Kathy said:Most forms of cover-ups take 50 years or more to discover, usually after the release of government documents like NORTHWOODS and the declassified 1943 memo to General L.R. Groves from nuclear scientists outlining the use of nuclear gases, like depleted uranium to keep lands out of the hands of the enemy.
As Oldtimer stated, and G. W. Bush also stated in a 2003 interview, in the future "we'll all be dead so who cares." I care, because my kids will be there, and my future grandchildren.
I've wagered something more valuable than money, my reputation.
that is not much of a wager!! if that is all you have to wager ok i'll bet 2 cents
If I got paid to do this, I wouldn't be wasting time on a rancher's forum. As raising cattle is my livelihood, I am attempting to point out the information being brought forward, which demands government answers, to my fellow ranchers.
once again how can we be asuured that raising cattle is your livihood when you have previously stated your hubby is some sort of an engineer? or is it a pastime to work with cattle?
I sit as a citizen of my country, Canada, and I am deplored that we will allow ourselves to be dragged into war (Afganastan) without investigating the valid questions surrounding 9 11 brought forward by many well-educated people. The 9 11 Commission said nothing about why Building 7 collapsed. And the co-chair stated in his interview with CBC reporter Soloman, that the 9 11 Commission was "set up to fail".
YOUR goverment was not dragged into this war!! YOUR goverment as part of NATO voluntered ro send troops when MY goverment decided to do this!
9 11 co-chair Lee Hamilton stated in his interview with CBC:
Hamilton: I don’t believe for a minute that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history. We wrote it under a lot of time pressure, and we sorted through the evidence as best we could.
Now, it would be really rather remarkable if we got everything right. So far, of the things that have been brought up challenging the report, to my knowledge, we have more credibility than the challenger. But I would not for a moment want to suggest that that’s always true, either in the past or in the future.
you are right it would be very remarkable if anything YOU and your group got anything right
People will be investigating 9/11 for the next hundred years in this country, and they’re going to find out some things that we missed here.
So I don’t automatically reject all the evidence you cite. It may be we missed it, it may be we ignored it when we shouldn’t have - I don’t think we did, but it's possible.
Solomon: You write.. the first chapter of the book is 'the Commission was set up to fail.' - my goodness, for the critics - who suggest that it was indeed set up to fail as some kind of obfuscation - you certainly dangled a juicy piece of bait out there in the river. Why do you think you were set up to fail?
Hamilton: Well, for a number of reasons: Tom Kean and I were substitutes - Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell were the first choices; we got started late; we had a very short time frame - indeed, we had to get it extended; we did not have enough money - 3 million dollars to conduct an extensive investigation. We needed more, we got more, but it took us a while to get it.
We had a lot of skeptics out there, who really did not want the Commission formed. Politicians don’t like somebody looking back to see if they made a mistake.
The Commission had to report right, just a few days before the Democratic National Convention met, in other words, right in the middle of a political campaign. We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. We knew the history of commissions; the history of commissions were they.. nobody paid much attention to 'em.
this carries a lot of weightl the dnc who pays any attention to them kind of like that group you WORK FOR clueless
So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail. We decided that if we were going to have any success, we had to have a unanimous report, otherwise the Commission report would simply be filed.
quote from CBC interview with David Ray Griffin:
Solomon: I guess it begs the question - there would be huge number of explosives that would... so I guess the theory is that also the buildings were rigged with explosives. Some say that, you know, controlled demolition is a huge job, when any building is taken down like this, specifically a huge building, it takes weeks and weeks to plant controlled explosives, and they have to be carefully planted - how would they do that in the World Trade Center in post '93, when the security had been tightened? I mean, not just lax security, but this would have to be a huge job to do this..
Griffin: That's exactly right, and so it certainly is not something al Qaeda operatives could have done, so that if there were explosives planted, it did have to be an inside job. And then if we ask 'well, how is that possible?', then we find something that the mainstream press has, for some reason, not seen fit to report, which is that this company Securacom, that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center, one of its principals in the preceding years, when the new security system was put in, was Marvin Bush, the president's brother. And then Wirt Walker III, perhaps even more important, was the CEO, and his tenure existed up through 9/11. So there's no mystery how people could have gotten access.
Furthermore, we have reports from people in the World Trade Center, that in the days and weeks preceding 9/11, certain parts of the building were closed off, during which it was said repairs were being made, and engineers going in and out, and the power was down so all security cams were off, and so forth. So this is not a mystery how this could have been done.
I've wagered something more valuable than money, my reputation.