New 9/11 Doc
- Thread starter HallofFame
- Start date
Kay, 20 stories plowed through 90 solid stories in less than 20 seconds? Ridiculous. You need to go back to school son.
For those with blind faith in our leaders: Operation Northwoods
U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba
In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.
America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."
Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.
The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.
"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.
"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."
Gunning for War
The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.
The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.
Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof … that the fault lies with the Communists et all Cuba [sic]."
The plans were motivated by an intense desire among senior military leaders to depose Castro, who seized power in 1959 to become the first communist leader in the Western Hemisphere — only 90 miles from U.S. shores.
The earlier CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles had been a disastrous failure, in which the military was not allowed to provide firepower.The military leaders now wanted a shot at it.
"The whole thing was so bizarre," says Bamford, noting public and international support would be needed for an invasion, but apparently neither the American public, nor the Cuban public, wanted to see U.S. troops deployed to drive out Castro.
Reflecting this, the U.S. plan called for establishing prolonged military — not democratic — control over the island nation after the invasion.
"That's what we're supposed to be freeing them from," Bamford says. "The only way we would have succeeded is by doing exactly what the Russians were doing all over the world, by imposing a government by tyranny, basically what we were accusing Castro himself of doing."
'Over the Edge'
The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military.
Click link for balance: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1
The official documents:
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba
In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.
America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."
Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.
The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.
"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.
"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."
Gunning for War
The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.
The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.
Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof … that the fault lies with the Communists et all Cuba [sic]."
The plans were motivated by an intense desire among senior military leaders to depose Castro, who seized power in 1959 to become the first communist leader in the Western Hemisphere — only 90 miles from U.S. shores.
The earlier CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles had been a disastrous failure, in which the military was not allowed to provide firepower.The military leaders now wanted a shot at it.
"The whole thing was so bizarre," says Bamford, noting public and international support would be needed for an invasion, but apparently neither the American public, nor the Cuban public, wanted to see U.S. troops deployed to drive out Castro.
Reflecting this, the U.S. plan called for establishing prolonged military — not democratic — control over the island nation after the invasion.
"That's what we're supposed to be freeing them from," Bamford says. "The only way we would have succeeded is by doing exactly what the Russians were doing all over the world, by imposing a government by tyranny, basically what we were accusing Castro himself of doing."
'Over the Edge'
The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military.
Click link for balance: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1
The official documents:
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
I guess the fire fighters were just lying. It's not just that they heard explosions, it's THEIR description of what happened.
(31) The U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction. Despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers. (Many U.S. officials have alleged that 9/11 was a false flag operation by rogue elements of the U.S. government; but such a claim is beyond the scope of this discussion. The key point is that the U.S. falsely blamed it on Iraq, when it knew Iraq had nothing to do with it.).
(32) Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country.
(17) The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com
(32) Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country.
(17) The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 04, 2008
the 9/11 Commissioners had conflicts of interest. And we already knew that Philip Zelikow had huge conflicts of interest, which the new book The Commission explores.
But did you know that a 9/11 Commissioner recently said that all of the 9/11 Commission staff had a conflict of interest?
Specifically, 9/11 Commissioner and former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman just said on NBC Nightly news:
“We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way - conflicts of interest" (3:48 into video)He went on to say:
"All of the staff had, to a certain extent, some conflict of interest" (4:09 into video)This is important because many people have assumed that -- even if Zelikow and the Commissioners had conflicts of interest -- the staff would at least do a thorough and unbiased job in investigating what happened on 9/11. We now know this is not true.
Indeed, Lehman strongly implies that the Commission was purposely set up so that every single person involved would have a conflict of interest which would prevent them from conducting an honest investigation.
Lehman himself is a textbook example of conflict of interest. In 1998, 9/11 Commission executive director Zelikow published an article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, entitled Catastrophic Terrorism: Imagining the Transformative Event. Some two years later, PNAC picked up the Zelikow language, saying that the campaign to convince the public to allow expanded use of U.S. military force around the world "is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor". Lehman was a member of PNAC, and a signatory to PNAC's plea for "a new Pearl Harbor". See this video and this essay.
When taken with other facts undermining the Commission's credibility (and see this), Lehman's revelation should completely destroy the idea that there has been any real investigation into 9/11.
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/02/lehman-commission-purposely-set-up-so.html
the 9/11 Commissioners had conflicts of interest. And we already knew that Philip Zelikow had huge conflicts of interest, which the new book The Commission explores.
But did you know that a 9/11 Commissioner recently said that all of the 9/11 Commission staff had a conflict of interest?
Specifically, 9/11 Commissioner and former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman just said on NBC Nightly news:
“We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way - conflicts of interest" (3:48 into video)He went on to say:
"All of the staff had, to a certain extent, some conflict of interest" (4:09 into video)This is important because many people have assumed that -- even if Zelikow and the Commissioners had conflicts of interest -- the staff would at least do a thorough and unbiased job in investigating what happened on 9/11. We now know this is not true.
Indeed, Lehman strongly implies that the Commission was purposely set up so that every single person involved would have a conflict of interest which would prevent them from conducting an honest investigation.
Lehman himself is a textbook example of conflict of interest. In 1998, 9/11 Commission executive director Zelikow published an article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, entitled Catastrophic Terrorism: Imagining the Transformative Event. Some two years later, PNAC picked up the Zelikow language, saying that the campaign to convince the public to allow expanded use of U.S. military force around the world "is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor". Lehman was a member of PNAC, and a signatory to PNAC's plea for "a new Pearl Harbor". See this video and this essay.
When taken with other facts undermining the Commission's credibility (and see this), Lehman's revelation should completely destroy the idea that there has been any real investigation into 9/11.
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/02/lehman-commission-purposely-set-up-so.html
- Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”
I like it when Nat brings all the dirty laundry of our remarkably, squeaky-clean leaders into the discussion. I commend him for that.
It's funny how people can be suspect, and downright accusatory and want retribution, when it's their alleged opposing party doing bad things. Look at the way "conservatives" want Hillary's head on a pike because she has put our country at risk. There are hundreds of variables like that.
But, when that same group is collectively potentially betraying us, they refuse to even consider it! Like, NO WAY would the people in power ever GET TOGETHER and do anything bad... not to us, their own people! NO!
Governments, Presidents, Parliaments, Aristocrats, Kings, Queens, Dictators, Pharaohs have been sacrificing their people for treasure, power, resource and influence for as long as there have been people. It sucks to be one of those people and realize "Man! These people don't give a sh*t about us!" They don't.
It's funny how people can be suspect, and downright accusatory and want retribution, when it's their alleged opposing party doing bad things. Look at the way "conservatives" want Hillary's head on a pike because she has put our country at risk. There are hundreds of variables like that.
But, when that same group is collectively potentially betraying us, they refuse to even consider it! Like, NO WAY would the people in power ever GET TOGETHER and do anything bad... not to us, their own people! NO!
Governments, Presidents, Parliaments, Aristocrats, Kings, Queens, Dictators, Pharaohs have been sacrificing their people for treasure, power, resource and influence for as long as there have been people. It sucks to be one of those people and realize "Man! These people don't give a sh*t about us!" They don't.
Donald Rumsfeld and the Demolition of WTC 7
Posted on May 22, 2014 by Kevin Ryan
When former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked about World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), he claimed that he had never heard of it. This was despite the unprecedented destruction of that 47-story building and its relationship to the events of 9/11 that shaped Rumsfeld’s career. Although not hit by a plane, WTC 7 experienced free fall into its own footprint on the afternoon of 9/11—through the path of what should have been the most resistance. The government agency charged with investigating the building’s destruction ultimately admitted that it had been in free fall during a portion of its descent. That fact makes explosive demolition the only logical explanation. Considering how WTC 7 might have been demolished leads to some interesting facts about Rumsfeld and his associates.
The one major tenant of WTC 7 was Salomon Smith Barney (SSB), the company that occupied 37 of the 47 floors in WTC 7. A little discussed fact is that Rumsfeld was the chairman of the SSB advisory board and Dick Cheney was a board member as well. Rumsfeld had served as chairman of the SSB advisory board since its inception in 1999. According to the financial disclosures he made in his nomination process, during the same period Rumsfeld had also been a paid consultant to the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet. Rumsfeld and Cheney had to resign from their CIA and SSB positions in 2001 when they were confirmed as members of George W. Bush’s cabinet.
Click link for balance:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/donald-rumsfeld-demolition-wtc-7.html
Posted on May 22, 2014 by Kevin Ryan
When former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked about World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), he claimed that he had never heard of it. This was despite the unprecedented destruction of that 47-story building and its relationship to the events of 9/11 that shaped Rumsfeld’s career. Although not hit by a plane, WTC 7 experienced free fall into its own footprint on the afternoon of 9/11—through the path of what should have been the most resistance. The government agency charged with investigating the building’s destruction ultimately admitted that it had been in free fall during a portion of its descent. That fact makes explosive demolition the only logical explanation. Considering how WTC 7 might have been demolished leads to some interesting facts about Rumsfeld and his associates.
The one major tenant of WTC 7 was Salomon Smith Barney (SSB), the company that occupied 37 of the 47 floors in WTC 7. A little discussed fact is that Rumsfeld was the chairman of the SSB advisory board and Dick Cheney was a board member as well. Rumsfeld had served as chairman of the SSB advisory board since its inception in 1999. According to the financial disclosures he made in his nomination process, during the same period Rumsfeld had also been a paid consultant to the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet. Rumsfeld and Cheney had to resign from their CIA and SSB positions in 2001 when they were confirmed as members of George W. Bush’s cabinet.
Click link for balance:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/donald-rumsfeld-demolition-wtc-7.html
Quick question. Those controlled demmolitions you speak of do they not start from the bottom? So can we agree that the twin towers falling started where the planes hit. No?
So when the top of one of the towers started falling someone hit a button so the rest of the building woukd fall? Is that what you are saying? Really? It is obvious to sane people that the top of the building fell before anything happened below. So in essence what you are saying is that the govt was able to get explosives in place so that when the building begins falling from where the plane hits they were able to blow the bottom of the building to get it to fall. Really?
Then where did the plane go if the wreckage is not at the Pentagon? Did they land the plane somewhere and kill the people?
You have a good video of the side of the building that was not damaged when the North Tower fell. What it does not show is the damaged side that the link provides -I would imagine it is done by placing thermite explosive charges in strategic areas and then setting them off. I feel pretty sure that is how its done. In fact, that is exactly what i see happening right here!
That's just a classic demolition. If fire did this, then demolitions are no longer needed. Wanna bring a building straight down? No need for explosives. Just set fire to it. I'll never go into another skyscraper if they're that flimsy.
If you were trying to imply I don't know WHO did it, or WHEN they did it... I sure don't. I have no idea who did it, or when they did it. I don't know who did the demolitions (or when) in all the other demolition gifs I showed on page 1. But, I know they're all demolitions.
If I hear shotgun fire off in the distance. I don't need to see the person, or know where they got their shotgun. or how old they are, or if they're 6 feet tall to know it's a shotgun that I just heard.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.htm
As to your "they placed thermite explosives" in strategic areas which would be a given in a controlled demo how much would they need? I think that the amount of explosives would have to be very large or as you say "I'll never go into another skyscraper if they're that flimsy". If it is that easy to bring down a building why not just plan a few "strategic bombs" and bring down the building without flying 2 planes into the Towers?
Experts said it would take 100 pounds of thermite - at a minimum - to take out one column. And it would have to remain in close contact as it cut through. The nuts will talk about "painted thermite" which would be about as effective as squirting lighter fluid on a steel column. Additionally, thermite has never...once...in history...been used to bring down a steel frame building. EVER.
And, these idiots crying that "fire can't collapse a bldg" would have to explain the interior collapse of four floors of WTC5 caused by...you guessed it...fire.
This thread needs to go legendary. I haven't laughed this much at a HROT thread in a long time.
Last edited:
Thanks for that post! I'd never heard of Cleland resigning. I typically trust Democracy Now as a source .
It would take 100lbs of thermite, and yet you believe a regular fire would have weakened the columns enough, in one section mind you, to have brought the entire building down the way it fell? You're an idiot.
Beating wife insult? That's usually what little girls resort to, when they're being put in their place.
Such a naughty little girl Tar. naughty, naughty.
Once again, you made an error and resorted to a personal attack. He wasn't talking to me.
Sorry if your reading comprehension is slipping. I made a statement of fact, I know that is foreign to you. Nowhere did I claim he was speaking to or about you. I very simply made a factual statement based on your actions. You choosing to consider it a personal attack is your issue to deal with.
In a discussion did you repeatedly call me names? Yes, see how easy that is to actually answer a question?
You really have problems. And to answer your question, no, I didn't repeatedly call you names. I postulated some scenarios and said that if anyone believed a certain thing, that person is an idiot. That's a statement of fact. It was up to you to decide whether you fit the description. Don't blame others for your choices.
In what way? cidhawkeye, having embarrassed himself on another board, is stalking me over here, coming out of nowhere to attack me.
I told him, finally, that he needs a timeout and I'll help give him one. The same goes for this board....and any other to which he may trail me in the future.
There would be a difference between an explosion to severe a beam or column and the effect of heat and stress on a beam or column.
I know it is hard for you to believe. Maybe it is a conspiracy and they used sub par steel from China.
Don't read this link if you believe that only a controlled demo could have brought down Tower 7.
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm
Question for those of you who think the collapse of the Twin Towers was a controlled demolition.
Who did it?
Did al Qaeda operatives get into each of those towers and plant all the necessary charges?
Or was this some nefarious false flag plot by Cheney's crowd, or maybe Mossad? Someone else?
Look, I'm not saying that al Qaeda might not have planned something that ambitious. We've seen that they are very ambitious planners. But I am questioning that they could have pulled it off. I'm guessing that's a long-term project involving lots of people and lots of explosives. It seems beyond their capability. And if they had all those explosives in place, why have the whole thing hinge on successful hijackings? Just blow them up.
9/11 WAS A CONSPIRACY. Of course it was. It was a conspiracy of al Qaeda jihadists. Duh. That much is clearly true.
So when we say the collapse of the TTs was a conspiracy, what we are actually saying is that there were TWO CONSPIRACIES. One to hijack planes, another to make sure the buildings came down. I'm not ruling out the possibility of 2 conspiracies. But it does seem less probable.
AQ proved they can get a small number of dedicated soldiers to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Pretty darn impressive. But not really a big operation. I have seen no credible proof that AQ could also mount the building demolition operation. And if they could, and if those guys didn't set off the charges in person, then why haven't there been more such attacks? Would they really stop there?
Who did it?
Did al Qaeda operatives get into each of those towers and plant all the necessary charges?
Or was this some nefarious false flag plot by Cheney's crowd, or maybe Mossad? Someone else?
Look, I'm not saying that al Qaeda might not have planned something that ambitious. We've seen that they are very ambitious planners. But I am questioning that they could have pulled it off. I'm guessing that's a long-term project involving lots of people and lots of explosives. It seems beyond their capability. And if they had all those explosives in place, why have the whole thing hinge on successful hijackings? Just blow them up.
9/11 WAS A CONSPIRACY. Of course it was. It was a conspiracy of al Qaeda jihadists. Duh. That much is clearly true.
So when we say the collapse of the TTs was a conspiracy, what we are actually saying is that there were TWO CONSPIRACIES. One to hijack planes, another to make sure the buildings came down. I'm not ruling out the possibility of 2 conspiracies. But it does seem less probable.
AQ proved they can get a small number of dedicated soldiers to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Pretty darn impressive. But not really a big operation. I have seen no credible proof that AQ could also mount the building demolition operation. And if they could, and if those guys didn't set off the charges in person, then why haven't there been more such attacks? Would they really stop there?
Donald Rumsfeld and the Demolition of WTC 7
Posted on May 22, 2014 by Kevin Ryan
When former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked about World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), he claimed that he had never heard of it. This was despite the unprecedented destruction of that 47-story building and its relationship to the events of 9/11 that shaped Rumsfeld’s career. Although not hit by a plane, WTC 7 experienced free fall into its own footprint on the afternoon of 9/11—through the path of what should have been the most resistance. The government agency charged with investigating the building’s destruction ultimately admitted that it had been in free fall during a portion of its descent. That fact makes explosive demolition the only logical explanation. Considering how WTC 7 might have been demolished leads to some interesting facts about Rumsfeld and his associates.
The one major tenant of WTC 7 was Salomon Smith Barney (SSB), the company that occupied 37 of the 47 floors in WTC 7. A little discussed fact is that Rumsfeld was the chairman of the SSB advisory board and Dick Cheney was a board member as well. Rumsfeld had served as chairman of the SSB advisory board since its inception in 1999. According to the financial disclosures he made in his nomination process, during the same period Rumsfeld had also been a paid consultant to the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet. Rumsfeld and Cheney had to resign from their CIA and SSB positions in 2001 when they were confirmed as members of George W. Bush’s cabinet.
Click link for balance:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/donald-rumsfeld-demolition-wtc-7.html
Posted on May 22, 2014 by Kevin Ryan
When former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked about World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), he claimed that he had never heard of it. This was despite the unprecedented destruction of that 47-story building and its relationship to the events of 9/11 that shaped Rumsfeld’s career. Although not hit by a plane, WTC 7 experienced free fall into its own footprint on the afternoon of 9/11—through the path of what should have been the most resistance. The government agency charged with investigating the building’s destruction ultimately admitted that it had been in free fall during a portion of its descent. That fact makes explosive demolition the only logical explanation. Considering how WTC 7 might have been demolished leads to some interesting facts about Rumsfeld and his associates.
The one major tenant of WTC 7 was Salomon Smith Barney (SSB), the company that occupied 37 of the 47 floors in WTC 7. A little discussed fact is that Rumsfeld was the chairman of the SSB advisory board and Dick Cheney was a board member as well. Rumsfeld had served as chairman of the SSB advisory board since its inception in 1999. According to the financial disclosures he made in his nomination process, during the same period Rumsfeld had also been a paid consultant to the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet. Rumsfeld and Cheney had to resign from their CIA and SSB positions in 2001 when they were confirmed as members of George W. Bush’s cabinet.
Click link for balance:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/donald-rumsfeld-demolition-wtc-7.html
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 04, 2008
the 9/11 Commissioners had conflicts of interest. And we already knew that Philip Zelikow had huge conflicts of interest, which the new book The Commission explores.
But did you know that a 9/11 Commissioner recently said that all of the 9/11 Commission staff had a conflict of interest?
Specifically, 9/11 Commissioner and former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman just said on NBC Nightly news:
“We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way - conflicts of interest" (3:48 into video)He went on to say:
"All of the staff had, to a certain extent, some conflict of interest" (4:09 into video)This is important because many people have assumed that -- even if Zelikow and the Commissioners had conflicts of interest -- the staff would at least do a thorough and unbiased job in investigating what happened on 9/11. We now know this is not true.
Indeed, Lehman strongly implies that the Commission was purposely set up so that every single person involved would have a conflict of interest which would prevent them from conducting an honest investigation.
Lehman himself is a textbook example of conflict of interest. In 1998, 9/11 Commission executive director Zelikow published an article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, entitled Catastrophic Terrorism: Imagining the Transformative Event. Some two years later, PNAC picked up the Zelikow language, saying that the campaign to convince the public to allow expanded use of U.S. military force around the world "is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor". Lehman was a member of PNAC, and a signatory to PNAC's plea for "a new Pearl Harbor". See this video and this essay.
When taken with other facts undermining the Commission's credibility (and see this), Lehman's revelation should completely destroy the idea that there has been any real investigation into 9/11.
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/02/lehman-commission-purposely-set-up-so.html
the 9/11 Commissioners had conflicts of interest. And we already knew that Philip Zelikow had huge conflicts of interest, which the new book The Commission explores.
But did you know that a 9/11 Commissioner recently said that all of the 9/11 Commission staff had a conflict of interest?
Specifically, 9/11 Commissioner and former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman just said on NBC Nightly news:
“We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way - conflicts of interest" (3:48 into video)He went on to say:
"All of the staff had, to a certain extent, some conflict of interest" (4:09 into video)This is important because many people have assumed that -- even if Zelikow and the Commissioners had conflicts of interest -- the staff would at least do a thorough and unbiased job in investigating what happened on 9/11. We now know this is not true.
Indeed, Lehman strongly implies that the Commission was purposely set up so that every single person involved would have a conflict of interest which would prevent them from conducting an honest investigation.
Lehman himself is a textbook example of conflict of interest. In 1998, 9/11 Commission executive director Zelikow published an article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, entitled Catastrophic Terrorism: Imagining the Transformative Event. Some two years later, PNAC picked up the Zelikow language, saying that the campaign to convince the public to allow expanded use of U.S. military force around the world "is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor". Lehman was a member of PNAC, and a signatory to PNAC's plea for "a new Pearl Harbor". See this video and this essay.
When taken with other facts undermining the Commission's credibility (and see this), Lehman's revelation should completely destroy the idea that there has been any real investigation into 9/11.
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/02/lehman-commission-purposely-set-up-so.html
- Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”
