Thursday, July 5, 2012

The 9/11 Commission Report versus the Official Narrative of 9/11

     What if the 9/11 Commission Report failed to support the “official” narrative of 9/11? What if the 9/11 Commission Report flatly contradicted the “official” narrative of 9/11? 
     The 9/11 Commission Report in our time has several things in common with the Bible during the Middle Ages. We’re told that the 9/11 Commission Report has authority that must not be questioned—that it should be accepted entirely on faith. Some people do question it, and they’re scorned for it. Very few people have actually read it. (During the Middle Ages, few people read the Bible for themselves because they were unable to do so. In our time, very few people have read the 9/11 Commission Report because they choose not to do so.) 
       In both cases, not reading the book in question is no barrier to expressing opinions on it; because, in both cases, we have earthly authorities claiming to tell us what it says. During the Middle Ages, it was the Catholic Church; in our time, it’s the corporate-owned “news” media. 
     Over the past few months, I’ve been doing what heretics have done in every century; I’ve been studying a supposedly sacrosanct book for myself. In this case, it’s the 9/11 Commission Report. I haven’t finished my study of the report, but I’d like to share with y’all some of what I've found. You probably won’t be surprised at the news, but you’ll almost certainly be surprised that these items came from the 9/11 Commission Report. 
      I’ll share other items as I assemble them in readable form. The introduction begins with a news article on page ix. The title of the article is “HOUSE GIVES WAY ON A SEPT. 11 COMMISSION; CONGRESS IS SET TO CREATE IT.” Here are some excerpts from the December 17, 2002 article: 
     “Yielding to intense pressure from families of Sept. 11 victims, the White House agreed last night to a Congressional compromise that would create an independent commission to investigate the terrorist attacks…. 
      “The 10-member commission…is intended to be unflinching in assigning blame for specific government failures…. 
      “Senator Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader, said…that the administration was stalling on the plan because it could not control the commission’s eventual findings.” [Emphasis mine] 
     On page xv, we see the headline, “9/11 COMMISSION SAYS U.S. AGENCIES SLOW ITS INQUIRY.” The article says in part: 
      “The [9/11 Commission] said…that its work was being hampered by the failure of executive branch agencies, especially the Pentagon and the Justice Department, to respond quickly to requests for documents and testimony. 
      “The panel also said the failure of the Bush administration to allow officials to be interviewed without the presence of government colleagues could impede its investigation, the commission’s chairman suggesting today that the situation amounted to “intimidation” of the witnesses…. 
     “[The] commission’s Republican chairman and Democratic vice chairman… [declared] that they had received only a small part of the millions of sensitive government documents they have requested from the executive branch…. 
     “[The] commission’s leaders said that federal agencies under Mr. Bush’s control were not cooperating quickly or fully….The coming weeks will tell whether we will be able to do our job within the time allotted.” [Emphasis mine. By the way, the official beginning of the investigation was November 27. I have no explanation for the dateline for the above article.] 
     On page xvi, we read that, on October 26, 2003, the commission threatened to subpoena the necessary files from Bush’s executive branch. Remember that the Commission was authorized to investigate 9/11 for eighteen months. By this time, eleven months had already passed. 
     The next two articles (on pages xvii and xviii) cover events of November 13 and December 4. The first tells us that the Bush administration, in order to avoid a lawsuit, agreed to giving the Commission “limited access” to the documents. It said in part, “[Panel] officials said the pact imposed substantial limits on access….” 
      The 9/11 Commission issued a subpoena for New York City’s records related to 9/11, saying that the city’s refusal “significantly impeded” their investigation. Two weeks later, on December 4, Mayor Bloomberg agreed to give the Commission access to the documents. In early February 2004, President Bush agreed to extend the investigation for another two months, until late July (xix). 
     In a March 31 article (xx), Bush agreed to allow National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to publicly testify under oath. Here’s a video clip of Rice lying under oath to the 9/11 Commission:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=CcrgeuLb3dQ&NR=1 
     The quotes you just read came from just the first few pages of the 9/11 Commission Report. The rest of the book is chock full of findings that cast doubt on the official version of events as told by the corporate-owned media. As I further sift through it and arrange information for future articles, I’ll make further reports. 
     For now, let me jump ahead a few hundred pages and offer you a quote for comparison. On May 16, 2002, Condoleezza Rice, who would later under oath to the 9/11 Commission, famously said, “I don't think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile." From many, many sources, you already know that that statement was a lie. Did you also know that the 9/11 Commission Report exposed Rice’s lie before anybody else did? Read this quote from page 394 of the 9/11 Commission Report, referring to a conversation that took place in late August or early September 2001:      
     “There was substantial disagreement between Minneapolis agents and FBI headquarters as to what Moussaoui was planning to do. In one conversation, between a Minneapolis supervisor and a headquarters agent, the latter complained that Minneapolis’s FISA [Foreign Intelligence Service Act] request was couched in a manner intended to get people ‘spun up.’ The supervisor replied that was precisely his intent. He said he was ‘trying to keep someone from taking a plane and crashing into the World Trade Center.’ The headquarters agent replied that this was not going to happen and that they did not know if Moussaoui was a terrorist.” [Emphasis mine.] 
      The American Action Report warmly welcomes the 9/11 Commission into the ranks of kooky conspiracy theorists. As time allows, I’ll share some of their other rants with y’all. In the meantime, I encourage y’all to read the report for yourselves.

2 comments:

  1. The 9/11 Commission Report is much like the NIST WTC Reports, and even the Warren Commission Report.

    The bald faced lie is in the Summery of the works. When one reads the entirety of the working pages they contradict the summery.

    "The Big Lie" always depends on the majority of a people not caring beyond the emotional outbursts prompted by trauma based PR.
    \\][//

    ReplyDelete
  2. Quantum Binary Signals

    Get professional trading signals delivered to your cell phone every day.

    Follow our trades right now & gain up to 270% per day.

    ReplyDelete