A Senator says 9/11 events “Had Support from Within the US” !!!

There are enough people in the right places who all feel there was more to the attacks than we have been told. Government officials, law enforcement, politicians, military. The list goes on. The easy trap to fall into is believing the stories about switching aircraft and that there HAD to have been demolition work in place. That kind of thing. It's also an easy trap to fall into when you believe there couldn't have been outside (or inside) help or that demolition work couldn't have taken place. I think the truth is closer to being in the middle of the two than one or the other.

The fact of the matter is the US (and other) governments have been deceptive. If there's nothing to hide then you don't try to hide it. There is also so much disinformation and so many crazy theories floating around that the truth has been well and truly buried. You're not telling me that doesn't suit a lot of people.

If you are sitting reading this and you honestly think international intelligence agencies wouldn't work together to help pull this off or cover up what really happened then I'm sorry but you are probably wrong. If you are sitting reading this thinking the planes were switched or every floor in the towers was rigged with explosives then you are probably wrong.

If you are sitting reading this thinking that 19 hijackers did crash aircraft into the towers but they had help doing it (whether they realised it or not) then you are probably closer to the truth. Intelligence operation written ALL over it.

a reply to: sg1642


At some point, the question becomes "true, or not true?" When that point is reached (on an individual basis) the only possible answer is "not true", when it comes to the events of 11 September.

Washington, D.C. – The following is a statement by former Gov. Tom Kean and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, who served as chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission:

In recent days there has been a renewed call for the release of 28 pages that examined possible Saudi Arabian government involvement in the 9/11 attacks. As chairs of the 9/11 Commission, we believe it important the public understand what the Commission did with regard to the 28 pages.

First, the 28 pages were not drafted by the 9/11 Commission. Those pages were part of a prior report by a congressional panel investigating intelligence failures related to the 9/11 attacks. That panel completed its report before the Commission began its work. The Commission was created, in part, to finish the work the panel had begun.

The 28 pages were based almost entirely on raw, unvetted material that came to the FBI. That material was then written up in FBI files as possible leads for further investigation. The 28 pages were a summary of some of those reports and leads, as of the end of 2002. Before completing its work, the congressional panel never had a chance to check out any of these leads. The 28 pages, therefore, are comparable to preliminary law enforcement notes, which are generally covered by grand jury secrecy rules. Those rules exist to avoid implicating people in serious crimes without the benefit of follow-up investigation to determine if such suspicions are substantiated.

This point is crucial because the 9/11 attacks were the worst mass murder ever carried out in the United States. Those responsible deserve the maximum punishment possible. Therefore, accusations of complicity in that mass murder from responsible authorities are a grave matter. Such charges should be levied with care.

9/11 Commission members, senior staff management, and relevant staff were given access to the 28 pages. Those pages were never in the possession of the Commission, nor did the Commission have the authority to declassify them. We deemed vigorously pursuing the congressional panel’s leads so important that we hired the person who drafted the 28 pages to work on our staff, along with the person who had assisted him. They were part of a team, overseen by a veteran former federal prosecutor with experience in terrorism cases.

That team, augmented by the Commission’s executive director, investigated over the course of 18 months all the leads contained in the 28 pages, and many more. The team conducted interviews in California, Saudi Arabia, and Europe. The results of this work are in The 9/11 Commission Report. None of the conclusions are classified. For those interested to learn what is in the 28 pages, we encourage you to read Chapters 5 and 7 of that report and, importantly, their endnotes.

It may be helpful to remind of some of the work the Commission did that stemmed from the 28 pages. Our report said that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the al Qaeda architect of the attacks, had a support network in mind for the first two would-be hijackers who came to the United States in January 2000. KSM denied this to his CIA interrogators. We did not credit these denials, for reasons we explain in the report and endnotes. We still do not know what these two men did during their first two weeks in Los Angeles, or who may have helped them. They spoke no English.

Only one employee of the Saudi government was implicated in the plot investigation. A few other such people are mentioned in the 28 pages but only one turned out to be of interest, a man named Fahad al Thumairy. He was employed by the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs and was working as an imam at a mosque in Los Angeles. He became a controversial figure within the mosque and, in May 2003, after Thumairy went home to Saudi Arabia, the U.S. government refused to let him back in the United States. He is still a person of interest. The congressional panel did not interview Thumairy—or any other Saudi. 9/11 Commission staff did interview him in Saudi Arabia. So did the FBI. But we had to acknowledge in our report that “we ha[d] found no evidence that Thumairy provided assistance to the two operatives.” (p. 217)

Based on all the evidence available to the Commission in July 2004, when the Commission issued its final report, we found “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded” al Qaeda. (p.171)

To be sure, there is much in The 9/11 Commission Report that is highly critical of Saudi Arabia. Individual Saudis were culpable of heinous crimes: 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals. For years, the Saudi government tolerated and in some cases fanned the diffusion of an especially vitriolic extremist form of Islam, funding schools and mosques across the globe that spread it. Wealthy Saudis contributed to Islamic charities, some of which had links to terrorism. That policy has had tragic consequences for Saudi Arabia itself. Extremists made the Saudi kingdom one of their top targets. This is one of the reasons why Saudi Arabia has been an ally of the United States in combatting terrorism; many Saudi public servants have died in their battles with al Qaeda operatives.

In 2015, another independent panel, the 9/11 Review Commission created by Congress, reviewed the evidence gathered in recent years. That commission reaffirmed the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission (see p. 101 of the 9/11 Review Commission’s report). That panel also thoroughly reviewed the 28 pages and concluded that despite the fact that two FBI teams continue to actively investigate the issue, there was no new evidence against the Saudi government.

Currently, on President Obama’s instructions, the Director of National Intelligence is evaluating the 28 pages to determine whether they can be released. It is likely the administration will make a decision before too long. Whatever decision is reached, we would recommend that steps be taken to protect the identities of anyone who has been ruled out by authorities as having any connection to the 9/11 plot. We also recommend that the background and context developed in the ongoing FBI investigation and contained in the work of the 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 Review Commission be included. That information will help advance a fact-based public debate on this very important issue.

We hear from Hamilton and Kean who true to form pay some lip service and still covering for the Saudis.Boils down to one thing according to them no Saudi offical high or low had nothing to do with it.If there's nothing to hide why would Kean and Hamilton have issued this statement? They sure did every thing they could do down play The Joint Inquiry during their time on the commission now suddenly they are worried about the Joint Inquiry.Are they gonna now accuse Former Senator Bob Graham and former DCI Porter Goss of leading an "Irresponsible" investigation?

If anyone wants to read their statement:Kean and Hamiton satement.

a reply to: mike dangerously

Wow, how surprising that one congressional committee would reach the same conclusions as another previous committee.

a reply to: Flesh699

The man who leased bldg 7 was caught on camera saying "Pull mine down TOO"

Raises at least 2 questions:

1) Who/How many people knew about this in advance?
2) By 'pull down' Im assuming he meant to demolish. So why demolish #7?

a reply to: [post=20589454]Blue_Jay33[/post

This is nothing more than Obama's sad attempt to ruin the U.S. any way possible while making some Senators look good. He must have made a deal with them on that as well or its pay back time.

originally posted by: Brywilson2
a reply to: Flesh699

The man who leased bldg 7 was caught on camera saying "Pull mine down TOO"

Care to show us that video?

2) By 'pull down' Im assuming he meant to demolish.

Why assume that? When Silverstein mentioned "pull" he was talking about firefighting teams...

originally posted by: hellobruce
When Silverstein mentioned "pull" he was talking about firefighting teams...

This is what he said....

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

New York Firefighter and trained Fire Marshall Rudy Dent (he is also former police and Vietnam War veteran) personally saw "Building 7 fall within it's own footprint, like a 'controlled demolition". When he was asked about Larry Silverstein's comments, he said he was totally confused by his comments and doesn't know what he is talking about. According to him, firefighters did not have contact with Rudy Guilliani or the Fire Commissioner because they were missing and they had no contact with them until the Building came down. There is also no term "to pull" in the firefighting.

originally posted by: JaMeDoIt
Yep...anyone that believes that 19 guys armed with box cutters highjacked four airliners and brought down the WTC 1, 2 & 7 is either crazy or bought off.
Cheers

It amazes me how many folk don't know of building 7. I was at the bar last week, there weren't many people in there but there was a conversation on the other side of the bar. It was obviously political, the woman then said something like "You don't want to hear what I think of Bush and 9/11.." the next 10 minutes was her trying to convince him it was an inside job and him calling her a conspiracy theorist, and basically trying to belittle her. I yelled over to him .. explain building 7 .. he looked at me stupid then continued his . .you're a conspiracy theorist .. BS to her. I yelled it again and he said what ..?? I then realized that he had no clues what I meant. I said "Do either of you know that 3 buildings collapsed that day"? They both said no. WOW.

This sacrificial goat will backfire .
It will only shed an even more discerning light
on a problem the PTB have refused to even mention
for 15 years . In the end the light will shine back on our biggest ME allie
and our own MIC.

originally posted by: satellite1
I yelled it again and he said what ..?? I then realized that he had no clues what I meant. I said "Do either of you know that 3 buildings collapsed that day"? They both said no. WOW.

I'm intrigued. What was their response after you told them of Building 7?

a reply to: satellite1

So what about the chick, did she believe 911 story or not?

9/11 Commission Leaders Circle Wagons Around Their Legacy

By Brian P. McGlinchey
Tom Kean
9/11 Commission Co-Chair Tom Kean

With the campaign to declassify 28 pages from a congressional inquiry moving ever closer to its goal, the chairmen and executive director of the 9/11 Commission are doing their best to discount the significance of the pages, which are said to illustrate damning ties between Saudi Arabia and 9/11.

In interviews, a formal statement and an op-ed piece, the three have cast doubt on the contents of the final, 28-page chapter of a 2002 congressional report.

Their aspersions can be reduced to two propositions:

Comparable to “preliminary police notes,” the 28 pages are a collection of “raw, unvetted material,” and were rendered obsolete after the 9/11 Commission fully investigated those and other leads and issued its own final conclusions.
Releasing the 28 pages in full could cast a shadow of guilt on individuals who, via the 9/11 Commission’s investigation, were later deemed innocent. 9/11 Commission Leaders Defend Their Legacy.


Zelikow,Hamilton and Kean seem a bit concerned for some reason.They spent some time downplaying the JICI's findings and claiming that the Commission is the fullest possible accounting of the events leading up to the attacks.These 28 pages of the Joint Committee worry them,since when does issues of guilt or innocence concern guys like them? Or is it because these pages will make clear just how much the Saudi's pay off terrorists.

a reply to: mike dangerously

The 28 pages are simply one more bag of facts and evidence that ultimately work to contradict the official story, and that's why Zelikow and the others are downplaying it.

a reply to: Debunkology

Building 7 fall within it's own footprint, like a 'controlled demolition".

Fell in own footprint...??

sites.google.com...

If fell in "own Footprint" - why did all that debris cross Barclay Street (a 4 lane road) and smash into 30 West Broadway
(Fiterman Hall) and damage it so severely had to be torn down??

If fell in "own footprint" - why did all that debris smash into Verizon Building (140 West St) and cause 1 billion in damage?

sites.google.com...

Pieces of WTC 7 embedded in Verizon

www.pinterest.com...

Debris from WTC 7 piled up against Verizon

www.pinterest.com...

Hole ripped into Verizon by WTC 7

www.pinterest.com...

Only the heavy masonry shell of Verizon (it was built in 1927) saved it from fatal damage

a reply to: sg1642

I didn't say that did I. I just pointed out why people will will not listen to truthers and how some truthers hurt the integrity because it's inability to police itsself. Kinda like the government. How ironic.

Sorry, got on the wrong thread.

Whether 7WTC fell in its own footprint or colored
slightly outside the lines, makes no difference.

47 stories of steel wrapped in concrete explodes
to powder and crashes to the ground at close to free fall
speeds. All because some papers carpet and computers caught fire ?
Yeah? no....Capital B Capital S !

a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

Apparently you have not been near a large building on fire ?

The amount of heat produced is tremendous - enough to damage adjacent buildings or ignite fires at considerable distance
from it

Carpets??

Carpets and most furnishing in a modern building are synthetics AKA PLASTICS

Plastic is made from petroleum - it produces twice the BTU per pound than paper (which also produces lot of heat)

a reply to: neutronflux

It is quite worrying when someone is blanketing a forum in so many posts they lose track of who they are replying to and in what thread. I agree with what you are saying though. There is a large amount of crazy out there ideas. People have either came to those ideas of their own accord or they have been helped along the way who knows. If people used half the effort and time spent on arguing about the case for and against demolition on other matters then they would probably come up with something worthwhile.