So, where are those 9/11 whistleblowers?

[JackRiddler]

70-page essay available as PDF, advertised here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/roberts/index.html

The description text and contents however pretty much give away the argument to anyone who knows the issues and can use logic to reconstruct what he's saying based on the issues raised.

I think this looks very interesting and is worthy of discussion here.

TEXT:

Where Are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?
Answering a Common Objection to Theories That the September 11 Attacks Were an Inside Job

A 9-11 Research PDF Essay
by Gregg Roberts, Associate Editor (of http://wtc7.net)

Note: Since there have actually been many whistleblowers -- just no one who credibly claims to be one of the perpetrators -- the present title is something of a misnomer. (...)

Introduction

In many personal discussions I have had about 9/11, I am often interrupted long before I can describe much of the evidence that it was an inside job, with the objection that such a large conspiracy could not have been covered up. "Hundreds, if not thousands, of people would have to have been involved. Someone would have talked"

(...)

The essay I'm offering below provides a self-contained, easily printed review of the evidence for official complicity in 9/11:
- The immediate identification of Osama bin Laden as the "mastermind" and the almost immediate identification of all 19 alleged hijackers
- Scant public evidence supporting the official account
- Official statements that lack fundamental credibility, such as that a suicide attack by airliner had never been considered
- The unprecedented, unexplained collapses of three steel-framed skyscrapers, allegedly due to fire, while exhibiting all the typical features of controlled demolition, or features that argue for it even more strongly

After the review, I discuss issues that bear on the likelihood of a 9/11 whistleblower coming forward, and of his or her case being widely covered in the mainstream media, including:
- The history of "false-flag attacks" and other government operations that were kept secret by hundreds of people for decades
- The likely number of insiders in a position to blow the whistle and their relevant personal characteristics
- How the government and media have treated whistleblowers who have revealed weaknesses in the handling of national security threats, without claiming any inside knowledge of how 9/11 was carried out (or even challenging the official story)
- The motivations and concerns of whistleblowers
- Attitudes and other filtering mechanisms evident in the major media

I conclude that the probability of an insider coming forward and widespread coverage being afforded such a person are quite low because of the explosive nature of the issue, the risk/opportunity balance to would-be whistleblowers, and the filtering mechanisms that operate in both the corporate and Left media.

Contents
Overview
My Purpose in Writing This Essay

The Prima Facie Case That 9/11 Was an Inside Job
Reopening An "Open-and-Shut" Case
"Missed Warnings"
They Were So Dumb, They Outsmarted Us
What Does It Take to Reduce Heavy Steel Skyscrapers to Toothpicks and Dust?

Who Had the Means?
Government and Media Treatment of the Issues
Left Gatekeepers

Where Are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?
Conspiracies Happen All the Time
Upstanding Members of Society
Physics Trumps Armchair Psychology

Who Is in Actually a Position to Blow the 9/11 Whistle?
If You Say It, They Will Come
Media Self-Censorship, and Ridicule of 9/11 Skeptics
The Mother of All Whistleblowers Weighs In

What Motivates Whistleblowers?
Historical Precedent: (Temporarily) Successful, Massive Cover-Ups
What Response from Authorities Could 9/11 Whistleblowers Expect?
- The Case of Sibel Edmonds
- The Case of Coleen Rowley
- The Case of Kevin Ryan
"Trust Us, We'll Protect You"
Surely, Reforms Are on the Way
Ruthless People

Conclusion

Afterword: What Can We Do?
"First, Do No Harm"
Join with Others

[The Lone Groover]

1. I know Sibel Edmonds is being officially gagged...

...why is the Bush Admin so scared of her?

[CJCRANE]

2. Looks interesting.

Should be sold/promoted as a book.

[JackRiddler]

3. Well that's what it is, except you get the PDF file e-mailed to you.

Has anybody read it?

[CJCRANE]

4. I haven't read it

but I can guess the general outline from my experience of reading about 9/11, war on terror, war on civil liberties etc etc everyday for the past five years on DU. It's pretty obvious to any long-time DUer how the MSM operates. However this PDF might be a useful summary for those who want to explain it to their less well-informed friends.

[TheWraith]

5. Snort.

"- The immediate identification of Osama bin Laden as the "mastermind" and the almost immediate identification of all 19 alleged hijackers"

One of the calls made from the planes was a stewardess who gave the hijackers seat numbers. Everybody who gets on a plane is video taped going through airport security. With the seat numbers, it would be a small matter to find their reservations, then run down known aliases, pull the video, trace connections and funding... once you actually know who you're talking about, finding everything else in hindsight makes a lot more sense.

"- Scant public evidence supporting the official account"

There are tens of thousands of pages of evidence. Saying something as ridiculous and completely wrong as this fundamentally and completely undermines anything this person has to say, and rightfully so.

"- Official statements that lack fundamental credibility, such as that a suicide attack by airliner had never been considered"

We really need proof, after all these years, that the Bush administration is composed of morons? This from the same people who brought us "being greeted as liberators?" You're surprised that Condi would say something that stupid to cover their collective ass? The fact is--and this is a matter of public record--that the idea was thought of, but like so many other things, the Bushies ignored it because it wasn't part of their political agenda.

"- The unprecedented, unexplained collapses of three steel-framed skyscrapers, allegedly due to fire, while exhibiting all the typical features of controlled demolition, or features that argue for it even more strongly"

This statement contains no less than five distinct lies. For starters, the collapses were not unprecedented. Many steel frame buildings have collapsed from fire alone, let alone combinations of fire and structural damage. Nor were they unexplained: hundreds of thousands of man-hours have been spent looking at the collapses, from thousands of different engineers. There were more than three--not less than nine buildings were destroyed or so critically damaged as to require being razed. The collapses were not "allegedly due to fire," they were due to the combination of massive structural damage and fire. And the collapses demonstrated no traits typical of controlled demolition.

I'll bypass the rest of the thing except to say that it's no better reasoned or backed by information than the first part is.

[jschurchin]

7. My friend, you need to take the crack pipe

out of your mouth and pay attention.

This statement here: "Many steel frame buildings have collapsed from fire alone" does away with ANY credibility you may have. Please post ONE just ONE example with a link PROVING this claim, I dare you.

Do you think we have not looked for prior evedence of a similar failure, if you think we have not, then you sir, are an idiot.

[frylock]

8. what about this gem?

Everybody who gets on a plane is video taped going through airport security

I'd love to see the video of ALL 19 hijackers boarding their flights, because as far as I know, the only evidence provided is a grainy screener of Atta from a security cam at Portland, ME.

[AZCat]

9. It's not that steel framed buildings haven't collapsed...

it's that protected steel high rise total collapses are what you are looking for - not just a steel framed building collapse - and they are much more difficult to find. There's some question about the definition of "total collapse" and whether buildings from countries with less stringent building code enforcement than in the United States are acceptable as examples.

[TheWraith]

12. Cases where loaded planes have been deliberately run into buildings are also hard to find.

Many people here aren't looking for facts, they're looking for an excuse to twist the facts to suit their agenda. So because no building the size of the World Trade Center towers has collapsed in the exact same way due solely to fire, that somehow means that having tens of thousands of pounds of jetliner flown into them at 500 miles an hour filled with high-purity aviation fuel couldn't possibly have caused a collapse.

[TheWraith]

11. If you believe any of that, then congratulations on humiliating yourself.

"This statement here: "Many steel frame buildings have collapsed from fire alone" does away with ANY credibility you may have."

This is rich coming from the Rube Goldberg Conspiracy Club.

"Please post ONE just ONE example with a link PROVING this claim, I dare you."

McCormick Place, Chicago, a steel and concrete building, burned to the ground in 1967:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCormick_Place

Windsor Tower, a 32 story complex in Madrid, Spain, partially collapsed after an extensive fire, and the building itself had to be demolished to prevent a complete collapse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4261315.stm

Here's a case study in fire-caused collapses of multi-story steel structures:

http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/886/1/326_Jowsey.pdf

Hell, just a few days ago an arson attack collapsed a steel storage building in New Zealand:

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411319/1003791

I could go on like this for awhile, but I just provided four times more evidence than you asked for, so I'll just say that I am sick and tired of this bullshit about no fire ever collapsing a steel structure. It's completely untrue, and anybody who's still repeating it is perpetuating a lie.

"Do you think we have not looked for prior evedence of a similar failure,"

Obviously you haven't.

"if you think we have not, then you sir, are an idiot."

I think I've adequately proven who here is an idiot.

[jschurchin]

14. Very Nice Examples

As we can all see, all three have collapsed completely to the ground. Not a single piece of the any of the structures are still standing.

Nice try.

It is planly visable to any criticly thinking poster on this board whom is the idiot, and it is not I.

[RedSock]

10. evidence

There are tens of thousands of pages of evidence. Saying something as ridiculous and completely wrong as this fundamentally and completely undermines anything this person has to say, and rightfully so.

"The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot."

Robert S. Mueller, III, Director, FBI
Commonwealth Club of California
San Francisco, CA
April 19, 2002
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/speech041902.htm


Uh huh.

[TheWraith]

13. I was referring, and fairly obviously, to the copious scientific and investigative evidence.

Not some apparent demand on your part for a signed Al Qaeda manuscript. The fact that you have to completely change the meaning of what I said only goes to show that the original statement has absolutely no basis in reality.

[sweetheart]

6. national security gag

The op was top secret and all the perps are paid off so generously they'll never talk.