Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA
Subscribe to TNRA

The 9/11 Commission claims that we found ‘no evidence’

02 November 2011 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Kevin Ryan | 30 October 2011
http://digwithin.net/2011/10/30/no-evidence/

When Underwriters Laboratories fired me for challenging the World Trade Center (WTC) report that it helped create with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), it said “there is no evidence” that any firm performed the required fire resistance testing of the materials used to build the Twin Towers. Of course, that was a lie.

With this experience in mind, I checked to see how many times the 9/11 Commission Report used the phrase “no evidence,” and noted in particular the times the Commission claimed to have “found no evidence” or that “no evidence was uncovered.”  I discovered that the phrase “no evidence” appears an amazing 63 times.  An example is the dubious statement — “There is no evidence to indicate that the FAA recognized Flight 77 as a hijacking until it crashed into the Pentagon (p 455).”

Of these 63 instances, some variation of “we found no evidence” appears three dozen times.  This seems to be an unusually high number of disclaimers begging ignorance, given that the Commission claims to have done “exacting research” in the production of a report that was the “fullest possible accounting of the events of September 11, 2001.”

The number of times these “no evidence” disclaimers appear in the report is doubly amazing considering how infrequently some of the most critical witnesses and evidence are referenced.  For example, the FAA’s national operations manager, Benedict Sliney, who was coordinating the FAA’s response that day, appears only once in the narrative (and twice in the notes).  And the FAA’s hijack coordinator, Michael Canavan, appears only twice in the narrative, with neither of those citations having anything to do with Canavan’s assigned role as the key link between the military and the FAA, a role whose failure the Commission says caused the attacks to succeed. Similarly, the testimony of FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who says Bin Laden worked with the U.S. government up until the day of the attacks, is mentioned only once in the notes. William Rodriguez, the WTC janitor who has publicly testified to basement level explosions, is not mentioned at all despite having given testimony to the Commission.

It seems a good idea to look more closely at the instances in which the attorneys, myth experts and military intelligence operatives who wrote the 9/11 Commission Report said that they did not find evidence.  Here are a few of the most interesting examples.

  • We found no evidence, however, that American Airlines sent any cockpit warnings to its aircraft on 9/11.” p11
  • Concerning the hypothesis that one of the alleged hijackers was sitting in the cockpit jump seat since takeoff on Flight 93:  “We have found no evidence indicating that one of the hijackers, or anyone else, sat there on this flight.” p12
  • Within minutes of the second WTC impact, Boston Center asked the FAA Command Center (Benedict Sliney’s team) to advise aircraft to heighten cockpit security, but the Commission said:  “We have found no evidence to suggest that the Command Center acted on this request or issued any type of cockpit security alert.” p23
  • With respect to requests to warn aircraft to heighten cockpit security — “While Boston Center sent out such warnings to the commercial flights in its sector, we could find no evidence that a nationwide warning was issued by the ATC system.” p455

These first four examples highlight the little discussed fact that the 9/11 Commission did not explain how any of the alleged hijackers entered the cockpits of any of the four hijacked planes.

With regard to Flight 11 the Commission states — “We do not know exactly how the hijackers gained access to the cockpit (p 5)” and — “FAA rules required that the doors remained closed and locked during the flight.”  Based on a recording attributed to flight attendant Betty Ong, the report speculates that they might have “jammed their way in.”  One problem with this hypothesis is that the act of breaking down the locked cockpit door would certainly have given the professional flight crew plenty of time to enter the four-digit hijack “squawk code” into the transponder.  This is a simple, standard operating procedure which the crew was trained to follow but none of them accomplished.

Yet another problem is that, according to the story, Atta and his co-conspirators disagreed with the “jamming” hypothesis.  The report states that Atta “had no firm contingency plan in case the cockpit door was locked” and …”he was confident the cockpit doors would be opened and did not consider breaking them down to be a viable idea (p 245).”  These were, apparently, very bold and optimistic hijackers who walked onto the plane assuming that normal operating procedures would not be followed and who did not have any kind of back-up plan in case they were wrong.  In any case, these claims certainly seem to contradict the words of Acting Director of the FBI, Thomas Pickard, who testified that – “these 19 and their superiors operated flawlessly in their planning, communications and execution of this event. They successfully exploited every weakness from our borders to cockpit doors.”

For Flight 175, the Commission report does not describe how the alleged hijackers got into the cockpit nor does it even mention that this first critical step in a hijacking was omitted from the explanation.   Similarly, for Flight 77 and Flight 93, the alleged hijackers just appear in the cockpit and in control of the aircraft.  As with Flight 11, all three crews failed to follow the simple procedure to squawk the hijack code.

What makes this even less believable is that the Commission admits that Flight 93 received and acknowledged a warning (although not from the FAA Command Center) to secure the cockpit four minutes before the hijacking began.  This means that 37-minutes after the third plane was hijacked, and 25-minutes after the second plane crashed into the WTC, the crew of the fourth plane could not secure it’s cockpit or enter the hijack squawk code despite having four minutes warning that hijackers might try to break in.

  • Saudi Arabia has long been considered the primary source of al Qaeda funding, but we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization.” p171
  • Concerning the origins of the funding for the attacks, the report says — “Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.”  But it clarifies that – Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government – or foreign official – supplied any funding.”  p172
  • We have found no evidence that Saudi Princess Haifa al Faisal provided any funds to the conspiracy, either directly or indirectly.” p498

Recently, the world’s leading insurance provider, Lloyd’s of London, filed a lawsuit alleging the exact opposite of these claims made by the 9/11 Commission.  Although Lloyd’s dropped the lawsuit just days later without explanation, one would think that at least some small amount evidence must have been available for the company to have gone to all the trouble of putting together a case and filing it against the Saudis.  If there was no such evidence, Lloyd’s could be sued for false or frivolous litigation.

Lloyd’s was not the first to contradict the Commission on this topic, however, as the many of the 9/11 victims’ relatives had joined together not long after the attacks to file a 15-count, $116 trillion lawsuit against Saudi royals, including some who were among top government leaders in Saudi Arabia.  That lawsuit was thrown out on a technicality related to the ability to sue a foreign government and, later, the Obama Administration backed the Saudis during the appeal.  What’s important to realize, however, is that it was only the 9/11 Commission that claimed no evidence for Saudi financing could be found.  Obviously, such evidence could be found, it just could not be used to prosecute the Saudi government in the United States.

  • Exhaustive investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission, FBI, and other agencies have uncovered no evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited through securities transactions.” p172

The “exhaustive investigations” conducted by the FBI, on which the 9/11 Commission report was based, were clearly bogus.  The FBI did not interview the suspects and did not appear to compare notes with the 9/11 Commission to help make a determination if any of the people being investigated might have had ties to al Qaeda.  The Commission’s memorandum summary suggests that the FBI simply made decisions on its own regarding the possible connections of the suspects and the alleged terrorist organizations.  Those unilateral decisions were not appropriate, as at least three of the suspected informed trades involved reasonably suspicious links to Osama bin Laden or his family.  Another suspect was a soon-to-be convicted criminal who had direct links to FBI employees who were later arrested for securities-related crimes.

The FBI also claimed in August 2003 that it had no knowledge of hard drives recovered from the WTC, which were publicly reported in 2001.  According to the people who retrieved the associated data, the hard drives gave evidence for “dirty doomsday dealings.”

The evidence for informed trading on 9/11 includes many financial vehicles, from stock options to Treasury bonds to credit card transactions made at the WTC just before it was destroyed.  Today we know that financial experts from around the world have provided strong evidence, through established and reliable statistical techniques, that the early expert suspicions were correct, and that 9/11 informed trading did occur.

  • First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001.”  p329
  • Second, we found no evidence of political intervention [with regard to the Saudi flights which did not occur before national airspace was reopened].”  p329
  • We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above Richard Clarke participated in a decision about the departure of the Saudi nationals.”  [Clarke claimed -- “I asked the FBI, Dale Watson, to handle that…” and “I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House.”]  p329
  • Third, we believe the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United States on chartered flights….They have concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion.” and “Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on those flights.”  p329

For the 9/11 Commission to have made four separate “no evidence” claims related to the widely-reported flight of Saudi nationals out of the U.S. just after 9/11, there must have been a strong reason for this failure of “exacting research.”

Months before the Commission report was published, it was well known that numerous members of the Bin Laden family were among those flown out of the U.S. at a time when no other commercial or private flying was allowed.  “Counter-terrorism Czar” Richard Clarke was the one to make this decision, although he did not coordinate it with Dale Watson of the FBI.  Clarke’s FBI coordinator for these flights was Michael Rolince, the assistant director of the International Terrorism Operations Section (ITOS).

It was reported that Rolince decided the Saudis could leave the country and required only the most superficial examination of their passports and checking for their names on terrorist watch lists.  The fact that many of them were the relatives of the man accused of perpetrating the 9/11 attacks did not lead to any concern or even to basic interviews of the passengers by the FBI.

Rolince, who now works for Booz Allen Hamilton, appears to have been behind several of the inexplicable failures of the FBI to track down the alleged 9/11 conspirators before the attacks.  In 1999, the FBI failed to follow-up on information provided to Rolince about fundraising done in the U.S. by Ayman al-Zawahiri, the alleged “number 2” of al Qaeda.  In April 2001, Rolince also failed to follow-up on a memo sent to him by Dale Watson that warned of a terrorist operation that might have been the plan for the 9/11 attacks.  Dave Frasca, one of Rolince’s direct reports, was the one who disrupted the Minneapolis FBI’s attempt to search the belongings of Zacharias Mousaoui, and Rolince is apparently the one who failed to let the FBI directors know of the arrest of Mousaoui.

  •  “Although Whitman told us she spoke with White House senior economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay regarding the need to get the markets open quickly” – “We found no evidence of pressure on EPA to say the air was safe in order to permit the markets to open.”  P555

Like some of the other carefully worded claims in the Commission report, this might be technically true, but the premise is probably false.  Christine Whitman, who was director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency just after 9/11, did claim that the air in lower Manhattan was safe to breathe when it was known that was not the case.  This was probably not done for the purpose of re-opening the stock market, however.  It is far more likely that these false claims were made in order to expedite the removal of evidence at the WTC site.

In any case, interested citizens should examine the many “we found no evidence” disclaimers from the 9/11 Commission Report more closely.  Doing so leads one to a better understanding of  how false that report really is, and the Commission’s feigned ignorance of evidence might help lead us to the truth about what happened that day.

Comments

Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:


Listen Live

Recent Comments

truth news .com.au is neither truth, or news.
its is a combination of hypocrisy, lies, bluff and bluster interspersed with bullshit sprinkled with dis info and mis info.

By Andrew Adams on 2014 12 23 - 10:20:33
From the entry 'Who controls the world, and what can you do about it?'.

how many planes hit the pentagon liars? - the people who run this pissant dog and pony show website are comulsive liars and disinfo time wasting shills whith a combined iq smaller than their shoe size

By Andrew Adams on 2014 12 23 - 10:17:02
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Well I’m yet to watch it but am going to tonight smile

But about the second half of the show.. You were talking about empires and revolutions. What do you guys think about the reason why each revolution just gets replaced by more tyranny, being that maybe each empire is actually just the same bloodlines using different faces.. Different locations.. Crafting each revolution to give us the illusion we have change.. I would not put it past them or us..

Any thoughts?

By Shaun on 2014 12 23 - 01:55:34
From the entry 'Who controls the world, and what can you do about it?'.

i agree with the first two comments. Lets say the film is a propaganda film; how is it different to the loads of films the Americans and the British made to uplifting music during the war? Does that mean we shouldn’t believe any of them either? Sorry, but i think your argument is crap.
Watch all of it, read the articles, study the facts and then come back and tell us all how important the music is.
I have met some of you people before and i honestly thought you were better than that.

By Glenn on 2014 12 22 - 20:36:05
From the entry 'Who controls the world, and what can you do about it?'.

I agree with Mr Tiedemann’s comments.  It is evident that you not have viewed this film.  I did not hear any constructive discussion on this subject in your recent program.

By jewels on 2014 12 22 - 18:36:33
From the entry 'Who controls the world, and what can you do about it?'.

http://www activistpost com/2014/12/these-15-arguments-will-destroy.html

how many planes hit the pentagon josh? liar.

By you losers on 2014 12 21 - 09:35:20
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett is correct if he states that airway charts are no direct indication of actual traffic.

However it shows that there are designated routes over South Burnett. It’s not an area where air traffic is unusual.

For the actual traffic consult Flightradar 24 over the South Burnett region.

Regarding the semantics of “from/to Sydney and Brisbane” let me clearly state that I never had the route between Sydney and Brisbane in mind. This might have been more clear to people following the discussion with Cris.

The bottom line and the relevant point is that there is just no evidence for days with “only one jet” over South Burnett. Flight tracking shows clearly that there is constant traffic over the region. Show me a day with only five jets over South Burnett on Flightradar 24 - even limited to the daylight period - and I will be convinced.

The statement of Cris (“We are lucky to get 1 jet a day visible here normally”) can indeed only refer to the visibility with bare eyes on a non-trail day, not the actual traffic, as explained extensively and repeatedly.

Regarding the “3 or more abreast” situation that Cris referred to, I quote my reply from the first time this was brought up:

Next time you see three planes abreast, or circles, or grids - grab a camera and take a picture. Otherwise it’s hard to say what you saw. May have been normal traffic where the many routes are bound to intersect at some points, or circling in holding positions, or military exercises.

Without seeing pictures, it’s just speculation.

I can add now that I have observed several situations on Flightradar where three planes were close together (vertically separated of course), going in the same direction. Why should that be unusual?

 

By Josh on 2014 12 19 - 01:13:29
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

chris

By the way I I still don’t have an answer for when there are 3 or more abreast?????

you dont get answers from josh anonymous.. its beyond his capabilities, you will get a whole heap of incomprehensible bluff and bluster though..

i usually try to make it easy for the poor sap, just asking simple yes or no questions, or those requiring a one word answer..  but they seem to be the ones he struggles with the most? - he really is an enigma.. he should donate his body to science, and i dont think he should wait till he dies either..

By Andrew Adams on 2014 12 18 - 12:45:51
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard

This means aircraft from/to Sydney and Brisbane. There is no mention of any other geographical locations so it is demonstrable that you refer to those two cities.

he must really struggle with simple day to day tasks.. honestly.. that is another example of when he accussed me of making threats, then denied he wrote that, then wanted me to show him precisely where he did, and when shown, simply ignores all reference to it..  pretends it didnt happen at all.. unbelievable really - if he is the best answer to prove that chemtrails dont exist, they really are struggling.. 

he thinks proving a point, obviously, is simply banging away at the keyboard and hitting submit, with no consideration to rhyme or reason.. relevence, consistency, logic or common sense.

he wont / cant even answer simple questions.. incapable of providing a yes or no answer to a simple question. he feels his inconsistencies, lies, qualifications, credibility, have no relevence to anything so long as he keeps the babble going on and on.. he is doing a good job.

I suspect Janonymous is a whack-job rather than a shill.

you might be right there, it would be almost impossible for a shill to pretend to be so stupid.. and in most instances, id feel a little bit of pity..  but i dont in this case, he needs medication or something, he is obviously in a lot of misery..

By Andrew Adams on 2014 12 18 - 12:42:20
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Pretty busy here.
Looked at the link late last night.
If there were planes on those routes I would have seen very few as nearly all of the routes don’t come close enough to me.
Maximus, you are not omniscient.
You are clueless.
By the way I I still don’t have an answer for when there are 3 or more abreast?????
What about the ones that intersect those paths….only a few of which go near me?????
What about the stop start ones?
And the ones that make curvy border around an approaching weather front?
Or the giant circle that I took photos of?
Just because the lap dog news can pump out NWO propaganda unopposed because they won’t print evidence to the contrary doesn’t mean you will get away with it.
Do you need hearing aids?
VERY FEW JETS UP HERE UNLESS THERE IS IMMANENT RAIN!!!

By Cris on 2014 12 18 - 12:30:48
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories