Official conspiracy theory of 9/11 - full of holes

[pberq]

As Michael Ruppert has reminded us, it is not necessary to look at aspects of 9/11 that require expert analysis.

To show that 9/11 was an inside job, one thing we can do is look at the details of the whitewash by the 9/11 Commission. Why did they publish a report that was so fraudulent?

Here's something I posted on another thread:


The bottom line is that the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is not supported by the facts as widely reported.

I suggest that everyone read Griffin's two books, and especially "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions".

Here is a small sample of what Griffin reports about the omissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission Report:

1. Issues regarding the alleged hijackers:
a. no investigation into the reports that six of the 19 alleged hijackers turned up alive after 9/11;
b. no investigation into the reports of boozing and whoring by hijackers who were supposedly devout Muslims;
c. no investigation into the reports that clues about Atta were planted.
d. no investigation into the reports that Hani Hanjour, supposedly the pilot of AA 77, was totally inept as a pilot
e. Most importantly – there is little publicly available evidence that the 19 alleged hijackers were actually on the flights.

2. The WTC collapses – all I can say is read Griffin’s chapter on this and decide for yourself. At the very least, the official story is full of holes, especially regarding WTC7.

3. The Pentagon strike – two points:
a. What about the Pentagon’s anti-missile system? Either the aircraft that hit the Pentagon had a military transponder, or somebody disabled the system.
b. What about the videos? Why did the FBI confiscate the videos?

4. The behavior of Bush and the Secret Service on 9/11
a. no investigation into the failure of the Secret Service to protect the President while the country was under attack. Did they know he was not a target?

5. Advance warning of the attacks
a. The Commission basically ignored most reports that there was widespread and specific advance knowledge about the attacks – including insider trading, FBI reports, warning to Ashcroft to stop flying commercial planes, the many warnings from foreign governments, etc, etc.

I hope Mr. Griffin doesn’t mind me posting a few paragraphs from p. 51 of his book:

“Ashcroft and David Schippers

“This is, moreover, not the only omission about reports suggesting that the FBI had rather specific advance information about the attacks. Two days after 9/11, Attorney David Schippers publicly declared that over six weeks prior to 9/11, FBI agents had given him information about attacks planned for "lower Manhattan." This information, Schippers claimed, was highly specific, including the dates, the targets, and the funding sources of the terrorists. Schippers said further that the FBI field agents told him that their investigations had been curtailed by FBI headquarters, which threatened the agents with prosecution if they went public with their information. Finally—to get to the part of Schippers' claim that is most relevant to our present concern—he reported that six weeks prior to 9/11, he tried to warn Attorney General Ashcroft about the attacks, but that Ashcroft would not return his calls.

“One might suspect, of course, that the Attorney General's office was receiving all sorts of crank calls and that people in the office ignored the calls from Schippers because they assumed that it was one more of these. David Schippers, however, had been the Chief Investigative Counsel for the US House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee in 1998 and its chief prosecutor for the impeachment of President Clinton in 1999. He should have, accordingly, been both well known and well respected in Republican circles.

“We would assume, then, that the Commission would have asked Ashcroft about the claims publicly made by Schippers. Did Ashcroft know about his calls? If so, why did he not return them? But we find no sign in the Commissions report that these questions were asked.”

Griffin goes on to note that there is not one reference to David Schippers in the The 9/11 Commission Report.

5. What about the special relationship between the Bush administration, the Saudi royal family and the bin Laden family?
a. no investigation into the reports of OBL’s visit to the American Hospital in Dubai in July 2001.
b. no investigation into the reports of Saudi advance knowledge of 9/11.
c. no investigation into the reports of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda

6. What about allegations that FBI headquarters blocked investigations that might have prevented 9/11 or, post 9/11, shed light on who carried out the attacks. Here the Commission clearly engaged in damage control, distorting or omitting important parts of this issue.

7. What about the considerable evidence pointing to involvement of Pakistan and its ISI in 9/11?
a. The report makes no mention of General Mahmoud Ahmad’s visit to Washington from Sept. 4 to several days after 9/11, or his breakfast meeting with Porter Goss and Bob Graham on the morning of 9/11. Most important is that is makes no mention of reports that Ahmad ordered one of his ISI agents to wire $100,000 to Mohamed Atta.
b. There are several other important issues invovling Pakistan that are reported in Griffin's book.


The above is only a small sample of some of the points raised by Griffin in his book on the 9/11 Commission. Again, it does not take an expert in engineering to see that, at the very least, there has been a large coverup of who was behind 9/11 and of what really happened that day.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.