Of course, we know that 9-11 was an inside job. We don't know the details. We do know that there was a massive cover-up. Even the people ostensibly running/chairing the 9-11 Commission, Thomas H. Kean, Chair, and Lee H. Hamilton, Vice Chair, wrote about it openly afterwards.
What is Obama doing about it all? He's doing nothing. That's because he's a lackey for the plutocrats who gain the world and lose their souls.
Solomon: The Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, which is about 20 odd miles away from New York, they released a report on seismic data coming from Manhattan on that day. And they released a spike in seismic data at 8:46:26, and they thought that was the moment of impact of the plane on the first World Trade Center, of American Airlines 11. But the plane didn't hit until 8:46:40, and there are several of the same kind of early seismic spikes for the second flight. I guess the question is: how do we explain those discrepancies? When the public looks at that, how can we explain that kind of thing?
Hamilton: I haven't seen that report. I don't know the answer to your question. They didn't come forward with that evidence while we were at the Commission - so far as I know. Now, staff filtered a lot of these things, so not necessarily would I know. I don't know what happened with regard to the.... What did they conclude? I don't know what they concluded.
Solomon: There's also allegations that the Pakistani Secret Service, called the ISI, the head of which met here in the United States right before 9/11, and there's some allegations and evidence to show that they paid Mohammed Atta $100,000. The reason this is important is: who funded the people who conducted the attacks, the terrorist attacks? What did the Commission make of payment from the ISI to Mohammed Atta of $100,000?
Hamilton: I don't know anything about it.
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.
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.
Solomon: In retrospect, one of the criticisms that you level in this book "Without Precedent" is aimed at both the FAA and NORAD, both of whom representatives testified before the Commission, and both of whom gave what to me - and I'm allowed to be much more impolite than you - sounded to me like lies. They told you testimony that simply... the tapes that were subsequently.. that have subsequently been revealed, were simply not true.
Hamilton: That's correct.
Solomon: And it wasn't just lies by ommission, in some senses lies of commission, they told you things that basically didn't happen. What do you make of that?
Hamilton: Well, I think you're right. They gave us inaccurate information. We asked for a lot of material and a lot of documentation. They did not supply it all. They gave us a few things. We sent some staff into their headquarters. We identified a lot more documents and tapes, they eventually gave them to us, we had to issue a subpoena to get them.
Eventually they told us we had the story right, they had it wrong, it took a while to get to that point, but we eventually got here. Did they lie to us or was it inadvertent? We are not a law enforcement agency, we did not have that kind of authority, going back to the mandate again. All of us had our suspicions here, but we simply did not have the staff and we were right up against the deadline when this came out, that we didn't have the time to say that these officials had willfully and intentionally lied.
So we punted - and we said, 'we can't do this, we don't have the statutory authority, we don't have the staff', we don't have the time'. We will tell the story as we understood it - they did mislead us. Was it wilful? We don't know. We'll turn it over to the authorities, and that's what we did.
(" ." CBC News: Sunday's Evan Solomon interviews Lee Hamilton. August 21, 2006.)
Hamilton was very defensive, but it's clear that the Commission didn't get the resources or have the authority it needed. There must be another investigation that is determined to get the truth no matter what.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)