Truth News Australia

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

Hey bubba luggs,

sit on it and spin.

Alex Jones had his day… He is OK to check out on every time something big happens to get a ‘conspiracy’ perspective, but 80% of his content is made up drivel. 15% is interesting and about 5% actually true.

No one in Australia is doing as gooder job as Heraward

NO ONE

By ROKBEBOP on 2014 07 22 - 00:20:35
From the entry 'Dissecting doublethink on the Israel/Gaza conflict'.

What a Disgrace all these Zionists and Freemasons liars here trying to deny chemtrails ,Hey Clowns your game is up no matter how much you lie we know the truth ,you ‘Persons’ are blatant liars and also traitors . The only ignorants are the ones that believe your disgusting lies The ADF are traitors and liars , Chemtrails and Geo-Engineering are 100% real the Government of Australia the commonwealth of Australia are total frauds and operate with ‘No Basis In Law” when will the dumbed down aussies wake up that even Fluoride is Poison ,let alone the Toxic filth that is loaded into drums inside the plane where seats would normally be ,and then via a sophisticated array of piping and nozzles ,sprayed all over the dumb Goyim ,they even turn it off when they have passed over the towns involved .so don’t give me your filthy lies and say it’s Contrails when we know they are CHEMTRAILS .

By Bob McDonld on 2014 07 21 - 21:37:53
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Hey Bubba, you will never support anyone who is taking the time to dissect current issues because you are too distracted with quick overviews from other websites.  You only want to know the NEXT story, not what’s actually going on.  In regards to Herewards presentation of the show, what are YOU doing to challenge the mainstream distortion of events? Also, do you really enjoy listening to Alex Jones’ tired & irrelevant repetition’s of events in his life which waste half his air time?  Concentrate on the content and stop whining unless of course you think you can do a better job.  Hereward, you are doing an outstanding job (from a real Truth News subscriber).

By Zen Prepper on 2014 07 21 - 12:32:10
From the entry 'Dissecting doublethink on the Israel/Gaza conflict'.

Wow Bubba, you sure are insightful. I guess you must be a subscriber eh? Good on you mate.

By Johnny Came Lately on 2014 07 20 - 21:13:06
From the entry 'Dissecting doublethink on the Israel/Gaza conflict'.

I like the idea of Truth News and it is a great setup, but I can’t stand Hereward Fenton’s high pitched, annoying voice.  If you had a better speaker I would happily subscribe.  Also, a lot of your stuff seems a bit Johnny Come Lately as I find most of this on Drudge, Infowars and People’s Voice.  Hereward would make a great journalist writing articles and news stories, but don’t get him to talk on air.

By Bubba on 2014 07 20 - 19:52:26
From the entry 'Dissecting doublethink on the Israel/Gaza conflict'.

Have you ever considered publishing an e-book or guest authoring on other blogs? I have a blog based on the same ideas you discuss and would love to have you share some stories/information. I know my viewers would appreciate your work. If you are even remotely interested, feel free to send me an e mail.

By WillianHeadlam on 2014 07 19 - 22:03:53
From the entry 'The pale shadow of democracy'.

Good onya Hereward, excellent job pointing out the bleeding obvious brainwashing mind control techniques so clumsily employed by the ABC and rest of the corporate controlled propaganda outlets. It really is sickening and while I applaud your efforts to expose and deconstruct this muck I don’t envy you the task, though I concede it really does need to be done. Personally I don’t have the stomach for it anymore ... since I gave up the MSM back in 2004, my tolerance for it has dropped to ZERO. Love your show, kepp up the good work.

By John Scrivener on 2014 07 14 - 16:50:31
From the entry 'Paul Gunter on nuclear power, WMDs and the Fukushima Daiichi disaster'.

Hi Josh.
FYI. I don’t have time for a debate. I’m just supplying information for your perusal.  I’m a farmer in the South Burnett. I’ve been watching the skies all my life because my existence depends on the rate of precipitation. Too much or too little is a problem.
I have been watching the development of what we call chemtrails for at least 25 years. My research tells me that they have many nasty uses and are an integral part of geoengineering which you should also check out.
We have minimal jet, and air, traffic here except for when rain is imminent. At those times, depending on the likely amount of precipitation, we get numerous jets spewing out chemtrails that expand to many times the size of what leaves the exhaust of planes. (The few times we get a passenger plane there is either no contrail or one that disperses within a minute. ) Some days there are numerous planes spewing out the stuff: 2 and 3 at a time in some instances. Recently there were so many that the sky turned metallic grey and the sun was obscured to such a point that even the unenlightened were asking what on earth was going on. The metallic grey and sun phenomenon were observed from Gympie to Biggenden.
We had a flood in the early part of last year. The next rain of any use at all was in March this year. I thought it strange that it was just the right time to get farmers in the planting mood at just the right time. My suspicions were correct: no useful follow up rain so many that planted have already realised they wasted borrowed capital.
Believe what you wish but if this rot is not stopped more and more farmers will crash and burn. The general populace will be next.
Regards
Cris

By Cris on 2014 07 13 - 11:42:19
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

The article following my comment is from http://www.truthnews.com.au chemtrails segment titled “CONTRAIL SCIENCE which I can only describe as JUNK SCIENCE. This forum gets funnier by the day, or at least by the intervals of time wherein I come back to look for new jokes. I am, as is written here, ANY PILOT, as described by the author of the “CONTRAIL SCIENCE” segment below, and also an aircraft maintenance engineer, retired. I am somewhat amused by the glider pilot, JOSH ANONYMOUS who makes feeble attempts to “correct” what I have written every now and then, but then I suppose there is always room for even more humour.
For those who obviously do not understand the mechanics of contrails, I offer the following for consideration. As is known, one tonne of fuel cannot be magically converted to 1.5 or 3.5 tonnes of water, or whatever the magic figures are that are bandied about. The water that is produced in the creation of power/thrust from turbine engine combustion, both jet and propeller types at altitude, is a clear-cut matter. The fuel that is burned CONTRIBUTES to the formation of the resultant water droplets that are borne (past participle of bear) of the combustion process and pass into the freezing air behind the aircraft to be rapidly condensed and form a contrail (condensation trail).
To believe that an aircraft carries aloft water, in its fuel supply, sufficient to produce more than the weight of the fuel on board at take-off is simply nonsensical. To understand how the water is “produced” we need look no further than an example. On a clear blue winter day, with not a cloud in the sky, with ambient conditions (humidity, temperature, wind) in the suitable range, we note that a Boeing 747 burns about (approximately) 10 tonnes/hour of fuel (aviation kerosene) in cruise (4 engines) and we consider Pratt and Whitney JT-9 engines. The amount of air that is compressed and goes through the engines (4) in one second is approximately 2,832 cubic metres (100,000 cubic feet). All figures approximate due to unknown variations in ambient conditions. This means that there are about 2,832 x 60 x 60 cubic metres of air through the four engines every hour at cruise. i.e. 1,019,520 cubic metres per hour. The aircraft travels at about 500 knots True Airspeed (mach .85). Consider humidity to be say50%, for an example only, it means that the air mass is not saturated so NO CLOUD can or will form. The aircraft gathers and compresses air at a rate of 2,832 cubic metres each second, passing it through its engines at a ratio of 23.4 to 1.
A relative humidity of 100% means that the air can’t hold any more water vapour. It’s totally saturated. When this occurs, it can rain if the temperature falls. In fact, the RELATIVE HUMIDITY MUST BE over 100% where clouds have formed for it to rain. The relative humidity MUST BE 100% for cloud to form and supersaturation, i.e. over 100% relative humidity must occur for rain to fall. However, at ground level where the rain lands, the relative humidity can be less than 100%. So, at 50% humidity, there is no possibility of cloud forming, and all the water in the atmospheric air that is compressed and put through the can (the annular combustion chamber) will be instantly boiled, turned to steam and passed through the can and out the exhaust. Water does not burn, it simply changes state from liquid to gas, then back to liquid after being exhausted. As the water vapour reaches the outside freezing air it is immediately condensed and is seen as a contrail which is just condensation, hence the name “condensation trail”.

Now we begin to realise that on this clear day, with no cloud about, the exhausted condensation can only cool to the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere, and the water vapour will be absorbed by the surrounding drier air. Considering that that aircraft is surrounded by many cubic kilometres of drier air, we can see that here is no chance that the condensation can cause the surrounding air to become 100% saturated and form cloud. To claim so would be to say that, as an example, we could throw a bucket of ice cubes into an Olympic swimming pool and expect the ice cubes to freeze the surrounding water, or throw a bucket of boiling water into a similar swimming pool and expect the surrounding water to boil or even at least heat a little. Sorry, but absorption into the surrounds is what controls events. If the story of enduring contrails had any legs, we would have no need to spend fortunes, as we have over many decades, with attempts to seed cloud and make rain, we would just need to fly large aeroplanes around and around through clouds, or anywhere at all and even make it rain over deserts.

The claims that contrails “spread” out and form cloud are just plain, good old-fashioned bullshit spread by ignorant people.
If anybody knows any of the laws of thermodynamics that contradict what I have written here, please proffer it as I will be fascinated to see. C P Snow made the only real sensible comment about the laws of thermodynamics when he said that the first law tells you that you can’t win, and the second tells you that you can’t even break even.

And by the way, for the information of the author of the “CONTRAIL SCIENCE” there is NO solar heating of the atmosphere, as all heat rises from the ground after the sun’s heat passes through the atmosphere to the ground.

From http://www.truthnews.com.au
CONTRAIL SCIENCE
  For a contrail to form, suitable conditions must occur immediately behind a jet engine in the expanding engine exhaust plume. A contrail will form if, as the exhaust gases cool and mix with surrounding air, the humidity becomes high enough (or, equivalently, the air temperature becomes low enough) for liquid water to condense on particles and form liquid droplets. If the local air is cold enough, these newly formed droplets then freeze and form ice particles that make up a contrail.
  Because the basic processes are very well understood, contrail formation for a given aircraft flight can be accurately predicted if atmospheric temperature and humidity conditions are known.
  After the initial formation of ice, a contrail evolves in one of two ways. If the humidity is low, the contrail will be short-lived. Newly formed ice particles will quickly evaporate. The resulting contrail will extend only a short distance behind the aircraft. If the humidity is high, the contrail will be persistent. Newly formed ice particles will continue to grow in size by taking water from the surrounding atmosphere. The resulting line-shaped contrail extends for large distances behind an aircraft. Persistent contrails can last for hours while growing to several kilometers (spelling kilometres) in width and 200 to 400 meters in height. Contrails spread because of air turbulence created by the passage of aircraft, differences in wind speed along the flight track, and possibly through effects of solar heating.
  Thus, the surrounding atmosphere’s conditions determine to a large extent whether or not a contrail will form after an aircraft’s passage, and how it evolves. Other factors that influence contrail formation include engine fuel efficiency, which affects the amount of heat and water emitted in the exhaust plume.
  - source
TNRA is informed by science and is not interested in propping up anyone’s belief systems, and we don’t apologise for that.
But, please, don’t take it from me, speak to any meteorologist or ANY PILOT and they’ll tell you straight, that there is HUGE variation in the length and persistence of contrails. Sometimes they don’t form at all, other times they form, but dissipate quickly, other times they persist and spread out.
That’s the facts folks, and it’s been that way since planes first went up in the sky.
If you believe otherwise, I’m afraid you’ve been conned.
Forgive me if I seem rude or impatient on this topic, but every few months I come across a new wave of people who have been subjected to the same false propaganda about chemtrails, and I have to run the same arguments and cite the same articles over and over again. It does wear one’s patience down.
Before making some kind of angry reply, I urge you to read this article and associated links. It’s fairly detailed, and deals with most of the usual claims made by chemtrail alarmists.
Finally, let me qualify all this by saying that I do not doubt that geo-engineering programs exist, and that, indeed, some of the patented techniques discussed at international forums include the creation of artificial cirrus cloud. Does this, however, entitle you to conclude that every spreading contrail you see is an example of such geo-engineering? Think about it. (I have - LEONARD CLAMPETT)

By Leonard Clampett on 2014 07 12 - 22:34:31
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Ooooops,

Just to amend my previous post, “(pending),oligarchical, cataclysmic collapse”!

P.S

If permaculture is not your very best friend, “MAKE IT SO”..........................................

In Lak’ech.

By Macca on 2014 07 09 - 07:22:18
From the entry 'Elisa Barwick on the world economy'.

Categories