Bill Clinton takes on a heckler

[quote=“Tempo Gain”]From Wiki:

NIST has “found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event”. In its final report on building 7, they would “like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.”[/quote]
How could the sworn eyewitness testimony before the 9/11 Commission as well as first reponders about explosive devices going off before and after the plane crash, and prior to the collapses be completely ignored and omitted when a government agency declares there is no evidence? The steel was removed before a crime scene investigation could be performed? Maybe wiki and NIST have their reasons to disregard these issues as insignificant. But many people do NOT share that opinion.

David Icke does not represent the masses of Americans who are questioning the official story, just as Jack Abramoff doesn’t represent the masses of Americans who trust in the accuracy of the White House’s 9/11 theory.

I agree. If there were no coverup lapses of- or damning contradictions in- the information provided about that day, not even the shadow of a doubt (yes Americans are the jury members), I’d still be viciously comfortable blaming Usama bin Laden and needing to deliver freedom loving liberation to Afghanistan, Iraq and soon Iran, and hopefully Syria, Lebanon, and eventually Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Unfortunately though, there IS evidence of cover-ups and evidence that contradicts the official story. Sure there’s a lot of “Ah-ha! You see! Conspiracy.” That’s all we have is a big conspiracy story.

Pushing to resolve the truth quickly should be the aim of every American. Think differently you may, and many do, is understood. Hence the uphill battle.

Watergate was a crime though. It really happened. There was a real money trail.[/quote]
9/11 was a crime though. It really happened. There was and IS a real money trail.
And if Watergate interests you, the [url=Does Sibel Edmonds = Hope for America? Edmonds thread[/url] could spark your interest.

Money trails? Maybe… what do you think?

1- Atta’s Pakistani ISI paymaster was in DC for secret meetings the days of the crime described – as ‘insignificant’ by the 9/11 Commission report. (lmk if Refs are needed)

2- Put options (seriously abnormal and ‘unprecedented spasm of investments’) on United and American Airlines plus Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch mainly through the Deutsche Bank… whose VP of “special accounts” was A. B. “Buzzy” Krongard, appointed Executive Director of the CIA, in March of 2001. Ref.
(US State Dept website quotes 9/11 Commission ‘Notes’ section as saying, “Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation.”)
(innocuous: harmless, inoffensive, not interesting, not stimulating, or not significant)

3- AMEC PLC / AMEC Construction: Same general contractor for wiring construction inside WTC 7 and the Pentagon’s reinforcement (incredibily where it was actually attacked). Ref.

4- Key WTC steel (worth cut-and-reforged between $600M and $1.6B Ref.) removal crew included heavyweight contractor Controlled Demolition, Inc. Ref. (What’s significant about CDI cleaning up WTC steel rapidly for shipping? It prevents a thorough investigation of evidence. “What evidence”, right?)

5- Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld admitted on 11/10/01 they’d lost $2.3 trillion in transactions, and no-follow-up occurred. “Rumsfeld promised change but the next day – Sept. 11 – the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten.”

Safe to predict that following these money trails points to… cover-ups.

Purposely concealing or preventing… investigation or exposure of facts… actually defines a cover-up.