The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies

My comments on this news:

Former Marines are doing their share to uncover the truth of 9/11.   Semper Fi.  

Below, Marine combat veteran Gordon Duff reviews the new book by John Farmer: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11.”  Farmer is Dean of the Rutgers School of Law and former New Jersey Attorney General. He was responsible for the first draft of the 9/11 Commission’s Report and now says that it contains mountains of lies – not merely spin – from testimony given the Commission by NORAD, the CIA, the FBI, and the White House. Farmer’s book has the backing of Commission members including co-chairs Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton who have long complained of being misled.  

Perhaps less enthusiastic about exposure of lies in the 9/11 Report is long-time Zionist and Commission Executive Director Philip David Zelikow. Who but the Executive Director for the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States would have arranged the schedule of witnesses and overseen the final form of the Report?  Families for 9/11 victims sought unsuccessfully to have Zelikow removed from the post of Executive Director and, from publication of the Report in July 2004, have rejected its findings.

What is Zelikow’s perspective? According to Emad Mekay for IPS, 29 March 2004 he asked rhetorically at a University of Virginia symposium:

"’Why would attack or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,’ Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.

‘And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,’ said Zelikow.

The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far [2004] cost the lives of nearly 1200 troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington 's desire to defend the Jewish state.”

One of the first to critique the 9/11 Commission Report was Professor David Ray Griffin of the Claremont Divinity School . Others exposing the realities of 9/11 are Scholars for Truth. See  http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=51&Itemid=62  for a collection of scientific, peer-reviewed papers by the associated Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Nevertheless, more than half of Americans still believe the official account of 9/11. Possibly critical for overcoming this inertia will be recent papers such as by author of “Guilt by Association” Jeff Gates [see www.criminalstate.com ] and by former Marine and military strategist Alan Sabrosky  http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september102009/911_revisited_as_9-10-09.php . 

Examining 9/11 from the perspectives of the perpetrators’ possible motives http://intifada-palestine.com/2009/09/10/what-role-did-the-u-s-israeli-relationship-play-in-9-11/ , the opportunity to create such havoc, and creation of a mind-set that accepts pre-planned interpretations, the demand for a new investigatory Commission – one not controlled by neocons or Zionists [is there a difference?] – may bear fruit.

V.