911 Commission Senior Counsel: Report is a lie

page: 3
68
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Some of the testimonies that were ignored by the 911 comission

Jennings was trapped in WTC7 for several hours by an explosion BEFORE the towers came down. BBC and NIST twisted his timeline to make it seem like the explosion was the north tower coming down. which doesn't make sense

Barry Jennings died on August 19th 2008 at age 53 - there's been no official cause of death. Michael Hess, who was with him at the time, was interviewed by the BBC in september of 2008 and agreed with the official timeline
Hess is still alive
blip.tv...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.counterpunch.org...


Bush and Cheney refused to testify publicly under oath.
They finally made a deal with the Commission to testify on April 29, 2004, with specific conditions:
o They would testify together,
o They would testify behind closed doors,
o They would not be under oath, and
o Their testimony would not be recorded electronically or transcribed


[edit on 16-1-2010 by conar]




posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 05:22 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   
can an impartial person please explain how this descended into bickering rather than adult conversation and debate?
i've lost track of what the initial problem was with the original post. the guy doesn't seem to make any claims as to who was actually behind 9/11, but is merely stating that different levels of government gave the commission information that was false. correct me if i'm wrong but having someone from the commission come forward and say that is pretty big.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 05:42 AM
link   
I'm not sure why our resident Debunkers are jumping on the back of the OP, all he was doing was relaying a story to everyone here. The narrative was not his own, yes he got the name of the story slightly wrong as it should say:

"The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies"

Authored by Gordon Duff who by the way happens to be one of your buddies in the armed forces. His bio reads:



Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran and a regular contributor to Veterans Today. He specializes in political and social issues. You can see a large collection of Gordon's published articles at this link: VeteransToday.com.

He is an outspoken advocate for veterans and his powerful words have brought about change. Gordon is a lifelong PTSD sufferer from his war experiences and he is empathetic to the plight of today's veterans also suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to feature Gordon's timely and critical reports on Salem-News.com, a news organization staffed by a number of veterans, particularly former U.S. Marines.


This guy doesn't appear to be a "Truther" either , nor does the website. The article appears to be a critique of John Farmers book based off his( Gordon Duffs) opinion.

I'm sure next we will hear all about what a nutcase Gordon Duff is, always discredit the messenger, I guess it's all par for the course with you guys. But a fellow combat veteran, this should be interesting.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 05:45 AM
link   
My neighbor across the hall lost her 2 sons who worked for Cantor
Fitzgerald - her son-in-law, John Azzarello, was one of the senior counsels
to the 9/11 Commission with John Farmer

She attended many of its sessions. Talking to her she supports their
conclusions - no "controlled demolition", "star wars space lasers" or
"no planes" crap

I doubt many people posting here bothered to actaully READ THE BOOK !

Instead we have them parroting drivel posted on conspiracy sites ....



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


there is evidence to support the controlled demolition theory, but what i want to hear is more about are the lasers.


[edit on 16-1-2010 by misterhype]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by conar
 






Some of the testimonies that were ignored by the 911 comission

Jennings was trapped in WTC7 for several hours by an explosion BEFORE the towers came down. BBC and NIST twisted his timeline to make it seem like the explosion was the north tower coming down. which doesn't make sense

Barry Jennings died on August 19th 2008 at age 53 - there's been no official cause of death. Michael Hess, who was with him at the time, was interviewed by the BBC in september of 2008 and agreed with the official timeline
Hess is still alive



Snip The 911 did not investigate WTC7 for the simple reason
that it was not germane to the investigation of the intelligence failures
which allowed the hijackers to enter the conutry, receive flight training
and then hijack the planes.


WTC 7 was collateral damge - destroyed when WTC 1 fell on it

Sorry to puncture your conspiracy fantasy...







##ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS##

Review: Courtesy Is Mandatory

[edit on 16/1/2010 by Sauron]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


www.youtube.com...

i couldn't work out how to embed it, so check out this video. it looks a bit too suspicious to conclude that it fell as a result of tower 1. as far as i'm concerned you've "punctured" nothing and have shown how little you have actually looked into the matter.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   
From Publisher's Weekly, about the book:



Farmer, senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, updates the commission's report in this thorough and bipartisan analysis. Drawing on newly declassified records and recent investigative reports from the departments of defense and transportation, the author concludes that the failure to detect and prevent the attack lay in the [bureaucratic] nature of modern government. Most significantly, rules proscribing information-sharing within and among agencies meant that no one had complete access to all available intelligence or information—typical bureaucratic inertia that presaged the government's bungled response to Hurricane Katrina. Farmer faults the disconnect between decision-makers and operational employees, concluding that leadership was irrelevant on 9/11 and the official version of events was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue. Farmer's conclusion that bureaucratic government does not adapt fast enough to changing missions to be effective is not original, but in his careful exegesis of the events of 9/11, he transcends easy generalizations to expose the fault lines in contemporary governance and point the way to fundamental reform.


It seems that all he's saying is that the official version of events is bunk. Nothing more, nothing less. We can theorize what that means all we want, but we can't put words in his mouth. This line of investigation is dead, imo.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Faiol
this is old news

but flagged

This is not old news until it is resolved. It is not old news until we are out from under it's ramifications.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
I'm not sure why our resident Debunkers are jumping on the back of the OP, all he was doing was relaying a story to everyone here.

Our resident debunkers jump on the back of anyone who tries to tell the truth about 9/11.

It's their job.


Originally posted by thedman
WTC 7 was collateral damge - destroyed when WTC 1 fell on it.

Here's WTC 7 after it was "destroyed when WTC 1 fell on it":


South face (upper right):




Originally posted by thedman
The 911 did not investigate WTC7 for the simple reason that it was not germane to the investigation of the intelligence failures which allowed the hijackers to enter the conutry, receive flight training and then hijack the planes.





[edit on 16-1-2010 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Due to member demand, this forum is under close staff scrutiny

What members demanded? Trolls? Government trolls? Do our Moderators also have to bow to government trolls? Just wait until we are really a fascist state, get used to bowing to a lot of trolls.

[edit on 16-1-2010 by m khan]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by mikelee
 


You should actually read the book. Mr Farmer believes that it was Al Qaeda that attacked us that day. No CIA led conspiracy, no George Bush/Dick Cheney led conspiracy.....


How about a Mossad conspiracy:

whatreallyhappened.com...



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Its already been stated long ago and many times by the poeple on the 9/11 commssion, they did not have enough time or money to do a proper investigation into 9/11.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Bottom line either way is, the "Official" story that many Americans still believe simply isn't true. False flag Op version or the Terrorist version.

What the debunkers can't admit is that even if their belief is somehow true and Terrorists acted alone, the 9/11 report is still wrong. I would think that would disturb them. But strangely it doesn't?



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
What the debunkers can't admit is that even if their belief is somehow true and Terrorists acted alone, the 9/11 report is still wrong. I would think that would disturb them. But strangely it doesn't?


Well you have to understand these people live in a safe fantasy world and only want to believe what they are told.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   
I have not read John Farmer's book, and I doubt if anyone else here has, either.

So all we have to go on is quotes cherry-picked from Farmer's book by the reviewer, who seems to be pretty biased in his desire to believe that everything we know about the 9/11 attacks are a lie.

Yet the fact that the government lied about a lot of things (such as the NORAD involvement) shouldn't be surprising. At the very least, the government showed an almost criminal stupidity and naiveté regarding the hatred that a lot of the islamist jihadists had for the US, and, in the cold light of hindsight,should have been better prepared for such an attack. No argument there.

But none of the rest of us knew that anything was coming either; and the United States had never before been victimized by terrorists in that way. Albeit their lies and stupidity, the government was unprepared for what happened on 9/11, and my guess is that their lies were simply a combination of over-the-top "national security" paranoia, and making excuses for their collective stupidity.

So far, I still haven't seen any coherent evidence that the Government knew about the attack before it happened, nor do I see any evidence that they had a hand in it!

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
This is "old news" but it continues to amaze me more and more as the years go by!

Our entire foreign policy, trillions in debt, massive death and destruction, shredding of our constitutional rights, violation of international law is based on a 4 million dollar report which its own chairmen describe as lies...


Kean and Hamilton charge that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail," and write that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials.


The commission stated in its report that "[their] aim has not been to assign individual blame,"
"Blame" could also be defined as "responsibility" so the commission admits in writing, in their own words the were not seeking to find out who was responsible for the attacks and the failure of our defense.

I still find this stuff amazing!!!

John Farmer's quote is he "discovered that...what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue." Farmer continues: "At some level of the government, at some point in time … there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened...The (NORAD) tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public."

Thomas Kean, the head of the 9/11 Commission, concurred: "We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth."

Ahhhhh details details makes my brain hurt... why don't we invade someone and just kill somebody, anybody that could have possibly been connected with this dastardly deed! In the meantime we can hand out Medals of Freedome to everyone who failed to protect our country that day. Yep that makes me feel better!

So there you have it folks, an incomplete, underfunded investigation that its own co-chairmen describe as based on lies... a failure... and who's purpose was NOT to assign blame. Talk about congnitive dissonance...sheesh! I call "limited hangout" on this report and John Farmer's critique.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Not only is this OLD news - its NON news......

Indisputable Fact: 9/11 was a fraudulent top secret ‘operation’ conjured from within by the governmental apparatus of the United States and carried out by top officials from with the Pentagon along with high level FBI operatives in collaboration with CIA, MI6, ISI, and Mossad officials.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by de_Genova
Not only is this OLD news - its NON news......

Indisputable Fact: 9/11 was a fraudulent top secret ‘operation’ conjured from within by the governmental apparatus of the United States and carried out by top officials from with the Pentagon along with high level FBI operatives in collaboration with CIA, MI6, ISI, and Mossad officials.


Actually, although it may be, in your opinion, "fact", it is certainly not "indisputable", since probably 99 percent of the people around -- especially those outside the conspiracy theory sites as well as I myself -- would vigorously dispute it.

While I think that the government did not disclose a lot of the activities that went on during and after the fact -- probably to cover up embarrassing responses and preparations irresponsible to the point of stupidity -- I and probably most other people neither believe that the government was squeaky-clean in its telling of the tale, nor do we believe that the government had any advance notice of it.






top topics



 
68
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join