Do you believe the official 911 story?

[wihosa]

Let's assume that you could find a smoking gun PROVING WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that our government caused 911.

What would you do with it?

The newpapers and MSM wouldn't touch it. They'd spend as much media power as necessary proving that you are nuts.

The government obviously wouldn't do crap about it, either. (except, maybe, kill you).

So even if you could get the news out to the American people, (and even if they believed you 100%) what do you expect them to do about it?

Do you think the armed citizens are going to start a revolution? They haven't so far despite all the revelations about the police state, corrupt economics, open borders and on and on and on. tThe only thing they will go to war over is their precious guns.

Do you expect the military would create a coup d' etat? That's never gonna happen, either.

Are the State governments going to stand up to the Federal government? With what? national guard and state militias are federalized.

Here's my point...your most paranoid fear MIGHT be right.

So what?

Where are you going to find honest men with the power to challenge the system?

Good question. Valid points.
I'm just not toning to go on living the lie.

Really, dude? Is that how you speak on the job site?

The perpetrators want those who question to guess at how it was done so they can sit back and pick at every suggested possibility.

So all who doubt your version of 9/11 are "perpetrators." Woo.

I don't have all the facts, only a real investigation can garner the truth.
Lets start there, then we can figure out what to do next.
Some of the nay sayers are probably part of the cover up, doing their best to ridicule any who doubt the official story.

Yeah ... I'm certain the co-conspirators now patrol these obscure message boards to ridicule "truthers." Man, your rationality lasted all of 1 post at USMB..

Ultimately they will lose, the truth will come out, this is just to big. Polls now show about 1/3 of the public think that at least some of the official story is a lie.
We're coming out of the post traumatic stupor.

You speak only for yourself, Princess, and you sound more like you're coming out of the closet. Congrats.

Was a prosecutor with subpoena power in charge of the investigation?
No, but you believe the whole story lock stock and barrel. Says more about you than about me.

 

[wihosa]

Not true. Clearly we are left with all manner of CT assertions - from the absurd to the insideous - but no matter how thorough the official investigation that would be the case.
The internet has made spawned no shortage of cyber "experts."

Not cyber experts, real experts. You can read what they have to say at AE911. What experts can you point to who support your ridiculous assertion that building seven collapsed completely due to the failure of one column as a result of fire?

I notice you often troll for AE911. Are you at least getting a piece of the pie or are you a volunteer?

Neither. Why are you so afraid of AE911? They are licensed pros. You are????

 

[wihosa]

Good question. Valid points.
I'm just not toning to go on living the lie.

Really, dude? Is that how you speak on the job site?

The perpetrators want those who question to guess at how it was done so they can sit back and pick at every suggested possibility.

So all who doubt your version of 9/11 are "perpetrators." Woo.

I don't have all the facts, only a real investigation can garner the truth.
Lets start there, then we can figure out what to do next.
Some of the nay sayers are probably part of the cover up, doing their best to ridicule any who doubt the official story.

Yeah ... I'm certain the co-conspirators now patrol these obscure message boards to ridicule "truthers." Man, your rationality lasted all of 1 post at USMB..

Ultimately they will lose, the truth will come out, this is just to big. Polls now show about 1/3 of the public think that at least some of the official story is a lie.
We're coming out of the post traumatic stupor.

You speak only for yourself, Princess, and you sound more like you're coming out of the closet. Congrats.

It's comical how important they think they are. Yeah...we're paid to come here and poke holes in a theory that barely resists the prevailing winds due to having so many holes in it already.

And, no, the reason I always request conspiracy theorist provide a narrative is to box them into their story. Rimjob has subscribed to about 3 dozen different interpretations of the JFK assassination and about 50 different versions of 9/11. If you write down what you think happened, then you can't go back later on and say, "Well the video I posted isn't 100% what I think and yada yada yada...." No, you Say A, B, and C, you have to account for A, B, and C.

As I've repeatedly said, I have no theory, because the facts have not been established. There have only been assertions. Only a real investigation by a prosecutor with subpoena can establish the facts.

 

[wihosa]

I notice you troll for AE911. Are you at least getting a piece of the pie or are you a volunteer?

Has to be a volunteer. He's not very good. They should sue him for bringing shame to their site.

I can't believe he's allowed to use power tools.

You can believe it. It true.

 

[wihosa]

Has to be a volunteer. He's not very good. They should sue him for bringing shame to their site.

I can't believe he's allowed to use power tools.

Yeah, obviously he's pitching batting practice at this point. The "I don't know what happened" story is fine if that is all you say. But you can't line up on the side of being a skeptic then when asked to explain the skepticism, fall back on the "I don't know what happened" dodge to avoid explaining your skepticism.

Because if you explain it, and it gets taken apart, you can't be a skeptic any longer. This is why these people refuse to take a stand and write down their explanation. It's too risky.

That must suck to not be able to unleash your thoughts

Nice try, but I won't be sucked into making assertions, that is all we have from you right now. A theory must be based on facts and no facts have been established.

 

[wihosa]

I can't believe he's allowed to use power tools.

Yeah, obviously he's pitching batting practice at this point. The "I don't know what happened" story is fine if that is all you say. But you can't line up on the side of being a skeptic then when asked to explain the skepticism, fall back on the "I don't know what happened" dodge to avoid explaining your skepticism.

Because if you explain it, and it gets taken apart, you can't be a skeptic any longer. This is why these people refuse to take a stand and write down their explanation. It's too risky.
That must suck to not be able to unleash your thoughts

It seems some of these CTs, having spent so much time and effort scouring the fetid bowels of the Internet for "proof" of their CTs, just can't face letting go no matter how shrill and silly they appear.

What's silly is believing things that haven't been proven, but that is what you are doing since there have not been any facts established.

 

[wihosa]

Maybe we weren't around when JFK was assassinated by Lee Oswald so we can't address the "grassy knoll theories" but WE SAW THE FREAKING PLANES HIT THE TOWERS. Nobody in their right mind would consider that Bubba Bill Clinton and George Bush conspired to destroy the World Trade Center.

I was "here" when JFK was assassinated.

Who said Clinton or Bush were involved? For all we know they were as duped as you.

 

[SAYIT]

Good question. Valid points.
I'm just not toning to go on living the lie.

Really, dude? Is that how you speak on the job site?

The perpetrators want those who question to guess at how it was done so they can sit back and pick at every suggested possibility.

So all who doubt your version of 9/11 are "perpetrators." Woo.

I don't have all the facts, only a real investigation can garner the truth.
Lets start there, then we can figure out what to do next.
Some of the nay sayers are probably part of the cover up, doing their best to ridicule any who doubt the official story.

Yeah ... I'm certain the co-conspirators now patrol these obscure message boards to ridicule "truthers." Man, your rationality lasted all of 1 post at USMB..

Ultimately they will lose, the truth will come out, this is just to big. Polls now show about 1/3 of the public think that at least some of the official story is a lie.
We're coming out of the post traumatic stupor.

You speak only for yourself, Princess, and you sound more like you're coming out of the closet. Congrats.

Was a prosecutor with subpoena power in charge of the investigation?
No, but you believe the whole story lock stock and barrel. Says more about you than about me.

Now see if you can find any post of mine in which I claim to "believe the whole story lock stock and barrel." In fact I have posted just the opposite but in true CT form you must lie to make your case because the truth just doesn't support it. The Commission's report is woefully incomplete but still more in line with what I saw on 9/11 than the shrill BS of the 9/11 CT Movement.

 

[FireFly]

Ok I've waited long enough. Again, I don't know who was involved, the President and VP could have been duped as surely as the rest of America.

I'm just saying there are two pieces of evidence which indisputably show that the official story is a lie. The implications of this are so great that it is unthinkable (literally) for most people. But we must confront it because we have been living a lie for over a decade.

OK, number one. Did you know that a third office tower in New York collapsed entirely into its own footprint on 911? Many hours (I think it was like at five or six o'clock) building 7 a 47story modern steel frame office tower collapsed. It was not hit by a plane and had a moderate office fire of unknown source when it went down. No like structure has ever failed like that as a result of fire though many skyscrapers have had bigger and more sustained fires, in fact none have even partially collapsed due to fire alone. Don't take my word for, type Building Seven into google.

There is an organization called AE911 which has over two thousand Architects and Engineers who state unequivocally that it is impossible for a n office fire to cause the collapse of such a structure. It's interesting to note that the building codes were never changed even though this was an unprecedented event.

Second, the plane which supposedly crashed into the Pentagon. Look at the photos of the Pentagon immediately after the explosion, you can see the hole in the side of the building. You can see the destruction inside the collapsed roof. You can see everything EXCEPT the plane! Where did it go? Missiles completely explode when detonated and are obliterated, that's how they are designed. Planes are not missiles, they are not laden with explosives. The wings are full of fuel so they will explode in a crash but the fuselage? No, it's designed to be very strong, even in the worst of crashes there is plane debris to be recovered, think of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie Scotland which blew up in mid air because of a bomb planted on board, there was still enough recovered to piece it back together. Not at the Pentagon. Again look for yourself, where is the plane?

Again I don't know who or how, I only know that these two pieces of evidence are indisputable, though I'm sure some will. Check out the AE911 site, if you have the courage of your conviction. Final note, I'm a general building contractor and I've ask the structural engineer who I work with about building seven, could it collapse due to fire, he immediately said no, the steel members are all coated in insulation to prevent structural failure in a fire. When I asked if he ever says that to anyone he says no because he is afraid it would harm his business.

OMG!!! - Where do these retards come from. This shit has been debunked a million times. There is no way to cover-up a building demolition. If there was any conspiracy it was being caught off guard & not stopping the terrorist fast enough.

Us civilians have no clue what was afoot in the CIA secret covert ops spy world. There were back stabbing double agents & allies. Even Osama Bin Laden was a CIA asset & then turned enemy. So did a lot of other double agents. We know Bush was warned & even Russia's President Putin called Bush the day before the attack & warned him "something big is going to happen. They are planning something." Did we just not figure out what in time, or did the administration just let it happen to start a war, or we were double-crossed.

 

[eots]

ok i've waited long enough. Again, i don't know who was involved, the president and vp could have been duped as surely as the rest of america.

I'm just saying there are two pieces of evidence which indisputably show that the official story is a lie. The implications of this are so great that it is unthinkable (literally) for most people. But we must confront it because we have been living a lie for over a decade.

Ok, number one. Did you know that a third office tower in new york collapsed entirely into its own footprint on 911? Many hours (i think it was like at five or six o'clock) building 7 a 47story modern steel frame office tower collapsed. It was not hit by a plane and had a moderate office fire of unknown source when it went down. No like structure has ever failed like that as a result of fire though many skyscrapers have had bigger and more sustained fires, in fact none have even partially collapsed due to fire alone. Don't take my word for, type building seven into google.

There is an organization called ae911 which has over two thousand architects and engineers who state unequivocally that it is impossible for a n office fire to cause the collapse of such a structure. It's interesting to note that the building codes were never changed even though this was an unprecedented event.

Second, the plane which supposedly crashed into the pentagon. Look at the photos of the pentagon immediately after the explosion, you can see the hole in the side of the building. You can see the destruction inside the collapsed roof. You can see everything except the plane! Where did it go? Missiles completely explode when detonated and are obliterated, that's how they are designed. Planes are not missiles, they are not laden with explosives. The wings are full of fuel so they will explode in a crash but the fuselage? No, it's designed to be very strong, even in the worst of crashes there is plane debris to be recovered, think of the pan am flight over lockerbie scotland which blew up in mid air because of a bomb planted on board, there was still enough recovered to piece it back together. Not at the pentagon. Again look for yourself, where is the plane?

Again i don't know who or how, i only know that these two pieces of evidence are indisputable, though i'm sure some will. Check out the ae911 site, if you have the courage of your conviction. Final note, i'm a general building contractor and i've ask the structural engineer who i work with about building seven, could it collapse due to fire, he immediately said no, the steel members are all coated in insulation to prevent structural failure in a fire. When i asked if he ever says that to anyone he says no because he is afraid it would harm his business.

omg!!! - where do these retards come from. This shit has been debunked a million times. There is no way to cover-up a building demolition. If there was any conspiracy it was being caught off guard & not stopping the terrorist fast enough.

Us civilians have no clue what was afoot in the cia secret covert ops spy world. There were back stabbing double agents & allies. Even osama bin laden was a cia asset & then turned enemy. So did a lot of other double agents. We know bush was warned & even russia's president putin called bush the day before the attack & warned him "something big is going to happen. They are planning something." did we just not figure out what in time, or did the administration just let it happen to start a war, or we were double-crossed.

none of your babble explains the collapse of wtc 7 or the twin towers

 

[SAYIT]

I think it is you who is going for an ego boost. To ignore to obvious is either intentional because your here trying to maintain the cover up or your one of the faux tough guys who hang out on this site.

Only a plane could knock down light poles? Because they are 100feet apart? Nothing else can knock down poles?

Weak.

Well, what else could knock down light poles 100 feet apart. Oh yeah, thats right, you won't speculate. But you insist that a plane crash didn't take place. After all, the only indications are...

The DNA from the passengers
The flight path of the plane
Eye witnesses who saw the plane
CVR indicating the plane was hijacked
Phone calls from the plane saying the plane was hijacked
Wreckage that matches up perfectly with the aircraft, AA77
And the light poles that line up perfectly with the flight path of a plane that hit the Pentagon.

You have ignored all of the above for some reason. We know why.

Any of those assertions examined under oath?

Oh that's right. NO!

Assertions that is all.

Then government officials who testified under oath before the commission:

George John Tenet - Director of Central Intelligence Agency
Colin Powell - Secretary of State
Donald H. Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense
Condoleezza Rice - National Security Advisor
Richard Armitage - Deputy Secretary of State
Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense
Tom Ridge - Secretary of Homeland Security and former Governor of Pennsylvania
John Ashcroft - Attorney General

Past government officials who testified under oath before the commission:

Bill Clinton - former President; testified in private separately from Al Gore. Testimony was recorded and not limited in time.[11]
Al Gore - former Vice President; testified in private separately from Bill Clinton. Testimony was recorded and not limited in time.[11]
Madeleine Albright - former Secretary of State
William Cohen - former Secretary of Defense
Sandy Berger - former National Security Advisor
Richard A. Clarke - former chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council in the George W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations
Janet Reno - former Attorney General
Sibel Edmonds-former FBI translator[12]

9/11 Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SAYIT]

Good question. Valid points.
I'm just not toning to go on living the lie.

Really, dude? Is that how you speak on the job site?

The perpetrators want those who question to guess at how it was done so they can sit back and pick at every suggested possibility.

So all who doubt your version of 9/11 are "perpetrators." Woo.

I don't have all the facts, only a real investigation can garner the truth.
Lets start there, then we can figure out what to do next.
Some of the nay sayers are probably part of the cover up, doing their best to ridicule any who doubt the official story.

Yeah ... I'm certain the co-conspirators now patrol these obscure message boards to ridicule "truthers." Man, your rationality lasted all of 1 post at USMB..

Ultimately they will lose, the truth will come out, this is just to big. Polls now show about 1/3 of the public think that at least some of the official story is a lie.
We're coming out of the post traumatic stupor.

You speak only for yourself, Princess, and you sound more like you're coming out of the closet. Congrats.

Was a prosecutor with subpoena power in charge of the investigation?
No, but you believe the whole story lock stock and barrel. Says more about you than about me.

The commission had subpoena power and used it.

 

[SAYIT]

ok i've waited long enough. Again, i don't know who was involved, the president and vp could have been duped as surely as the rest of america.

I'm just saying there are two pieces of evidence which indisputably show that the official story is a lie. The implications of this are so great that it is unthinkable (literally) for most people. But we must confront it because we have been living a lie for over a decade.

Ok, number one. Did you know that a third office tower in new york collapsed entirely into its own footprint on 911? Many hours (i think it was like at five or six o'clock) building 7 a 47story modern steel frame office tower collapsed. It was not hit by a plane and had a moderate office fire of unknown source when it went down. No like structure has ever failed like that as a result of fire though many skyscrapers have had bigger and more sustained fires, in fact none have even partially collapsed due to fire alone. Don't take my word for, type building seven into google.

There is an organization called ae911 which has over two thousand architects and engineers who state unequivocally that it is impossible for a n office fire to cause the collapse of such a structure. It's interesting to note that the building codes were never changed even though this was an unprecedented event.

Second, the plane which supposedly crashed into the pentagon. Look at the photos of the pentagon immediately after the explosion, you can see the hole in the side of the building. You can see the destruction inside the collapsed roof. You can see everything except the plane! Where did it go? Missiles completely explode when detonated and are obliterated, that's how they are designed. Planes are not missiles, they are not laden with explosives. The wings are full of fuel so they will explode in a crash but the fuselage? No, it's designed to be very strong, even in the worst of crashes there is plane debris to be recovered, think of the pan am flight over lockerbie scotland which blew up in mid air because of a bomb planted on board, there was still enough recovered to piece it back together. Not at the pentagon. Again look for yourself, where is the plane?

Again i don't know who or how, i only know that these two pieces of evidence are indisputable, though i'm sure some will. Check out the ae911 site, if you have the courage of your conviction. Final note, i'm a general building contractor and i've ask the structural engineer who i work with about building seven, could it collapse due to fire, he immediately said no, the steel members are all coated in insulation to prevent structural failure in a fire. When i asked if he ever says that to anyone he says no because he is afraid it would harm his business.

omg!!! - where do these retards come from. This shit has been debunked a million times. There is no way to cover-up a building demolition. If there was any conspiracy it was being caught off guard & not stopping the terrorist fast enough.

Us civilians have no clue what was afoot in the cia secret covert ops spy world. There were back stabbing double agents & allies. Even osama bin laden was a cia asset & then turned enemy. So did a lot of other double agents. We know bush was warned & even russia's president putin called bush the day before the attack & warned him "something big is going to happen. They are planning something." did we just not figure out what in time, or did the administration just let it happen to start a war, or we were double-crossed.

none of your babble explains the collapse of wtc 7 or the twin towers

Nor does any of yours, Princess, and you've been at it a lot longer.

 

[candycorn]

I can't believe he's allowed to use power tools.

Yeah, obviously he's pitching batting practice at this point. The "I don't know what happened" story is fine if that is all you say. But you can't line up on the side of being a skeptic then when asked to explain the skepticism, fall back on the "I don't know what happened" dodge to avoid explaining your skepticism.

Because if you explain it, and it gets taken apart, you can't be a skeptic any longer. This is why these people refuse to take a stand and write down their explanation. It's too risky.

That must suck to not be able to unleash your thoughts

Nice try, but I won't be sucked into making assertions, that is all we have from you right now. A theory must be based on facts and no facts have been established.

You've made nothing but assertions bringing up "deceivers" as if its a foregone conclusion. Which is fine, if you think you've been deceived by others, cool. But then when someone asks why you feel that way, you come up with the lame "I don't know".

I mean there is wreckage all over the Pentagon yet you claim a plane didn't hit there. I ask why. You say you don't know what happened. And you wonder why you're ridiculed?

 

[candycorn]

Ah yes, ridicule, what a handy weapon for suppression of thought.

Speaking of absurd, "the building collapsed completely in seconds due the failure of one of the hundreds of columns".

When you're being ridiculous, ridicule is quite appropriate.

Was the building missing 18 floors. Photographic evidence says yes. You say no. So, yes, you're being ridiculous. Sorry.

Were there bodies found at the Pentagon. Photographic evidence says yes. You say no. So yes, you're being ridiculous. Sorry.

Was there a plane crash at the Pentagon? Photographic evidence says yes. Radar tracking says yes. Eye witnesses who were there say yes. You say no. So yes, you're being ridiculous. Sorry.

If you don't like ridicule, perhaps you should not take such ridiculous stances.

Quick...cue the AE911 jibberish again. It's all you've got.

Missing floors? Is that what you think you see?

I see the curtain wall pulled loose. The exterior of a high rise is called the curtain wall because all it does is enclose the building but provides no structural support.

Yes, the corner of the building is gone up to the 18th floor. It is what is shown on the picture. You see what you want to see just like every other twoofer here.

 

[eots]

when you're being ridiculous, ridicule is quite appropriate.

Was the building missing 18 floors. Photographic evidence says yes. You say no. So, yes, you're being ridiculous. Sorry.

Were there bodies found at the pentagon. Photographic evidence says yes. You say no. So yes, you're being ridiculous. Sorry.

Was there a plane crash at the pentagon? Photographic evidence says yes. Radar tracking says yes. Eye witnesses who were there say yes. You say no. So yes, you're being ridiculous. Sorry.

If you don't like ridicule, perhaps you should not take such ridiculous stances.

Quick...cue the ae911 jibberish again. It's all you've got.

missing floors? Is that what you think you see?

I see the curtain wall pulled loose. The exterior of a high rise is called the curtain wall because all it does is enclose the building but provides no structural support.

yes, the corner of the building is gone up to the 18th floor. It is what is shown on the picture. You see what you want to see just like every other twoofer here.

so is it after all this years is it you still have never even read the report or are intentional trying to deceive ?..because nist concluded the failure of a single column due to fire was the cause of the collapse

 

[eots]

You speak only for yourself, Princess, and you sound more like you're coming out of the closet. Congrats.

Was a prosecutor with subpoena power in charge of the investigation?
No, but you believe the whole story lock stock and barrel. Says more about you than about me.

The commission had subpoena power and used it.

Sep-11-2009 23:46
The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies

Gordon Duff Salem-News.com

(CINCINNATI, Ohio) - In John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue...

The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september112009/911_truth_9-11-09.php

 

[candycorn]

I think it is you who is going for an ego boost. To ignore to obvious is either intentional because your here trying to maintain the cover up or your one of the faux tough guys who hang out on this site.

Only a plane could knock down light poles? Because they are 100feet apart? Nothing else can knock down poles?

Weak.

Well, what else could knock down light poles 100 feet apart. Oh yeah, thats right, you won't speculate. But you insist that a plane crash didn't take place. After all, the only indications are...

The DNA from the passengers
The flight path of the plane
Eye witnesses who saw the plane
CVR indicating the plane was hijacked
Phone calls from the plane saying the plane was hijacked
Wreckage that matches up perfectly with the aircraft, AA77
And the light poles that line up perfectly with the flight path of a plane that hit the Pentagon.

You have ignored all of the above for some reason. We know why.

Any of those assertions examined under oath?

Oh that's right. NO!

Assertions that is all.

Witnesses to the 9/11 Commission took oaths for the testimony they provided I believe.
Witnesses as to what the hijackers did were sworn in at the Zacarias Moussaoui trial.

So, you're wrong about no bodies being found at the Pentagon...do you admit that? Did you see the photos?

U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia
Exhibits P200042-P2000048.

Now you're wrong about testimony not being done under oath.
Moussaoui was convicted by the way.

Have you not done any research on the topic at all?

 

[eots]

well, what else could knock down light poles 100 feet apart. Oh yeah, thats right, you won't speculate. But you insist that a plane crash didn't take place. After all, the only indications are...

The dna from the passengers
the flight path of the plane
eye witnesses who saw the plane
cvr indicating the plane was hijacked
phone calls from the plane saying the plane was hijacked
wreckage that matches up perfectly with the aircraft, aa77
and the light poles that line up perfectly with the flight path of a plane that hit the pentagon.

You have ignored all of the above for some reason. We know why.

any of those assertions examined under oath?

Oh that's right. No!

Assertions that is all.

witnesses to the 9/11 commission took oaths for the testimony they provided i believe.
Witnesses as to what the hijackers did were sworn in at the zacarias moussaoui trial.

So, you're wrong about no bodies being found at the pentagon...do you admit that? Did you see the photos?

u.s.d.c. Eastern district of virginia
exhibits p200042-p2000048.

Now you're wrong about testimony not being done under oath.
Moussaoui was convicted by the way.

Have you not done any research on the topic at all?

those bodies are of pentagon staff and you know that as well dont you ?...another attempt to deceive ? ..have you done any research on the topic at all ??

 

[SAYIT]

Was a prosecutor with subpoena power in charge of the investigation?
No, but you believe the whole story lock stock and barrel. Says more about you than about me.

The commission had subpoena power and used it.

Sep-11-2009 23:46
The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies

Gordon Duff Salem-News.com

(CINCINNATI, Ohio) - In John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue...

The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.

The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies - Salem-News.Com

Typical CTBS and half-truths. Some commissioners had a specific problem with testimony of a NORAD General and Colonel. Additionally some felt top officials and bureaucrats were covering their failures. No Commission member has endorsed any or your silly CTs. None.
If Gordon Duff's opinion is all you have then you have nothing at all, Princess.