Chief 9/11 Mythmaker, Philip D. Zelikow. MUST READ!

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).

The hijackers are dead.

The're not only merely dead, The're really most sincerely dead.

whitewash

• exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data
  
• cover up a misdemeanor, fault, or error; "Let's not whitewash the crimes of Stalin"; "She tried to gloss over her mistakes"
  

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Despite of all the reports of Hani Hanjour weak piloting skills, the 9/11 Commission-Report concludes:

"Among the five hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 77, Hani Hanjour was the sole individual who FAA records show completed flight training and received FAA pilot certification. Hanjour received his commercial multi-engine pilot certificate from the FAA in March 1999. He received extensive flight training in the United States including flight simulator training, and was perhaps the most experienced and highly trained pilot among the 9/11 hijackers." Commission Report
and states that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed assigned the Pentagon target specifically to Hanjour because he was “the operation’s most experienced pilot.”
9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 530

Hani Hanjour Reloaded

reply to post by OmegaPoint


I mentioned this "Dr." Griffin...here are a few selected mistakes of his:

by Dr. David Ray Griffin
Sunday, May 22, 2005

*skip*

This guy is full of double-speak:

..."Omissions and Distortions." It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated "distortions" can be considered lies.

*skip*

Given these two types of lies, it might be wondered how many lies are contained in The 9/11 Commission Report. I do not know.

??? YET, he continues on and on and on, claiming "lies" that have, in the intervening years since May, 2005, been shown to be complete misunderstandings, or lies and decpetions made by others...

But, deciding to see how many lies I had discussed in my book, I found that I had identified over 100 of them.

See?

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).

Wrong.

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

Wrong. Irrelevant, and based on a lack of comprehension.

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

Wrong.

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

Wrong, and illogically implied by the good "Dr."

Oh, there are many. They have been repeated ad infinitum and form some core "beliefs" of what are called 9/11 "truthers"...of course, there are various factions and sects of "truthers" who pick and shoose which of "Dr." Griffin's little missives they prefer...

Kinda the way people cite the Bible, in order to promote their views...

12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

Wrong. Blatantly a lie by the "Dr." Or, based on bad information he received.

14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

? Is this one credible? Where did the Mayor hear that, and what does he say today?

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

Oh, not the "hole" again???!!! That one never dies....even when presented with photo evidence.

20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

Irrelevant, since it is known there was no missile defence system. Also, perhaps the question was raised regarding a Nuclear Plant...still, they assumed. ALSO, it is likely known that the Plants are built with VERY thick concrete walls, to make them safe from airplane impacts.

26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).

Wrong.

27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).

Ah! Now THIS one gets us back to the incompetence aspect...so it's a good one.

28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).

Ditto -- Ibid.

32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).

Ditto - again. The Bush family, and the Saudi family ties aren't well addressed, and should be.

34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).

Well -- good of the "Dr." to finally provide something substantial, instead of the other easily refuted nonsense. This should also be looked into...

Summary -- the "Dr." is all over, in a scatter-shot method of implication. Hoping to hit some of the targets, but the obvious mistakes of some of his ckliams tend to discredit the true potential nuggets of Bush (et al) wrongdoing and incompetence....

reply to post by weedwhacker

What are your thoughts on the selection and appointment of Zelikow, and his obvious conflicts of interest for what was supposed to be an independent investigation, and what say you about his unique credentials as a mythmaker and historian? Isn't it a little disconcerting to you, in light of the magnitude of the event in history and what it unleashed..?

It's painful watching you guys do your thing btw, supporting and defending the indefensible.

Weedwhacker, do they pay you for each post, or by the hour?

You always write your opinion about stuff, why should we believe you?

Try backing up your opinions with sources, like this...

the Family Steering Committee determined that only 30% of its questions were adequately answered, leaving some 250 questions still unanswered. The Family Steering Committee has released a report rating the performance of the 9/11 Commission in answering each of its questions.
nyccan.org...

reply to post by OmegaPoint


I hope you saw and clearly understood the intent of what I wrote. First post in this thread.

I can accept the possibility of gross negligence, and a cover-up for that reason. Even a possible LIHOP attitude on the part of some individuals (I'm looking at YOU , Dick Cheney!).

That fits into the selection of that guy, ON THE SURFACE at least.

But, still the water has been so muddied --- and it's the "truth movement" in some cases that have stirred the muck --- that any truths are so badly obscured, the entire thing could well use a complete re-boot.

Meanwhile, while silly arguments (by some) about "North of Citgo" and holographic airplanes and weapons beams from space and a 1950s-era old bomber being "re-fitted" to decoy and be what actually hit the Pentagon (why didn't they use another "hologram"???? ) -- all of those tinfoil-hat distractions -- any chance of finding out real culpability is diminishing every day that passes.



[edit on 26 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by conar

Weedwhacker, do they pay you for each post, or by the hour?

EXACTLY as much as they are paying you. And everyone else who posts these long threads, digging up old information thet is "new" to them, and thinking they've reached an "Ah hah!" moment....

You always write your opinion about stuff...

What do the truth movement write?

... why should we believe you?

Don't "believe"....THINK!!!

"Believing" is what causes most of the misunderstandings, and leads to the misconceptions.

Look between the lines...cut out the tinfoil conspiracy garbage, look for the points I raised, incompetence and/or foreknowledge of the SAUDI TERRORIST'S plans, and the inactivity to prevent them from being carried out.

LOOK to see if anyone let those guys do their dirty work for them...maybe it was worse then they thought, and it got out of control...thought of that yet?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Meanwhile, while silly arguments (by some) about "North of Citgo" and holographic airplanes and weapons beams from space and a 1950s-era old bomber being "re-fitted" to decoy and be what actually hit the Pentagon (why didn't they use another "hologram"????

) -- all of those tinfoil-hat distractions -- any chance of finding out real culpability is diminishing every day that passes.

You are wrong, 9/11 wont be forgotten, ever.
Even if you spread hundreds more tin-foil hat stories to distract us.

reply to post by conar

You are wrong, 9/11 wont be forgotten, ever.

You're entitiled to righteous indignation, but at least don't put words int omy mouth...when did I suggest it would be forgotten??

See? Good example of misunderstanding something, filtering it, then saying it as if it were true....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by conar

 

You are wrong, 9/11 wont be forgotten, ever.

You're entitiled to righteous indignation, but at least don't put words int omy mouth...when did I suggest it would be forgotten??

See? Good example of misunderstanding something, filtering it, then saying it as if it were true....

These words of yours...

any chance of finding out real culpability is diminishing every day that passes.

9/11 will be investigated by people for as long as there are people on the planet.
So you better start making some distractions

reply to post by weedwhacker

FYI the 9/11 Truth Movement isn't about holograms and space lasers. Nice try.

Meanwhile, we are asked to accept unquestioningly, by Zelikow's Commission and people such as yourself things like this:

Originally posted by SPreston
The Satam al-Suqami paper passport was allegedly found by a stranger and handed to a NYPD detective who of course neglected to get the stranger's name and address.

But of course there is no chance it was a 9-11 perp handing over the unblemished paper passport is there?

But the duhbunkers and government loyalists and shills all believe this is a perfectly normal way to gather criminal evidence from complete strangers, and would never suspect an unsinged unburned not even smudged paper passport which just survived an explosive fireball supposedly inside the pocket of an alleged hijacker inside the fuselage of a burning aircraft.

Isn't FAITH just grand? Aren't 9-11 MIRACLES just wonderful?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/429f56b0257d.jpg[/atsimg]

Larger version

Passport exterior cover

It is reported that the passport of hijacker Satam Al Suqami has been found a few blocks from the World Trade Center. [ABC News, 9/12/2001; Associated Press, 9/16/2001; ABC News, 9/16/2001] Barry Mawn, the director of the FBI’s New York office, says police and FBI found it during a “grid search” of the area. [CNN, 9/18/2001] However a senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission later claims it was actually discovered by a passerby and given to an NYPD detective, “shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed.”

source

Is that credible?

Or, is this credible?



And speaking of lasers, check this out (but ignore UAV analysis)



Observation. And no, what we THINK we see, is not always what is real..

[edit on 26-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Is there a difference, really, about knowing of something in advance and allowing it to happen, paving the way for it to happen (LIHOP), and making it happen on purpose (MIHOP), in terms of the magnitude of the crime, and the evil?

In either case, it amounts to conspiracy to committ mass murder.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
[

Observation. And no, what we THINK we see, is not always what is real..

If you really observed it, you would notice your lazer dot is a peice of paper.

It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper. It's a peice of paper.

reply to post by waypastvne


At exactly the same time of that paper incident, let`s take a look at what was happening around the East face of the North Tower, beginning with the arrival of this helicopter.....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8b3f6037b22e.jpg[/atsimg]

As it flies past the West side of the North Tower, this happens....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e775864102fe.jpg[/atsimg]

Then this.....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ce3aed05981f.jpg[/atsimg]

Then leaves, after this happened...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1394f7a2971f.jpg[/atsimg]

Now hot shot, you wont find pre-determined answers for these questions using google, so explain the above pictures.

"Zelikow's focus was on what he calls 'searing' or 'moulding' events [that] take on 'transcendental' importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experience generation passes from the scene."
~ Wikipedia

"... if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed even in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security..Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with.."
~ Philip Zelokow, pre-9/11

Is there any indication that he was also involved in the Project for a New American Century who published their document "Rebuilding America's Defences" one year prior to September 2001?

It would appear that he's not only a professional public myth maker, but also a psychic..

[edit on 26-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

reply to post by Seventh

I'm not sure that's going to be all that helpful to this thread, those pics, although I do appreciate your effort and contribution.

reply to post by OmegaPoint


Just an observation - the last video you post appears to have a few contradictions. It clearly states that in order to see LEDs you need a special lens on a camera. yet the video clip states that the person taking the video "must have a special lens on " so that the "person taking this footage likely had a special camera". Surely this can be checked easily - it's not like you purchase a special lens for your camera and then forget about it?? So I would expect that there is a statement to support the fact they had this special lens.?

reply to post by troytempest

I have not verified this, but apparently there were, in 2001, some video cameras with built in "near-IR" capability, but I don't know about that with certainty. It has to do with dampening polarization from the sun or something like that.

reply to post by waypastvne

If Satam al-Suqami was in fact piloting that aircraft, it would have to be. Either that or a Wandering Albatross.. (said with a grin)

ALBATROSS
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4a1930faa6cc.jpg[/atsimg]

Well-known species include, the "wandering albatross", a truly huge bird with an 11 foot wingspan.
The plumage of adults is white with black wing tips.
en.wikipedia.org...

But either way it would have to be a HUGE bird or a very large piece of paper and it should be noted that it also passes the face of the far foreground brown building which is probably about a mile from the South Tower.