 or here]

source


September 27, 1996: The Taliban conquer Kabul [AP, 8/19/02], establishing control over much of Afghanistan. A surge in military success of the Taliban at this time is later attributed to an increase in direct military assistance from Pakistan's ISI. [New York Times, 12/8/01] The oil company Unocal is hopeful that the Taliban will stabilize Afghanistan, and allow its pipeline plans to go forward. In fact, "preliminary agreement [on the pipeline] was reached between the [Taliban and Unocal] long before the fall of Kabul." [Telegraph, 10/11/96]
source


December 4, 1997: Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas .quarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Future President Bush Jr. is Governor of Texas at the time. The Taliban appear to agree to a $2 billion pipeline deal, but will do the deal only if the US officially recognizes the Taliban regime. The Taliban meet with US officials, and the Telegraph reports that "the US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban's policies against women and children 'despicable,' appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract." [BBC, 12/4/97, Telegraph, 12/14/97]

source


February 12, 1998: Unocal Vice President John J. Maresca - later to become a Special Ambassador to Afghanistan - testifies before the House of Representatives that until a single, unified, friendly government is in place in Afghanistan the trans-Afghani pipeline will not be built. He suggests that with a pipeline through Afghanistan, the Caspian basin could produce 20 percent of all the non-OPEC oil in the world by 2010. [House International Relations Committee testimony, 2/12/98]
source


August 9, 1998: The Northern Alliance capital of Afghanistan, Mazar-i-Sharif, is conquered by the Taliban. Military support of Pakistan's ISI plays a large role; there is even an intercept of an ISI officer stating, "My boys and I are riding into Mazar-i-Sharif." [New York Times, 12/8/01] This victory gives the Taliban control of 90% of Afghanistan, including the entire pipeline route. CentGas, the consortium behind the gas pipeline that would run through Afghanistan, is now "ready to proceed. Its main partners are the American oil firm Unocal and Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia, plus Hyundai of South Korea, two Japanese companies, a Pakistani conglomerate and the Turkmen government." [Telegraph, 8/13/98]

source


December 22, 2001: Afghani Prime Minister Hamid Karzai and his transitional government takes power in Afghanistan. It was revealed a few weeks before that he had been a paid consultant for Unocal, as well as Deputy Foreign Minister for the Taliban. [Le Monde, 12/13/01, CNN, 12/22/01]

source


January 1, 2002: Zalamy Khalilzad, already a Special Assistant to the President, is appointed by Bush as a special envoy to Afghanistan. [BBC, 1/1/02] Khalilzad, a former employee of Unocal, took part in negotiations with the Taliban to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. He also wrote op-eds in the Washington Post in 1997 supporting the Taliban regime, back when Unocal was hoping to work with the Taliban. [Independent, 1/10/02] Now the US envoy is a former Unocal employee consulting with a prime minister who is a former Unocal employee (see December 22, 2001) in a country where Unocal might build gas and oil pipelines (see May 13, 2002).

source


May 13, 2002: The BBC reports that Afghanistan is about to close a deal for construction of the $2 billion gas pipeline to run from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India. "Work on the project will start after an agreement is expected to be struck" at a summit scheduled for the end of the month. Afghan leader Hamid Karzai (who formerly worked for Unocal) calls Unocal the "lead company" in building the pipeline. [BBC, 5/13/02] The Los Angeles Times comments, "To some here, it looked like the fix was in for Unocal when President Bush named a former Unocal consultant, Zalmay Khalilzad, as his special envoy to Afghanistan late last year." [Los Angeles Times, 5/30/02]

source
(bolding mine)

Don't tell me it wasn't about the OIL.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   
aecreate,

Great Post. Its also amazing to note Haliburtons stock almost tripled in value after 9/11.

Maybe this has something to with Halliburtons CEO - Dick Cheney


It is no brain surgery to figure out that since 9/11 Halliburton has recieved billions of dollars from tax payers to contract them in Iraq.

Do you really think Halliburton would have receievd that money if Dick Cheney was not the CEO?

This is about POWER, OIL and MONEY. In that order.

BeZerK



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   
con't..

December 13, 2002: Henry Kissinger resigns as . of the new 9/11 investigation (see November 27, 2002). [AP, 12/13/02, ABC, 12/13/02, copy of resignation letter] Two days earlier, the Bush Administration argued that Kissinger was not required to disclose his private business clients. [New York Times, 12/12/02] However, the Congressional Research Service insists that he does, and Kissinger resigns rather than reveal his clients. [MSNBC, 12/13/02, Seattle Times, 12/14/02] It is reported that Kissinger is (or has been) a consultant for Unocal, the oil corporation, and was involved in plans to build pipelines through Afghanistan. [Washington Post, 10/5/98, Salon, 12/3/02] Kissinger claimed he did no current work for any oil companies or Mideast clients, but several corporations with heavy investments in Saudi Arabia pay him consulting fees of at least $250,000 a year. [Newsweek, 12/15/02] In a surprising break from usual procedures regarding high-profile presidential appointments, White House lawyers never vetted Kissinger for conflicts of interest. [Newsweek, 12/15/02]

source


1991: Future National Security Advisor Rice joins Chevron's board of directors, and works with Chevron until being picked as Bush's National Security Advisor in 2001. Chevron even names an oil tanker after her. Rice is hired for her expertise in Central Asia, and much of her job is spent arranging oil deals in the Central Asian region. Chevron also has massive investments there. [Salon, 11/19/01]

source

It's incredibly ignorant to say it wasn't about oil.


Al-qeada planned and executed this operation and we were at their mercy. This is not about oil, as the price pf gas would still be where it is at now. This is not about having to go to war because we were going wether or not 9/11 happened


Again, you think you can say that for sure?


September 2000: A neo-conservative think-tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC), writes a blueprint for the creation of a global "Pax Americana." Titled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, the document was written for the Bush team even before the 2000 Presidential election. It was commissioned by future Vice President Cheney, future Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, future Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Florida Governor and President Bush's brother Jeb Bush, and future Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby. The report calls itself a blueprint for maintaining global US preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests. The plan shows Bush intended to take military control of the Persian Gulf whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power, and should retain control of the region even if there is no threat. The report calls for the subversion of any growth in political power of even close allies. It also mentions that "advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool." The report advocates the transformation of the US military. But, the authors acknowledge: "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbour". [BBC, 2/14/07, Sunday Herald, 9/7/02, click here to download report]

source

Everyone should know this by now, but its worth repeating.

I don't know what more I can say, if the flaws
in the official story aren't obvious to some,
and they don't warrant a re-investigation,
then Justice is blind and Uncle Sam f***** her.

All I'd like is some accountability
for those who were lost that day.

And good points BeZerk, thanks.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by aecreate
con't..

December 13, 2002: Henry Kissinger resigns as . of the new 9/11 investigation (see November 27, 2002). [AP, 12/13/02, ABC, 12/13/02, copy of resignation letter] Two days earlier, the Bush Administration argued that Kissinger was not required to disclose his private business clients. [New York Times, 12/12/02] However, the Congressional Research Service insists that he does, and Kissinger resigns rather than reveal his clients. [MSNBC, 12/13/02, Seattle Times, 12/14/02] It is reported that Kissinger is (or has been) a consultant for Unocal, the oil corporation, and was involved in plans to build pipelines through Afghanistan. [Washington Post, 10/5/98, Salon, 12/3/02] Kissinger claimed he did no current work for any oil companies or Mideast clients, but several corporations with heavy investments in Saudi Arabia pay him consulting fees of at least $250,000 a year. [Newsweek, 12/15/02] In a surprising break from usual procedures regarding high-profile presidential appointments, White House lawyers never vetted Kissinger for conflicts of interest. [Newsweek, 12/15/02]

source


1991: Future National Security Advisor Rice joins Chevron's board of directors, and works with Chevron until being picked as Bush's National Security Advisor in 2001. Chevron even names an oil tanker after her. Rice is hired for her expertise in Central Asia, and much of her job is spent arranging oil deals in the Central Asian region. Chevron also has massive investments there. [Salon, 11/19/01]

source

It's incredibly ignorant to say it wasn't about oil.


Al-qeada planned and executed this operation and we were at their mercy. This is not about oil, as the price pf gas would still be where it is at now. This is not about having to go to war because we were going wether or not 9/11 happened


Again, you think you can say that for sure?


September 2000: A neo-conservative think-tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC), writes a blueprint for the creation of a global "Pax Americana." Titled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, the document was written for the Bush team even before the 2000 Presidential election. It was commissioned by future Vice President Cheney, future Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, future Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Florida Governor and President Bush's brother Jeb Bush, and future Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby. The report calls itself a blueprint for maintaining global US preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests. The plan shows Bush intended to take military control of the Persian Gulf whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power, and should retain control of the region even if there is no threat. The report calls for the subversion of any growth in political power of even close allies. It also mentions that "advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool." The report advocates the transformation of the US military. But, the authors acknowledge: "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbour". [BBC, 2/14/07, Sunday Herald, 9/7/02, click here to download report]

source

Everyone should know this by now, but its worth repeating.

I don't know what more I can say, if the flaws
in the official story aren't obvious to some,
and they don't warrant a re-investigation,
then Justice is blind and Uncle Sam f***** her.

All I'd like is some accountability
for those who were lost that day.

And good points BeZerk, thanks.


With all this readily available on the internet, how can one not warrant a new investigation, this time getting Bush and Cheney to testify under oath, and Henry Kissinger to disclose his business contacts.

How does a President who's business contact is the family of the most wanted man (Osama Bin Laden or should i say Tim Osman-CIA) not testify under oath and in front of the 9/11 Commission as Rice


Great Post aecreate keep up the good work


BeZerK



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Wasn't there news reports last year by members of the Kean Commission that they felt that NORAD personnel were lying, but that they didn't address it in their report?

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frith
Wasn't there news reports last year by members of the Kean Commission that they felt that NORAD personnel were lying, but that they didn't address it in their report?

en.wikipedia.org...


Yes your right.

Also the fact that Bush promised only $3 million for the investigation of the 9/11 incident. He then initially resisted when the commission asked for an additional $8 million. Wow. You have the largest terrorist attack on US soil, if not the world, by far, and the investigation into the attack is only given $3 Million in funds. How much was funds were given into the investigation of the Clinton Sex Scandal? Any guesses? Well it was about $30 Million


Do we require a new investigation? ABSOLUTELY.

BeZerK

[edit on 29-6-2007 by BeZerk]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Actually,

...the investigation into the space shuttle Columbia tragedy cost $50 million and the Ken Starr investigation of Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky ran $64 million

source

If ya'll haven't already, I suggest reading ALL 60 pages
worth of information in convenient timeline format:
Verifiable Research on 9/11

Took my about three hours, but it speaks volumes.


Thanks Frith, I learn somethin new everyday.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by aecreate
Actually,

...the investigation into the space shuttle Columbia tragedy cost $50 million and the Ken Starr investigation of Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky ran $64 million

source

If ya'll haven't already, I suggest reading ALL 60 pages
worth of information in convenient timeline format:
Verifiable Research on 9/11

Took my about three hours, but it speaks volumes.


Thanks Frith, I learn somethin new everyday.


Thanks, ive actually got that website saved in my bookmark


Wow $64 Million for the sex scandal but about $3 Million for the 9/11 Investigation and people wonder why they warrant a new investigation


BeZerK



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Read into the situation, not snippets man. What actually happened with the funding is that they requested 11 miliion as part of another bill to assist with Iraq war funding. It was not included in that package, and I feel it should not have either. That was money allocated for soldiers. It was submitted a week prior to the signing of hte bill and they were not sure if it could be included.


This is from the 9/11 commission site, which states Bush himself gave them the additional funds and another million when requested.




Public Law 107-306 provided for the reprogramming of $3 million for the Commission. Congress subsequently appropriated, and the President signed into law, an additional $11 million appropriation for the Commission. Recent legislation authorized an additional $1 million, bringing the Commission’s total budget to $15 million.
The Commission is confident that it can fulfill its mandate with this amount. We appreciate very much the support of Congress and the President for this level of funding.





The law. Public Law 107-306, was actually drawn up to allow 3 million dollars based on the appropriated funds available in 2003 for foreign intel.

So, they were given 3 million, asked for 8 more, and then were given another 1 million when asked. THere were no roadblocks and they could have had more funds.


Kissinger stepped down based on a conflict of interest and instead of grandstanding, he left. That is a stand up move. NOthing wrong htere.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
esdad71,
With all due respect, is that it?
That's all you have to say with all the links I posted?


Bush himself gave them the additional funds and another million when requested.

He did that under extreme political pressure!
They did NOT want this investigated.

Isn't it blatently obvious that there is a significant
misproportion of funds from a silly sex scandal
AND THE LARGEST TERRORIST ATTACK ON AMERICAN SOIL?

Can you honestly say this WASN'T about OIL?

What do you have to say about Unocal's connections?


Kissinger stepped down based on a conflict of interest and instead of grandstanding, he left. That is a stand up move. NOthing wrong htere.

Oh please, Kissinger has connections to Unocal,
Unocal has connections to the Taliban.
There was ALOT wrong with trying to get
Kissinger to . the investigation.


December 22, 2001: Afghani Prime Minister Hamid Karzai and his transitional government takes power in Afghanistan. It was revealed a few weeks before that he had been a paid consultant for Unocal, as well as Deputy Foreign Minister for the Taliban.

source
emphasis mine^


January 1, 2002: Zalamy Khalilzad, already a Special Assistant to the President, is appointed by Bush as a special envoy to Afghanistan. [BBC, 1/1/02] Khalilzad, a former employee of Unocal, took part in negotiations with the Taliban to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. He also wrote op-eds in the Washington Post in 1997 supporting the Taliban regime, back when Unocal was hoping to work with the Taliban. [Independent, 1/10/02] Now the US envoy is a former Unocal employee consulting with a prime minister who is a former Unocal employee (see December 22, 2001) in a country where Unocal might build gas and oil pipelines (see May 13, 2002).

source
emphasis mine^


Pretty much says it all.

Again,
The conspiracy behind the 9-11 report is
the fact they didn't even want it investigated.
We asked possible criminals to investigate themselves
and expected them to give us an honest report..

A new investigation is warranted.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   
completely agree with what you have said. If they have nothing to hide then why not go under oath? Better yet, why did they need to be in the same room when the people were asking questions? They didn't want them separated because maybe there was fear of them contradicting each other; because they are both semi intelligent?

In response to BeZerk

[edit on 29-6-2007 by Tahlen]

[edit on 29-6-2007 by Tahlen]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by aecreate
esdad71,
With all due respect, is that it?
That's all you have to say with all the links I posted?


Bush himself gave them the additional funds and another million when requested.

He did that under extreme political pressure!
They did NOT want this investigated.

Isn't it blatently obvious that there is a significant
misproportion of funds from a silly sex scandal
AND THE LARGEST TERRORIST ATTACK ON AMERICAN SOIL?

Can you honestly say this WASN'T about OIL?

What do you have to say about Unocal's connections?


Kissinger stepped down based on a conflict of interest and instead of grandstanding, he left. That is a stand up move. NOthing wrong htere.

Oh please, Kissinger has connections to Unocal,
Unocal has connections to the Taliban.
There was ALOT wrong with trying to get
Kissinger to . the investigation.


December 22, 2001: Afghani Prime Minister Hamid Karzai and his transitional government takes power in Afghanistan. It was revealed a few weeks before that he had been a paid consultant for Unocal, as well as Deputy Foreign Minister for the Taliban.

source
emphasis mine^


January 1, 2002: Zalamy Khalilzad, already a Special Assistant to the President, is appointed by Bush as a special envoy to Afghanistan. [BBC, 1/1/02] Khalilzad, a former employee of Unocal, took part in negotiations with the Taliban to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. He also wrote op-eds in the Washington Post in 1997 supporting the Taliban regime, back when Unocal was hoping to work with the Taliban. [Independent, 1/10/02] Now the US envoy is a former Unocal employee consulting with a prime minister who is a former Unocal employee (see December 22, 2001) in a country where Unocal might build gas and oil pipelines (see May 13, 2002).

source
emphasis mine^


Pretty much says it all.

Again,
The conspiracy behind the 9-11 report is
the fact they didn't even want it investigated.
We asked possible criminals to investigate themselves
and expected them to give us an honest report..

A new investigation is warranted.



Once again i agree with your statements. I agree a new investigation is needed. When there is a corrupt government in place it tends to bleed out into other governments. I'm Canadian, so you can see where I'm coming from on this, if you follow Canadian politics even the slightest.

[edit on 29-6-2007 by Tahlen]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I read what you said, and then gave you the real sysnopsis of what happened, as wel as the bill introduced for it along with the correct totals with no right/left wing influence. It was all documents.

Don't beleive the hype. The bill appropirated 3 million dollars. THey asked for money that was excluded from one bill and ADDED into another by president Bush. They then asked for an additional million and got it. IF they wanted more, all they need do is ask.

THe Lewinski scandal cost so much because of the prosecuter and it was a blanatant missappropriation but it was approved. NO monies were withheld from the money requested for the investigation. None.

Big oil is there to make money and could give a rat ass about the war or anything else. OPEC controls everything along with the large oil companies, not the president of the US. Lots of people 'made' money of the subsequent war after 9/11 so should we investigate every shareholder working for Halliburton.

Carlysle group and PNAC are also mentioned quite a bit and these a think tanks. There are lots of think tanks that lobby for their views but it is six years after 9/11 and there are no concentration camps, no martial law, Bush is not the dictator and basically enough money with the right lawyer you can do whatever you want in this country. Sounds like freedom to me. If you are not priveleged or poor, sure, it may piss you off but it should also motivate you to be something more than you are and stop making excuses that the government or THE man is holding you down or back.

The 9/11 commission was created to investigate the failure into the 9/11 incident and then give guidance on how to make sure that it does not happen again.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Now, what is a new investigation warranted for and what would a new commission intend to prove?




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join