These explosive and revealing comments about 9/11 have been completely ignored by the Mainstream Media. While talking about the 9/11 commission, 9/11 family member Patty Casazza reveals that FBI translator and whistleblower Sibel Edmonds had incriminating insider information about the 9/11 attacks:
The Government knew… other than the exact moment… they knew the date, and the method of which the attacks were supposed to come... And none of this made it to mainstream media. None of it made it into the Commission.
And yet, again, all of your Representatives, on the day that the Commission book came out, were on their pulpits saying, “What a fabulous job this Commission has done. A real service to this nation.” And it was anything but a service. It was a complete fabrication.
The lack of Mainstream news coverage of these views is very apparent. Fox News in a secret memo implicitly admits that there is a problem with the 'official story' of 9/11:
"The so-called 9/11 Commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is its eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both former and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, but this is not 'what did he know and when did he know it' stuff. Don't turn this into Watergate."
In fact, a similar sentiment was expressed by the 9/11 commissioners in their book Without Precedent:
"We were supposed to be independent, not necessarily confrontational. We were investigating a national catastrophe, not a White House transgression; this was 9/11, not Watergate."
One way to avoid controversy is to avoid placing blame:
“In… blaming everybody a little, the Commission blames nobody.” Benjamin DeMott of Harpers Magazine
“The purpose of a government investigatory commission is to place blame where it does the least harm politically.” Paul Craig Roberts
“Our aim has not been to assign individual blame.” 9/11 Commission Report, p. xvi
“This was not something that had to happen… There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed.” December 17-21, 2003: 9/11 Commission Chairman Says 9/11 Attacks Were Preventable
They "failed" and yet no one was fired or held accountable for it. Instead, those who were in charge of US defense on 9/11 were promoted. No one was fired or reprimanded.
Omission is one of the most powerful tools of disinformation used by the MSM. We see this every day when they do not cover those questioning the official story of 9/11, or when they fail to do this job themselves as implied in this Fox Memo. When they do, they highlight the weakest theories and unprovable speculation along with the ad-hominem "conspiracy theorist" and “conspiracy theories”.
We also see omission when they make entire hit pieces, like the History Channel's 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction, in which they pretend that they have all of the answers to the questions.
Another gem of a quotation was provided by NIST. They were tasked with explaining the collapse of the WTC towers and Building 7 on 9/11. In response to a request for correction by 9/11 family members and scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, NIST replied:
That's what many 9/11 skeptics have been complaining about for a long time. Here is how George Washington puts it:
Well, yes! That's exactly the point the petitioners are trying to make. No modern steel frame high-rise building has ever collapsed before or after 9/11 due to fire other than at WTC 1, 2 and 7, even though other fires have burned longer and hotter. And even if they somehow did start to collapse, the collapse would not have occurred at virtual free-fall speeds while creating enormous dust clouds right from the start.
While NIST is "unable to provide a full explanation", Physicist Steven Jones had already made this observation when he characterized the NIST report as a "pre-collapse" report:
The NIST team fairly admits that their report' does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.' (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.) Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for explosive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation, as seen in cases of acknowledged controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000.) The NIST report could be called the official 'pre-collapse theory.'
In other words, NIST had already admitted that they couldn't, or wouldn't provide a full explanation when they specified their report would only deal with "collapse initiation". How the 110 floor World Trade Center Towers crumbled completely to the ground when they were specifically designed to survive plane crashes of the type seen on 9/11, is left unanswered by NIST.