Crooked Cops and 9/11


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.

And what if a Defendant threatened important witnesses against him? Wouldn't that be a hint that the Defendant might be guilty? Well, the government has used frivolous arguments to silence a 9/11 whistleblower. Indeed, due to the government's efforts to silence her, she has become "the most gagged person in history".

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 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.

If anyone has any more of

obviously PLANTED evidence, please let me know.

You probably wouldn't add this to your list but

I am convinced that the flight 77 NSTB flight path simulation is faked evidence.

There are many problems with it as shown in Pilots for911Truth. However, the most devastating evidence for it being faked seems to be overlooked by many:

The flight path would take the plane over the Pentagon. Now assuming that's what actually happened, where did they get the flight data recorder from? Not the pentagon crash site right? If you believe that this data was legitimate (I don't), the plane would have landed somewhere else.

Either way, this is fabricated evidence. Either the plane hit the Pentagon and the data is faked. Or the Plane DIDN'T hit the Pentagon and they are incriminating themselves with this data that is supposed to SUPPORT a plane hitting the Pentagon.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

my lai not mai lai

pronounced mee lai

otherwise a great write up. OT but I think Mark Fuhrman planted that glove on purpose so OJ would have an out...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force