9/11 Commission Chairs and Congressmen Call for Declassification
August 31, 2014
Source: Blacklisted News – Washington’s Blog
The 9/11 Commission Co-Chairs – Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean – have called for the 28-page section of the 9/11 Commission Report which is classified to be declassified. Kean said that 60-70% of what was classified shouldn’t have been classified in the first place:
Congressman Thomas Massie read the 28 classified pages of the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry into 9/11 (the joint Senate and House investigation into 9/11) and immediately called for them to be released to the public:
A bipartisan bill – introduced by congressmen Walter B. Jones (Republican from North Carolina) and Stephen Lynch (Democrat from Massachusetts) – would declassify the 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry which implicate the Saudi government.
Former Congressman Ron Paul is also demanding the 28 pages be declassified:
The Co-Chair of the congressional investigation into 9/11 – Bob Graham – and 9/11 Commissioner and former Senator Bob Kerrey are calling for either a “permanent 9/11 commission” or a new 9/11 investigation to get to the bottom of it.
Senator Graham has lobbied Obama for years to release the 28 pages and to reopen the investigation, but Obama has refused. The former Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee and 9/11 investigator has even resorted to filing Freedom of Information requests to obtain information, but the Obama administration is still stonewalling:
Graham said that like the 28 pages in the 9/11 inquiry, the Sarasota case is being “covered up” by U.S. intelligence. Graham has been fighting to get the FBI to release the details of this investigation with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and litigation. But so far the bureau has stalled and stonewalled, he said.
And high-level former NSA official Thomas Drake provided testimony to the 9/11 investigations documenting that the “official story” of 9/11 makes little sense, as the intelligence agencies had all of the information they needed to stop it. Drake’s testimony has – for no real reason – been classified. Drake is seeking to declassify his testimony to the 9/11 Commission:
“I would argue for declassification and release because the 9/11 Commission asked for it in the public interest, my testimony was given to Congress via testimony (oral and written) to investigators as a material witness and whistleblower, because of NSA’s coverup of its accountability for 9/11, and the coverup committed by NSA to obstruct official Congressional investigations, plus declassification is timely in terms of ongoing efforts to reform NSA by Congress and the President. I do know that my testimony and evidence was fully suppressed and censored as a deep state secret – so secret that it was not included in the classified report of the 9/11 Joint Inquiry.”
Indeed, the 9/11 Commission admits that it never got all of the facts … and many officials are eager to spill the beans about what they know.
Still Urgent Today Ancient history, you say? Graham notes:
“Although it’s been more than a decade ago when this horrific event occurred, I think [the questions of who supported the attacks] have real consequences to U.S. actions today.”
As Graham told PBS:
“We need to have this information now because it’s relevant to the threat that the people of the United States are facing today.”
Postscript: People may not remember now, but – at the time – the supposed Iraqi state sponsorship of 9/11 was at least as important a justification for the Iraq war as the alleged weapons of mass destruction. This claim that Iraq is linked to 9/11 has since been debunked by the 9/11 Commission, top government officials, and even – long after they alleged such a link – Bush and Cheney themselves. But 70% of the American public believed it at the time, and 85% of U.S. troops believed the U.S. mission in Iraq was “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks.”
Only last year, John Glaser noted:
“Significant portions of Americans still believe that Saddam and al-Qaeda were in cahoots and cooperated in the 9/11 attacks. The reason is simple: the administration told them this lie.”
An investigation by a committee in the House of Representatives in 2004 identified “237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies.”
According to the committee, at least 61 separate statements “misrepresented Iraq’s ties to al-Qaeda.” A Senate investigation in 2006 also covered these lies. Keeping this lie afloat took some work. The Bush administration, primarily Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, “applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime,” McClatchy reported in 2009.
According to Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Bush’s Secretary of State Powell, “the administration authorized harsh interrogation” in 2002, and “its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa’ida.”
Wilkerson is right.
In other words, the failure to conduct a real 9/11 investigation contributed to the Iraq war, torture, and the failure to fix fundamental weaknesses in – and threats to – America’s national security.
A fan of “Unthinkable: An Airline Captain’s Story” recently shared the following YouTube video with us, surprised to see Phil Marshall’s wife, Sean, on TV taking the exact opposite position from Independent Investigator Wayne Madsen regarding the recent deaths of her husband, their two teenage kids and the family dog.
Sean Marshall on gun violence.
We are all so sorry for Sean Marshall’s loss and she is obviously genuinely convinced the deaths of her children were at her husband’s hands.
We’re posting this video for all those who wonder why our film doesn’t present more compelling evidence convicting someone for the deaths or present the evidence Marshall planned to publish in his next book. We don’t because we don’t have it. And neither does the Calaveras County Sheriff.
That’s why we’re convinced our film has value. It is an honest presentation of known facts in the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Philip Marshall and his two kids. Troubling, because as much as our hearts go out to Sean Marshall, family and friends of her two kids, Alex and Macalia, there is a preponderance of evidence suggesting the Calaveras County Sheriff was either unthinkably incompetent or deliberately participated in a cover-up to protect the identity of those actually responsible for the deaths.
We believe the deaths of Phil Marshall, his two teenage kids (and the family dog) demand further independent investigation to prove who is truly to blame for these tragic deaths.
Hello Kelly & Heidi,
In your Spring 2014 issue, you ask, “Can Moviemakers Save The World?” Great question, perhaps one inspired by the current growth of interest in documentaries. But what if your documentary is about people who don’t want you anywhere near certain stories. What is a filmmaker to do when the subjects of such a story refuse to participate? Do we just shrug and move on? Or are there other approaches to strict documentary which could find acceptance with the indie crowd?
We think there are, because when we took on a film about the murder-suicide of 9/11 truth author Philip Marshall, we approached the film as a hybrid – part documentary, part narrative fiction. The film embodies many elements that go beyond The Official Story on 9/11; Marshall wrote three books about his investigations into those who financed and trained the 9/11 terrorist who flew passenger jets into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Would there be an audience for a film about his “murder-suicide” (or his assassination)? There is certainly a strong audience for political dramas like “Scandal” with its fictional stories of unimaginable corruption, monsters wielding terrifying power and secret branches of Government like B613.
We thought that by opening our political hybrid film at Quad Cinema we might perk the interest of a mainstream reviewer or two, but all we accomplished was to invite ourselves to a mainstream media lynching party – not for having dared to experiment with a documentary/narrative hybrid, but for our “amateurish” filmmaking skills and untalented cast. Those criticisms didn’t resonate with film pros who have seen the film. Nope. We’d crossed the line. After all, it is officially taboo for the mainstream to write stories about 9/11 truth. Just ask David Corn, who once equated “conspiracy theorists” with “X-Files” loonies. But answer this: Are the 2,000 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth who have conclusive scientific evidence that the Twin Towers and Building 7 all came down due to controlled demolition – are they X-Files loonies? Or do we just ignore them because to accept them into the conversation would threaten our comfortable world view?
Perhaps an even more important question: Is the film journalism, documentary or narrative? Folks don’t seem to know how to relate to it. Have we broken a taboo; mixing narrative with documentary? Is that even legal? Or perhaps the film is nothing more than no-budget experiment…
Now we’re thinking – perhaps there are film writers who are unafraid to consider a film produced “outside the box,” despite its low budget or because its director also wrote, produced, photographed and edited “the conspiracy theory film” himself. Sure, these are the dangers of no-budget filmmaking, but at the end of the day the story remains one which clearly threatens the mainstream. But isn’t that reason enough for the film to be given an opportunity to find its audience… an audience which deserves the freedom to explore for themselves how their news is censored, how they are too often misled.
Our film was produced on a budget as small as “Blair Witch Project” and “Paranormal.” It was produced with passionate SAG actors and a very small but dedicated crew. Has Unthinkable been a worthwhile exercise? Naturally, we think it has. It’s a true story based on a well known journalist’s investigation into what law enforcement was quick to wrap up as a “murder-suicide” when a ton of disturbing contradictions point more accurately to a professional assassination. As our lead character asks: “Why would a small town sheriff turn a murder into a suicide?
Doesn’t that seem like an interesting story? One which might help Save The World? It would be great if you folks thought so. We’d love to talk to you about it.
Best Regards,
Eric Stacey