From Reprehensor: Following the posting of Inky99's blog entry, Official story of 9/11 "almost entirely untrue", a follow-up blog was posted by longtime site user, Tocquedeville, entitled, The Conspiracy Theorist Label. Despite Tocquedeville's popularity on the site, he was banned, merely for pointing out the obvious;
"The conspiracy theorist label is the cleverest tool the conspirators have come up with to deter the people from investigating and questioning their (the people's) own government.
The truth is, the greatest threat to our national security is not an external foe, but the secrecy of our own government. Secrecy mis-justified by the claim that it is in the interest of national security. How convenient for the profiteers of the national security state."
Although Tocquedeville ultimately relies on the blowback hypothesis, his opening comment is 100% valid, and true. Now, user Bidet has posted this; Daily Kos diarist, Tocquedeville, has been banned. This diary is a petition to get him unbanned. Inky99's blog garnered over 1000 comments, the same as Tocquedeville's diary. However, the diary entry calling for the reinstatement of Tocquedeville has collected over 2500 comments as of 0622 Central Time today, and the poll has over 8200 votes, with a 2 to 1 majority asking for the unbanning of Tocquedeville.
I haven't posted anything at Kos in over a year, but when I posted a poll along with Dem Bruce Lee Styles' video, here, I got a nearly 7 to 1 positive response for asking this simple question; "Was 9/11 adequately investigated?"
It's been nearly 3 years since Kos put his policy in place, which is apparently completely out of step with his own user base. Perhaps, with enough vocal, logical, powerful participation on Kos, he will re-think his policy.
I doubt it, but it's the "Hope and Change" era, is it not?
by Inky99
May 16, 2009
dailykos.com The State of the Nation blog
Now, before you get your panties in a bunch, this is about a new book, titled "The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America's Defense on 9/11".
And before you get all outraged (The FAQ! The FAQ!), here is the author of the book, John Farmer:
John Farmer served as Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, where his areas of responsibility included assessing the national response to the terrorist attacks and evaluating the current state of national preparedness for terrorist attacks and natural disasters, he also served as attorney general of New Jersey (1999-2002), as chief counsel to Governor Whitman, and as a federal prosecutor. He recently served as a subject matter/rule of law expert on security to the special envoy for Middle East regional security. He is currently a partner of a New Jersey law form and an adjunct professor of national security law at Rutgers University Law School. His editorials and articles have appeared in "The New York Times" and elsewhere
And my diary title are the words of Farmer's publisher, Houghton Mifflin.
Inky99's diary ::I wrote a couple of nights ago, here -- '9/11 Commission Report -- Info Obtained Through Torture" -- as to how much of what was published in the 9/11 Commission report was obtained through torture, and is therefore completely without credibility.
Scandalous enough, right?
Well, it gets worse.
The above described James Farmer has just come out with his new book. It was released April 14. I have not read it (I just heard about it maybe ten minutes ago) and it is difficult to find any reviews of it by any mainstream book reviewers (gee, what a surprise!).
But according to the publisher, it's quite a bombshell:
Description:
As of the 9/11 Commission's one of the primary authors report, John Farmer is proud of his and his colleagues' work. Yet he came away from the experience convinced that there was a further story to be told, one he was uniquely qualified to write.Now that story can be told. Tape recordings, transcripts, and contemporaneous records that had been classified have since been declassified, and the inspector general's investigations of government conduct have been completed. Drawing on his knowledge of those sources, as well as his years as an attorney in public and private practice, Farmer reconstructs the truth of what happened on that fateful day and the disastrous circumstances that allowed it: the institutionalized disconnect between what those on the ground knew and what those in power did. He reveals — terrifyingly and illuminatingly -- the key moments in the years, months, weeks, and days that preceded the attacks, then descends almost in real time through the attacks themselves, revealing them as they have never before been seen.
Ultimately Farmer builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version not only is almost entirely untrue but serves to create a false impression of order and security. The ground truth that Farmer captures tells a very different story -- a story that is doomed to be repeated unless the systemic failures he reveals are confronted and remedied.
So let me just repeat that to let it sink in .... The official story is "almost entirely untrue." So what IS true? Hell if I know.
And check this out:
Farmer himself states that "at some level of the government, at some point in time ... there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened."
So let's let that sink in .... there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.
Continued at dailykos.com
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author, who is solely responsible for its content, and do not necessarily reflect those of 911Truth.org. 911Truth.org will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
This page contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political issues relating to alternative views of the 9/11 events, etc. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.