Glenn Greenwald inadvertently makes the case for 9/11 truth
Salon.com columnist Glenn Greenwald posted an article yesterday titled, U.N. Report finds Israel "summarily executed" U.S. citizen on flotilla, (http://is.gd/fEauO). In the article, Greenwald addresses the obvious culpability of a party involved in a crime who destroys or withholds evidence pertaining to the crime, and then distributes its own edited version of the facts. Here is a direct quote, "In no other situation would a party to a conflict who steals all of the evidence, withholds it from the world, and then selectively releases its own blatantly distorted, edited version of a fraction of the evidence be trusted. The opposite is true: that party would immediately be assumed to be guilty precisely because of that very behavior of obfuscation; that behavior is the behavior of a guilty party." Greenwald is speaking about Israel in his article, but he could easily be referring to the U.S. government's similar actions with the available evidence and subsequent presentation of the facts pertaining to the attacks on 9/11. The FBI's apprehension of security camera tapes at the Pentagon, their destruction of the audio tape interviews with air traffic controllers, as well as the destruction of the Able Danger investigation materials illustrate some of the ways in which our government "stole" the evidence pertinent to a crime investigation. The subsequent report by the 9/11 Commission which asserted there was no information about an Able Danger program, and purposely omitted sworn testimony by WTC employee and eyewitness, William Rodriguez, FBI translator Sibel Edmonds and U.S. Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta from its final report demonstrates further efforts by our government to withhold evidence which would directly conflict with the story it wanted to present to the public. By Mr. Greenwald's standards of proof, the U.S. government actively participated in a deliberate misconstruction of the evidence pertaining to the attacks on 9/11/2001, and therefore, "that party would immediately by assumed to be guilty precisely because of that very behavior of obfuscation. That behavior is the behavior of a guilty party." Exactly.