Two Revealing Quotes about 9/11 Uncovered by ‘George Washington’

Two Revealing Quotes about 9/11 Uncovered by ‘George Washington’

By Arabesque

9/11 Blogger George Washington has recently uncovered two really great quotes about 9/11. Fox News in a secret memo implicitly admits that there is a problem with the 'official story' of 9/11:

"The so-called 9/11 Commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is its eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both former and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, but this is not 'what did he know and when did he know it' stuff. Don't turn this into Watergate."

Omission is one of the most powerful tools of disinformation used by the MSM. We see this every day when they do not cover those questioning the official story of 9/11, or when they fail to do this job themselves as implied in this Fox Memo. When they do, they highlight the weakest theories and unprovable speculation along with the ad-hominem "conspiracy theorist" and “conspiracy theories”.

We also see omission when they make entire hit pieces, like the History Channel's 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction, in which they pretend that they have all of the answers to the questions.

Another gem of a quotation was provided by NIST. They were tasked with explaining the collapse of the WTC towers and Building 7 on 9/11. In response to a request for correction by 9/11 family members and scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, NIST replied:

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

That's what many 9/11 skeptics have been complaining about for a long time. Here is how George Washington puts it:

Well, yes! That's exactly the point the petitioners are trying to make. No modern steel frame high-rise building has ever collapsed before or after 9/11 due to fire other than at WTC 1, 2 and 7, even though other fires have burned longer and hotter. And even if they somehow did start to collapse, the collapse would not have occurred at virtual free-fall speeds while creating enormous dust clouds right from the start.

While NIST is "unable to provide a full explanation", Steven Jones had already made this observation when he characterized the NIST report as a "pre-collapse" report:

The NIST team fairly admits that their report'does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.' (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.) Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for explosive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation, as seen in cases of acknowledged controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000.) The NIST report could be called the official 'pre-collapse theory.'

In other words, NIST had already admitted that they couldn't (or wouldn't) provide a full explanation when they specified their report would only deal with "collapse initiation". How the 110 floor World Trade Center Towers crumbled completely to the ground when they were specifically designed to survive plane crashes of the type seen on 9/11, is left unanswered by NIST.

Dr. Steven Jones and others, have their own theory.

Credit for the NIST quote

actually goes to James Gourley, not me. He emailed me about it.


"such a small sample size"


NIST basically admits they are full of shit about the amount of recovered steel, and what can be inferred from the samples:

"NIST has stated that " the steel recovered is sufficient for determining the quality of the steel and in combination with published literature, for determining mechanical properties as input to models of building performance"


"While NIST did not find evidence that any of the recovered core columns experience temperatures in excess of 250deg.C, it is not possible to extrapolate from such a small sample size to state that none of the core columns on the fire affected floors reached temperatures in excess of 250deg.C."

They further admit:

"NIST noted in NCSTAR 1-3 that the core columns recovered from floors where fires were known to have occurred represent 1 percent of the columns in those areas."

NIST has admitted that they only bothered to keep "1 percent" of the columns from even the fire floors, and that this is a "small sample size."

This is powerful evidence that a cover up destroyed massive amounts of evidence, and that accurate analysis after the fact cannot happen (especially by those clowns).

This should be written up as a debunking the debunkers type piece. I believe and others weigh in on these issues, with incorrect assumptions.

Page 65 of Without Precedent

"We were supposed to be independent, not necessarily confrontational. We were investigating a national catastrophe, not a White House transgression; this was 9/11, not Watergate."

Excellent finds

Excellent finds. I was not aware of this one.

"We were supposed to be independent, not necessarily confrontational. We were investigating a national catastrophe, not a White House transgression; this was 9/11, not Watergate."

“In… blaming everybody a little, the Commission blames nobody.” Benjamin DeMott of Harpers Magazine

“The purpose of a government investigatory commission is to place blame where it does the least harm politically.” Paul Craig Roberts

“Our aim has not been to assign individual blame.” 9/11 Commission Report, p. xvi

“This was not something that had to happen… There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed.” December 17-21, 2003: 9/11 Commission Chairman Says 9/11 Attacks Were Preventable

I thought the echo of Watergate

in both the Fox memo and Kean and Hamilton's book was telling.

Who says it's NOT Watergate BEFORE the investigation has begun?

Here's a good example of where they contradict themselves:

"Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations, and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue." page 261

So, FAA and NORAD are lying through their teeth, and Cheney and Bush refuse to testify under oath, and the entire investigation is conducted by a national security state and White House insider, but, shoot, there's nothing untoward about any of that.