911
See other 911 Articles
Title: A Senator Just Went on 60 Minutes Claiming the 9/11 Attackers Had “Support from Within the US”
Source:
Activist Post
URL Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2016/04 ... upport-from-within-the-us.html
Published: Apr 10, 2016
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2016-04-11 08:43:28 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 8958
Comments: 40
Underneath the visitors’ center in the United States Capitol is a secure room where the House Intelligence Committee stores highly classified files. In that room is a file titled “Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters.” It is twenty-eight pages long and it contains apparently damning information on the events leading up to the attacks on 9/11. “Those twenty-eight pages tell a story that has been completely removed from the 9/11 Report,” said Democratic Congressman Stephen Lynch back in 2014. It has been well-known by informed Americans that Lynch, read the “stunning” documents, and claimed they “offer[ed] direct evidence of complicity on the part of certain Saudi individuals and entities.” However, the 28-pages have been conveniently avoided by those in the mainstream media — until now. On Sunday night’s episode of 60 Minutes, former Florida governor, Democratic U.S. Senator and onetime chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Bob Graham will implicate the US ally on national television. On Saturday, CBS News released a trailer for the episode and an accompanying article. “I think it’s implausible to believe that 19 people, most of whom didn’t speak English, most of whom had never been in the United States before, many didn’t have a high school education, could have carried out such a complicated task without some support from within the United States,” says Graham in the clip. Until now, anyone who questioned the highly suspect ‘official’ narrative on the 9/11 attacks has been labeled a conspiracy theorist or a kook. But when current and former members of Congress, U.S. officials, and the 9/11 Commissioners themselves call for the release of these 28-pages, which tells a different story of what happened that fateful day, people will listen. CBS reports, Graham and his Joint Inquiry co-chair in the House, former Representative Porter Goss (R-FL) — who went on to be director of the CIA — say the 28 pages were excised from their report by the Bush Administration in the interest of national security. Graham wouldn’t discuss the classified contents, but says the 28 pages outline a network of people he believes supported hijackers in the U.S. He tells Steve Kroft he believes the hijackers were “substantially” supported by Saudi Arabia. Asked if the support was from government, rich people or charities, the former senator replies, “all of the above.” This information being aired on mainstream television is nothing short of historical and is a bombshell to those seeking the truth. For over a decade, the families of the victims have demanded the full story on what happened and have only been met with ridicule and closed doors. Even the 9/11 Commission was railroaded. Not only were the commissioners given extremely limited funds to conduct their investigation, but they were also met with dead ends in almost every direction. For starters, only $15 million was given to investigate 9/11. Compare that to the over $60 million that was spent investigating Clinton’s affairs with Monica and the travesty becomes greater. This was the largest act of murder in recent US history, and more money was spent investigating a philandering president! Also, Senator Max Cleland, who resigned from the 9/11 Commission after calling it a “national scandal,” stated in a 2003 PBS interview, I’m saying that’s deliberate. I am saying that the delay in relating this information to the American public out of a hearing… series of hearings, that several members of Congress knew eight or ten months ago, including Bob Graham and others, that was deliberately slow walked… the 9/11 Commission was deliberately slow walked, because the Administration’s policy was, and its priority was, we’re gonna take Saddam Hussein out. In 2006, the Washington Post reported that several members of the 9/11 Commission suspected deception on the part of the Pentagon. As reported, Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate. Whether they took part in the attacks or not, the actions of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush after the attacks were nothing short of criminally suspicious as well. On April 27, 2004 the White House released a statement saying there would be no recording or formal transcription of the interview. The duo also demanded to be interviewed together, against the wishes of the commissioners and government protocol. According to the New York Times, Under a pact with the White House that allowed all its 10 members in the interview, the commission is permitted to take a note taker, but not a recording device. The panel said it did not press for a formal transcription of the session, letting the White House decide. Whatever is in those 28-pages, the United States government does not want you to know. As is the case most of the time when the government keeps a secret, it’s because they have been doing something they shouldn’t have. It is high time we, as American citizens, demand they release this report. Please share this article with your friends and family to let them know that those who remain suspicious about the tragic events that unfolded on September 11, 2001, are not crazy conspiracy theorists, but rather good people who want real justice for those responsible. 
Bush and his then VP Cheney told the commission that they would not be formally interviewed in relation to the attacks on September 11.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 18.
#1. To: no gnu taxes, TooConservative, misterwhite, hondo68, A K A Stone, jeremiad, Logsplitter (#0)
“I think it’s implausible to believe that 19 people, most of whom didn’t speak English, most of whom had never been in the United States before, many didn’t have a high school education, could have carried out such a complicated task without some support from within the United States,” says Graham in the clip. The guy must be a kook.
He's attention-whoring. And this is a very sensationalist piece, starting with the headline, a tabloid grabber headline known as a clickbait. I glanced through the article and found nothing I haven't seen a thousand times before in your many Truthiness articles.
These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001. It was lied to by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Bush Administration and as for Bush and Cheney…well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secret, off the record, not under oath and behind closed doors. It didn’t bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is of “little practical significance“. Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims’ family members’ questions) and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO.
You've been posting this old boilerplate of links for so long that you seem unaware that some of its links have gone dead. I wonder how many times you've posted it, over and over, at various sites. I suppose you have it stored in textfiles, ready for quick copy-paste use. Do you have it indexed? Do you have a variety of similar linkbait summaries ready to go, just to provide some variety?
I notice that you are usually one of the first to post on threads concerning 9/11. Yet, in all the times you have posted, you have never even attempted to dispute the claims made. It's always shoot the messenger, call anyone who disputes the official narrative a "kook", and basically shill for the fed.gov. It's the same with all of you Official 9/11 Fairy Tale cultists.
There's nothing wrong with calling kooks kooks. Would you be happier if I called it "kookery-challenged"?
There's nothing wrong with calling kooks kooks. Until now, anyone who questioned the highly suspect ‘official’ narrative on the 9/11 attacks has been labeled a conspiracy theorist or a kook. But when current and former members of Congress, U.S. officials, and the 9/11 Commissioners themselves call for the release of these 28-pages, which tells a different story of what happened that fateful day, people will listen. More "kooks"? 1500+ Engineers and Architects Question the 9/11 Commission Report 400+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals Question the 9/11 Commission Report 250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals Question the 9/11 Commission Report 300+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members Question the 9/11 Commission Report
You can muster all the expertise and evidence that a man can lay is hands on, but there will continue to be those that will pour cold water on any rational objections to the official fairy story. For some of them it is, I believe, more than a mere avocation. History will regard it as misprision of treason. Thanks for your efforts, Deckard.
#20. To: randge (#18)
Your 40th post since signing up here on 3/3/16. Congrats. I see you stopped posting at 4um on 1/31/16 on a Cliven Bundy thread. Too dead over there or just tired of the same-old, same-old?
Unfortunately, TC is a prime example of that syndrome - willful ignorance. Or maybe it's more than that, perhaps cognitive dissonance. “Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.” - Frantz Fanon
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestOn Sunday night’s episode of 60 Minutes, former Florida governor, Democratic U.S. Senator and onetime chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Bob Graham will implicate the US ally on national television.
#2. To: Deckard (#1)
The guy must be a kook.
#3. To: TooConservative (#2)
Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes, the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidence literally fell into the FBI’s lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.
The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of WTC7, Able Danger, Ptech, Sibel Edmonds, OBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening.
#4. To: Deckard (#3)
These 19 hijackers, devout blah-blah-blah...
#6. To: TooConservative (#4)
#9. To: Deckard (#6)
It's always shoot the messenger, call anyone who disputes the official narrative a "kook", and basically shill for the fed.gov.
#15. To: TooConservative (#9)
#18. To: Deckard (#15)
Replies to Comment # 18.
#23. To: randge (#18)
You can muster all the expertise and evidence that a man can lay is hands on, but there will continue to be those that will pour cold water on any rational objections to the official fairy story.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 18.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]