All there is to a cover up is to stand firm and deny everything no matter how many times you get cloven by the truth … what is so difficult about that. It just so happens we are discussing the USG here, the ones controlling the media (in cahoots with?). Obviously you haven’t polled the rest of the world on this issue. I don’t know about anyone else but when I hear ‘conspiracy’, I think of religious folk who think the whole world is conspiring for their utter destruction (hahaha) or I think of a government that is conspiring to monopolize the world and all its resources. What I don’t associate with a conspiracy are groups of professional people like “Pilots for 9/11 truth” arguing the impossible aviation logistics (using USG data), “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth” arguing structural integrity, building design, building construction and the possibility of  ‘free fall’ under those conditions (using USG data), etc. Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice challenging just about everything controversial and only god knows where they get their stuff from. There are of course the kooks and weirdoes that flock to any cause … that everyone must filter well. But there is expert testimony from firefighters, police and people on the scene (and their 911 truth organizations). These are local NY’ers not a bunch of red necks in Alabama looking for a cause. Next time you are flying at five miles up … be daring and try to use your cell phone to call home hahaha (maybe it is fixed now, but I don’t think so). It is my understanding that millions are being spent today to enable this technology and all these idiots had to do is ask how it was accomplished in 2001. I mean the list just doesn’t end as almost nothing at all adds up in an after action review. It is crucial to the USG and consequently the 911 commission … that the hijackers be well identified by people on the planes thus the phone calls which identified the onboard terrorists down to their skivvies. Since there were no reported survivors, this detailed information had to come from phone calls only. And many of the 911 calls could not have been made due to prevailing technology in 2001 and the height the calls had to be made from (using USG data).  

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html

Your conclusion (and that of the author of your link) is not supported by the information cited.  Calls could have gotten through.  Just because technology intentionally designed to facilitate air-ground cellphone calls wasn't implemented until later doesn't mean calls could not possibly have connected.  If you really think making dozens of faked cellphone calls, many to people capable of recognizing the voices of the purported callers, was part of 'the plan', well knock yourself out.  Just too many moving parts to the conspiracy for it to have not fallen apart, no matter the 'unexplained' technical aspects.

The USG is more than likely one of the worst at covering things up. If they were one of the best you would never have found out about many of the coverups that they attempted and failed to ultimately cover up. There are so many potential sources for leaks in this government.

That's not a cover up. That's the propaganda that follows when a coverup is actually exposed. It is unfortunate that some people choose to believe the word of politicians over the word of non politicians when coverups are exposed.

Maybe you should include the FBI and CIA whistleblowers. They are the ones who actually knew what the intelligence was and were either told by their politically appointed dept heads to edit their reports to add bias, or stopped from further investigation and/or prosecution of specific cases related to 9/11. These are the people who provide actual information about how the politicians tried to cover their butts.

 

 

Smoothseas, I was looking at a 'cover up' as an after action activity is all. Viewing the definition though tells me there are other ways of looking at this. My pore old dictionary has many synonyms but provides only one definition (transitive verb to try to conceal that something illegal, immoral, or undesirable has happened or how or why it happened). Sorry about any confusion. I know the base line story had to be worked out in advance, but I consider that the planning stage where evidence was planted for easy ‘discovery’. Then there was the actual ‘attack’ or the action stage and we all know the results of that. What’s done is done … and then the cover up begins. This is where NIST Inc. and other political entities come into the picture … this is where the ‘cover up’ blossomed into a reality with a life of its own, seemingly. Semantics again???

I am sure there are quite a lot of people that could have been added to the list … I was just trying to make a point though.

Daiwa, so your defense is “…calls could have gotten through” huh. I provided a source that says differently and this is all you got??? I am quite sure the technology is paramount myself being a technical person. You assume way too much for a healthy conversation. All I said was the calls were faked … I didn’t say they didn’t take place how could I … we have the recordings. If you believe the only way those calls could have been faked was to have some idiot somewhere making them … well that my friend is your problem.  It did fall apart silly boy … that’s why these discussions are taking place all around the world. Is it your contention then that all the ‘experts’ voicing their concerns over 911 are idiots, anti-American or just political hacks … that seems to be what you are implying? “… no matter the unexplained technical aspects”, huh. Why do you have so much trouble when someone else more adventurous (like me) wants to understand those ‘aspects’? You don’t seem at all interested in providing any proof of your own … just slamming those that have other possibilities and theories in mind.

I don't need to provide proof that 9/11 happened.  But thanks for asking.

Hahaha, that's about all the proof you are want to give on most things. I guess it just makes for short and funny nonsensical snide comments. I wonder who posed that question, naw hehehe ... it wasn't a question at all ... just another silly pointless remark. 

I realize that however the information provided by people in the intelligence community is vital to understanding what was actually covered up.

 

There are plenty of videos about Michael Scheuer. He headed the Bin Laden desk at the CIA.  Look around for his interviews and you will see plenty of good info about what was covered up in the 911 Commission Report

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYSN3exS9Tc

 

 

Here's a lawyer from the FBI.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiVKwCiw6Ko

 

Smoothseas, could you list the URL or the title just because it’s much clearer to view on YouTube. Michael Scheuer is an old salt and I have viewed many of his clips (got to love YT), haven’t seen that one though. Whistleblowers have to be squeaky clean if they are to refute charges of ‘retribution’ not that it’s fair, just the first attack to be expected (sexual innuendos are probable next). I try to take everything into consideration … if possible. Most of my comments are in response to specific stimuli hahaha questions and normally not intended for a full explanation … is that possible hahaha. Anyway we are on the same page here … just different paragraphs. Is it your opinion then that 911 was a multitude of errors and inadequacies from fifteen separate federal agencies under the auspices of the CIA (Tenet - DCI from July 1997 to July 2004)? I can only see this in two ways, legit or not … there is no middle ground here. I understand coincidence, but I cannot believe that only our inadequacies could have been so capitalized on just by happenstance (right place – right time) alone?

U.S. Intelligence 9/11 and Iraq: A Whistleblower's Story   http://youtu.be/aiVKwCiw6Ko

It's often not retribution and even if it is they usually don't lie about the circumstances. It is the politicians that lie because they need to buy votes to stay in power. Who cares about skeletons in the closet. Everybody has them and usually they have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

It is what it is. There are just too many people involved for such a coverup not to be leaked. The Executive branch waited for their Pearl Harbor and they got it. They simply exploited an event that was in one form or another bound to happen and used it to execute policy that was already put in place.They shaped the dialogue to do what they wanted to do for years, and took the ball and ran with it.

 

Look at how they are shaping the dialogue about Iran. Iran has been "just around the corner" to getting Nukes for about two decades now.

 

 

Since we don't exactly know what was covered up (if anything) ... it is difficult to say how many people needed to have been directly involved. Maybe it was just a few people in authority who could clear NORAD out of the area or a few others who ensured the agencies lacked intercommunications. I don’t think it would necessitate a lot of people as most underlings just follow orders with little thought on why. As far as leaks go … how many whistle blowers are there now … they are for the most part sidelined with the theorists so what’s the point. There are countless ways the USG could have paved the way to 911 with gold bricks and beacons … they are the best at covert ops after all. Just look at Stant123 and his refusal to comprehend that the USG is not filled with saints and we had no imperialistic goals besides the spread of ‘democracy’. Coincidence is one thing, but too much warns of red flags.

Well, I think history will bear me out ... eventually. But for now  ... there’s no rest for the weary hahaha.

Good luck with that.  MC & HNY!

There is actually quite a bit of information known to be covered up. Compare what some FBI and CIA agents have openly stated vs. the content in the 911 Commission Report.
Above is just two examples but there are many more easily found on the web. It is obvious that poor decision making was covered up. As far as whether one deems "poor" decision making to be more like negligence is strictly opinion.

Most "underlings" in government know exactly what they are doing and exactly what they are involved in.

Intelligence agents know exactly what they are involved in. Michael Scheuer is probably one of the best sources of information because he was not some underling sychophant. He was the head of the Bin Laden Unit and had his hands on quite a bit of intelligence. Look at as many of his videos as you can. You may not agree with his views on foreign policy however it should be quite obvious he is no fan of the politicians who presided above him while he was working at the CIA. These people are not theorist. They know exactly what some of the intelligence was, exactly where investigations were hindered, and know exactly how the raw intelligence that passed through their hands was manipulated by superiors and politicians.

If you look at other cases involving whistle-blowers you will see that they are not underling sycophants as well.

Are you aware of how many times you used the word "exactly" in this paragraph ... way too many. I don’t know that you are any more qualified than I am in knowing what these people may or may not know and understand … pretty silly don’t you think? I know from experience that shit seldom flows up and information seldom flows down. Have you ever been in the military … it is the clearest example I can give about the flow of stuff.I don’t think you are coming away with my intent in mind. For instance, I said the whistle blowers where not supported by the USG (no surprise there) … so they are placed in the same category as theorists. Not my thoughts because I know better. And I already told you I liked Michael Scheuer.