Yes we do.
Yet those that exposed other government crimes are somehow alive. Add to that the fact that those that are "exposing the truth" about 9/11 are also alive. So your allegation is baseless.
While this is true, this does not apply to 9/11. There is a plethora of evidence that completey supports the "official version." There is zero, nothing, nada to support anything that you and the rest of the terrorist apologist claim to even come close to passing the preponderance of evidence test. All you have is speculation and conjecture backed up by cherrypicking snippets of information and outright lies. This never works in a court of law.
You, like the rest of your ilk, claim that the 9/11 commission was the only investigative body looking into what happened on 9/11. You ignore the investigations by the FBI, NSA, FAA, CIA, NTSB, etc. since that would invalidate your fantasy.
Yet you completely accept what known liars, anti-semites, etc. spew forth without question. You are the very person you accuse us of being.
I will state flatly, once more. I am not an insider, nor do I pretend to be. Nor do I have access to the technical capabilities of a company that has a record of nearly any phone call made in the United States. But the fact that "back doors" in the system exist is not in dispute with any meaningful understanding of immense, specialized and sophisticated electronic systems.
And if the fact that AMDOCS receives a large portion of its operating budget from the Israeli government is a matter dismissed as on the periphery, and with a meaningful grasp of the methodology and effectiveness of the Israeli government's Mossad means nothing to the casual, uninformed observer, the AMDOCS connection can be discounted - out of hand.
I, however, am not a casual observer. And it wasn't the French, the Japanese or the Icelanders with these capabilities and well-documented agendas. Otherwise, my focus would be appropriately modified.
And, lordy, the antisemitic angle is so tired these days. Are you aware that the vast majority of Jews are opposed to the Zionist agenda? The carefully designed caveats surrounding Jewry bore me - and any reasonable suspect in a crime is fair game, regardless of nationality or religion.
And please, in a sensible discussion, referring to me as a person denying the presence of actual Muslim fanatics at the center of the hijackings is presumptuous, at best. I made no such claim. Yes, there were planes that fateful day - and no, there were likely no death rays nor alien intervention.
Now - for a few salient observations.
First, I made no such implication that the 911 investigative commission was the only investigation into the 911 attacks. Equating me with, and reducing me to "an ilk: is - well - silly.
Second, you make reference to lies. Interesting. Is it a lie to withhold the truth? To dismiss vital facts, inconsistencies and contradictions in order to create a body of truth? If so, the 911 commission is the unchallenged tour de force -- likely in all of recorded human history.
Third, the suspects in the failures investigating themselves. Brilliant premise at its foundation. Police investigating the police is always a reliable way to get to the truth, and put all suspicions to rest -- don't you think?
Now, the FAA as an investigative body, with itself as a potential target? Are you joking? Really?
Is this the same FAA that the 911 commission harshly criticized for failing in a task that it performs routinely, (timely reporting of and location of errant aircraft), and yet praised for doing what had never been done before, (safely emptying the skies of all aircraft after the 911 attacks)? The same FAA that had a shift supervisor at the center of operations when the 911 attacks were in progress, that later intentionally destroyed a tape recording made by six air traffic controllers in order to document the facts of that critical morning - and scattered the remains of the tape recording in various, on-site trash cans? The same FAA that didn't mention this fact in their "investigation"? Of course, we can all be rest assured that no other inconvenient details were omitted, right?
The FBI investigation? Is this the same FBI, or a different one, that fired Sibel Edmunds, (followed by a federal court-ordered gag order), for exposing systemic corruption, cronyism driven intelligence manipulation and malfeasance of the type that could have led to the 911 attacks themselves? Remember Mrs Edmunds as giving three and a half hours of testimony to the 911 commission, only have it completely expunged from the 911 commission's transcript? Or a different FBI that secreted the whereabouts of the San Diego FBI "asset" (Abdussattar Shaikh), from the 911 commission that was closely associated with two of the future hijackers, (Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdha)? The same FBI that ignored a number of field agents about suspicious Muslim men at flight training schools that were not particularly interested in learning to land or take off in the aircraft? Surely not the FBI who's director, (Robert Mueller), admitted in 2004, 2005 and 2006 that there is "no hard evidence to link the 911 attacks with Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda"?
The NSA gathers raw, (usually electronic), evidence to be assessed by intelligence analysts in formulating the overall threat potential. The organization's review of the pre-911 failures revealed a wide variety of "red flags" that were not acted upon by those organizations charged in doing so, and was particularily damning - yet, interestingly, only as the 911 commissions time was wrapping up, did anyone on the commission think that the NSA records were important. There just wasn't enough time. Imagine that.
And, the NIST investigation? Did I ask you before if you were joking? Let me guess. Because the small number of metallurgists, structural engineers and physicists associated with the NIST study were "government selected", (and carefully vetted as such), and their "explanation" and their conclusions of the building collapses, arrived at through pronounced group-think, were to be taken as the definitive body of facts over, (and opposed to), the hundreds of equally qualified, (or in many cases, with superior experience), architectural engineers, structural engineers and physicists - all of which had the same physical evidence, (physical evidence that was actually subjected to ultra-high temperature analysis)? Now that, my friend is byzantine driven absurdity at its most naked. I tend to value compatible conclusions arrived at by a variety of independent, competent investigators - working independently - independent of group-think or political/institutional agendas.
Hint # 1: ever heard of nano-thermate? It is painted on a surface. It resembles dull paint/primer after application. Upon ignition, it weakens/melts the material to which it is applied, (steel in this case?), depending on it's thickness/concentration. Upon ignition, the material hisses and roars. No explosion is associated with its function. Its shelf life/application life is indefinite.
Hint # 2: ever closely examine photographs of remnants of a bevy of steel columns at ground zero in New York that were once two and three inches in thickness, that were reduced to a paper thin state - even with large, gaping holes?
Hint # 3: no member of the NIST investigation team either tested for or considered myriad, high-speed or slow-speed explosives/accelerant technologies, long-ago developed by the US government and military, or any others.
Hint# 4: arbitrarily plugging new figures into the equation leading to steel losing X amount of its tensile strength in an experiment, critical in explaining the collapse(s), (i.e. fires lasting 50% longer than actually occurred with 70% hotter than actual achieved temperatures due to kerosene fed fires), is not a scientific investigation. It is reaching a preconceived conclusion by hiding the vital figures used to create the results - a fundamental premise that infected the NIST report - in addition to the 911 commissions report from start to finish.
Understanding the manipulation and release of publicly revealed information by even a medium sized, PR conscious company - (much less, a politically driven organization the size of the US government), reveals the heavy hand of institutional perception management. Legitimizing the official by navigating the vast body of evidence through a process of cherry-picking, simply by virtue of its "officialese", is little more than a child's game.
In any meaningful, pragmatic study of human nature, objectivity is more often an intention proudly expressed than an attitude actually achieved, but the intention - conscious, unambiguous, and constantly self-critical - is a necessary precondition to its achievement. Simply stated, any hypothesis, theory or belief can be substantiated and legitimized through a careful selection process by which supporting evidence is displayed - while inconvenient/contradictory evidence is dismissed as irrelevant, hidden or ignored.
"... if you don't see the brush strokes of the big picture - why pretend to analyze it...? ~ author unknown
