Thursday, 9 July 2009

Investigators Easily Smuggled Bomb Material Into Government Buildings

A new report by the Government Accountability Office inadvertently discredits a claim often made by 9/11 truth debunkers – that bombs could not have been smuggled into the twin towers or Building 7 without being noticed by security.

“In the past year, investigators successfully smuggled bomb-making materials into ten high-security federal buildings, constructed bombs and walked around the buildings undetected,” reports the Washington Post.

The GAO said that Federal Protective Service security at the offices of Homeland Security, the Justice Department and the State Department amongst others was easily penetrated by investigators carrying liquid explosives and low-yield detonators.

“In one instance, the GAO obtained a building security tape showing an investigator walking through a security checkpoint with bomb making materials,” according to the Post.

“We knew that the FPS was a troubled agency, but that GAO could penetrate security at these buildings and make bombs without detection is truly shocking,” said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman.

Several factors would have made it easier for conspirators to smuggle bombs inside the twin towers before 9/11 ...

The conspirators didn't need to do much smuggling as it appears the security was compromised in the months leading up to the controlled demolitions when numerous "upgrades" and repairs were carried out on the buildings. See further details in the story at the link.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 9th, 2009.]


steven andresen said...


I'm curious. Can you describe or explain what the current story-line is by the mainstream media about 9-11? Do they still argue, when they mention 9-11 critics at all, that they are just cranks, or deluded in some major "sick" way?

The reason I ask is that I believe there is a connection between the issue of civil liberties in this country and the issue of 9-11 that you have continued to talk about here on your blog.

The connection has to do with something like "cognitive dissonence" where the information about facts that's comming in to the Media thinkers conflicts with the story that they have up to now been committed to promoting.

So, in reading about NPR and their policy about using the word "torture" to describe , well, torture, they are willing to use the word when other countries torture, but will not use the word, and instead use other words like "enhanced interrogation techniques," when we (the United States security spooks) torture. The NPR ombudsman in explaining NPR policy has explained that there is a difference which justifies their policy. That is, when we use thumb screws it's because we just want information, but when others use thumb screws it's because they are just evil and get sexual pleasure from it. (well, not these exact words were used, but it's the same idea.)

I suspect that the number and consistency of the arguments both about the criminality of American policy justifying torture and about the evidence 9-11 was an inside job are forcing the spinners to adopt more and more obviously jerry-rigged arguments.

So, do you know of any of these kinds of slip-ups?

SpookyPunkos said...


I think your example of how the NPR is using the term torture to describe only foreigners torturing and "enhanced interrogation" for the US torture is the best example of the propaganda problem we face re: torture. I can't really think of anything in particular at the moment that helps to illustrate the point you have made.

Indeed, there may also be a great deal of disconnect by many people who think the US can do no wrong, that it's ok because "the good guys" are trying to save people, whereas the "evil bad guys" just use torture as a cruel means of intimidation.

Obviously such thinking is false, when juxtaposed to the facts.

However, I also think there is a level of corruption or self serving censorship in the media that goes beyond simply just being one eyed about the matter. I would say that this censorship and the willingness to distort "the truth" is akin to being an accessory to a major crime. I'm sure the corporate bosses and various editors have used their influence to deliberately skew the seriousness of criminal behaviour to protect their relationships to the establishment.

In relation to 911, the mainstream media on the whole tends to ignore the breaking stories. Recently a massive blow to the official account was almost entirely ignored. The issue dealt with the discovery of unexploded Thermite traces in ALL dust samples collected by investigating scientists. It is known as the "Loaded Gun" evidence.

My view is that the media treats the 911 issue in a similar way to the more mainstream torture matter. They are ignorant of the hard facts (ie America can do no wrong) and make a priori assumptions that there is nothing to the matter OR some in the media do understand the facts and deliberately attempt to distort the evidence (corruption). Most media, I think, fall into the former category and believe the Commission Report or the Popular Mechanics debunking. This can be put down to simply a lack of research and understanding + a psychological disconnect even when good arguments are made.

Then there is the latter category of corruption. The prime example I cite is the BBC's The Third Tower hit piece that grossly distorted expert and eyewitness testimony to such a degree that it beggars belief to think that this act was anything but a corrupt action.

The result of these two mindsets (ignorance/delusion + corruption) mean the mainstream coveage of 911 is very very limited and often condesending, almost quaranteed to be totally misleading. We get the occasional hit piece documentary stories, plus the odd bout of ridicule from Fox commentators but most of the time 911 is ignored.

My hope is that the continued online effort will break through. The internet has been underestimated and slowly people are learning. It's not an impossible mission either considering the unimpeachable nature of the evidence !

I have ranted a bit here, but I have to add that you are right to see a connection with how civil liberties issues are treated and 911. There are notable similarities but there are also notable differences.

The more conspiratorial (fringe), the better you can ridicule the matter. The more mainstream, the more one has to downplay the seriousness and change how people think. Censoring facts comes in very handy. However, I'm sure you can appreciate that as people begin to know more and more the efforts to hide and spin the truth becomes less and less convincing.

The huge advantage for the inside job hypothesis/position comes about because the key evidence is so robust. The particular details surrounding 911 set is apart from other conspiracy crimes where there has been much less interest and material evidence. The dramatic nature of the crime itself and the mountain of evidence make the the cover up practically impossible.