The 911 Commission Report… The Perfect Cover-Up?





Picture a group of murdering thieves who robbed a bank and killed several people in the process and the only witnesses to the crime are the people left in the bank. A team of investigators was asked to analyze the crime and submit a written report of their findings.

This is part of their investigation :

All of the witnesses interviewed told the same story to the investigators. “We do not know what really happened, we were customers in the bank waiting in a long line to cash our checks. We did not see any of the criminals, but we heard some gunshots and someone yelled for us to lie down on the floor. Unfortunately, none of us saw where the shots came from. We thought it was a sniper knocking off customers standing in line but we did not see a shooter. While we where lying on the floor with bullets flying everywhere, we heard several explosions coming from the bank vault.”

The bank president said he did not know what happened to the security surveillance system and why, for the first time in this bank, it was not working. He said, “I am a victim, I have no idea what really happened. Maybe you can ask the tellers what they witnessed during the robbery.”

Before the final report was written, several things happened. The surviving bank tellers and other witnesses were threatened by the bank robbers. They were told, “If you talk, we will kill you and your families.” The bank robbers destroyed the surveillance tapes, disposed of their weapons and spent bullets, cleaned up the debris from the vault and even found the right chemical to remove the gunpowder from their hands. In the end, there was nothing left from the explosives that blew up the safe to investigate, and the witnesses were too frightened to talk about what they saw.

What are the investigators going to do? They had no real physical evidence to examine and no valuable information from the eyewitnesses. They could not prove who the criminals were, what ammunition was used, and what kind of explosives had been employed in the vault.

Some criminals are capable of committing a horrific crime and covering their tracks. Such was the case on 911. That was purpose of the 911 Commission Report, to cover-up what looks more and more like a “false flag operation”, the real crime. It is not a report based on evidence of what actually occurred on September 11, but rather, a story to reflect what the Government said happened, and wanted everyone to believe. It appears the Bush administration told the 911 Commission to author a report to fit their needs and to be certain not to implicate them in any wrongdoing.

If you disagree and believe in the Official 911 "COMMISSION REPORT ONLY", please post what “evidence” influenced your decision.



[edit on 22-10-2009 by impressme]

I disagree and here is a small part of my evidence.
1. I saw the planes fly into the towers.
2. Muslim terrorists had tried to attak the WTC before and some were convicted in a court of law.
3. The first thing I thought of when I saw the first plane hit was "Damn the Terrorists have attacked the WTC AGAIN!"

Originally posted by impressme

If you disagree and believe in the Official 911 "COMMISSION REPORT ONLY", please post what “evidence” influenced your decision.

I disagree, for the obvious reason that your analogy is bull-poop. The report has a gigantic bibliography in the back that details the source of every shred of evidence and testimony they examined. I know it has a gigantic bibliography that details where they got all their info becuase I read the report, and I likewise know you're full of bull-poop becuase you openly admitted before you DIDN'T read the report. Everything you just posted about "noone said anything" and "eyewitnesses were threatened"is crap you made up off the top of your head.

You'll excuse me if I happen to believe the testimony of NYPD pilots flying eye level to the impact areas of the WTC, and people who actually knew (and dated) Mohammed Atta, rather than you truthers who get all your information from those damned fool conspiracy web sites run by college kids out of their dorm room, thank you very much.

Originally posted by impressme

That is a lie, please show proof that I said that?

I'm not going to go through 1,000 posts looking for it, but then I don't need to because that should be easy enough to prove right now: DID you read the 9/11 Commission report? Everything you've posted shows you're not even remotely knowledgeable of what it actually says.

It was an Analogy, thank you DAVE for demonstrating what poor reading skills you have.

Who the heck are you trying to fool? This whole thread is called, "the 911 commission report- the perfect cover up?" and your first post is some fantasy about bank robbers and threatened witnesses. Everyone here... including you... knows you were drawing a comparison to how you think the commission report operated and I proved it was bull-poop. Did you even know there was a huge bibliography in the back of the report that documented all their sources?

Your post was incorrect. Grow up and deal with it.

How about discussing the post and stop attacking my beliefs the Topic is NOT about: “damned fool conspiracy web sites run by college kids out of their dorm room, thank you very much.”

The Topic is about the 911 commission report.

That's right, it is. It has absolutely nothing to do with bank robbers, threatened witnesses, or even bigfoot. Moreover, I even answered your question - I accept it because I have no reason to doubt the witnesses they interviewed. Since you're now back peddling away from your false analogy and acknowledge it's irrelevant to the 9/11 commission report, then what say you explain what in the report you think is unbelievable, specifically?

There might be an online document or download available.
Don't know how big but probably does not cover aspects that
911 conspiracy researchers would like like witnesses to the
airliner flights and crashes.

Originally posted by fatcartman
I disagree and here is a small part of my evidence.
1. I saw the planes fly into the towers.

Evidence that planes flew into buildings, not who flew them or why or even what planes.

2. Muslim terrorists had tried to attak the WTC before and some were convicted in a court of law.

Assumption, not evidence. It is also the perfect reason to use these two targets if you plan to blame muslim extremists.

3. The first thing I thought of when I saw the first plane hit was "Damn the Terrorists have attacked the WTC AGAIN!"

So what you think qualifies as evidence to you? I think I am extremely attractive so it must follow...

Chriss Anfel must astound you.