Skip to main content

9/11 Commission faced obstruction, deception

Turn on the television or read a piece of mainstream news and its clear; there is no room for questions regarding the official story of 9/11. That alone is troubling considering the pillars of which the final 9/11Released July 22, 2004 commission report stands on are quite shaky. Over the years, the panel member’s own comments have stated on several different occasions they were deliberately misled and deceived by the Pentagon, NORAD and other agencies.  Forget conspiracies, inside jobs, controlled demolitions and speculation on what hit the Pentagon, examine the investigation, how it was formed, stalled, blocked, strong-armed, lied to, restricted and compromised and it reveals legitimate concerns about the validity of the final report. 
 
From the beginning sides were drawn, people who had questions and people who didn’t want to answer those questions. PENTTBOMB (Pentagon Twin Towers and Bomb), the FBI’s investigation which began day 1, was certainly biased, considering the investigation would inevitably lead to an examination of FBI procedures, classified documents, operations and foreign assets or informants. Therefore the FBI’s conflict of interest would make it impossible for PENTTBOM to offer a fair investigation.  Another investigative body was needed.   
 
441 days after the attacks, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States began the investigation. 441 days. For perspective consider the JFK investigation took 17 days and Pearl Harbor took 11 days. All three are national tragedies and all three shaped our country for years to come.   
 
Once the investigation began, sides were drawn again, people who felt this investigation was important enough to warrant a high dollar budget, and people who did not. The initial budget was set at $3 million dollars but after well deserved criticism, it was raised to $15 million. 
 
Compromised Committee?
The committee was initially chaired by Dr. Henry Kissinger, who is sought in several countries for questioning in regards to possible crimes against humanity. In one instance, Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens writes, “Argentinean Judge Rodolfo Corrall has also invited Kissinger for his testimony in the matter of "Operation Condor" - codename for a state-run death squad, operated by the secret police of six countries - Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Ecuador - during the 1970s and '80s.”
 
Two weeks into the investigation, Kissinger resigned. Presumably due to pressure applied through a widow’s group called the “Jersey Girls.” The Jersey Girls, who were an integral part in launching the investigation, met with Kissinger and asked him a series of tough questions. Not about the attacks, but rather his business ties to any member of the Bin Laden Family and other possible conflicts of interest. Kissinger’s refusal to release his client list and disclose international ties, ultimately led to his resignation. Senator George Mitchell also announced he would not be able serve because he could not be away from his law firm. 
 
After further examination, it appeared most of the committee members would have severe conflicts of interest.  Terry Brunner, a former federal prosecutor pointed out the fact 6 of the 10 panel members represented the same companies they’re investigating. According to his statement given to CBS News on March 5, 2003, “Here we've got the most important event in America in the past 50 years, the most horrible thing that's happened to Americans, and yet we pick a bunch of people who are connected to the very people who are at the center of the question of who's at fault, it’s ridiculous," Brunner added, “Fred Fielding, Spirit Airlines, United Airlines; Slade Gordon represents Delta Airlines; Sen. Max Cleland – $300,000 from the airline industry; Jim Thompson represents American Airlines; Richard BenVinesta represents Boeing and United Airlines; and Rep. Tim Roemer - Boeing and Lockheed Martin."
 
Obstruction of Justice, Witness Tampering and Committee Complaints
The following is a small sample of the obstacles the investigation faced throughout the investigation. Obstruction and tampering from the highest levels undoubtedly hindered the investigation. Here are the issues:
  • 9/11 Commission Memo states the executive branch sent “minders” to intimidate witnesses and report on their actions. (9/11 Commission Memo, Oct. 2003)
  • Whitehouse refuses to release 900 page congressional report describing how the attacks happened. (Miami Herald, May 2003)
  • 9/11 Commission does not receive requested interrogation tapes of detainees. (NY Times, Dec. 2007)
  • Interrogation tapes are destroyed (ABC News, Dec. 2007)
  • Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, chair and vice chair wrote an Oped piece in the NY Times stating the committee was stonewalled by the CIA and the investigation was obstructed government official failed to fully inform a lawfully constituted body. (NY Times, Jan. 2008)
  • Commissioner Max Cleland stated his displeasure with the committee making deals in regards to the documents they could view. He also stated the Bush administration attempted to slow walk the commission into irrelevancy. (Salon, Nov. 2003)
  • Committee member Tim Roemer stated "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting," Roemer told CNN. "We were not sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission or merely part of the fumbling bureaucracy." (CNN, Aug. 2006)

New Investigation
It’s clear the original report has credibility issues. In any investigation, it is necessary to protect the integrity of the process and unfortunately, that process was not preserved.  If a typical murder investigation had endured these kinds of tactics, it would most likely be thrown out and ruled inadmissible.  Support a new investigation. The time is right. 

Here is a short clip of the outstanding documentary Press for Truth.  It shows the process and hardship the families have endured to get answers.  Make no mistake, the families want to know, they deserve to know what happened.  And if another investigation proves the original findings, then so be it

 

Comments