Discussion @ Change.org for a new investigation into the 9-11 attack

Thanks to "cjvabch" at the Veterans for 911 Truth Yahoo Group for passing this along...

"In this week's International edition of Newsweek (Dec 1, 2008), there's an article entitled "President 2.0". In reading it, I discovered that a new site (http://www.change.org/ideas) is collecting and posting ideas for the Obama administration and the top 10 ideas, the ideas that have received the most votes, will be presented to the President on Inauguration Day. An idea was just added to suggest that a new investigation into 9/11 be conducted.

Please click the link below and VOTE for this idea. Then forward the link to everyone you know and ask that they vote for it too. If this is for real, it is an excellent opportunity to get out collective voice heard. Loud and Clear. Finally."

Change.org - Ideas for Changing America: Conduct a new, independent investigation into the attacks of September 11, 2001

Related Info...

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/11/yes-we-can.html

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/11/dennis-kucinich-needs-our-help.html

UPDATE...

change.org deletes new 9/11 investigation idea as it had more votes then any other idea

Rampant Un-American Censorship of the 9/11 Truth Movement

Our Government and 9/11

Of course there's an explanation. And our government has provided several.

Some people only believe the government's story about 9/11. But what do they believe when the government tells two different, contradictory stories about the same thing? Here are some examples:

Government Story: National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told Congress, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that ... they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."

Contradictory Government Story: Our government claims that the Japanese kamikaze pilots used airplanes as missiles in WWII.

Government Story: Air Force Gen. Richard Myers said, "You hate to admit it, but we hadn't thought about this."
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44621

Contradictory Government Story: On September 11th, 2001, the Air Force could not intercept the hijackers because it was carrying out multiple drills using the exact scenario Myers claimed they hadn't thought about.

Government Story: 9/11 justified invading Iraq.

Contradictory Government Story: Bush said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Government Story: "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." --G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

Contradictory Government Story: "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." -- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

There are many more contradictory government stories, but that's a sampling. I don't know about you, but when two stories contradict each other, it seems to me that both cannot be true.

So for those who believe the government's stories about 9/11, I'd like to know which contradictory story they believe. For example, do they believe that the U.S. was attacked by Al Quedah under the command of Osama bin Laden, in which case catching bin Laden would be the government's highest priority, or do they believe that catching bin Laden isn't a priority, in which case it isn't likely that he had anything to do with 9/11 (unless our government isn't interested in catching those responsible for 9/11).

Do they believe that the Air Force couldn't intercept the hijackers because it was carrying out war games designed around the scenarios of hijackers taking over civilian aircraft and using them as weapons, or do they believe that the government never imagined such a scenario?

Another contradictory story that has puzzled me is that the White House told New Yorkers that the air around ground zero was safe to breathe after 9/11. Yet the WTC buildings had been condemned due to asbestos, and if the buildings were brought down by plane crashes and fires, that asbestos had to be in the air. Do those who believe the government's contradictory stories believe that the government has a right to condemn buildings due to asbestos because it can be harmful to people's health, or do they believe that asbestos is safe to inhale?

I'm really curious. When the government tells two contradictory stories, how do those who believe the government's stories decide which one to believe, or do they believe both simultaneously?

------------------
This article was first posted at http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=9265