Push Continues To Declassify Censored 9/11 Document. What’s Obama Hiding?


Push Continues To Declassify Censored 9/11 Document. What’s Obama Hiding?

By: Joshua Cook Jan 8, 2015

The fight continues to declassify the 28-page congressional report which allegedly details Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. On Wednesday, former Democratic Senator Bob Graham, Republican Representative Walter Jones of North Carolina and Democrat Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts gathered with 9/11 families to demand that President Obama release the document without any redactions.

At the press conference, the men are rallying support for H. Res. 428, a resolution urging Obama’s action to decensor the document. The bipartisan resolution has 21 co-sponsors, including 10 Republicans and 11 Democrats.

H. Res. 428 states that declassification of the pages is necessary to provide the American public with the full truth surrounding the tragic events of September 11, 2001, particularly relating to the involvement of foreign governments.

Former Senator Graham helped produce the report in 2002 and contends that keeping this document classified is a continued orchestrated cover-up.

Appearing on Fox & Friends, Lynch said that there are three very good reasons to release the report. First being transparency.

“Secondly, we owe to to the families who lost loved ones on Sept. 11 and also, I think, this report, if you read it, will help inform legislators and members of the government on how we deal with security threats going forward and how we deal with countries, especial in the Middle East, that might be a source of terrorism,” he explained.

Post 9/11, the report was classified by President Bush, citing ongoing national security issues. Now, opponents say, those reasons don’t stand up.

Last summer, 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton also came out in support of declassification.

“I’m embarrassed that they’re not declassified,” Hamilton said to the New York Post.

Here is a list of current co-sponsors for H Res. 428. Click here:https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-resolution/428/cosponsors

If the 28-pages are declassified by President Obama it could expose the Saudi government as being enemies of the U.S., not allies.

According to former Secretary of State and potential U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, ISIS has received funding from the Saudis.

Eight years after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Clinton, wrote in a cable leaked by WikiLeaks that “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT (Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan) and other terrorist groups.”

Senator Bob Graham, the co-chairman of the official inquiry into 9/11, has said the Washington has turned a blind eye to the Saudis support.

“I believe that the failure to shine a full light on Saudi actions and particularly its involvement in 9/11 has contributed to the Saudi ability to continue to engage in actions that are damaging to the U.S. – and in particular their support for Isis,”he said. Read more here: http://benswann.com/exclusive-obama-partnering-with-the-house-of-saud-is-a-terrible-strategy/

Joshua Cook is a writer and a political activist. His work has appeared on DrudgeReport, InfoWars, Reason.com, WND.com, Breitbart.com, DailyCaller and FreedomOutPost.com. If you have any tips please email him at joshuacook@benswann.com.

ABC report


Of course this story is buried under the Paris terrorist attacks. More uncanny timing. This press conference occurred the VERY same time. I like the story because it breaks the taboo on 9/11 questions and opens up Pandora's box.

“I do not understand how you can have a strong foreign policy when you are trying to hide the truth from the American people,” said Rep. Jones, a co-sponsor of the bill to declassify the report.

Where is the free press?

The Obama administration has been trying to intimidate the press and clamp down on leaks to reporters. Yet the media pretends like they are too stupid to understand the import of this story. This story exposes the War on Terror tactics as coup-like Stasi garbage. How do you justify rectal hydration as some sort of desperate effort to get intelligence when the President who ordered it was covering up direct leads to the hijackers?

This story is the door to more 9/11 transparency. It should lead directly to understanding what happened in the intelligence community. For some reason Graham won't make a connection between obstructed al Qaeda investigations and the Saudi links to 9/11. The media for their part simply refuse to use their considerable access to interview people like Rich Blee or Rod Middleton. Either one of these Bin Laden unit chiefs could explain why their units were ordered to back off al Qaeda investigations.

Press Conference 1/7/15


@13:48 - "we have subsequently been joined by others..Porter Goss, who wish's he coulda been here today to participate as well..."

Bob Graham 1/7/15 Continued...

"The consequences, in my judgment are three:

One, is a denial of the truth. A core question in 9/11 is, did these 19 people act alone, or did they have a network of support which facilitated their ability to carry out a very complex plot. No one who has looked closely at the facts, including the individuals that I just named, has come to a conclusion other than that it is highly improbable that the 19 people could have acted alone. Yet, the official position of the United States government has been that they did act alone, and that there is no necessity for further inquiry into the question of whether there was a support network....

"The second issue, is the issue of justice. Some 3,000 members of the families who were lost on 9/11 have been trying for years to get justice through our system for the losses that they have suffered. The position of the United States government has been to protect Saudi Arabia, at virtually every step of the judicial process. When the United States government was called upon to take a position, it has been a position adverse to the interests of the United States citizens seeking justice, and protective of the government which, in my judgment, was the most responsible for that network of support."...

The third consequence is the issue of national security, and frequently those who have defended nondisclosure, have said, this cannot be made available to the American people, because it would be adverse to our national security. It will affect methods and sources of information, or other information that is inappropriate to be made publicly known. As the two Congressmen have just said, they both read the report — not 12 years ago, as I participated in writing the report — but they have read it recently, and have both come to the same conclusion that we did, a dozen years ago, that there is no threat to national security in disclosure".

is itpossible that this is why the Saudi government has

declared they won't cut oil production even if it goes to 20 bucks & below?
If the pages are disclosed will they then cut production as retaliation? Is that the national security problem Obama fears?

LImited Hangout?

There is a strong possibility this is a form of limited hangout, in which the 13 year inbuilt delay renders the issue - most conveniently, or perhaps deliberately engineered - into less of a media centerpiece - i.e. attracting minimal attention.

The 28 pages controversy maintains the central platform of the official story - that hijackers boarded and crashed 4 planes. All that's different is that it spreads the blame a little - encompassing not just the 19, but also (some of) their alleged funders and enablers. However - there is zero hard evidence, that would stand up to the microscope of a proper court hearing (NOT a military tribunal kangaroo court), that *any* hijackers boarded those planes: It's all hearsay, single sourced, and lacking certified "chain of custody" requirements.

Secondly, as the 28 pages are classified, how will we know, upon its release, that the contents will remain intact, as originally drafted, without subsequent censorship or alteration? The 28 pages were also read by the two original cosponsors (Rep. Lynch and Rep. Jones), but how can they be sure that what even they read were the full unabridged version?

My concerns, too

Those are my concerns too, bloggulator -- we can't allow anyone to simply pin a little blame on S.A. and call it a day. I see this as an opportunity to inject everything and the kitchen sink into the public debate. I like the window this opens, not the potential limited hangout. The more Obama delays he more opportunities to present evidence of a false flag.

Here's what Anti-Media just posted on Facebook to their nearly half million followers. 6,000 who have shared.
It's a damning C.D. picture with the push for truth story.

Two days ago they did a full 9/11 truth update:
If you can't view it properly: http://massreport.com/11-facts-you-cant-ignore-about-911/

Mine too,

This chapter neatly avoids the question of who put the Saudi's up to funding the patsies.

bob graham

early on (aug 2001) graham was privy to warnings about imminent attack on towers. pg 284 kevin ryan's 'another nineteen'. did he do anything about it then??
p.285: from same book: "both goss and sen graham rejected calls for an investigation."

same page:
'throughout the inquiry, the approach taken by goss and graham was one of uncritical deference to the bush administration and the intelligence community.'

pg 287: "it was claimed by insiders that goss and graham exercised 'near total control over the panel, forbidding the inquiry's staff to speak to other lawmakers.'" 'One way in which goss and graham controlled the investigation was to ask the fbi to look ito panel members who might have leaked info.' this resulted in the fbi investigating the Inquiry as the Inquiry was investigating the fbi.'
"goss and graham, who represented the areas where via operations and drug running had become common and terrorist training had occurred, wanted to keep the facts about 9/11 under wraps. they were, however, curiously coy about one major u.s. ally: saudi arabia.'

(No subject)