By World911Truth.org

According to a document obtained by the ACLU under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) on Tuesday March 16, the 9/11 commission was warned on Jan. 6th, 2004 by high-level administration officials to "not cross the line" in the investigation of the events that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.

The document is available at http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/CIA.pdf

Here's a copy of the letter in question (page 26 of the PDF document).


Department of Defense
Department of Justice
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)


National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

Your staff has advised us that the Commission seeks to participate in the questioning of certain enemy combatants detained in the war against terrorists of global reach. Such action by the Commission would substantially interfere with the ability of the United States to perform its law enforcement, defense and intelligence functions in the protection of the American people.

Your legislative commission has had extraordinary — indeed, unprecedented in the annals of American history — access to many of the Nation's most sensitive secrets in the conduct of its work, including detainee information. In response to the Commission's expansive requests for access to secrets, the executive branch has provided such access in full cooperation. There is, however, a line that the Commission should not cross — the line separating the Commission's proper inquiry into the September 11, 2001 attacks from interference with the Government's ability to safeguard the national security, including protection of Americans from future terrorist attacks. The Commission staffs proposed participation in questioning of detainees would cross that line.

As the officers of the United States responsible for the law enforcement, defense and intelligence functions of the Government, we urge your Commission to not further pursue the proposed request to participate in the questioning of detainees.


John Ashcroft, Attorney General
Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
George J. Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence

9/11 Commission findings based on torture

In December of 2009, we have published an important article titled “Much of 9/11 Commission findings cite intelligence garnered by torture” in which we describe that much of the material cited in the 9/11 Commission’s findings was derived from war detainees during brutal CIA interrogations authorized by the Bush administration. In fact, information derived from the interrogations was central to the 9/11 Report’s most critical chapters, those on the planning and execution of the attacks.

The CIA has since revealed that in 2005 it destroyed videotapes of prisoners being tortured.

When asked by MSNBC News anchor if “under duress, will people tell the truth if tortured?” former CIA officer Robert Baer answered “under duress, under the threat of duress, people will tell what they think you want to hear. It is an unreliable tool. And the reason I say this is I have spent 21 years in the CIA, in and out of prisons watching these techniques, one way or another, reading reports, and the countries that torture, uniformly produce inaccurate intelligence. Torture does not work.”

They also talk about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed who has been waterboarded over 183 times.

The below text is a excerpt of the Examiner.com article on this newly released memo

The warning in the memo released by the government to the ACLU is just one example of how the Bush administration fiercely struggled to prevent the 9/11 Commission from conducting a deeper probe into the attacks. It is common knowledge that Bush and Cheney refused to cooperate with the investigation and when forced to do so, only testified together, not under oath.

9/11 Commissioners criticism

What may not be known to many Americans is that members of the 9/11 Commission have publicly stated that the investigation was a whitewash, and stymied from the beginning.

John Farmer, the senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, said that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11, echoing the assertions of fellow 9/11 Commission members who concluded that the Pentagon was engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack.

Senator Max Cleland, who resigned from the 9/11 Commission after calling it a “national scandal”, stated in a 2003 PBS interview:

“I’m saying that’s deliberate. I am saying that the delay in relating this information to the American public out of a hearing… series of hearings, that several members of Congress knew eight or ten months ago, including Bob Graham and others, that was deliberately slow walked… the 9/11 Commission was deliberately slow walked, because the Administration’s policy was, and its priority was, we’re gonna take Saddam Hussein out.”

— Senator Max Cleland, former 9/11 Commissioner who resigned after calling it a “national scandal”

On Democracy Now, Cleland also said, “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

In 2006 the Washington Post reported that several members of the 9/11 Commission suspected deception on part of the Pentagon:

Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerry also has unanswered questions. According to an article in Salon.com, he believes that there are legitimate reasons to believe an alternative version to the official story."There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version,” Kerry said. The commission had limited time and limited resources to pursue its investigation, and its access to key documents and witnesses was obstructed by government agencies and key administration officials.

Commissioner Tim Roemer suggested that Commission members were considering a criminal probe of false statements. “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting,”Roemer told CNN. “We were not sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission or merely part of the fumbling bureaucracy.”

The document that the ACLU has obtained corroborates what officials involved in the 9/11 Commission have been saying for years. The entire “investigation” was nothing more than a whitewash designed to hide the facts about 9/11 from the American people.

Questioning Detainees Would Lead To Sponsors

The fear from the executive branch regarding questioning of detainees (patsies?) may have been due to a fear that terrorist funding and mentoring would lead back to forces tied to western intelligence, suggesting that those in the executive branch were aware that they had something to hide.

Western authorities have been repeatedly implicated in sponsoring "terrorists".

Synagogue Bomb Suspects: The Feds Put Us Up to It!

"Defense attorneys say an alleged plot to bomb New York synagogues was hatched and directed by a federal informant. Lawyers for four men from Newburgh have filed a motion to dismiss the terror indictment against them. They said the informant badgered the defendants until they got involved in the plot. They said the informant chose the targets, supplied fake bombs for the synagogues and a fake missile to shoot down planes. The motion said he also offered to pay the defendants, who attorneys alleged weren't inclined toward any crime until the informant began recruiting them."


Read between the "line".

You can look, but don't look here or here or here.

Proof of cover up

Right there in black and white. Damning.


Does this constitute an obstruction of justice?

Probably not

since the 9/11 commission was not conducting a criminal investigation. They made the creature as toothless as they could--and still they were concerned it might get too near the truth regardless.

Homeland Security

They simply do and say anything they want secure in the knowledge that there will be no accountability in this life.

Everyone of these traitors

needs to be brought up before a grand jury for an indictment.

But, can we make people look at it?

I'm astonished at the unwillingness to look at these things by so many. I post links (ignored) over and over at one site, at mostly a Conservative (I'm no Conservative, by the way) site, and of course I get called names. Not that it does any good, but I've made a point of mentioning that the word IGNORE is the root word of IGNORANT.

I've copy/pasted many many bios from Patriots Question 911, with their impeccable credentials, and other Conservatives galore among them from Patriots Question 911 and they continue to ignore it and call names. It's astonishing the rock solid denial I am up against.

I am glad however that this information, a document straight from the Neo-con's filthy operations is available to all.

It seems that convincing most of the complicity of the mainstream media is as big a task as convincing them what took place on September, eleventh of 01.

Not that we need these guys, but for the sport of it, it would be interesting to see if anyone else could make a dent in these guys skulls. Of course trying to stay on the subject matter is a common decency among blogs, in general, although I've violated that on occasion, but most often, someone will call me a "TWOOFER", with accompanying adjectives. If anyone feels inclined to take them on.....I'd love it if someone else could get through to them. If I dropped the link of this document of the moment, just MORE evidence, like we don't have any (my gosh, we're swimming in evidence) they'd probably call it a fake.


Max Cleland

If Max Cleland was on Democracy Now, we need to give Amy Goodman a break.

This torture issue

has implications for the upcoming trial.

the information extracted from KSM was produced through torture, the guy was tortured - what's to prevent him from turning the tables, getting his case dismissed, and then suing the US government? This is the reason they still have to try him in a kangaroo court military tribunal, because he cannot be tried in a REAL court, not openly or fairly, so it's a farse. Who the hell knows WHAT this guys involvement was if any, even in the false flag pasty aspect of the operation.

Maybe he's just a fish merchant or something stupid, just a guy they thought looked evil when he awoke in the morning, his hair amess..? Who the hell knows?

Meaningless, fruitless noise...unless...

there is a damned media consensus, as powerful as the one that gave us Monica Lowinksy. Regarding corruption in high places, 9/11, etc, it has ALWAYS been about the media or lack thereof. Either they go with it, or it dies.

Otherwise, it is a tale told by an idiot, signifying zilch.