By Tim Hjersted
Sep 11, 2008
Seven years after 9/11, debate about who was involved in the attacks remains as contentious as ever. Despite Osama Bin Laden being popularly named as the prime suspect, the FBI to this day does not have him listed on their Most Wanted list for 9/11. By the FBI's own admission
, there is "no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11". So who was responsible? We still don't know, but evidence available does prove one thing: the official story cannot be true.
To bring attention to this last year, a few friends and I organized a screening of the documentary "Oil, Smoke, & Mirrors
" at Liberty Hall. The Films For Action screening brought in a crowd of over 250 people, and the response was comparatively enthusiastic. Like the film above, Oil, Smoke & Mirrors presents in factual and credible terms what the mainstream media has failed to deliver - a balanced and serious look into the other side of the story. In general that's the main purpose of the group, and of this blog - to bring attention to information that isn't covered by the major news media
Granted, of all the issues Films For Action has covered over the last two years, 9/11 has certainly been one of the most controversial
. To present information that implies that officials in our own government could be complicit in allowing or aiding the 9/11 attacks can certainly not be taken lightly. But with every issue the mainstream media has failed to adequately cover, we feel that it's important that people have access to the full spectrum of information on a given issue, not just the governments official take.
The film above raises many important questions about what really happened on 9/11, presenting evidence that contradicts the official narrative
in many ways. At the same time, in the span of 33 minutes, the film only hints at the vast body of evidence that has been accumulated on the subject. Doing hours of research on the issue ourselves, we've cataloged several of the best films you can watch
on the Films For Action website, and many articles and websites
where you can look into the issue further.
Ultimately, we don't know what really happened that day. The 9/11 Commission doesn't give us any clearer answer. Over one hundred professors
and over fifty senior government officials
have been quoted raising serious questions about the integrity of the 9/11 Commission's official report.
As compiled by WantToKnow.info
- Senator Max Cleland, a former member of the 9/11 Commission, who resigned in December 2003 and who has been a U.S. Senator from Georgia from 1996 to 2002 is on the record saying:
"If this decision stands [to limit 9/11 Commission access to White House documents], I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised."
Raymond L. McGovern is a former Chairman of the National Intelligence Estimates and was responsible for the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He is a 27-year CIA veteran, and former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer. Here is one of many statements he's made on the Commission:
"I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 report is a joke. The question is: What’s being covered up? Is it gross malfeasance, gross negligence? Now there are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they’re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions. This is the bottom line for me; just as Hitler in 1933 cynically exploited the burning of the parliament building, the Reichstag, this is exactly what our President did in exploiting 9/11. The cynical way in which he played on our trauma, used it to justify attacking, making a war of aggression on a country that he knew had nothing to do with 9/11. That suffices for me. That’s certainly an impeachable offense."
Rep. Curt Weldon is a ten-term Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania. He is the House Armed Services Committee Vice Chairman and Homeland Security Committee Vice Chairman. In a speech he gave to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2005:
"Intelligence officers ... identified [lead 9/11 hijacker] Mohammed Atta and three terrorists a year before 9/11, tried to transfer that information to the FBI, were denied, and the FBI Director has now said ... the FBI could have used it to perhaps prevent the hijackings. The 9/11 Commission totally ignored this entire story.
I am a strong supporter of our military. I am a strong supporter of President Bush. I say all of that, Mr. Speaker, because ... there is something desperately wrong here. I have met with at least 10 people who fully corroborate what [intelligence officer] Tony Shaffer says. This is not [about] Republicans or Democrats. It is about what is fundamental to this country."
The list goes on. These are not "nut-job" conspiracy theorists. As Alan Miller writes on behalf of WantToKnow.info:
"These dedicated individuals from across the political spectrum are not irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report is not only reasonable and responsible, it is in fact a patriotic duty."
To get the truth, we must demand that a truly independent investigation of 9/11 be carried out with the power to subpoena and bring criminal charges against those involved
. Then, we may finally get some real answers.
A common argument is made that it would be impossible for a conspiracy of this complexity to be carried out without them messing up in some way and the truth getting out.
What this argument ignores is the pivotal role that the mainstream media plays in the virtual blackout of all opposing views, including those from the government officials quoted above.
The truth is, a great deal of information *has* come out, and many government officials *have* spoken out. But the media that most Americans use to get informed simply hasn't reported on this.
This happens for many reasons, obviously, but it's important to remember that the Mainstream Media's efforts to pursue their own self-interest
does not conflate the media as a "co-conspirator".
The media do not report on this news, if not simply for the fact that they would be denounced, attacked, smeared, and ridiculed by people in precisely the same way that attackers commenting on the internet and other mediums influence others not to "go there".
Is this the climate we want to have in our public discourse, when so much is at stake?
If you'd like to discuss any of the information provided here, please feel free to get in touch
or leave your comments below.