Senator Lindsey Graham, giving comfort to the 9/11 Commission, is now in open denial of scientific proof of 9/11 treason

Below is some of what a representative in Senator Graham's DC office told me on October 1st in response to my further inquiry into the Senator's acknowledgment and response to the information we gave him and he willingly accepted to take a look at. http://www.911blogger.com/node/20578

At first contact, his office refused to say he had looked at the information. Now they have admitted he has reviewed the information but is still sticking with the 9/11 Commission Report, scientific evidence to the contrary be damned and his oath not withstanding.

Now, Senator Graham is adding an amendment to the appropriations bill that reads in part: "None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department of Justice by this Act may be obligated or expended to commence or continue the prosecution in (a civilian) court of the United States of an individual suspected of planning, authorizing, organizing, committing or aiding the attacks on the United States and its citizens that occurred on September 11, 2001."

He hopes to reinforce the Military Commissions Act that he helped craft in dealing with the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and the Global War on Terror. A severe and telling irony in all this is that a core concern that Graham expresses is the protection of classified information. Meanwhile, I as an everyday American citizen have access to open scientific evidence that helps point in the proper direction to the true architects of the 9/11 black op murders, have given this to the Senator in the open on the record, and he persists in willful denial of the facts of the matter and what they mean.

Senator Graham should consider whether those that give "comfort" to the enemies of the United States of America and its Constitution, and the murderers of the people of this country and the world by denying overwhelming scientific evidence should also be tried in Military Commissions. I would opt for open criminal cases in federal court, where evidence can be known, analyzed and weighed not only by a jury and a judge but by all interested people in the world. Are you with or against the terrorists Senator Graham?

-------------------

Senator Graham's representative: "He believes what was written in the 9/11 Commission and nothing more."

Jeremy Rothe-Kushel: "And so he thinks the science is wrong, the science that we handed to him? He's had scientific advisors tell him that the science is wrong?"

SGR: I'm not saying the science is wrong. I'm just saying that he believes that the planes that flew into the World Trade Centers were the only things that brought them down."

JRK: "And how does he think that this high-tech explosive made its way into the dust of the World Trade Center? Does he have an explanation for that?"

SGR: "No he does not."

JRK: "So basically he's operating in denial of science as it stands today, the leading edge of scientific proof about how our fellow citizens were killed on that day?"

SGR: "If you want to put it that way."

JRK: "And did he look at the--because we also included a packet from the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, it was 850 of them now that point out the very obvious evidence that those buildings did not just collapse from the fires. Did he look at that too?"

SGR: "Yes."

JRK: "And so he thinks all those 800 architects and engineers are wrong?"

SGR: "Uh, he doesn't think they're wrong, he just thinks--I mean he's not going to change his opinion. His opinion thus far is agreeing with the 9/11 Commission. Until something else comes out that changes that, that's what he believes."

HAH!

That's funny!

Thanks, you just made my day. :)

Glad you like my initial comment

Before it was taken down. I guess censorship is everywhere.

The original comment suggested

the possibility of charges of treason and the prospect of a hangman's noose as a possible incentive for the good senator to change his mind in light of new scientific evidence etc.

Regarding the comment and the rules at 911Blogger

peacefulwarrior said:
"The original comment suggested - the possibility of charges of treason and the prospect of a hangman's noose as a possible incentive for the good senator to change his mind in light of new scientific evidence etc."

The original comment was:
""until something else comes out" - How about a hangman's noose ? for treason. Do you think that might help him change his mind?"

The reason I'm addressing this and have quoted it in full:
1) peacefulwarrior has called the removal censorship, is pushing the issue and misstated the original comment and its context.
2) the total up votes were 15. I understand the frustration of those who've been researching 9/11, publicizing evidence, enduring insults from the MSM and 'debunkers' and witnessing the failure of the media and politicians in their responsibility and duty to fully investigate 9/11 and prosecute all those responsible. And it may be the remark was off the cuff, and meant to be amusing- I imagine that's why some voted it up.

In the original comment there is no suggestion of charges for treason; what's suggested is that showing Graham a noose "for treason" (i.e. implying he's about to be lynched for treason) will induce him to recant his support for the 9/11 Commission Report. Threatening someone with death is torture under the UN Convention. Torture was used on alleged 'Al Qaeda' prisoners to obtain confessions about 9/11 and links to Iraq; in the same way, any statement induced by a noose is invalid.

Depending on the context in which it's presented, discussion of the idea that treason was committed by US persons in regard to 9/11, and that under current US law conviction for treason is punishable by death might be OK. For instance, the current law might be a useful bargaining chip towards the creation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. However, those who are seeking truth and justice for 9/11 should remember there's a case for 9/11 Truth and Justice being made in the court of public opinion- and remember how certain claims have been used against the 9/11 Truth Movement. Establishment shills like Beck and O'Reilly have been claiming the 9/11 Truth Movement is violent and an enemy of the US, and the MSM in general have been working to undermine the credibility of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Peacefulwarrior and others may be of the opinion that threatening people with extra-judicial execution is the best way to get truth and justice for 9/11, and in the US expressing that idea is protected speech- as is talking about the violent overthrow of the government. However, threatening people with death, lynching, and plotting or taking up arms against the govt are all illegal. 911Blogger is committed to non-violence; promotion of these ideas is not permitted here:

"Do not post material that promotes hatred, racism, violence, terrorism or criminal actions."
http://www.911blogger.com/rules

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Sorry but I stongly disagree.

The quote from the aide was "until something else comes out" The hangman's noose was a symbol representing the possibility of being charged with treason. I never threatened anyone. My personal feeling is that if there was even a remote possibility in the minds of our leaders that they could be charged for treason in these matters things would be different. In my opinion they don't seem the least bit concerned etc. As I have said many times there are only two reasons someone would support the official story on the events of 911. 1) they have never researched the matter because the evidence is overwhelming that the official story cannot be true. or 2) they are part of the cover-up. Your contention that the material posted involved " hatred, racism, violence. terrorism or criminal actions." and broke the rules is not supported.

I have had extensive professional training involving the judgment of various data analysis and paid to form and support an opinion in a highly ethical environment for more than a decade. I have testified in court as an expert in supporting these opinions. I feel that many people on this blog know much, much, more than I do about many aspects of the events of 911, however, I have been trained and paid to be objective and I stand by contention in this matter. Peace.

Good job getting this on the record.

Graham is a traitor to his country. I have nothing else to say.

...

They all are.

What a bill !

Now, Senator Graham is adding an amendment to the appropriations bill that reads in part: "None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department of Justice by this Act may be obligated or expended to commence or continue the prosecution in (a civilian) court of the United States of an individual suspected of planning, authorizing, organizing, committing or aiding the attacks on the United States and its citizens that occurred on September 11, 2001."

.................. You've got be be sh*ting me !

This can only mean that

This can only mean that Graham must believe individuals planned, authorized, organized and committed or aided the attacks on the United States or he would not add the amendment..Sometimes you can tell more from what people don,t say,deny or obfuscate.Far from dismissing the evidence he knows it to be factual and we now know that he knows.

Until something else comes out that changes that, that's what he believes."

This scenario is like a 6 foot 5" Arab man convicted of a shooting based on no evidence.Years later CCTV is found, in a house in Kandahar, proving the shooter was a dwarfose Texan with a bottle of Jack Daniels in his hand a rolled up $20 bill up his nose shouting " Human beings and fish can coexist peacefully". Saying you have seen nothing to change your mind is either an act of imbecility, an act of cowardice or an act of complicity to pervert the course of justice.

'Scientific Proof of 9/11 Treason'

I like this phrase as a lead-in when confronting government officials and Congressmen. Rather than put them on the defensive, this gets their attention and compels a response.

Speaking of which, has anyone been able to get a response from Sen. Gillibrand, or from her office?

Is there a way we can present this evidence to a caucus or block, because individually these cowards will just melt with fear and denial?

Also, if Charlie Sheen or other celebrities would go on TV and simply state that "Kirsten Gillibrand has been given scientific proof of 9/11 treason... and we are waiting to see what she is going to do about it." "We want a response, Senator." (I think this approach could be good. Go on the tube, Charlie).

There's a victory here...

According to his representative, Senator Graham agrees with the 850 architects and engineers. This can be capitalized upon; never mind his doublethink ostrich attitude.

9/11 Truth booklet PDFs: http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=ac1039fd00817eecd2db6fb9a8902bda

Good point

He even says at the end, he doesn't think A&E are wrong, he's just not going to change his opinion. He knows they are right, he knows he is a treasonous person, it is a choice he makes and he lives with daily. I pity people like this, I truly do.

The love that you withhold is the pain that you carry

Sorry

(I originally put this comment in the wrong place. Will relocate.)

Priceless

JRK: "And so he thinks all those 800 architects and engineers are wrong?"

SGR: "Uh, he doesn't think they're wrong, he just thinks--I mean he's not going to change his opinion.

In other words:
"My mind is made up. I don't deny the facts, I just don't believe them."

ROFLMFAO

Great job Jeremy!

This is true open denial.

He is a traitor, that is true, but he might also be suffering genuine hard core cognitive dissonance.

My mother is a simple homemaker, and I've presented to her the evidence. I present her the evidence. She can't dispute it. So I say "Well... so the movement is on the correct side of history right?"

Then her denial kicks in. She winces and wrinkles her forehead and exasperatedly says "But I still don't believe the US govt was involved in a massive conspiracy to attack the World Trade Center!"

Bob Bowman has several grown children

At least one of them still believed the Official Government story as of last year when my local group had dinner with him and his wife.

Senator Graham's spokesperson is not Senator Graham

Senator Graham can easily deny or dispute anything his spokesperson says.

So let's not focus on what some unelected nobody has said. Rather let's focus on the language Senator Graham has himself used in the ammendment.

Enough of the Farrakhan already

Nearly every post on blogger is being spammed by Douglas Hilton

Farrakhan as far as I'm concerned is a charismatic leader, his information is culled from many sources including far right racists, personally I don't need charismatic leaders and I'll do my own research, we are our own leaders, this kind of worship is what we, the human race, should be moving away from in our (r)evolution.

Ok Doug you've made your point (too many times IMO) it's getting boring.