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

I have an addiction problem and may need some help. . . .from a psych doctor.  Can anybody suggest how I can kick my addiction to listening to Truth News Radio Australia?

By geoff on 2014 08 16 - 21:43:39
From the entry 'Bailout or bail-in? Craig Isherwood reflects on the dangers facing Australia's financial system'.

What an outstanding interview on global finances and how they relate to Australia.  Craig Isherwood cuts to the chase and provides great detail and covers a range of critical points to understand in a concise and relevant manner.  Within the time constraints available he explains in layman’s terms a complex issue for the average person to get their mind around.  If you listen to what he said you can already see the evidence happening around you.  Great interviewing skills and relevant questions from Hereward also.  Enjoyed listening to this interview very much, well done!

By Zenprepper on 2014 08 16 - 17:58:40
From the entry 'Bailout or bail-in? Craig Isherwood reflects on the dangers facing Australia's financial system'.

I’ve been a listener to TNR for several years. It is by far one of the best alternative news shows on the net. Pity “Toilet Cleaner” and other ignoramuses just don’t get it. I suspect he’s a Zionist. You can smell these people a mile off. Thankfully, not all Jews are supportive of this murderous regime. Netanyahu is a self-confessed, right-wing fascist with all the trappings that implies. The problem with Toilet Cleaner and his ilk, is that they are beset with “existentialist fear” which often manifests and causes victims to become persecutors. Zionists fear what the Nazis did to the Jews, so, they don’t care if they have to act like Nazis in order to avoid that happening again. It’s tragic, really. When all they are doing is digging a bigger hole to bury themselves in. That’s racism for you. It’s a total negative. Every regime that has embraced an ideology based on fascist/racist/elitist principles, has been confined to the toilet bowl of history. Zionism is no different. A regime based on deceit, lies, genocide and cold-blooded murder, has nowhere else to go. On the other hand, I believe Jews and Palestinians both have an equal right to live in the so-called holy land, but not at the exclusion of the other.

I don’t do monetary transactions over the net. But I’m quite happy to contribute a few dollars every month to support the good work you do. Let me know my options. Great work! I wish you success. Eugene

By Eugene Donnini on 2014 08 01 - 16:32:56
From the entry 'Max Igan talks about his experiences in Gaza'.

By his silence, Igan’s pro-Islam. He and the likes of Anthony Lawson never point out the crimes muslims ALSO carry out. Syria for example and all the Christians they’re slaughtering. What happens when Islam gets a leg up in Australia population wise? Will he care then? Somalian muslims are already causing street riot trouble in Victoria. Check Larry Pickering site for the coverage. Igan\s mind is a dirty toilet. See for yourself. He creates “pure evil” blood spurting murderous cannibalistic images for his sick satanic clansman.It’s any wonder he doesn’t care for Christians.. http://www.thecrowhouse.com/1f.html ... http://www.thecrowhouse.com/16.html

By Toilet Cleaner on 2014 07 31 - 15:32:39
From the entry 'Max Igan talks about his experiences in Gaza'.

Leonard Clampett,

just ‘ad hominem’ attacks, no discussion of my arguments?

Did you read up about RHI and RHW? About the products of combustion of hydrocarbons?

You can find a lot of information about these things on the Internet. In fact, that’s how I learned a lot: looking for data and facts when researching conspiracy claims.

This also as an additional reply to Cris:

You don’t need personal input from experts to debunk the central (ever-repeating) claims of conspiracy theorists. There are several thorough and earnest communities that collect arguments - with references! - to counter these claims.

Chemtrail proponents are often passionate and eager to spread their view. Why should debunkers be different?
My personal motivation is that I am worried about the present state of the Enlighentment - scientific and critical thinking seems to be under attack from various belief systems.

Oh, and to Leonard Clampett: if you are so fixated on identities, will it change your position if I give you my full name? Let’s see - it’s “Josua Dietze”, and if you google it with quotes, you will find only references to me.

Now, what does that change?

By Josh on 2014 07 27 - 19:30:49
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Cris,

I would never claim that we have nothing to worry about, even if there is no evidence for chemtrails. I find it terrifying how fast we humans are changing the surface and the atmosphere of our planet, just by the sum of our activities. I am not optimistic about the view that nature will balance all this somehow sometime.

Back to the claims of metal spraying:

So far, all reports cited for these claims refer to testing on the ground. I include rain water, because rain drops collect dust from the lower altitude levels. Also, wind will carry dust into open collection containers that are left outside for a while.

The test method used for all the tests - plasma chromatography - can not make a difference between metals bound in compounds (like Aluminum as a component of clay) and free/metallic elements, which would indeed be toxic in higher levels. So if your test sample contains dust in any form, your test results will show metals - even if you had harmless mineral grains before. For the test, they are ‘cracked’ to their components by immense heat.

Unfortunately, this bit of information is getting lost in all the claims of toxic spraying.
So what we have is mainly misinterpretation, which is repeated over and over again.

The same is true for blood tests where the term “reporting limit” in the lab sheets is commonly misread as “highest allowed level” which must be reported to authorities - whereas in reality it is the smallest level that can reasonably be reported at all. So it’s in fact the technical detection minimum.

The blood tests I have seen so far - those that were actually released by concerned people - are showing normal levels.

Regarding metallic Aluminum in the soil:

I’m sure that as a farmer you know how acidification can change the chemical composition of soil. There are still countries that are blowing sulfur into the atmosphere which causes acid rain, which in turn raises the level of Aluminum. Also, there are areas where this level was always higher than elsewhere. Monsanto targetting these potential markets is just plain capitalism (not that I like them).

BTW, it took me a while for my first reply because the automatic notification from the TRNA site did somehow not work. I was only notified when Bob McDonld posted.

By Josh on 2014 07 27 - 18:58:52
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Interesting response from JOSH ANONYMOUS, the glider pilot of no experience of that of which claims vast knowledge, most probably after he consulted numerous text books, plus his handlers as to how to respond. It did take some time to get back so he must have trawled through a lot of books to try to find information that could suit his claims. No need for that JOSH as common sense and knowledge you would have should suffice. You remind me of GEOFF SEENEY, now deputy premier of Queensland, who, when told about chemtrails, responded with the most inane claims that he knew how aircraft worked as he had seen them taking off from Rockhampton airport and applying his school-boy science had solved the problem. Two lessons learned from my youth, “never argue with idiots as they have had far more experience at it than you”, and “when you throw a pebble into a chook yard you will always know which one you hit”.
JOSH, your claims confirm to me that you are either exceptionally egotistic, with a constant need to support your self esteem, or are a simple minded stooge, one of the useful tools of the elite, i.e. useful idiots, or have some personal agenda probably tied to your insecurity. I am most certainly glad that you never did any maintenance work on any aircraft I flew. You won’t hear from me again, so you can live your dreams in conjunction with HEREWARD FENTON (if that is his real name) spreading your imaginings through the electrons on the Internet. Try not to fool people, because I can assure you you cannot fool all the people all the time. (Old proverb, old son) and think about why it is you seem so persistent in wanting to support and promote the elite with their agendas.
Ciao,
LEONARD CLAMPETT not an anonymous troll.

By Leonard Clampett on 2014 07 26 - 12:01:50
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

You certainly appear astute Josh. What I can’t figure is the methodology behind your thinking. If you are correct and no Barium, Aluminium, Strontium, vaccination components and a plethora of other nasties are never released in the air above us by the Chemtrail airforce then we have nothing to worry about and life will go as it always has: the self regulating biosphere will simply bring the small man made changes back into balance.
If I am right about the junk being spewed out, then the biosphere will most likely collapse, only to be remediated after we and most higher life forms are composted due to our inaction against the Elite that rule We the Cattle by deception and thuggery.
Let us look at just 2 components: Barium and Aluminium. Barium is an endocrine disruptor, shuts down the sodium/potassium pump that is vital to the survival of each of your cells, is destructive to the soil food web, etc, Aluminium has at least as many problems and strangely enough Monsatan has has developed a gene to deal with aluminium toxicity in the soil: http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/chemtrails-killing-organic-crops-monsantos-gmo-seeds-thrive/ . How did they know there was going to be too much Aluminium in the soil if they did not know we are being sprayed with it?
You take a while to answer Josh. Is that because you have to go to your minders to glean information about what to write.  Are you being paid? Why don’t you tell us who you are? Are you an NWO employee?
Now are you going to get a PHD microbiologist, a PHD naturopath, an soil chemist, a soil physicist, etc. that have sold their souls, to help you weave misinformation? Most either listen, learn and intelligently discuss or protect their well paid posteriors with silence.
By the way a commercial jet pilot that thought I was exaggerating about the amount of CTs here was surprised to see how much activity there was when rain likely here.
For the record, stuff all when there is no forecast rain and when rain is likely there are often over 50(over the period of a day) in the visible sky in all directions and paterns, even circles and short heaps of short runs.
We are lucky to get 1 jet a day visible here normally. Explain that?
Selah
Cris

By Cris on 2014 07 26 - 10:28:03
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Bob McDonld,

I for my part do not “deny chemtrails”. I merely point out how weak the evidence is for them to exist.

Can you pick one of the “lies” that you are referring to, and argue why it is actually a lie? Preferably with evidence?

By Josh on 2014 07 26 - 02:26:02
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Cris,

I am sure your weather observations are sound. However, I am also pretty sure that there is plenty of air traffic even when you don’t see it.
If the upper air conditions are not favorable to trail formation, it is very hard to spot tiny planes at 35000 ft. altitude.

Have a look at real-time flight tracking websites like flightaware.com and flightradar24.com, and go to your location on the map. There you can see actual flights crossing over your place, and then possibly go and look out for them with a pair of binoculars.

It is very true that contrails start to form particularly in the vicinity of weather fronts. That’s when it gets easy to spot the planes.
The reason is that these fronts tend to move up humid air to the cruising levels which makes trail formation more likely.

On other occasions there are just humid layers of air moving in. Contrails are known to trigger large-area haze occasionally, but they can also be just a byproduct with the haze forming anyway.

As for the changes in weather patterns, many people are seeing those around the globe. I’m sure you are aware that there is quite a number of possible explanations.

By Josh on 2014 07 26 - 02:18:22
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories