Indisputable 911 coverup facts

[Edx]

Well theres lots I could list but lets start with just 2 of my favourite ones:

1. Zero fighter responce. NORAD (officially) failed 4 times in 1 day to intercept any of the planes despite having a good track record. Planes were not scrambled effectively or they were sent off in the wrong direction. You could say this was because of the many war games going on that day, including one that apparently included terrorists flying hyjacked planes into buildings.

Astonishingly the Norad chief testified to the 911 Commission that the war games actually HELPED the fighter responce! So they are saying their responce would have been even worse if these war games hadent been going on!


2. The white house lied about air safety which is why many of the first responder clean up crews are now dead or very sick and dying. I havent double checked this next fact but apparently the enviromental services department even sent a memo to the white house saying that the air was not safe, and they changed it to say it was!



Why are these coverups? Because no one has been fired or brought up on charges regarding any of this.


I dont know why a conspiracy is so hard for some people to believe. We know they lied about the reasons they wanted a war. They wanted to invade Afghanistan and Irac for years. We know they lied about the WMDs, thats also a coverup and conspriacy by definition.


There are unreasonble conspiracy theorists and a lot of arguments that are bounced around that are false, but there are a lot of unreasonable "debunkers" as well. Its like they arent even willing to consider any of it, but theres a lot of reason to question the official story without having to believe in silly no plane theories, that there was no plane on Shanksville, or not even that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well theres lots I could list but lets start with just 2 of my favourite ones:

1. Zero fighter responce. NORAD (officially) failed 4 times in 1 day to intercept any of the planes despite having a good track record. Planes were not scrambled effectively or they were sent off in the wrong direction. You could say this was because of the many war games going on that day, including one that apparently included terrorists flying hyjacked planes into buildings. However the Norad chief testified to the 911 Commission that the war games HELPED the fighter responce! So they are saying their responce would have been even worse if these war games hadent been going on!

2. The white house lied about air safety which is why many of the first responder clean up crews are now dead or very sick and dying.



Why are these coverups? Because no one has been fired or brought up on charges regarding any of this.


I dont know why a conspiracy is so hard for some people to believe. We know they lied about the reasons they wanted a war. They wanted to invade Afghanistan and Irac for years. We know they lied about the WMDs, thats also a coverup and conspriacy by definition.


There are unreasonble conspiracy theorists, but there are a lot of unreasonable "debunkers" as well. Its like they arent even willing to consider any of it, but theres a lot of reason to question the official story without having to believe in silly no plane theories, that there was no plane on Shanksville, or not even that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition.

We must also take into consideration the contradiction in the military's two competing narratives. The first narrative is the military testimony given to the 9/11 Commission (which it omitted), Laura Brown's memo and NORAD's timeline, which was put out a few days after 9/11. The second narrative that claims to be "the authentic military history of 9/11" and the one that the 9/11 Commission based its story on, is the tapes-based account, which itself omits certain key communications in higher levels. Now, why would the military lie in its first account (the testimony), when the tapes-based account actually favored the military more than their own testimony? In one, if not both instances, the military had to have lied.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

2. The white house lied about air safety which is why many of the first responder clean up crews are now dead or very sick and dying.

"The second example: A week after 9/11, the Bush administration's EPA issued a statement assuring the people of New York City that the 'air is safe to breathe.' It specifically said that the air did not contain 'excessive levels of asbestos' - even though a Boston Globe story a few days earlier had reported 'levels of asbestos up to four times the safe level, placing unprotected emergency workers at risk of disease.' Later, a volunteer's shirt that had been stored in a plastic bag since 9/11 revealed levels '93 000 times higher than the average typically found in the environment in US cities.'
By 2006, 70 percent of the 40 000 Ground Zero workers, according to a study of 10 000 of them (most of whom were young people), had suffered respiratory problems, with a third having reduced lung capacity.' Dr. Robert Herbert of Mount Sinai Medical Center, which conducted the study, said that 'as a result of their horrific exposures, thousands of World Trade Center responders have developed chronic and disabling illnesses that will likely be permanent.' Other studies showed, moreover, that at least 400 cases of cancer had already appeared. Attorney David Worby, who is leading a class-action lawsuit, says that 80 of his clients have already died. That so many cased developed so quickly is alarming, because many types of cancer, such as asbestosis, can take 15 to 20 years to develop. Experts expect the eventual death toll to be in the thousands. According to Worby, 'More people will post 9/11 from these illnesses, than died on 9/11.'
One EPA scientist, Dr. Cate Jenkins, later testified that the EPA's statement about the air was not a mistake but a lie. Why did the EPA lie? According to EPA Inspector General Nikki Tinsley, pressure came from the White House, which 'convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones,' a consequence of which was that workers did not wear protective gear." - Prof. David Ray Griffin. Debunking 9/11 Debunking

 

[Edx]

Oh but you see you'll have people disregarding this in favour of attacking David Griffins other arguments that he has less evidence for. Ever notice how they never say "thats a good point, shame about some of the others". They cant accept any argument is good. Thats what annoys me about most "debunkers", they cant be reasonable.

I wish people would realise what is important points and which ones arent. Even the WTC coming down the way the offical story says doesnt really change a whole lot, it just makes the government even worse than they already are.

 

[BigCedar]

Well theres lots I could list but lets start with just 2 of my favourite ones:

1. Zero fighter responce. NORAD (officially) failed 4 times in 1 day to intercept any of the planes despite having a good track record. Planes were not scrambled effectively or they were sent off in the wrong direction. You could say this was because of the many war games going on that day, including one that apparently included terrorists flying hyjacked planes into buildings.

Astonishingly the Norad chief testified to the 911 Commission that the war games actually HELPED the fighter responce! So they are saying their responce would have been even worse if these war games hadent been going on!


2. The white house lied about air safety which is why many of the first responder clean up crews are now dead or very sick and dying. I havent double checked this next fact but apparently the enviromental services department even sent a memo to the white house saying that the air was not safe, and they changed it to say it was!



Why are these coverups? Because no one has been fired or brought up on charges regarding any of this.


I dont know why a conspiracy is so hard for some people to believe. We know they lied about the reasons they wanted a war. They wanted to invade Afghanistan and Irac for years. We know they lied about the WMDs, thats also a coverup and conspriacy by definition.


There are unreasonble conspiracy theorists and a lot of arguments that are bounced around that are false, but there are a lot of unreasonable "debunkers" as well. Its like they arent even willing to consider any of it, but theres a lot of reason to question the official story without having to believe in silly no plane theories, that there was no plane on Shanksville, or not even that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition.

Edx,
Sources for these facts?
And how does the air quality issue fit into a broader cover up?

 

[Edx]

Edx,
Sources for these facts?

Sorry Big I probably wont be able to provide detailed sources until Monday, but its all freely and easily obtainable information on the internet.

To help get you started:

Try searching on google, I tried: 911 asbestos first responders sick and got these hits. You could probably try some other variations and get some more.
http://tinyurl.com/29lkbk

On the matter of Norad, briefly, you can easily look up on the 911 Commission report (which is availible on the internet) how planes were flying around off unresponsive and off course while NORAD communications seem to show confusion and that none of the planes were intercepted.

One of the only 911 skeptic films I'd actually reccomend due to it being very well produced and containing only a few minor errors (as far as I can see) is 911: Press for Truth which goes into some of the details of the NORAD issues near the beginning. But from what I remember from it, theres still more information regarding it that isnt in there either. Im not quite sure what google search string will best help you on this one but if you watch the film, or at least the NORAD part, you might get a good overview of the issue and have a place to start with.

If you still need more detailed sources later it will probably have to wait till Monday

And how does the air quality issue fit into a broader cover up?

It might not, but thats no reason to ignore it. Its still a cover up. They wanted to save money. Why has no one been fired for incompetence? At the very least, thats what should have happened. Why arent more people asking for this to be investigated? Why are the "debunkers" ignoring and lumping all the arguments together discounting it all in total as "loony" or "crazy", its just very frustrating to see them do that.

 

[oldbetang]

I dont know why a conspiracy is so hard for some people to believe. We know they lied about the reasons they wanted a war. They wanted to invade Afghanistan and Irac for years. We know they lied about the WMDs, thats also a coverup and conspriacy by definition.

Who is "we"? I certainly don't know that they lied about the reasons for war. How can you be so sure? When you say that they lied about the WMDs, can you offer some proof of that? The 2002 NIE stated that Iraq had WMDs and WMD programs. Can you demonstrate that the Intelligence community knowingly provided a false report on Iraq's WMDs, and that the administration knew that the information contained within the 2002 NIE was false?

 

[The Nihilist]

Guys, listen. I only have aluminum foil, no tin foil. Will that still keep them from being able to control my mind?

 

[ChristianoNF]

The fall of the towers is evidence alone that there was more behind 9/11 then what the Bush administration told us. Even the 9/11 commission said that they were not even given close to all the information.

If we should be talking to anyone, it should be the 9 Israeli agents who were arrested in Jersey in a van, with videocamers recording the impact and destruction of the two towers. Not to mention the socks full of money and box cutters in their van.

 

[oldbetang]

The fall of the towers is evidence alone that there was more behind 9/11 then what the Bush administration told us. Even the 9/11 commission said that they were not even given close to all the information.

If we should be talking to anyone, it should be the 9 Israeli agents who were arrested in Jersey in a van, with videocamers recording the impact and destruction of the two towers. Not to mention the socks full of money and box cutters in their van.

More truther nonsense! How is the collapsing of the towers evidence that there was more behind 9/11 than "what the Bush administration told us"? The "9 Israeli agents who were arrested in Jersey in a van, with videocamers recording the impact and destruction of the two towers. Not to mention the socks full of money and box cutters in their van" is just bunk. Another myth from the long list of truther myths.

 

[Daniel19]

Edx, you've made some good points.

If you don't mind I'd like to share some more information regarding coverup.

Colleen Rowley, a former FBI agent, wrote a letter to FBI director Robert Muller after 9/11 which raised several outstanding issues which she wanted answers to. In the letter, she wrote,

"During the early aftermath of September 11th, when I happened to be recounting the pre-September 11th events concerning the Moussaoui investigation to other FBI personnel in other divisions or in FBIHQ, almost everyone's first question was "Why?--Why would an FBI agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case? (I know I shouldn't be flippant about this, but jokes were actually made that the key FBIHQ personnel had to be spies or moles, like Robert Hansen, who were actually working for Osama Bin Laden to have so undercut Minneapolis' effort..."

Another important 9/11 issue is the Able danger program, which I'm sure quite a few of you are familar with. One of the key testimonies regarding Able danger was to come from Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, who had information indicating that four 9/11 hijackers were identified prior to 9/11. His clearence was suddenly revoked on the grounds of "improperly flashing military identification while drunk and stealing pens".

The USA Today story regarding this can be seen here

The 9/11 Commission itself now questions whether it was told the truth by the Pentagon. As the Washington post reports,

"Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission..."

The 9/11 Commission was from the beginning closely connected with the current administration. Philip Zelikow was one of the closest links. This article from United Press International touches on some of these issues,

"The panel set up to investigate why the United States failed to prevent the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was rocked Thursday by the bizarre revelation that two of its senior officials were so closely involved in the events they are investigating that they have had to be interviewed as part of the inquiry."

The problem is that so much legitimate information gets mixed in with disinformation, which in the end gets dismissed altogether.

 

[BigCedar]

I agree that people are likely trying to cover their butts in a huge national defense failure. Show me a political world where this would not be the case.
It cuts both ways, disinfo may get lumped in with the real deceit, but "covering up" that we got caught with our pants down or ignored foreign intelligence is not fantastic enough for the average conspiracist.
Most of whom display the same certainty of truth, a special understanding of reality and a oppressed hero fantasy that is displayed by creationists.

 

[whatbogsends]

I agree that people are likely trying to cover their butts in a huge national defense failure. Show me a political world where this would not be the case.
It cuts both ways, disinfo may get lumped in with the real deceit, but "covering up" that we got caught with our pants down or ignored foreign intelligence is not fantastic enough for the average conspiracist.
Most of whom display the same certainty of truth, a special understanding of reality and a oppressed hero fantasy that is displayed by creationists.

The problem, BigCedar, is that when we point out flaws in the official version, and i personally have stated that it is clear that there was (a) some government foreknowledge and (b) evidence of coverup - those defending the OV spew the same ad homs and rhetoric that they do when arguing against "there was no plane" "truthers" - who are not the majority, or even a significant minority of those who doubt the official version of the events.

When the people who've conducted the official investigation feel that they've been deceived (see the linked article in Daniel19's post), we can be reasonably sure that there was a deliberate cover up. What is very unclear, is whether that the purpose of the cover up is: to hide incompetence, to protect allies that may be involve, or even to hide (active or passive) complicity. Suggesting the possiblity of government complicity - and demanding that the real facts surrounding the event come to light - is a far cry from claiming that the government was behind 9/11. Finding the truth should be the goal of everyone on both sides of the debate.

 

[Daniel19]

Good points, whatbogsends.

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I think something that a lot of people forget about is the anthrax attacks that took place shortly after Sept. 11th. The anthrax attacks provide a very interesting insight.

The FBI officially claims that the case has "gone cold".

The Associated Press reported on October 23, 2001 that while no one (at least the general public) knew what was coming,

"On the night of the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House Medical Office dispensed Cipro to staff accompanying Vice President Dick Cheney as he was secreted off to the safety of Camp David, and told them it was a precaution, according to one person directly involved."

This story is very interesting, to say the least. The BBC program Newsnight conducted an investigation into the anthrax attacks. Susan Watts, a BBC correspondent stated that the investigation trail led to the possibility of a CIA program that was testing the posibility of sending anthrax through the mail,

"Initially the investigation looked for a possible Al-Qaeda or Iraqi link, then to a domestic terrorist, then inwards to the US bio-defence programme itself. But in the last four or five weeks the investigation seems to have run into the sand...There have been several theories as to why ...

Three weeks ago Dr Barbara Rosenberg - an acknowledged authority on US bio-defence - claimed the FBI is dragging its feet because an arrest would be embarrassing to the US authorities. Tonight on Newsnight, she goes further...suggesting there could have been a secret CIA field project to test the practicalities of sending anthrax through the mail - whose top scientist went badly off the rails..."

Susan Watts comments on the testing of anthrax samples in comparison to military sites,

"They're looking for differences between this so-called Florida "strain" and stored samples from a number of US military sites

This is the first time genomic analysis has been used for microbial forensics...Tim Read is one of the world's leading authorities on the genetic make-up of anthrax . He compared the fingerprint of the Florida strain with that of samples originating at Fort Detrick."

Guess where the anthrax was confirmed to have originated from? The publication New Scientist confirmed that the strain came from Fort Detrick (USAMRIID), Maryland.

"The data released uses codenames for the reference strains against which the attack strain was compared. But New Scientist can reveal that the two reference strains that appear identical to the attack strain most likely originated at the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick (USAMRIID), Maryland."

 

[Edx]

Who is "we"? I certainly don't know that they lied about the reasons for war.

For starters look up Downing Street Memo.

How can you be so sure?

Because thats what the evidence shows, and Im willing to admit and accept when evidence is shakey or not for claims. Its just not the case with this.

When you say that they lied about the WMDs, can you offer some proof of that?

They are on public record saying many times that Saddam definitely has WMDs and that they even know where they are. After they couldnt find any they backtracked and started saying they didnt say what is already on record.

The 2002 NIE stated that Iraq had WMDs and WMD programs. Can you demonstrate that the Intelligence community knowingly provided a false report on Iraq's WMDs, and that the administration knew that the information contained within the 2002 NIE was false?

Well that would be included in the deception:

"Today we know these assessments were wrong. And, as our inquiry will show, they were also unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available evidence." - The Republican chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) commenting on the 511-page report.

"The CIA's continued secrecy claims on a document that has been widely and publicly discussed by top CIA officials, and now by the Senate, is wrong, unreasonable, and largely unsupported by the available evidence." - Thomas Blanton director of the National Security Archive

A quick google search will find at least 2 weapons inspectors including Hans Bliq that says they couldnt find any WMDs and that his capability had actually weakend. They wanted a war and they decieved the public in order to get us into one.

 

[Edx]

I agree that people are likely trying to cover their butts in a huge national defense failure. Show me a political world where this would not be the case.

And if that is the case then we should be pushing for people to be fired for incompetence. And thats at the very least. I also think theres also a case for criminal negligence by various people. But no one at all has had to take any responsibility for any of this!

It cuts both ways, disinfo may get lumped in with the real deceit, but "covering up" that we got caught with our pants down or ignored foreign intelligence is not fantastic enough for the average conspiracist.

Most of whom display the same certainty of truth, a special understanding of reality and a oppressed hero fantasy that is displayed by creationists.

Absolutely, and believe me I also dont agree with a lot of them! I find it frustrating and somewhat depressing actually that the 911 Truth movement has been essentially wasted after developing such a bad name with disinformaton and very loud people who dont check their facts, or argue with speculation as if its a hard fact.

I'd say the government loves extreme conspiracy theorists because it deflects attention away from them and the real truth. FOr example I believe they quite likely wanted people to come up with the idea that there wasnt a plane at the pentagon . Thats why they didnt release any footage of it, they wanted this idea to spread. In fact I cant think of any reason why they wouldnt, because there most certianly was a plane. If I say Im skeptical of 911 now people automatically assume I think the WTC was blown up, that I think a missile hit the Pentagon and that there wasnt any plane at Shanksville, or worse, that I think there werent any planes at all!

 

[ChristianoNF]

More truther nonsense!

Just because it does not play to your partisanship you simply dismiss it as nonsense? Sad.

How is the collapsing of the towers evidence that there was more behind 9/11 than "what the Bush administration told us"?

Because of they physical impossibility that building #7 would collapse (in such controlled manner as it did) from the minimal damage it received.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html

Not to mention that manner and very fact of the collapse of the two main WTC buildings is shrouded in doubt as well.

The "9 Israeli agents who were arrested in Jersey in a van, with videocamers recording the impact and destruction of the two towers. Not to mention the socks full of money and box cutters in their van" is just bunk. Another myth from the long list of truther myths.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34250,00.html
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/09/WTC.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0622-05.htm
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/arrested_israelis.html


"By way of deception, thou shalt do war" - Motto of the Mossad, Israels secret spy agency.

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information
."

You should watch the Fox News report on it, quite interesting
http://100777.com/usa/israeli_spyring

 

[BigCedar]

Another view on Building 7
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/conspiracistsmisrepresentwtc7'scondition





Countdown to accusations of government shill.

 

[Avatar]

I think the whole thing is a big lie by both sides and the twin towers are still standing. The whole thing was done on a hollywood stage.

 

[jamesrwright3]

I admit there was government imcompetence when it came to 09/11..but the fact is the US felt invincible before 09/11...and the security measures we enacted after 09/11 wouldn't have been able to be enacted without the attacks..people were complaining about security measures AFTER THE ATTACk..i.e. airport security..patriot act..and even if Atta was identified, nothing we could have done. He commited no crime before 09/11.