But if 9/11 was a "conspiracy", people would have talked---A Guide to the 9/11 Whistleblowers

A Guide to the 9/11 Whistleblowers

March 5, 2010
The Corbett Report

When losing a discussion on the facts of 9/11, a so-called 9/11 "debunker" will often rely on an old canard to "prove" that 9/11 could not have been an inside job: "So many people want their quarter hour of fame that even the Men in Black couldn't squelch the squealers from spilling the beans," write self-satisfied defenders of the government story. According to the logic of this argument, if there are no 9/11 whistleblowers then 9/11 was not an inside job.

So what if there are 9/11 whistleblowers? What if these whistleblowers come from every level of government and private industry, individuals who have even had their cases vindicated by internal government reports? As you are about to see, there are numerous such whistleblowers and each one is a thorn in the side of those who want to pretend that the 9/11 Commission represents the sum total of knowledge on the 9/11 attacks. Click here to read the entire article.
___________________________________________________________

But if 9/11 was a "conspiracy", people would have talked!

AdamS
politically-confused.blogspot.com
September 10, 2009

Whistleblowers are numerous, whether they be Bush administration officials, military officers, or FBI agents. The argument that people would have spoken out if 9/11 was an inside job, is fair - but ignores the fact that people have spoken out. And risked a lot in the process.

Comprehensive list of 9/11 whistleblowers

It should be noted that the term 'conspiracy theory' accurately describes both the official account and any alternative explanations, since all describe a covert, illegal action between multiple people, which is all 'conspiracy' means. Hate to ruin good propaganda with facts, but it doesn't mean 'woo woooo' crazy owl noises...
___________________________________________________________

9/11 Documents Claim Intelligence on Bin Laden, Targets Withheld From Congress

Uploaded by TheRealNews on Sep 7, 2011

Jeffrey Kaye: In a Truthout report, a whistle blower reveals senior military commanders prior to 9/11 blocked intelligence that located Bin Laden and predicted WTC and Pentagon were likely targets

___________________________________________________________

9/11 Family Member Patty Casazza: Government Knew Exact Date and Exact Targets

November 05, 2007
GeorgeWashington.blogspot.com

9/11 family member and "Jersey Girl" Patty Casazza has just revealed that whistleblowers told her that -- before 9/11 -- the government knew the exact day, the type of attack, and the targets.

Why is this important? Because, previously, some of the best-known whistleblowers have been willing to give only vague information about the government's foreknowledge. For example, they said only that the government knew of the general timeframe for the attacks, or that the government had a list of potential targets, on which the World Trade Center was one of many potential targets (of course, other whistleblowers have been more specific)...

Casazza further stated that these whistleblowers saw how Sibel Edmonds was being harrassed and gagged, and were fearful that the same thing would happen to them. So they approached the Jersey Girls to ask them to demand the 9/11 Commission subpoena the whistleblowers. The Jersey Girls tried to bring the whistleblowers before the 9/11 Commission, and the Commissioners agreed, but then never let the whistleblowers testify, let alone subpoena them.

Why is this important? Because defenders of the official government story have argued that 9/11 couldn't have been an inside job or else whistleblowers would have come forward. Ms. Cassaza confirms what many have said: there are a lot of 9/11 whistleblowers who are afraid to come forward -- especially without a supboena -- for fear of being attacked and harassed.

A video of Ms. Cassaza's statement has just been released:



Ms. Cassaza's statements were made at the 9/11: Families, First Responders & Experts Speak conference.

Many whistleblowers have, in fact, already come forward. See for example this video. And for a more comprehensive refutation of the argument about a lack of whistleblowers, see this.

Thanks to Jon Gold for his key participation in the conference, and for the tip.
___________________________________________________________

As pointed out to me by Fran Shure at colorado911visibility.org this supports an earlier account:

David Schippers the former Chief Investigative Counsel for the US House Judiciary Committee and head prosecutor responsible for conducting the impeachment against former president Bill Clinton. Schippers stated that at the behest of several FBI agents he had attempted multiple times to warn US Attorney John Ashcroft, along with other federal officials, of the impending attacks weeks before they occurred, only to be stalled and rebuffed in each attempt.

As summarized in the books The War on Freedom and The War on Truth by Nafeez Ahmed, who personally corresponded with Schippers, "According to Schippers, these agents knew, months before the 11th September attacks, the names of the hijackers, the targets of their attacks, the proposed dates, and the sources of their funding, along with other information."
___________________________________________________________

Obstruction of FBI Investigations prior to 9/11
A group of FBI officials in New York systematically suppressed field investigations of potential terrorists that might have uncovered the alleged hijackers - as the Moussaoui case once again showed. The stories of Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit, the "Phoenix Memo," David Schippers, the 199i orders restricting investigations, the Bush administration's order to back off the Bin Ladin family, the reaction to the "Bojinka" plot, and John O'Neil do not, when considered in sum, indicate mere incompetence, but high-level corruption and protection of criminal networks, including the network of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. (Nearly all of these examples were omitted from or relegated to fleeting footnotes in The 9/11 Commission Report.) - Source: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/08/top-40-reasons-official-911-story-is.html
___________________________________________________________

How is it that none of the conspirators have changed their minds and come forward?

Operatives would be carefully screened to assure their loyalty to the attack's planners and to each other. Given the magnitude of the crime, admission of involvement would expose a conspirator to swift silencing by co-conspirators, vigilante justice by an outraged public, or harsh judgment by a court of law. It is also possible that many of the operatives could have been killed before or during the attack. - Source http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/conspiracy.html#whistleblowers ___________________________________________________________

Operation Gladio was a false-flag terror program set up by the CIA and NATO. Although Gladio was eventually exposed, it was not just a single event, but an ongoing operation that remained secret for decades, in which hundreds of innocent people were killed and injured in terrorist attacks that were blamed on other groups.

FKN Newz Exclusive Interview With the Sheeple

FKN Newz
YouTube.com
September 10, 2009

Related Info...

Just the song - long version http://deekjackson.com//audio/3/911 - 911 The musical won't be in the shops for Christmas says Woolworths.

NWO Conspiracy Bullshit

A Ranke Perspective

So it appears I jumped the gun a little in my previous post when I said CIT haven't really put forward evidence supporting the alleged staging of Lloyd England's accident scene. I just came across a post on the PentaCon site posted back in August of 2007. It's probably been debunked already but I'll give my own unique take on it. Using a number of photographs taken by Jason Ingersoll, CIT claim to have proven that the scene was staged somewhere between 09:40 and 10:00 AM. Below are eight pictures from the post.



Full Sized Images:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

They argue that since the light pole cannot be seen in pictures 1 and 2 but can be seen in pictures 3 onwards, it must have been planted on the road somewhere in between 09:49 and 09:52.

Now I don't really know what they are hypothesizing here. Maybe they think some truck carrying a forty foot light pole, was able to get through all the traffic, plant it and vanish without a trace within three or four minutes without anyone noticing. Or maybe they think the SUV and the white car had something to do with it. It doesn't matter anyway. Just because you can't clearly see the light pole in pictures [1] or [2], doesn't mean it isn't there. Those two pictures were clearly taken from a different perspective (from the Navy Annex Car park, as you can see from this image) and there are obstructions in the way. The difference in perspective is obvious when one looks at the cab. In pictures 1 and 2, the front side of the cab is visible to the left of the bush, but in pictures 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, it is completely concealed by the bush. From the perspective of pictures 1 and 2, the lightpole would be hidden by the metal box. In picture [6], the light pole is once again almost complete hidden by the railing due to the perspective.

Furthermore, the pole is visible in the first two images. It's just not very clear. When compared to a clearer image taken from a similar perspective, after the the collapse of the outer wall, by Sgt. Gary Coppage, you can see that the whitish grey blurs in Ingersoll's images correspond perfectly with what are clearly parts of the pole in Coppage's image.



So what sinister plot do Ingersoll's photos document? By the looks of it, just a few people taking control and directing the traffic!



Since Lloyd's cab is visible in the photo taken at 09:48, this proves that if the scene was staged it would have had to have been set up either before the attack, or in the 10 minutes prior to the attack. Either way it's pretty implausible if you ask me.

Related Info:

A Really Rank Response

THE INFOWARRIOR with Jason Bermas: Jason Debunks National Geographic & No Planes BS!

THElNFOWARRlOR
YouTube.com
September 07, 2009

Jason Rips into National Geographic's 9/11 hit piece & also takes on the no planes BS, that is trying to make the real 9/11 Truth movement look like fools. Jason goes step by step, and totally exposes National Geographic for what they really are. http://infowarrior.infowars.com/

















Related Info:

Dear friends who've just viewed the National Geographic Conspiracy Theory on 9/11

Exchange of emails (March 2009) with Robert Erickson, producer of the National Geographic special on 9/11

National Geographic Does 9/11: Another Icon Debased in Service of the Big Lie - Like Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies Straw Man, only dumber?

Finally, an apology from the National Geographic Channel

National Geographic Channel on 9/11: Manipulation vs. Objectivity

National Geographic vs Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup

Alex Jones and Richard Gage Debunk the National Geographic Hit Piece on 9/11 Truth

Debunking National Geographic - 9/11 Science and Conspiracy

National Geographic: "Science" and "Psychology"

National Geographic Should Stick to Documentaries About Girls Who Cry Blood

Sander Hicks: "National Geographic Pseudo-Science?"

National Geographic hitpiece will prove 9/11 fire collapse theory to be impossible.

National Geographic to Air New 911 "Documentary".

Was the scene with Lloyd England's taxi staged?

The Citizen Investigation Team have interviewed 13 witnesses to the Pentagon attack on 9/11 who are adamant the plane approached from the north side of the Citgo gas station. Because this flight path is inconsistent with the damage path there are three implied conclusions to their alleged findings:

1. The plane did not hit the building.
2. The plane flew over the building.
3. The light poles were planted and the scene with Lloyd England's taxi was staged.

9/11 researchers such as Arabesque, Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley and jimd3100 have critiqued the first and second of their implied conclusions, as well as CIT's method, this post however will focus on the third conclusion.

At 9:37 AM on 9/11, Lloyd England was driving his taxi down Route 27, heading south. When Flight 77 flew over, it knocked down five light poles. The first one of these speared itself through Lloyd's windshield, almost killing him. The below diagram was drawn by Lloyd himself.



Lloyd claims an unnamed stranger helped him remove the pole without saying a word. His account is a critical pillar supporting the official story of what happened at the Pentagon. If his story is true, it proves the plane hit. If false, it proves the Pentagon must have been damaged some other way.

It is not surprising therefore that many 9/11 researchers are attracted to Lloyd's story. His account has been questioned for a number of reasons. Ignoring CIT's north of Citgo witnesses, perhaps the main reason is the apparent physical impossibility of a 40 foot light pole sticking out of a car, with the heaviest end on the outside, while causing no damage to the hood of the car.

To that I would like to say that I have never seen a light pole be knocked over by a 500mph plane into the windshield of a taxi going the opposite direction, so I have no idea what's going to happen, no one does. Do I think it's strange? Yes. But from studying things like plane crashes, building collapses and explosions, I've learnt that strange things can happen. And I've seen enough air cannon experiments in tornado documentaries and things to have a rough idea what will happen. If someone were to actually launched a metal pole into a car windscreen and document their findings I may take an interest. But simply saying "that doesn't look right so it must be staged" isn't very scientific.

After CIT "proved" that the plane approached from the north side, they deduced that Lloyd's scene must have been staged. Much like their flyover hypothesis, there is no direct evidence to support this, it is rather an implied conclusion based on questionable circumstantial evidence. However that didn't stop CIT from publicly accusing him as "the first known accomplice".

The biggest problem I have with this is the same problem I have with the flyover theory. I'm a pretty imaginative guy and I can come up with all kinds of imaginative theories for how they rigged the towers up and flew the planes into the buildings in a compartmentalized fashion, theories ranging from simultaneous video games that are actually controlling a real plane to explosive fireproofing! But even I have a hard time thinking of a way they could stage a phony road accident in broad daylight.



CIT argue that the other four light poles could have been planted during the night and hidden from view. But Lloyd's scene would have to have been staged either shortly before the impact or after. Considering the amount of traffic that was on Route 27 when the Pentagon was hit it is unlikely that it could have been staged in advance. The following picture was taken by Steve Riskus (who, by the way, saw the plane hit the building) less than 1 minute after the impact.

Note how many cars are on the road. Imagine you are one of these motorists. You're driving up Route 27, heading north. As you approach the bridge, you see a taxi on the other side of the road with a smashed light pole next to it. You would assume there's been some kind of road accident. Then the plane flies over and appears to crash into the Pentagon. You then go home or to work to watch TV and you see this taxi driver talking about how his cab was hit by a pole that was struck by the plane. You're gonna think to yourself "Wait a minute, I was there, the plane didn't do that, it was already there!"

No witness has come forward saying they saw the damaged cab before the plane hit. It is therefore unlikely that it was staged in advance. So CIT argue that it was probably staged AFTER the attack, when agents had control of the scene. This theory is perhaps even more absurd and is contradicted by the account of Don Fortunato, who arrived shortly after the attack. In his account he describes stopping next to the cab. But I guess CIT will argue that he's just another mass murdering operative.



Loyd's scene was staged. The idea that the officials would even attempt such a thing in broad daylight is about as absurd as the idea that they would attempt a flyover in broad daylight. Maybe at night on a quiet road, but not in the early morning on an open highway during rush hour.



On the 7th of July 2005, another suspected black-op was carried out on three trains and a bus. One of the survivors, Daniel Obachike, describes seeing police officers, agents and a bandaged actor at the scene within seconds of the blast. If his account is true then that is pretty damning evidence that the attack was a classic false flag operation. However that does not change the fact that the bus was blown up! They did not just cart in some pre-damaged bus and take pictures of it. That would be a crazy thing to do in broad daylight. The bus did explode, there were passengers on board, many were injured and 13 were killed.



On August 30th/31st 1997, Princess Diana was killed in a car crash. Many people now suspect the crash was not an accident. While there is debate as to what actually caused the car to crash, one thing is certain ... The car did crash! And she was inside it when it did! They did not just shoot her and then plant some wrecked car in the Alma tunnel and say she died in a car crash. Could they have done that. Possibly. It was late at night after all. But it would have been a waste of time, effort and an unnecessary risk to the entire operation. Why go through all the trouble of making it look like there was a car crash, when you could just crash a car?

The above picture is of the man Daniel Obachike claims to have seen in Tavistock Square on 7/7. This guy was probably an actor taking part in a simultaneous terror drill. He was not interviewed by the news and to this day no one knows his name. In black-ops, the operatives generally don't give out their names. Lloyd England gave out his name and he willingly let Craig and Aldo into his home and took them to see his cab, even after they accused him of being an accomplice. He does not fit the MO of an operative. He's just a regular guy who reads David Icke books and questions 9/11 as we all do. He's one of us! The guy is a patriot simply trying to help and CIT crucified him. It's the sort of thing I would expect from Glenn Beck. Publicly accusing ordinary citizens of being accomplices without evidence crosses a line and will no doubt come back to bite the truth movement in the ass later.

In Lloyd's recollection of the event, he puts himself in a different place to where he obviously was. CIT of course tries to twist this and claim it as proof he was an operative, but the only thing it really proves is that memories can be vague after several years - which is exactly what we are saying. If Lloyd honestly believes he was in a different place to where he was, how can we be sure CIT's 13 other witnesses aren't equally mistaken?

Related Info:

The CIT Deception - Mock Trailer!

A Ranke Perspective