Authorities hid truth surrounding September 11 in the immediate aftermath of the attack, telling dying heroes “the air is safe to breathe,” so how on earth can asking what else they lied about be hurtful to the very victims the government stabbed in the back?

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet.com

Friday, March 12, 2010

The $650 million dollar payout in the 9/11 toxic dust settlement serves as a stark reminder amidst an attempted establishment purge of any questions surrounding what happened on September 11, that the government did indeed conspire to lie about 9/11 in the immediate aftermath of the attack.

“Rescue and recovery workers who were exposed to a toxic brew of smoke and dust in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks have been awarded $650 million in a compensation deal struck in New York,” reports the London Times.

“Thousands of 9/11 heroes, including firefighters, police officers, construction experts and emergency workers, have filed lawsuits since 2003 but last night’s agreement is expected to put an end to years of legal battles.”

As 9/11 truth organizations have constantly emphasized as part of their efforts to aid 9/11 first responders, it was a government lie about 9/11 in the very days after the tragedy that set in motion an 8 and half year legal battle to obtain justice for the heroes of that fateful day.

Five days after the 9/11 attack, Christie Todd Whitman, then head of the Environmental Protection Agency, told reporters, “The good news continues to be that air samples we have taken have all been at levels that cause no concern.”

A d v e r t i s e m e n t



However, the EPA’s own Office of the Inspector General later revealed that this was an outright lie. In August 2003 it was revealed that the government ordered the EPA to give the public misleading information, telling New Yorkers on September 12 it was safe to breathe when reliable information on air quality was not available and Asbestos levels were known to be three times higher than national standards.

“Whitman’s deliberate and misleading statements to the press, where she reassured the public that the air was safe to breathe around lower Manhattan and Brooklyn, and that there would be no health risk presented to those returning to those areas, shocks the conscience,” Manhattan Federal Judge Deborah Batts wrote in February 2006.

Further documents obtained by CBS news in September 2007 revealed that Lower Manhattan was reopened a few weeks following the attack even though the air was not safe.

The two devastating memos, written by the U.S. and local governments, show officials knew the toxic soup created at ground zero was a deadly health hazard. Yet they sent workers into the pit and people back into their homes.

“Not only did they know it was unsafe, they didn’t heed the words of more experienced people that worked for the city and EPA,” said Joel Kupferman, with the group Environmental Justice Project.

EPA whistleblower, Dr. Cate Jenkins then wrote a letter to Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and other members of the New York congressional delegation blasting the EPA for hiding dangerous toxins from ground zero workers in the aftermath of 9/11.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

The letter claimed that EPA-funded research on the toxicity of breathable alkaline dust at the site “falsified pH results” to make the substance appear benign, when it was, in reality, corrosive enough to cause first responders and other workers in lower Manhattan to later lose pulmonary functions and, in some cases, to die.

According to the 2003 EPA Inspector General’s investigation, Whitman conspired with the White House to lie about air quality at ground zero. Internal documents show it was Condoleezza Rice’s office that gave final approval to the infamous Environmental Protection Agency press releases days after 9/11 claiming the air around ground zero was “safe to breathe,” and that Whitman was merely following orders to mislead the public and ground zero workers.

Not only did the government deliberately lie about the aftermath of 9/11 and knowingly put the very heroes of the tragedy at risk, but they spent the next 8 and a half years attempting to cover up the fact while hundreds of ground zero first responders died agonizing deaths.

If the government was happy to take actions they knew full well would lead to the deaths and crippling illnesses of thousands of the finest and most upstanding Americans in the country, how the hell can we close our eyes to the possibility that they could have had any involvement whatsoever in the actual 9/11 attack itself?

Now that it is public knowledge and proven that the government conspired to lie about the toxic dust, putting thousands of people’s lives at risk, and leading to the deaths of hundreds, why on earth should we so readily believe any other aspect of what they told us in the days and weeks after the tragic event?

9/11 truth organizations like We Are Change have been instrumental in aiding the thousands of ground zero heroes who were lied to and abandoned by their own government, and have spent years running charity and fundraising events in support of 9/11 first responders. And how did the media and the establishment react? By demonizing 9/11 truthers as dangerous extremists and terrorists.

While the establishment continues to attack and smear the mere act of questioning the official 9/11 story as hateful and upsetting to the victims of 9/11, the government has, since the day of the attack, stuck a knife in the back of those very victims and twisted it for the last 8 and a half years.

Today’s ruling serves as a stark reminder that challenging the official 9/11 story and demanding a new investigation is not only necessary for the country, it’s imperative in order to achieve justice for those who were killed on 9/11 and the heroes who paid with their lives trying to save others – people who were cruelly disregarded by a government that had resolved to lie about the immediate aftermath of the attack.

This article was posted: Friday, March 12, 2010 at 11:54 am

Print this page.

Infowars.com Videos:

Comment on this article