George Washington's Blog | November 7, 2007 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. (Article continues below) 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: <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rukxI_GLc3w&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rukxI_GLc3w&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> 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.
These are the same "Jersey Girls" that Ann Coulter was excoriated for questioning. How do you describe someone who uses their "victim" status to float moonbat conspiracy theories? Why didn't the 9/11 Commission hear them? The committee Democrats somehow whiffed on a chance to destroy Bush? Or the so-called whistleblowers were not credible. In other words, cranks, and even the Democrats wanted no part of them.
c'mon AAA, you can do better than that... had you followed the girls struggle you'd not speak of them in this tone. the girls never peddled nothing.. this is a major shift that has taken place recently as late developments and contributions, among which the authoritative research and testimony from one of the most illustrious architects of our times, are lending less and less credence to the official 911 tale. edit; i thought you'd least gone past that laughable left-right paradigm...but nah, innit.
Love the coincidences! I saw an online video that replyed all the network coverage on 9/11. the eye witness reports just after it happened, all but 1 were made by network executives or correspondents - no independent eyewitnesses. The TV footage shows the name of each correspondent. Another coincidence, almost all of the surnames of these people were from a certain ethnic group. Care to guess what group? Another analysis is quite interesting. All using the live TV footage of the day. you can draw your own conclusions. If nothing else it is a good review of the day, have a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeIVD5wT4KE This reporter's "confession" is a riot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ5EXXyN_Us
A few days ago I saw this Zeitgeist movie, not all of it but some very compelling parts. One of the quotes that stays with me is that all previous big wars in which the US got involved (WW1, WW2 and Vietnam) were 'ignited' by either false-flag attacks or non-prevented but well-known enemy attacks. In fact, it would be the exception to the rule if 9/11 was a genuine, unexpected and unpreventable event, that then led to the illegal preemptive war against Iraq.
OMG, you really believe that the second jet to hit the WTC was actually a missile?! How about all those tens of thousands of witnesses who clearly saw an airplane? They're all lying?
You are a fucking moron if you actually believe a missile hit the tower...and then every news station in the world "inserted" a plane onto their video footage in place of the missile. You have just leapt ahead of Stock_Trad3r in the ET Idiot Hall of Fame.
Congratulations to Bitstream and Toronto Trader for winning the "Most idiotic brainwashed posters of the year" award! Great job guys!
Technically, any object moving at high speed, through the air , could be discribed as a "missile". Im sure that's not what they meant though.
Dude, for a good laugh check out TT2's video. It advances the <i>brilliant</i> theory that the second jet to hit the WTC was really a cruise missile. Al Jazeera, TV Venezuela, and thousands of other global media outlets graciously co-operated with the (Mossad) conspiracy by editing the video to show an airplane instead. I have to assume that TT2's video was created by people who are trying to make the "911 Truth" guys look like complete morons. Why else would anyone advance such a ridiculous theory? The fact that TT2 actually bought into the video as if it made valid claims... Well, that says alot, doesn't it?