|
printable version
- js reader version
- view hidden posts
- tags and related articles
View article without comments
by C/O Diogenes
Friday, May. 23, 2003 at 7:18 AM
Senator Robert Graham (D-FL), head of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into the incident is calling the Bush administration's refusal to release the report of the Congressional joint inquiry to the Commission a "cover-up".
911 Families, Investigators Demand Truth About Air Security For Immediate Release Contacts: John Judge (202) 583-5347 Kyle Hence (401) 935-7715 5-22-3
WASHINGTON, DC -- The 9/11 CitizensWatch, an advocacy group for family members of victims of the attack as well as independent researchers and investigators nationwide, is calling on the White House and 9/11 National Commission holding open hearings today and Friday to conduct a full investigation into the air safety and air defense failures of 9/11. Senator Robert Graham (D-FL), head of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into the incident is calling the Bush administration's refusal to release the report of the Congressional joint inquiry to the Commission a "cover-up". Former Congressman Tim Roemer (D-IN) has protested the reluctance of the Justice Department and Bush administration to release transcripts of Congressional testimony from closed hearings, some of which Roemer attended. "Without full cooperation from all branches of government and disclosure of records at all levels, the Commission cannot possibly conduct a thorough investigation of the events of 9/11 or recommend future actions and policies," said Kyle Hence, co-founder of 9/11 Citizen,s Watch. "This Commission must be as transparent, public and accountable as possible to insure public confidence in their findings and recommendations," he said. A 9/11 family member, Mindy Kleinberg of September 11 Advocates, noted in her testimony to the Commission in March that following the FAA,s realization that a hijacking was taking place on Flight 11 "according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m.Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m. -- a full 32 minutes after the loss of contact with Flight 11. Why was there a delay in the FAA notifying NORAD? Why was there a delay in NORAD scrambling fighter jets? How is this possible when [North East Air Defense System] was fully staffed with planes at the ready and monitoring our Northeast airspace?" "Serious questions remain regarding the breakdown of air safety and defense procedures on September 11, 2001, and the witnesses empanelled by the Commission for the current hearings cannot address them fully," noted 9/11 CitizensWatch co-founder John Judge. "A thorough investigation requires public testimony from pilots, ground crews, airport security personnel, Air Force and Air National Guard base officers, air controllers, FAA officers, and release of records, testimony and recordings of communications that day between agencies, from planes to ground, and from cell phone conversations," he noted. "These issues extend beyond FAA and NORAD to those guarding the specially protected airspace around Washington, DC (Triad and area P-56), and to security at the Pentagon itself. We call on the Commission to hold future public hearings to take extended testimony on this critical question," Judge said. 9/11 CitizensWatch was founded to serve as a watchdog group that will monitor the work of the independent National Commission on Terrorist Acts Upon the United States. A citizen-led effort that unites families of the victims of 9/11 with investigators and researchers who have raised the unanswered questions about the events of that day and the forces behind these attacks, as well as about the government responses to them at home and abroad. 9/11 CitizensWatch also serves as a liaison between these interested parties and the Commission staff. 9/11 CitizensWatch P.O. Box 772, Washington, DC 20044 202 583-5347 www.911citizenswatch.org
Report this post as:
by Diogenes
Friday, May. 23, 2003 at 7:20 AM
...on 911?
Report this post as:
by brigg
Friday, May. 23, 2003 at 7:27 AM
With all this indisputible and unquestionable evidence at our fingertips, and with career prosectors and a group of Democratic Congressmen and women who after Florida 2000 would just love to bring down Bush, why aren't these people in mass and in strong unity standing in the House and Senate floors and daily pounding the podium demanding answers to this overwhelming evidence?
Report this post as:
by Diogenes
Friday, May. 23, 2003 at 8:33 AM
...cowardice.
Report this post as:
by Meyer London
Friday, May. 23, 2003 at 8:46 AM
The military abounds in alcoholics, incompetents, flunkies who rose through the ranks through boot-licking, and similar characters. This could explain the failure to send intercepter planes. But I'm not so sure. Maybe it wasn't a "mistake" at all. A lot of questions have to be answered, and there should be open hearings like those which exposed the CIA back in the 1970's.
Report this post as:
by brigg
Friday, May. 23, 2003 at 9:15 AM
They weren't cowards when they went after Nixon. Nixon had the same enormous powers to pull strings and twist arms just like Bush does. They didn't let that stop them. And the "evidence" you have for this is huge in comparison to what they had on Nixon, but they had enough on him he thought it better to resign.
No. If they weren't cowards then, I have no reason to believe they are cowards now. Must be something else, like the credibility of the "evidence".
Report this post as:
by Diogenes
Friday, May. 23, 2003 at 9:20 AM
...in what way is the evidence not credible?
Did NORAD show up?
You are again comparing Apples and Oranges.
Report this post as:
by brigg
Friday, May. 23, 2003 at 9:32 AM
I have every reason to believe that if it were credible, some Democratic Congressman or woman (you know, those people who would like to see Bush take the plunge) would in mass and in strong unity standing in the House and Senate floors and daily pounding the podium demanding answers to this overwhelming evidence. But they aren't. Why not?
The Democrats would love for Bush to go down. Let's not even pretend that's questionable.
Cowards??? They weren't cowards when it came to going after Nixon's throat. I have no evidence to suggest they wouldn't go after Bush if the "evidence" were credible. When the evidence was credible back in the 70's, they went for blood. No cowards in that group. No cowards in this group either. That tells all of us they must not feel to confident about the "evidence".
Report this post as:
by Diogenes
Friday, May. 23, 2003 at 9:50 AM
...while substituting an irrelevant comparison.
"Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles as if she had laid an asteroid." - - - Mark Twain
Nixon is an inapt comparison because when he finally came tumbling down it was after a long drawn out slow accretion of evidence over several years. The Congresscritters did not act until there was such overwhelming revulsion for Nixon in the Public realm that the felt emboldened enough to act. At no time did they exhibit much in the way of courage. It was only after many Newspaper accounts of the corruption, the resignation of Spiro Agnew for accepting bribes, Woodward and Bernstein, the Saturday Night Massacre and many other events leading up to the climactic collapse of Nixon.
Of course those are all awkward facts that I don't expect you to mention as they destroy your case.
In conclusion; you are still playing a "One Note Samba" and it is not very tuneful. It's also a loser.
Report this post as:
by brigg
Friday, May. 23, 2003 at 10:11 AM
>Nixon is an inapt comparison because when he finally came tumbling down it was after a long drawn out slow accretion of evidence over several years. The Congresscritters did not act until there was such overwhelming revulsion for Nixon in the Public realm that the felt emboldened enough to act. At no time did they exhibit much in the way of courage. Several years????? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA The break-in was in September, 1971. The election was in November, 1972. Nixon resigned in August, 1974. Three (3) years is "several years". HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Going after the throat of the President of the United States is NOT an act of courage. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA http://www.watergate.info/chronology/brief.shtml Here’s the difference between Diogenes and me. I’ve got no problem with you asking the question he suggests, “911, What Really Happened?” Take all the information he has provided and review it all you like. Take your time. All I ask is that you also consider this: Why is it that with all this indisputable evidence right at our fingertips, that Congress or some career-oriented prosecutor hasn’t take this “evidence” and begin an inquiry? After Florida 2000 and the Clinton/Ken Starr showdown of the late 90’s, there are plenty of Democratic Congressmen and women who would love to see Bush take a fall. And certainly there are prosecutors who would make a career out of bringing down a presidency. So why don’t they go forward? See, Diogenes wants you to ask his question and to ponder it. That’s good for him. But, for some reason, he doesn’t want you to ask why, with all this indisputable evidence, someone isn’t moving forward with a Congressional hearing. Don’t ask that. That’s bad for him. Back in 1973, there were Congressmen and prosecutors who made a big name for themselves bringing down Nixon. The Nixon presidency was every bit as powerful as is the Bush presidency when it comes to influence and arm-twisting. But , it didn’t stop Congressmen and prosecutors from carrying out their fiduciary duty and getting to the bottom of what happened. Are we to believe that there aren’t Congressmen and women and prosecutors who wouldn’t jump at the chance at bringing down Bush? That is, if they had the evidence to do so? But we’re being told the evidence is right here at our fingertips. Yet no one seems to be stepping forward to make a case out of this indisputable and undeniable evidence. Wonder why? And why is it that Diogenes doesn’t want you to ask these questions? Let’s also keep in mind that something as simple as trying to cover-up a break-in of a psychiatrist office and a Watergate break-in brought down Richard Nixon. As small a circle that knew about what was going on and they couldn’t even keep that quiet. Yet, we are to believe that that Bush has successfully covered-up and squelched the hundreds and possibly thousands of those individuals who knew and willingly co-operated in carrying out 9/11 and who could testify regarding Bush’ guilt. Have you stopped to think what a daunting task that would be? To quiet that many people? And no leaks? I’m asking that you consider the question: With all the indisputable and undeniable “evidence” we’re being offered, why isn’t this moving forward?
Report this post as:
by Diogenes
Friday, May. 23, 2003 at 10:21 AM
Asking a question is a good thing.
I have never said otherwise.
However, you are not asking a question you are phrasing a conclusion as a question.
The dishonesty of doing so should be obvious to anyone.
What you are stating is:
There is no current investigation.
Therefore there is no evidence.
This is a non-sequiter. One does not necessarily follow from the other.
In short you have proven yourself to be a liar and to be operating from an agenda other than that of seeking the truth.
You are welcome to do so - it is still a more or less free country.
However, do excuse me as I don't intend to join you.
And I will continue to ask the questions you obviously do not want asked.
Report this post as:
by brigg
Friday, May. 23, 2003 at 10:32 AM
>What you are stating is: There is no current investigation. Therefore there is no evidence.
No. I'm saying with all the indisputible and undeniable "evidence" you claim is out there, why aren't they moving forward. Cowardice by Congressmembers won't do. That they went after Nixon proves that.
>And I will continue to ask the questions you obviously do not want asked.
Ditto.
Report this post as:
by Diogenes
Friday, May. 23, 2003 at 10:35 AM
...is that you are an idiot.
Report this post as:
by brigg
Friday, May. 23, 2003 at 10:40 AM
>The only think you prove...
The only "THINK"?
We'll let this ad hominem attack stand on its own merit.
Report this post as:
by Sam Denoise
Friday, May. 23, 2003 at 11:02 AM
It does stand on it's own, very well. But you can change.
Report this post as:
by KOBE SBM
Friday, May. 23, 2003 at 11:26 AM
kobehq@yahoo.com
We support the killing of Muslims and niggers. Please visit our website.
www.kobehq.com
Report this post as:
by KOBE SBM
Friday, May. 23, 2003 at 5:30 PM
Hmmm. I am a black man. Does that mean that I should attack myself? Your imping is ridiculous. I can dance circles around you intellectually. I dont have time for mentally challenged idiots like you.
www.kobehq.com
Report this post as:
by Dan Quayle
Saturday, May. 24, 2003 at 6:58 AM
I could dance circles around YOU, you fruitcake. You need help.
Report this post as:
by dvy
Saturday, May. 24, 2003 at 6:59 AM
thanx stephen
Report this post as:
by KOBE SBM
Saturday, May. 24, 2003 at 10:15 AM
kobehq@yahoo.com
We hate niggers. Join us.
www.kobehq.com
Report this post as:
|