Disclosure Of White House Interference On 9/11 Air Quality

I have no seen this discussed and I am wondering what peoples thoughts are. To me it seems like they wanted a quick clean up/cover up, of all material relating to that terrible day.

wtceo.org...

The scary part is the following: " The estimated number of Ground Zero responders is 40,000, and the estimated number of people who came in contact with the dust is 410,000."

taken from: www.rumormillnews.com...

Here is an Article Discover Magazine did on the story
discovermagazine.com...

What is terrible is that we are more than likely going to say many more deaths as a result of 9-11 than the people that were murdered that day.

I want to know why the people were lied to about the quality of the air? Truthers...... Supporters of the official story....what is your take on this?

[edit on 17-1-2008 by Jeff Riff]


Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 17-1-2008 by elevatedone]

[edit on 17-1-2008 by Jeff Riff]

Sorry about the caps mods.....

OK so I am sure that there are a lot of people that have views on why we were lied to regarding the clean up of 9-11. The air was NOT safe, yet we were told that it was, so we could get the mess clean. Was it so we could move on as a nation? Was it to hide evidence?

they lied because they didn't want people to forensically focus on the debris and exhaust that was PRODUCED during the "collapses". any good spy knows that the garbage is the best place for clues.

-signed, joe truther

now that is what I think. That is the only thing that makes sense to me. now those that support the official story.... what is your take?

Apparently those who follow the official story dont want to touch this one. I can understand that........

This is one of the loose ends hanging out of the ball of "yarns" associated with 9/11. I have called numerous times in these forums for the indictment of Christy Todd Whitman in connection with her announcements that the air was safe to breathe in Manhattan after 9/11. This is a case that CAN be made in court.

Another one is Rudy Giuliani, obstruction of justice, for the crime scene clean-up.

Another one is Larry Silverstein, insurance fraud.

Another would be the wire transfer of money from General Mahmood Ahmad of Pakistan's ISI to Mohammed Atta, and the government's failure to extradite him.

These cases could be prosecuted, I think. (Admittedly I'm not a lawyer.) The fact that prosecutions are not being sought is one of the clearest signs of a cover up and "insider" participation in 9/11.

The above mentioned are the teetering dominoes of this case.

America, in addition to your problems at the White House, in the Senate and in the Congress, you have Dr. Phil style issues in the judiciary and law enforcement arenas.

Stepping back for a moment, as a cock-eyed optimist, I find myself wondering from what quarter the relief for these problems is going to come. It certainly doesn't seem to be coming from the 9/11 truth movement and considering what they are up against, that's not a knock on them.

[edit on 17-1-2008 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
Apparently those who follow the official story dont want to touch this one. I can understand that........

Well the links aren't too convincing to me at least, and not that I follow the official story. I'm still sorta on the fence.

If it's true though, it would be additional evidence of the administration's apparent resolve to disregard intelligence.

perhaps this is a better link. Discover Magazine did a story on it a couple issues ago, and it is pretty moving.

I went and posted the link in the original post......

[edit on 17-1-2008 by Jeff Riff]

If nothing else, the apparent falsification of air qualities in stated "safe-zones" should draw questions as to Why? ... especially given the rather expedient and unaccountable removal of "evidence" within cleanup areas. By "evidence", I'm referring to the steel of which the majority was sold as scrap for pennies on the dollar in the most expedient of manner, and also that which in hindsight seemed cherry-picked for "further analysis"... lettered and numbered; only to ultimately be referenced in the various "offical" reports and documentations. Merely pieces in a a pre-disposed puzzle, if you ask me. Who's? I dunno, but it would seem so.

Bottom line:
The WTC site was treated as a "cleanup" NOT a "crime".

Do the math.


 

To me the quick cleanup and the lies to the workers seems like an obvious attempt to hide the truth. I am sure though that those believing the official story have some way to explain this one? We havent heard from any yet....