I'm curious as to why those here that so completely support the nonsensical version of 9/11, don't pursue obvious distortions like this? http://www.911truth.org/fbi-source-contact-bin-laden-far-back-1993/ It's pretty obvious the FBI had a relationship with OBL so, why do they still accept the continuing coverup so vigorously? There are tons on contradictions with the supposed truth, yet many seem to dismiss it out of hand. Strange.
so do you think the reason republicans are attacking democrats is a coverup so we look at that and not at what they have done? I do not think the two parties could work in a bipartisan enough way to even accomplish a fake 911
Think thats bad? Try doing a FIOA for OBLs medical records. It will be denied. Citizens have privacy rights
There are many very troubling issues concerning the supposed facts of 9/11. It just amazes me how diligently it is obfuscated, and the lengths some will go to cover it up. It's quite depressing, actually.
The proof that the government planned and carried out the attacks is really too clear to obfuscate. Here's a link to some of it on another thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=348380&p=1063729867#post1063729867
It is peculiar that the F.B.I. was able to penetrate al Qaeda in the early 90's when the media, government and 9/11 Commission said neither the F.B.I. or C.I.A. could accomplish that feat. This is a great example of why the public needs to endorse and force full disclosure upon the government in the wake of events like 9/11 because there's always more to the story than what meets the eye and what the government is willing to tell us.
I found an interesting tidbit that highlights the incomplete and ridiculous notion that the Omission report was anything but misleading. An excerpt as follows: -Given the involvement of Saudi terrorists in the attacks, and evidence of Saudi financial support for them, the public deserves more than contradictory and incomplete information from the FBI. The agencys credibility in this matter is not helped by the fact that its investigation of the family was not reported to Congress or mentioned in the independent 9/11 Commission report.- More information here: http://www.911truth.org/saudis-sarasota-fbi/ The public is just supposed to simply accept the gaping holes and contradictory facts the intelligence agencies throw out, and just take everything on blind faith, I suppose. The public needs to wake up, and question the nonsense they're fed. Most of the official story is riddled with holes one could drive a truck through, yet we're never supposed to question the boloney we're fed, I guess. So, if the Saudis are in on the deal, that would seem to explain why the administration rushed the Bin Laden 'associate' out of the country while the water was hot. I think we can ascertain who the criminals here are, and the dots aren't all that hard to connect. Can you say 'inside job'? Trust obviously liars? I don't think we can.
Time to hire a lawyer, gather all the evidence you have and take it to a federal judge! It's open and shut, right?
Congressperson representing the district I live in, as I noted, is retiring. The Senators of the state, both Democrat, which one is retiring, won't be of much help. And the county/town I live in does not have a mayor or someone of equivalent rank. Do you disagree with full disclosure from the government when it comes to events like 9/11?
I agree with full government disclosure, period. You've asked that same question several times in the past, my answer hasn't changed. So your excuse for not taking action is: "It's just too hard, why bother trying? Wouldn't do any good anyhow." That about right?
There's very little I personally consider to be "too hard, why bother trying." I just strongly doubt any significant level of success if I attempt to rely on politicians strictly from my state because it doesn't pertain to any pet issues of theirs, involves what can be construed as national security and doesn't directly involve veterans of the U.S. military. No, I plan on going straight to the top considering the "most transparent administration in history" mantra that has been put forward. I'm just internally debating the message I should construct. Do you have any suggestions, or anything in particular I should mention or not mention?
Asking the same people who buried the truth would yield a different outcome now? I seriously doubt it.
Have you ever heard the idiom "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"? If a person is able to make a large enough splash or make enough noise, then the message they carry can be heard by the masses.
The same questions you have been asking on this forum. You do remember your own questions? Do you feel like one of the biggest obstacles to finding out who knew what and when is the so called 'truth movement' itself? Are the no planers and inside jobbers preventing the serious questions from being heard and, if so, could these agents be the real cover up artists?
1) Yes, but I asked for suggestions. Do you have any particular question of mine in mind that I should use? 2) Perhaps, perhaps and perhaps.
I thought the commission report was supposed to be the final say on everything. Are there different answers 'available' now?
