The 9-11 Commission was created to substantiate the official U.S. government explanation for 9/11.
It performed what we call a "faith-based investigation": it started out by accepting as gospel truth the official explanation, and set about in search of supportive evidence, discarding all contradictory (what a defense attorney would call exculpatory) evidence along the way.
In other words, virtually every piece of evidence and bit of data which did not fit the report's pre-ordained conclusion was simply omitted from the report. It is so full of omissions that it may be more correct to think of it as the 9-11 Omission Report!
Please do not become diverted by other critiques of the report, which concentrate on its conclusions or focus on its failure to assign blame. Such critiques, while correct, totally miss and distract from the real story about the bogus report:
To someone already thoroughly familiar with 9/11, the report is a kind of map, and the report's omissions are like arrows pointing to some of the most serious holes in the government's official hijacker-blaming conspiracy theory of 9/11!
How could anyone not take seriously such a valuable treasure map?
Some major omissions from the 9-11 Commission Report (click on each for more info):
To 'overlook' some of these, fine; but to omit & ignore them all...?
You can find a lengthy, less incisive audio critique of the 9/11 Omission Report here (cached).
CCTV Pentagon Video Evidence
Five Pentagon Video Frames were released by the U.S. government's Department of Defense on March 7, 2002.
Since this was just a few weeks after the appearance of the Hunt The Boeing web page, which caused such a stir by confronting the official legend of a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon, and on the very same day as the release of Meyssan's The Horrifying Fraud book which similarly confronts the official legend, the timing of the release of these video frames certainly gave them the appearance of the U.S. government's response to the "ludicrous insinuation" that it might not have been Flight 77 which struck the Pentagon on 9/11.
Some of the people who best understand what happened at the Pentagon started out intending to disprove the "ludicrous insinuation" made by "that French website" and book, only to learn that they couldn't!
Only 5 video frames from the low-res parking lot security camera were released by the U.S. government, under somewhat mysterious circumstances. None show a Boeing 757. And what little they do show refutes, rather than supports, the government's contention of what happened on 9/11!
Much fine analysis has been done on these video frames, especially the first one. We were told by various spokesmen for the 9-11 Commission over the months that their "Team 8" was looking into them, and to wait for the final report. But, lo and behold, when the "final report" came out, there was no mention of them - no mention at all.
So even though we'd been repeatedly assured that the Commission was well aware of the images, and even though these 5 frames are (in May 2006, the DoD source videos 1/cached2/cached were released) the only images any of us have ever gotten to see of whatever hit the Pentagon, and even though the images came from the U.S. government itself, there was no mention of them in the government's "complete and final" 567-page report about 9/11!
Now that the "bipartisan" Commission has so miserably failed to tell you about these images, permit us to give you a brief introduction to their meaning:
The bottom quantitative line is this: Our view is only blocked for 35 meters of length along the approach path, and a Boeing 757 is 45 meters long. Vertically, either an actual 757's tail would appear higher or the "plane" would have been plowing up the Pentagon's lawn, yet neither occurred.
too small to be a 757
So the bottom qualitative line is this: whatever is shown in the first frame is neither long enough nor tall enough to be a 757.And since Flight 77 was a 757, what we have here is video evidence of something other than Flight 77. The government claims that this video evidence shows us Flight 77, but it does not.
So not only does the government's video evidence fail to show us Flight 77, it shows us something that could not possibly have been Flight 77!
Therefore either the image is an accurate portrayal of an approaching attacking aircraft and the government has always been lying about what it actually was, or else the image is a crude forgery and, at the very least, the government has knowingly lied to We The People about 9/11 and obstructed justice in the investigation of the worst mass murder in U.S. history.
Either way, the government has destroyed its own credibility, not only for having been caught lying about 9/11, but also since the only visual evidence of an incoming aircraft it has ever provided contradicts the government's own explanation for what happened on 9/11.
Now you know why the only way the 9-11 Commission could make the very serious problems posed by the Pentagon Video Frames go away was by pretending they did not exist, and counting on everyone in Congress and the media to not notice (even when it is brought to their attention).
Note: the government's omission of its own contradictory evidence from its own "complete and final report" is what makes this our top smoking-gun omission. However, incredibly, the self-proclaimed 'leadership' of "the 9/11 truth movement" has produced its own, 149-page(!!!), "omission report" (cached) which makes no mention at all of the overt omission of such damning evidence! (Isn't that just what you'd expect from fake opposition?)
WTC "Collapse" Times
There is no mention of the duration of the collapse of the North Tower contained in the report. (No duration for the very mysterious collapse of WTC building 7 is contained in the report, either. Maybe if we'd given them another 20 months, they could have made their report complete?)
But on page 305 of the 9-11 Commission Report, it says, "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed [sic] in ten seconds".
According to the equation published in every high school physics textbook, it takes more than 9 seconds to free-fall from the towers' former height, but that's in a vacuum. It takes at least a second or two longer to free-fall that far near sea level, just due to air resistance, which gravity is not strong enough to fully overcome.
It is physically impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed through so many supposedly-undamaged stories below the impact zone in anywhere near the same amount of time as it takes to free-fall from the same height, especially when one considers how much destructive energy was being expended along the way.
Gravity is simply not strong enough to accelerate mass downward at close to its maximum possible rate and overcome great (gravity-slowing) resistance at the same time energy is being expended turning solids into tiny particles.Gravity is not stronger than gravity.
For the towers to have come down as observed, either something more than just gravity was accelerating them downward or else their vertical supports were removed from below -- just ahead of the fall, eliminating resistance to the fall -- by forces other than those from the weight of "collapsing" floors above. (Proof!)
Clearly, the duration of the WTC 'collapse' times is something the Commission did not (and could not!) fully and carefully address. But it does provide one sentence, which is still enough to disprove the government's wild conspiracy theory, which requires the absurd belief that fires (and, of course, "hijackers") can account for the 3 incredible steel-framed skyscraper destructions, and stupendous energy surplus, observed on 9/11.
WTC Building 7 Demolition
Hours and hours after the twin towers had fallen through the path of supposed maximum resistance, in near-free-fall times, our government claimed that the nearby 47-floor skyscraper known as WTC 7 also suddenly instantly totally vertically collapsed as the result of damage sustained in the attack.
Surely, the blue-ribbon government 9-11 Commission would want to settle this major discrepancy in its complete and final report, right?
Wrong! It provides no explanation, or even an attempt at one, whatsoever.
Videos of the WTC7 collapse make it clear the building was brought down in some kind of willful coordinated highly-destructive fashion. But how could that have been accomplished right after the attacks unless WTC7 had been rigged in advance with special destructive devices? And, of course, if WTC7 had been so rigged, that raises the natural question of whether the fallen twin towers had been the recipients of similar treatment...
So we can sure see why the 9-11 Commission wouldn't want to "go there"!
Evidently there were so many conclusion-busting explosions that the Commission did not feel that it could afford to mention any of them.
No mention of Bush's statements
Amazingly, given that President Bush has repeatedly told us he saw the "plane" fly into the 1st tower, on TV, long before the only known video of that event was ever broadcast on TV, the 9-11 Commission totally failed to help us understand Bush's revealing statements, about which we are apparently not supposed to know or think too much.
no civilian network had video of the opening salvo that morning
The statements evidentlyreveal the existence of a video we're not supposed to know about, and which ought not to exist if 9/11 had truly been a surprise terrorist attack: Bush's statements indicate prior knowledge of an attack on the WTC at the highest level of the U.S. government. No wonder the best way for the 9-11 Commission to deal with Bush's statements was to pretend that he never made them. And as long as the corporate media and the so-called opposition party (as well as academia) also never bring them up, the statements can just fall down the collective memory hole, because few people ever notice the missing dots, and fewer still are able to connect them.
Note: The self-proclaimed 'leadership' of "the 9/11 truth movement" has produced its own, 149-page(!!!), "omission report" (cached) which seems like it details all of the 567-page report's omissions. Yet it makes no mention at all of the overt omission of this lie-damning evidence, either! (Are you starting to notice a pattern yet?)
On May 23, 2003, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified before the 9-11 Commission. When he was asked about what he'd observed in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center (underground White House command bunker), he testified about Vice President Cheney having apparently been in command of what sounds like a military stand-down involving the attack on the Pentagon:
Even those people who still cling to the official government "19 guys with boxcutters" conspiracy theory of 9/11 should find it odd that not only was such startling information omitted from the Commission's final report, but also that the Commission dodged the Constitutional issue of having a Vice President in charge of the U.S. military, and also the issue of why there was evidently an order in place to not defend Washington DC against an aerial attack more than a half hour after the twin towers had already been attacked that morning.
No mention of 9/11 War Games
The names we keep hearing are Tripod, Vigilant Guardian, and Vigilant Warrior. For a long time, it was hard to be certain that it was anything more than just talk. But once the NORAD tapes were released, and repeated references
(12) to "the exercise" (as opposed to "real world") data could be heard, all doubt was removed.
In retrospect, it's become clear that the Stand Down of U.S. military defense systems on 9/11, and perhaps even staged simulated airliner hijackings, was accomplished via the multiple War Games which were being conducted at the same time as the attacks. These war games included, "coincidentally", the very same incredible unimaginable hijacking scenarios that we've been told occurred on 9/11!
So for the 9-11 Commission to include mention of these War Games would reveal not only the mechanism by which the Stand Down was accomplished, and strong circumstantial evidence that 9/11 was an "inside job", but it would also reveal Condi Rice's double-misleading May 2002 statement about how no one in the government could have ever imagined terrorists hijacking airliners and using them as missiles (as if that's what happened, when, clearly, it is not) to be a very bad lie, and proof of her unfitness to be National Security Advisor to the President of the United States of America.
So we can sure see why the President's 9-11 Commission wouldn't want to "go there"!
Contradictory NORAD "Flight 93" evidence
The NORAD tapes contain more than 100 hours of audio from multiple channels of communications recorded on 9/11. They were released as .WAV files, which we have converted to .MP3 files, but have never thoroughly gone through them completely. Please let us know if you'd like a copy of the entire set in order to help find more buried treasures, er, undiscovered evidence.
Here is the most chilling incisive portion we have found. This NORAD audio clip, which spans 10:06 to 10:15 in 3 segments, strongly suggests that "Flight 93" was intercepted, per orders, before it finally exploded North-East of Camp David. Alas, the 9-11 Commission Report says that Flight 93 went down, without having been intercepted, in Shanksville, PA, which is more than 80 miles to the West-North-West:
"In the vicinity of Camp David" was also reported on national television by CBS on 9/11:
Once again, we can see that the 9-11 Commission Report failed to adequately explain 9/11 evidence, again even when evidence came from the U.S. government.
Sure, it makes people feel good to believe in "Let's Roll" -- that legend of courageous passengers valiantly sacrificing their lives in order to defeat purported evil suicidal hijackers -- but let's grow up and get real about the wisdom of turning the government and much of the world upside down based upon awful lies told by a renegade governmedia which can no longer be trusted. (How many times must We catch the government and other institutions lying before We catch on?)
No mention of lack of NASA video enhancements
The videos and still-images from all 3 aircraft-building crashes on 9/11 contain visual evidence of anomalies serious enough to shatter the official government explanation for 9/11. And the 9-11 Commission Report makes numerous references to the Naudet video (but none to the anomalous-looking WTC1 aerial impact).
Instead, the total lack of official imaging, especially video, has been deafening, like a dog which failed to bark in a Sherlock Holmes mystery...
From the DVD release:
There is clearly something very interesting and highly anomalous about the image in this video frame, first seen in a VHS recording (source) of the earliest known broadcast that night of the only known video showing the 1st tower being struck.
So now which is more suspicious: the absence of the application of any of NASA's advanced video technologies to help solve the crime, or the absence of any mention of that absence (or of this anomaly) in the 9/11 Omission Report?
Sibel Edmonds Testimony
In the wake of 9-11, the FBI decided it would be a good thing to raise the capacity of its translation service. Naturalized U.S. citizen Sibel Edmonds became an FBI translator.
But Sibel found a lot of monkey business going on, both within the FBI's translation department and also based upon the information contained within the documents she was translating. She has since become a "whistleblower".
The U.S. Department of Justice has repeatedly tried to silence Sibel and deny her her day in court, because the information she possesses (ie, the truth of the matter) is considered by the office of the U.S. Attorney General to comprise national security secrets (and considered by many Constitution-huggers to be evidence of treasonously corrupt elements within the U.S. government).
So when Sibel Edmonds secretly testified to the 9-11 Commission for hours behind closed doors, we don't know what she told them. But she does! And she's told us that her testimony has been totally omitted from "the final report".
One aspect of this stifled information seems to involve penetration of the FBI's translation service by an outside group not connected to any government. Certainly, if department(s) within the FBI are compromised and the agency is not working together as a monolithic entity for the good of the country, this requires immediate remedial attention, not coverup.
This is not about an actual 9/11 Report omission but, rather, another way the 9/11 Omission Report has been useful in recognizing the big picture.
John Podesta is considered a "Democrat". He was President Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. In 2003, he founded the Center for American Progress (CAP), a "liberal think tank".
Throughout its existence, the CAP wrote and published a series of articles which were very critical of the 9-11 Commission. This web site linked to some of them. One article found 6 things wrong just with how the Commission had acquiesced to allowing President Bush to testify, in the White House, off the record, not under oath, with VP Cheney by this side.
Yet on the very day the 567-page 9-11 Omission Report was published, there appeared a Statement of John Podesta On the Report of the 9-11 Commission fully supporting its conclusions and essentially calling for them to be implemented immediately (nevermind that we had waited 20 months for it, and no one had finished reading it yet!).
Numerous calls to John Podesta's office seeking comment on his statement and its curious timing have gone unreturned.
So let's see if John Podesta's associations and relationships with others can possibly account for this amazing seeming flip-flop:
Well lookee here... A search of the internet for John Podesta turns up this web page, which indicates that he is a coordinator in The Homeland Security Project.
The co-chair of this little "Project" just happens to be 9-11 Commission chairman Thomas H. Kean!
One interpretation of their project's goals is to make the whole concept of "Homeland Security" palatable as it's rammed down Our throats by colluding Democrats and Republicans during the lingering shock and awe of 9/11, before We realize or discuss the many serious downsides of turning "the land of the free and the home of the brave" into "The Homeland", for which We all will fearfully and gratefully surrender Our precious, hard-won-and-died-for, individual rights and freedoms without complaint.
There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"