Skip to main content

The Unsatisfying Investigation Behind The Crime Of The Century.

The Neocon Agenda during this century (which is possibly the primary focus of this blog) was pretty much facilitated by this event. It shouldn't have been, looking back, since it made perpetual war justifiable by an isolated band of mavericks welding box cutters, we're told, loosely affiliated by mere assertion to the boogyman of the time, Al Qaeda.
Even worse than that, uninvolved parties like Sadam had less to do with 9/11 it seems than (once again by assertion) he did with WMDS. But it is what it is. The farce started with this event.

The perpetrators of the worst terror attack in recent times may have died in the planes that hit WT1 and WT2, but it has now emerged that the support structure of liaison's, safehouses etc in the US and their admin points of contact all appear to have been very well organized , these guys that eventually boarded the aircrafts did NOT keep entirely to themselves as we were lead to believe.

The Coverage of the film showing the first plane hitting the towers was not aired until Sept 12. Nobody can fathom why Bush told this lie, but it tells us how to position him on the issue.

But something very weird happened, the story from the first few hours of the planes hitting the World Trade Centre, pretty much stayed the story, almost as if it was scripted, and no discernable progress was made. A redacted, practical joke of a report emerged, and Al Qaeda, the US funded parters who are in the good books these days (in their Al Nusra and Al Qaeda guises) backed to overthrow, amongst others, Assad in Syria, were blamed.

But as we know, they went after Sadam Hussein instead. Let's face it, that's simply A strategy which we simply cannot accept they really believed in Washington, especially for their given reasoning. The details mattered little it seems, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were relying on a mixture of ignorance and bigotry from the voting majority.

And, even worse, it didn't make sense to have such an obviously slack investigation for the crime of the century did it?

The Conspiracy Theorists have lots of Ideas, I have only questions, starting with the clearest inconsistency, the fact that WT7 went down later that evening without being hit, in what I can only understand to be a controlled detonation.

They deny this for some reason, but its the only real certainty requiring no investigation because only a mental patient won't be able to tell. You don't need to know buildings dont fall from fire, or that it was hardly on fire, hardly hit by any rubble etc, you look. You just look, it is there if your mind is open, it really is within all our abilities to see it!

Take a good look....

Its just not good enough to pretend it isnt 100‰ clear! This alone raises many questions. But without investigation we cannot get answers, how unsatisfactory in every possible way!

But let's get stuck in should we?

Resource Guide to 9/11 organisations wanting answers, and presenting their cases:

Below is The Youtube Channel Compiled Indirectly By The Community and Members of  the Thousands Of Proffessional Architects & Engineer's Who Call Bullshit On The Official Report

Architects & Engineers For Truth:


Full Feature 

The Bizarre Reporting: Reports from the BBC reporting WT7 collapsed more than 20 minutes too early. This one featured the building still standing in the background!

I mean, how weird is this? This sort of thing really gets my ones attention no? And the cut out at the end. Its almost like conspiracy bait, and in this case I'm biting!

Even Weirder than the actual broadcast are all the Youtube reactions to this event, which actually happened.
Some dont know that the occurance is not contested and cite it fake, but the crew and presenteras discuss it often so those are a waste of time. 
 Look for "Debunked" and "Explained" versions that sprung up to explain the possible rationale. They are even more bizarre because they explain absolutely nothing!
It's the clearest instance I can think of revealing the unscientific community based need to believe. The sceptic possesing critical thought faculties is much better positioned to avoid these traps, in this case you simply need to look for posts showing the interview's with the reporters concerned trying to provide some sort of reasoning or understanding, which is simirlarly unconvincing, but hard to understand as it is, it happened, and it shouldn't be quite so easy to brush aside.

A very interesting broader perspective short, well worth a view, less on direct evidence on the actual day, more about linking some basic, prudent, unsensational detective work to events surrounding 9/11. The sort of basic policework we HAVEN'T seen from the authorities.

The Bush Administration were wrong about Sadam, but Canadian Economics Professor Michel Chussodovsky is always right, here he raises the issues we all are already thinking...
This from the Author of the defining book on Globalization, "The Globalization of War" needs to be taken VERY seriously, this is not a man in the habit of being wrong.

  1. It Appears the investigation has been on ice for a decade.
  2. An outline of what was to become the 9/11 Commission Report was produced before the investigation began. The outline was kept secret from the Commission’s staff and appears to have determined the outcome of the investigation.
  3. The 9/11 Commission claimed sixty-three (63) times in its Report that it could find “no evidence” related to important aspects of the crimes.
  4. One person, Shayna Steinger, issued 12 visas to the alleged hijackers in Saudi Arabia. Steiger issued some of the visas without interviewing the applicants and fought with another employee at the embassy who tried to prevent her lax approach.
  5. Before 9/11, the nation’s leading counter-terrorism expert repeatedly notified his friends in the United Arab Emirates of top-secret U.S. plans to capture Osama bin Laden. These treasonous leaks prevented Bin Laden’s capture on at least two separate occasions.
  6. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was caught stealing documentsfrom the National Archives that had been requested by the 9/11 Commission. The Commission had previously been denied access to the documents but the White House reluctantly agreed to turn them over just as Berger was trying to steal them.
  7. The official story of the failed air defenses on 9/11 was changed several times and, in the end, paradoxically exonerated the military by saying that the military had lied many times about its response. The man who was behind several of the changing accounts was a specialist in political warfare (i.e. propaganda).
  8. Military exercises being conducted on the day of 9/11 mimicked the attacks as they were occurring and obstructed the response. NORAD commander Ralph Eberhart sponsored those exercises, failed to do his job that day, and later lied to Congress about it (if the 9/11 Commission account is true).
  9. third skyscraper collapsed late in the afternoon on 9/11. This was WTC 7, a 47-story building that the government’s final report says fell into its own footprint due to office fires. The building’s tenants included U.S. intelligence agencies and a company led in part by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Meetings were scheduled there to discuss terrorism and explosives on the morning of 9/11.
  10. News agencies, including BBC and CNN, announced the destruction of WTC 7 long before it happened. One BBC reporter announced the collapse while viewers could see the still-standing building right behind her in the video. Years later, after claiming that it had lost the tapes and then found them again, BBC’s answer to this astonishing report was that everything was just “confusing and chaotic” that day. Of course, one problem with this is that the news agencies predicted the exact building, of the many damaged in the area, that would collapse. Another big problem is that no one could have possibly predicted the collapse of WTC 7 given the unprecedented and unbelievable official account for how that happened.
  11. Construction of the new, 52-story WTC 7 was completed two years before the government knew what happened to the first WTC 7. In fact, when the new building was completed in 2006, the spokesman for the government investigation said, “We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” The construction of the new building, without regard for how the first one was destroyed, indicates that building construction professionals in New York City did not believe it could ever happen again.
  12. Ultimately, building construction codes were not changed as a result of the root causes cited by the National Institute for Standards and Technology for destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings. This fact shows that the international building construction community does not believe that the WTC buildings were destroyed as stated in the official account.
  13. AMEC, the company that just finished rebuilding the exact spot where Flight 77 was said to hit, was put in charge of cleanup at the WTC and the Pentagon. The man who ran the company, Peter Janson, was a long-time business associate of Donald Rumsfeld.
  14. The response of the U.S. Secret Service to the 9/11 attacks suggests foreknowledge of the events in that the agency failed to protect the president from the obvious danger posed by terrorists.
  15. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission notified the FBI of suspected 9/11 insider trading transactions. That evidence was ignored and the suspects were not even questioned by the FBI or the 9/11 Commission.
There are, of course, many more incredible facts about 9/11 that continue to be ignored by authorities and much of the media. Let’s hope that the next major terrorist attack results in legitimate reporting and unified calls for truth before fourteen years have passed.

Popular posts from this blog

Dīvide et imperā: How To Defeat The Most Effective Social Control Weapon In Human History

Many different empires, cultures and nations have existed in history and while the details, styles, values and aesthetics keep changing, the core structure remains unchanged. In order to benefit from social coperation and steal reward in excess of the labour and value you invest, you cannot take it by brute force for extended periods of time without facing the wrath of the crowds. The crowds need to give it to you willingly or unknowingly. There was one exception to this synopsis, the Feudal System  but there is more to that than people realise, it's a post for a later day and deserves full scrutiny and parrellels do manifest. The support of the home crowd is also needed to win wars. No army has ever been effective fighting under duress, they would assemble, arm  and immediatly turn on you.

Before the current reigning Judeo-Christian Anglo American Empire of today there were other more monolithic empires that the loosely ideologically aligned old money banking dynasties, globalis…

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

For example if you are of the opinion that the earth has one moon, the earth revolves around the sun etc you are already wrong. Well sort of. The politicpl world is black and white, the scientific world is nuanced, see…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.

Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…