scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 10:34 am Post subject: the history of the Commission for letter writing |
 |
|
Hello,
I have written the following as a way of trying to get across to people the suspicious nature of 9/11 and the Commission itself. There was a 10 min youtube clip that uses the Pink Panther tune but I can't find it.
I have an intention of including this in a confidential letter to a QC.
Comments welcome.
| Quote: | An individual, whom I shall call X, comes to you for help regarding the brutal murder of a relative that happened during a crime. X is told by the police within 24 hours of the crime they are confident they know the identity of the prime suspect. The serious nature of the crime forces a change in policy that has serious implications for society. X informs you that, despite asking why they are so sure of the suspects’ guilt and asking for the evidence, they are told by the police it is classified and can’t be made public. The police say they just have to be trusted.
The individuals who arrived at the crime scene are not the police but are from a private firm who proceed to contaminate and destroy evidence before any investigations are allowed to begin. It transpires shortly after the crime that warnings were received by certain individuals (named collectively as Y) that this crime would occur but Y have tried to prevent the police from investigating how the crime could have been stopped.
With this information you agree to help X but it takes you 14 months of media pressure and lobbying to finally force an enquiry as to how and why the crime was allowed to happen despite the warnings. You find out that not only does the enquiry have financial and time limits, it is forced by its mandate to assume the official story is true. The original director of the enquiry is forced to resign because they may have had clients related to the alleged perpetrators of the crime. You also find out the replacement, called Z, who is leading the enquiry and who will control the content of the enquiry report is not only closely tied to Y but also helped write the policy that was enacted as a consequence of the crime. Through further pressure you manage to force Y to give evidence but they insist on being interviewed by Z in Y’s own office, not under oath and what they say is not made public.
After the enquiry report is published, it is discovered that evidence provided by key witnesses to the crime are either distorted or ignored completely from the final report. During the enquiry, evidence emerges that exercises took place either prior to the crime, or during the crime itself, that replicate the crime but such evidence is ignored and treated simply as a coincidence.
In addition, there is no blame, there is no accountability for the failure to stop the crime and who financed it is considered to be of no importance. It transpires that key individuals in different agencies that could have stopped the crime either prior to the day or on the day itself have been promoted or not fired. Individuals who tried to investigate evidence but were blocked have been gagged. The police admit there is no evidence implicating the guilt of the prime suspect.
|
_________________
Currently working on a new website |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
