Crooked Cops and 9-11

Updated and Expanded

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/crooked-cops-and-9-11.html

Every defendant in a criminal trial tries to argue that he was framed. On the other hand, anyone who's watched a tv detective show knows that crooked police officers do sometimes plant false evidence in order to frame an innocent person for the crime.

If a detective is any good, he will take a look at whether the evidence was planted or real. While he won't accept the defendant's word at face value, he will discard any evidence which was obviously planted. If he determines that evidence is planted, he will ask the follow up questions of who planted the evidence and why. His investigative instincts and street smarts will also lead him to ask whether the person who planted the evidence was the real criminal -- because the real perpetrator of the crime often has the biggest motivation to frame someone else.

Are you with me so far? Do you agree?

OK, let's turn to September 11, 2001. Believe it or not, the top expert on Osama Bin Laden has said that Bin Laden's "confession" is fake.

And the flight manuals and other evidence supposedly "accidentally" left behind by the terrorists were in fact planted. For example, the Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam wrote:

"Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists' identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, 'Whatever trail was left was left deliberately -- for the F.B.I. to chase'"
.

Additionally, at least 7 of the alleged 9/11 hijackers are still alive (see also this BBC article). However, the FBI apparently continues to this day to stick to its list of 19 hijackers. If identifying the names and identities of the hijackers were of real concern to the government (instead of framing a bunch of patsies), why wouldn't the government have modified the list after discovering that they had mistaken identities for at least 7 of the hijackers?

And imagine if a piece of evidence could not be authenticated according to basic science. For example, let's say an apparent confession note was found at an arson crime scene where the entire building had been turned to fine ash particles and nothing else survived. That would raise suspicions, right?

Well, a passport from one of the alleged hijackers was "found" a couple of blocks from the Twin Towers. And yet the government claims that the areas inside the Twin Towers where planes crashed were infernos so hot that they caused the collapse of the massive steel cores in the center of the towers. Indeed, the passport-owner's hijacked plane was allegedly almost completely lodged in the building's core. How could the passport have survived and ended up a couple of blocks away?

It is thus clear that evidence was planted to frame the hijackers on 9/11. Even a simple tv detective would ask who had the opportunity and motive to frame these patsies. He would also ask whether the persons who planted the evidence were the real culprits.

Perjury, Destruction of Evidence and Cover-Up

Everyone knows that when a witness is caught lying or changing his testimony, it effectively discredits him. If the witness is himself the accused criminal, then perjury, inconsistent testimony or destroying evidence tends to implicate the defendant's guilt.

Well, even the 9/11 Commission now states that Norad intentionally lied about what happened on 9/11. Indeed, Norad has given 3 separate, inconsistent versions of what happened that terrible day.

And Vice President Cheney changed his testimony and lied by stating that he did not enter the Presidential Emergency Operations Center until around 20 minutes after the Pentagon strike. In other words, Cheney changed his testimony in order to avoid damaging evidence.

And the government destroyed evidence and then completely covered up what happened on 9/11.

Is that how an innocent party acts?

Postscript: Hani Hanjour was supposedly the pilot of the plane which crashed into the Pentgagon. But Hanjour's "name was not on the American Airlines manifest for the flight because he may not have had a ticket." Not on the flight manifest? If he didn't have a ticket, how'd he get on the flight? Is it possible that he was not the pilot, but that his name was used for some reason of convenience? In fact, Hanjour was such a terrible pilot that some have argued he could not have physically performed the "fighther jet" like maneuvers of the plane which crashed into the Pentagon.

I am NOT saying that planes did not crash into the Twin Towers: they did. Instead, I am saying that the people who planted the phony evidence did not want any questions about who the hijackers really were, who let them in the country, who masterminded the attacks, who stood down our military so that fighter jets did not intercept the planes, who planned the attacks on the same day that 5 war games were being conducted by the U.S. military (including at least 1 "live-fly" exercise using real planes), and whether someone else brought down the world trade centers with controlled demolitions. See www.911Proof.com regarding all of these claims. I'm saying the planted evidence casts doubt on the entire official story.

And falsifying and destroying the actual, existing evidence further reinforces the implication of guilt.

Please let me know

if you find any dead links.

Dead Highjackers

I'm glad you reminded us that the BBC has reported that some of the supposed 19 highjackers have been found to alive and well. Why more people aren't interested in this story amazes me. Many in the U.S. must just not want to know the truth. Saddening and makes me want to make sure to push even harder to get this into the mainstream media. Rosie O'Donnell has come through for us. I've emailed Oprah telling her that it is crazy that she'll invite Ku Klux Klan members and pedophiles on her show, but she won't have David Ray Griffin, Peter Dale Scott, Barrie Zwicker, Kevin Barrett, Kevin Ryan, or William Rodriguez on. I'll keep the pressure on these guys and I hope you join me in the effort and contact those in your spheres of influence. Peace and onward.

This story still confuses me

What exactly is the BBC asserting? They issue this explanation for the "suspects alive" story. The BBC says: "The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names." What? You published the guy's photo with his name, and he said "hey, I'm still alive!" How can there possibly be confusion over his name? Same goes for the others.

Also, check out the article linked to in the above editorial. Under the title "Strength of the Evidence," the BBC writes:

"There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks.

At best the evidence is circumstantial.

Of this, perhaps the strongest leads are the alleged financial transfers between an al-Qaeda operative and the man alleged to have led the hijackers.

Other evidence - the intercepts, Mohammed Atta's link to Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the ties of other hijackers to al-Qaeda - is even less firm.

The evidence is not being judged in a court of law. It only needs to persuade governments around the world to back the US-led war on terrorism and to a lesser extent to carry public opinion."

Again, WTF?

great essay

very well done sir. the evil terrorists have exposed themselves in their attempt to cover up, lie, and block investigations.

Hersch link is dead

Here is a copy of the article:

http://cicentre.com/Documents/DOC_Hersch_OCT_01.htm

The way I read this article, the implication of the statement you quote is that the flight manuals were planted to cover up the involvement of a state actor, for example Iraq.

I agree that obviously planted evidence casts doubt on the official story. That's the way I view the pieces of airplane debris around the towers, such as the piece of fuselage and the wheels, which were obviously planted.