"Jersey Girls"

[BenBurch]

What's the deal with this Truther sub-group?

[DC]

What's the deal with this Truther sub-group?
3 widows that lost husband or son on 9/11

afaik it was them that public demanded investigations till they got one. they asked Kissinger about his bussines with the Bin Laden fam. then he resigned from the commission.
about the commission findings they say that most of theyr questions was never handled nor answered.

they still demand independend reinvestigations.

[DC]

Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Lorie Van Auken, and Mindy Kleinberg

oops 4

[Brainster]

Breitweiser has not embraced "Trutherism" unlike Casazza, Kleinberg and Van Auken. I used to assume that the latter were just going along with the Troofers because their interests (a new investigation) coincided, but these days the three remaining Jersey Girls are pretty much nutbar conspiracy theorists, talking about how cellphones can't work, and why did Building 7 collapse and how did the Secret Service know Bush was safe at Booker Elementary.

[BenBurch]

Ah, only 4.

Truthers made it sound like there were many dozens of them.

So not even a proper subgroup, just a few more nuts in the can.

[njslim]

My neighbor who lives across the hall in my apartment building lost 2 of her sons who
worked for Cantor Fitzgerald in North Tower. I don't hear her whining and spewing out
idiotic truther crap...

Real classy lady .....

[1337m4n]

Are those the women who lost husbands in the attack and are now being exploited by the Truth Movement every chance it gets?

[T.A.M.]

yes, but unfortunately they have full bought the snake oil now.

TAM:)

[A W Smith]

so out of three thousand victims they have a total of Four spouses of four victims who are not satisfied,, that would be point one three percent of all victims families. You would think there would be more nutbars.

[DC]

so out of three thousand victims they have a total of Four spouses of four victims who are not satisfied,, that would be point one three percent of all victims families. You would think there would be more nutbars.

no there are more than those 4 that demand reinvestigations among them also someone that claims the US gov murdered his son on 9/11.

[jhunter1163]

so out of three thousand victims they have a total of Four spouses of four victims who are not satisfied,, that would be point one three percent of all victims families. You would think there would be more nutbars.

It's actually a much smaller figure, because each victim had more than one family member. Add in all the parents, children, brothers, sisters, grandparents, grandchildren... well, you get the picture.

Also, I believe at least one of the Jersey Girls lost a child, not a spouse.

[Alt+F4]

so out of three thousand victims they have a total of Four spouses of four victims who are not satisfied,, that would be point one three percent of all victims families. You would think there would be more nutbars.

Well for each of the almost 3000 that died, there wasn't just one family member left behind. Between parents, children, siblings, etc. there are tens of thousands who lost a family member they loved that day. That takes the percentage down even further.

[Jonnyclueless]

There's also a percentage of the population that thinks the world is flat. And a percentage of the population that still believes Hitler was right. Does the fact that such people exist prove they are right?

[defaultdotxbe]

no there are more than those 4 that demand reinvestigations among them also someone that claims the US gov murdered his son on 9/11.
this makes me think of an interesting question

how many family members do NOT feel the need for a new investigation?

this is a much more diofficult question to answer with certainty, as when one is satisfied with the status quo they generally dont speak out, logically we can assume that anyone not actively demanding a new investion does not feel one is needed

truthers however do the opposite, and assume anyone not actively supporting the "official story" must not accept it, however i just cant see the logic in the this position

[gc051360]

no there are more than those 4 that demand reinvestigations among them also someone that claims the US gov murdered his son on 9/11.

But that says nothing about their actual claims.

logically we can assume that anyone not actively demanding a new investion does not feel one is needed
Not necessarily. We don't know what these people think or want. Unless they speak out, we have no real way of knowing.

ETA: I generally stay away from debating this stuff, because I give people who lost loved ones a pass. Especially someone like Dictator Cheney, mentioned earlier. A man who lost his son. I give these types of people passes to say anything they want.

[defaultdotxbe]

Not necessarily. We don't know what these people think or want. Unless they speak out, we have no real way of knowing.
correct, we cant be certain, but in most situation there are logical assumptions that can be made, i feel this is one those

[DC]

this makes me think of an interesting question

how many family members do NOT feel the need for a new investigation?

this is a much more diofficult question to answer with certainty, as when one is satisfied with the status quo they generally dont speak out, logically we can assume that anyone not actively demanding a new investion does not feel one is needed

truthers however do the opposite, and assume anyone not actively supporting the "official story" must not accept it, however i just cant see the logic in the this position

how many have come public and sayd the belive the official sotry?
is there a counter movement or something?

[gc051360]

how many have come public and sayd the belive the official sotry?
is there a counter movement or something?

Does any of that really matter?

Why would one need to come forward and acknowledge the generally accepted view?

[defaultdotxbe]

how many have come public and sayd the belive the official sotry?
is there a counter movement or something?
thats exactly my point, if you are satisfied with the way things are theres no action to be taken, no "counter movement" to take part in, heck most people i know arent even aware of the existance of your movement, let alone signing up to join a counter movement

[BenBurch]

no there are more than those 4 that demand reinvestigations among them also someone that claims the US gov murdered his son on 9/11.

Can you document more than these four? Somehow I doubt it.

I'm betting that in the pool of survivor's families, more people believe in UFOs than believe this crap.

[tanabear]

My neighbor who lives across the hall in my apartment building lost 2 of her sons who
worked for Cantor Fitzgerald in North Tower. I don't hear her whining and spewing out idiotic truther crap...

Real classy lady .....

What whining and idiotic truther crap have the Jersey Girls been spewing?

Are those the women who lost husbands in the attack and are now being exploited by the Truth Movement every chance it gets?

They care about finding out the truth behind 9/11.

[defaultdotxbe]

They care about finding out the truth behind 9/11.
and these folks (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/) care about finding out the truth behind the shape of the earth

[Alzke]

Can you document more than these four? Somehow I doubt it.

I'm betting that in the pool of survivor's families, more people believe in UFOs than believe this crap.

Here's Bob McIlvaine. He wants a new investigation and those responsible for the murder of his son held accountable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj7lyCh1UAM

Bob McIlvaine, father of Robert McIlvaine, Assistant Vice President, Merrill Lynch, WTC North Tower, 106th floor. Interview by Evan Solomon, CBC News 8/30/06: Bob McIlvaine: "I believe 100% that the U.S. orchestrated 9/11 with the help of other agencies around the world. But my blame goes to the United States because it happened in the U.S. There's people within the U.S. that knew it happened, that planned this to happen."

Bill Doyle – father of Joseph Doyle, Cantor Fitzgerald, WTC North Tower. Article 8/6/05: "I honestly don't believe the government story." During another interview, Doyle said: "The 9/11 Commission is probably the worst representation of the 9/11 Families or for that matter all the American public because it's a sham. It really is.... We had tons of different questions that we asked them to ask. They wouldn't do it. And the continuing cover-up is just beyond belief... There's just such a continuing coverup. And why don't we just let the information about 9/11 be known? And then maybe this conspiracy type of thing would go away, but it's never going to go away or I don't think it can go away because they were complicit..."

Michelle Little, sister of Firefighter David M. Weiss, FDNY, Rescue Company 1, Midtown Manhattan, lost his life trying to rescue others from the World Trade Center the day of the attacks. Press Conference, National Press Club 9/12/06: "I am here today to call for the facts of September 11, 2001 to be released to the American public. ... The time is now to call upon all the Americans to lobby local media to cover this story and to pressure members of Congress to support legislation by reopening this investigation. We must hold those involved accountable for this atrocious tragedy. My brother, David, and ten brothers from his unit were murdered on 9/11. For them and for all of our mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, aunts and uncles that died that day, it is imperative for their lives to know the truth."

Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps. Retired U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown. 20-year Marine Corps career. ]"This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about our country, our constitution, and our future. ... Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away. If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you?"

Barry Zelman, brother of Kenneth Zelman, Oracle Corp., on assignment at Marsh & McLennan, WTC North Tower, 99th floor. Speech given at The Citizens' Commission on 9-11, 9/9/04: "I just embrace people that understand that four airplanes an hour and half between the first impact and the second impact with zero military response in the United States. It didn't happen that way. It couldn't have happened that way. You're talking about the most intelligent agencies that we have on the face of the earth. State of the art agencies ... And there was zero military response? ...It's very transparent that our own president did not want to investigate this tragedy. And I'm standing before you today for one reason. The only thing that I can give my brother is the truth. That's it."

[A W Smith]

how many have come public and sayd the belive the official sotry?
is there a counter movement or something?

How many people have come forward to claim the earth is round? do you see the error of your logic? No of course you don't. Your a troofer.

[Jonnyclueless]

It's amazing to me the things twoofers will tell themselves to convience themselves they are not alone. And then they throw their rallies and no one shows up. They claim 75% of the world is on their side and yet no one shows up. They claim all these family members think it was an inside job yet none of them show up or speak up despite their loved ones being killed.

[johnny karate]

Here's Bob McIlvaine. He wants a new investigation and those responsible for the murder of his son held accountable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj7lyCh1UAM

Bob McIlvaine, father of Robert McIlvaine, Assistant Vice President, Merrill Lynch, WTC North Tower, 106th floor. Interview by Evan Solomon, CBC News 8/30/06: Bob McIlvaine: "I believe 100% that the U.S. orchestrated 9/11 with the help of other agencies around the world. But my blame goes to the United States because it happened in the U.S. There's people within the U.S. that knew it happened, that planned this to happen."

Bill Doyle – father of Joseph Doyle, Cantor Fitzgerald, WTC North Tower. Article 8/6/05: "I honestly don't believe the government story." During another interview, Doyle said: "The 9/11 Commission is probably the worst representation of the 9/11 Families or for that matter all the American public because it's a sham. It really is.... We had tons of different questions that we asked them to ask. They wouldn't do it. And the continuing cover-up is just beyond belief... There's just such a continuing coverup. And why don't we just let the information about 9/11 be known? And then maybe this conspiracy type of thing would go away, but it's never going to go away or I don't think it can go away because they were complicit..."

Michelle Little, sister of Firefighter David M. Weiss, FDNY, Rescue Company 1, Midtown Manhattan, lost his life trying to rescue others from the World Trade Center the day of the attacks. Press Conference, National Press Club 9/12/06: "I am here today to call for the facts of September 11, 2001 to be released to the American public. ... The time is now to call upon all the Americans to lobby local media to cover this story and to pressure members of Congress to support legislation by reopening this investigation. We must hold those involved accountable for this atrocious tragedy. My brother, David, and ten brothers from his unit were murdered on 9/11. For them and for all of our mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, aunts and uncles that died that day, it is imperative for their lives to know the truth."

Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps. Retired U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown. 20-year Marine Corps career. ]"This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about our country, our constitution, and our future. ... Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away. If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you?"

Barry Zelman, brother of Kenneth Zelman, Oracle Corp., on assignment at Marsh & McLennan, WTC North Tower, 99th floor. Speech given at The Citizens' Commission on 9-11, 9/9/04: "I just embrace people that understand that four airplanes an hour and half between the first impact and the second impact with zero military response in the United States. It didn't happen that way. It couldn't have happened that way. You're talking about the most intelligent agencies that we have on the face of the earth. State of the art agencies ... And there was zero military response? ...It's very transparent that our own president did not want to investigate this tragedy. And I'm standing before you today for one reason. The only thing that I can give my brother is the truth. That's it."

I see we're edging up towards double digits now. Quite a consensus.

[eromitlab]

Twoofers will seek whatever justification they can get for what they do. They'll glom onto the widows, the family members, the first responders... whatever will give them a free pass to put their talking points out there for the thousandth time. Even if it's just a handful, they'll hold them out and build them up as representative of their entire group to legitimize themselves. Classic appeal to authority. You don't believe what I say? Here's a 9/11 widow saying the same thing. How dare you object to what they say!

[aggle-rithm]

I can understand why a small percentage of family members who have lost a loved one on 9/11 would have a need, not a want but a need, to believe it was an inside job. If it were indeed the work of Islamic extremists on the other side of the globe, then they can never have justice, nor really understand why the crime was committed in the first place. It's much easier if the perpetrators are right here on American soil, and were driven by good old American vices like greed and lust for power. THAT they can understand, and can express outrage about. It's more difficult for them to accept that so many people died just so a bunch of strange people in a strange culture could make some sort of "statement".

Grief can lead rational people to become quite irrational, at times.

[Good Lt]

I can understand why a small percentage of family members who have lost a loved one on 9/11 would have a need, not a want but a need, to believe it was an inside job. If it were indeed the work of Islamic extremists on the other side of the globe, then they can never have justice, nor really understand why the crime was committed in the first place. It's much easier if the perpetrators are right here on American soil, and were driven by good old American vices like greed and lust for power. THAT they can understand, and can express outrage about. It's more difficult for them to accept that so many people died just so a bunch of strange people in a strange culture could make some sort of "statement".

Very sad, but very true. Well said.

[DC]

How many people have come forward to claim the earth is round? do you see the error of your logic? No of course you don't. Your a troofer.

Aristoteles
Magellan
Parmenides
Eratostehenes
Archimedes

and many many others.

[Thunder]

cheney- shouldnt you be working on a new investigation?

[Good Lt]

Aristoteles
Magellan
Parmenides
Eratostehenes
Archimedes

and many many others.

It wasn't as obvious hundreds or thousands of years ago, champ. A cursory glance at a first grade history textbook would tell you that. Saying this at the time was a big deal precisely because humanity on the whole did not know the facts.

In fact, for centuries, many people thought that stating this scientific fact was heresy.

Same with 9-11 Troofers. You state facts to them, and they carry on like you've gravely insulted their prophet and their belief system. The more excitable ones like Kevin Barrett will wish death upon you and threaten to hang you "when the revolution comes."

:eye-poppi

[DC]

It wasn't as obvious hundreds or thousands of years ago, champ. A cursory glance at a first grade history textbook would tell you that. Saying this at the time was a big deal precisely because humanity on the whole did not know the facts.

In fact, for centuries, many people thought that stating this scientific fact was heresy.

Same with 9-11 Troofers. You state facts to them, and they carry on like you've gravely insulted their prophet and their belief system. The more excitable ones like Kevin Barrett will wish death upon you and threaten to hang you "when the revolution comes."

:eye-poppi

ah maybe thats the reason so many ppl come forward and talk about theyr doubts of the official theory. because alot ppl , especially here, are not aware of this yet.

[Good Lt]

ah maybe thats the reason so many ppl come forward and talk about theyr doubts of the official theory. because alot ppl , especially here, are not aware of this yet.

We're not aware that 9-11 Troofers don't accept the factual reality and progression of events that occurred on 9-11?

And here you are, posting on a forum designated for the exclusive purpose of debunking and obliterating said "objections" by the 9-11 Troof cult to facts and reality?

Do you read what you type?

[DC]

We're not aware that 9-11 Troofers don't accept the factual reality and progression of events that occurred on 9-11?

And here you are, posting on a forum designated for the exclusive purpose of debunking and obliterating said "objections" by the 9-11 Troof cult to facts and reality?

Do you read what you type?

the flatworlders considered the flat world as a fact.

[Good Lt]

the flatworlders considered the flat world as a fact.

And like Troofers, Flat Earthers have no evidence - NONE - to support their ridiculous beliefs other than the beliefs themselves.

You're not helping your case by comparing the Troof cult to the Flat Earthers.

[Pookster]

correct, we cant be certain, but in most situation there are logical assumptions that can be made, i feel this is one those

The silence is deafening, isn't it?

[plumjam]

What, no 'sweatermeat'? :(

[chillzero]

You are all being led off topic once more.

By the way, I think it's incredibly callous to call these women nutbars. They are victims themselves, albeit indirectly. They are grieving, and in a difficult place. They'll never have anything answered to their satisfaction, because so much of the event was not covered by tv, or logs or records. Yes, I know a vast amount of it was. They are also not experts, and they are being used by a movement for the movement's own means.

The movement may not deserve respect in anyone's eyes, but these families of people who died that day do; at least to that fact.

[RedIbis]

You are all being led off topic once more.

By the way, I think it's incredibly callous to call these women nutbars. They are victims themselves, albeit indirectly. They are grieving, and in a difficult place. They'll never have anything answered to their satisfaction, because so much of the event was not covered by tv, or logs or records. Yes, I know a vast amount of it was. They are also not experts, and they are being used by a movement for the movement's own means.

The movement may not deserve respect in anyone's eyes, but these families of people who died that day do; at least to that fact.

That's commendable for you to say, but what makes you think they're being "used by a movement"? They're tough, they're strong, they've been through a lot. They don't come off as naeve.

The first chapter of Shenon's book depicts them as remarkable women who were able to chase Henry Kissinger from taking the job as sole commissioner of the Commission.

[DC]

You are all being led off topic once more.

By the way, I think it's incredibly callous to call these women nutbars. They are victims themselves, albeit indirectly. They are grieving, and in a difficult place. They'll never have anything answered to their satisfaction, because so much of the event was not covered by tv, or logs or records. Yes, I know a vast amount of it was. They are also not experts, and they are being used by a movement for the movement's own means.

The movement may not deserve respect in anyone's eyes, but these families of people who died that day do; at least to that fact.

are they abused by the "truth-movement" ?
or is it more that they work together because they have the same goal, new investigations.

most of the time i dont hear alot about them, only on events when they speak, those videos goes around, nut not to often they are used in the videos al over the net.

[Pookster]

That's commendable for you to say, but what makes you think they're being "used by a movement"? They're tough, they're strong, they've been through a lot. They don't come off as naeve.

The first chapter of Shenon's book depicts them as remarkable women who were able to chase Henry Kissinger from taking the job as sole commissioner of the Commission.

Are you suggesting that they have to be naive to be "used by a movement"? I get the impression they know quite well that they're being used, and for what purpose too ... and don't have a problem with it.

[chillzero]

My point was more that calling them names, in view of what they must be going through, is wrong, imo.

I feel that they are being used because their grief, and their need for answers - understandable when loved ones are lost in such horrific circumstances - are being used to promote the "We demand a new investigation" agenda. It doesn't matter to me whether they are ok with being used in such a way or not. I don't feel they are thinking straight on these matters, and are not in a position to view the situation objectively.

[DC]

My point was more that calling them names, in view of what they must be going through, is wrong, imo.

I feel that they are being used because their grief, and their need for answers - understandable when loved ones are lost in such horrific circumstances - are being used to promote the "We demand a new investigation" agenda. It doesn't matter to me whether they are ok with being used in such a way or not. I don't feel they are thinking straight on these matters, and are not in a position to view the situation objectively.

on the other hand it is also totaly wrong to harras other families or witnesses just because they belie they lie or faked fotos.

[chillzero]

on the other hand it is also totaly wrong to harras other families or witnesses just because they belie they lie or faked fotos.

What are you accusing here?

[DC]

What are you accusing here?

the ppl that harrased the woman that took the foto of the smokecloud from flight 93.

also Mark Bingham's mother was called a liar as far i know.

[chillzero]

the ppl that harrased the woman that took the foto of the smokecloud from flight 93.

also Mark Bingham's mother was called a liar as far i know.

Can we please keep one thread on topic.

I don't know what you are referring to, but if you decide to be more specific, start a new thread.

I still fail to see the relevance here. I stand by my comments about the Jersey Girls.

[Jonnyclueless]

The Jersey Girls are being harassed now?

[chillzero]

I don't think so - it's another derail attempt

[Tweeter]

This is appalling, its like spitting on the graves of these widow`s husbands.I believe if you have anything to say to them , write them an email or something. I`m sure one of their relatives would kindly smash your face. I think you guys crossed the line here.

[chillzero]

I think you crossed the line Tweeter.
There's no need for vague threats of physical violence. An honest question was asked about who this group was. That was explained, and a few of us have discussed how the group are being treated - by both sides, if you'd care to read the thread.

Anything substantial to contribute?

IMO, this thread has answered the question in the OP, and can maybe be left to drop off. Certainly, there are other threads about the claims and actions of the Jersey Grils that can be reviewed for further information.

[BenBurch]

I can understand why ...

Sums up the sad truth really well. I suspect some Truthers who are not victims are in it for the same reason.

[BenBurch]

... but what makes you think they're being "used by a movement"? ...

That is the other alternative; They are USING the Truth Movement instead of being used BY it.

[Drudgewire]

I`m sure one of their relatives would kindly smash your face.
Multiply them by a few thousand and they'll be equal with the victims' family members who would happily do that to the people in your idiotic movement.

So your point was...?

[Tweeter]

My point like the top of your head, was telling you people to address these women where they will be able to defend themselves. Its not that hard to understand.

[Par]

Oh, The Tweeter is talking about “face smashing” now is he? How intelligent. He must have lost faith in the notion that “the truth is out there”.

[chillzero]

Hey, can we drop the testosterone levels here a bit?

Tweeter, you are over reacting. Let's keep this thread civil please.

[Nick Terry]

BTW it's worth pointing out, before the next truther gets on an inappropriate high horse, that only one person called the Jersey Girls 'nutbars'.

The saying 'driven insane by grief' may be moderately more tactful. As someone else on the thread said, they get a pass; ordinary truthers do not.

[Tweeter]

One you say?
1#Brainster said "Breitweiser has not embraced "Trutherism" unlike Casazza, Kleinberg and Van Auken. I used to assume that the latter were just going along with the Troofers because their interests (a new investigation) coincided, but these days the three remaining Jersey Girls are pretty much nutbar conspiracy theorists, talking about how cellphones can't work, and why did Building 7 collapse and how did the Secret Service know Bush was safe at Booker Elementary."

2#njslm said "My neighbor who lives across the hall in my apartment building lost 2 of her sons who worked for Cantor Fitzgerald in North Tower. I don't hear her whining and spewing out idiotic truther crap...
Real classy lady .....

3# BenBurch said "Ah, only 4.

Truthers made it sound like there were many dozens of them.

So not even a proper subgroup, just a few more nuts in the can.


Do i need to go on Nick Terry??
Sorry chill, but i get upset sometimes. I`ll try to keep it civil.

[chillzero]

But I think your upset is misplaced, as it has already been discussed.

[Pookster]

My point like the top of your head, was telling you people to address these women where they will be able to defend themselves. Its not that hard to understand.

If the "Jersey Girls" think they're immune to criticism on various forums and mediums, no matter how uncivil it may be, then they are naive. They're free to join the JREF forum just like anyone else and discuss their views as appropriate. I suggest you send them an email about joining if you feel that strongly about it.

[Nick Terry]

One you say?
1#Brainster said "Breitweiser has not embraced "Trutherism" unlike Casazza, Kleinberg and Van Auken. I used to assume that the latter were just going along with the Troofers because their interests (a new investigation) coincided, but these days the three remaining Jersey Girls are pretty much nutbar conspiracy theorists, talking about how cellphones can't work, and why did Building 7 collapse and how did the Secret Service know Bush was safe at Booker Elementary."

2#njslm said "My neighbor who lives across the hall in my apartment building lost 2 of her sons who worked for Cantor Fitzgerald in North Tower. I don't hear her whining and spewing out idiotic truther crap...
Real classy lady .....

3# BenBurch said "Ah, only 4.

Truthers made it sound like there were many dozens of them.

So not even a proper subgroup, just a few more nuts in the can.


Do i need to go on Nick Terry??

Yes, I think you should perform an elementary statistical analysis of how many posters in this thread have, so far, used the word 'nutbar' concerning the Jersey Girls. It seems I missed a couple of examples - that makes it 3 explicit uses out of how many posters in this thread?

As to whether it's appropriate to call the bereaved names years after their loss, let me just offer one name: Mohammed Al-Fayed. If anyone doesn't think he's a fruitloop, raise your hand.

[uruk]

That's commendable for you to say, but what makes you think they're being "used by a movement"? They're tough, they're strong, they've been through a lot. They don't come off as naeve. They are also grieving and angry. All these things do not necessarily make them right or open to any evidence that would go against a predetermined position.

The first chapter of Shenon's book depicts them as remarkable women who were able to chase Henry Kissinger from taking the job as sole commissioner of the Commission. Unfortunatly that may have hurt thier cause. Henry Kissinger has a reputation of getting things done.

As far as I know Osama's family disavows him. They officially disowned him in 1994.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_family)
His own son has gone on TV to criticize his father. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/17/bin-laden-son-wants-to-be_n_82049.html)
( The article says that he doesn't criticize but then says that Omar feels there is a better way. I'll leave it up to you if you see that as a criticizim or not)

So any dealing with the Bin laden family does not mean that there is any connection with Osama.

[GregoryUrich]

You are all being led off topic once more.

By the way, I think it's incredibly callous to call these women nutbars. They are victims themselves, albeit indirectly. They are grieving, and in a difficult place. They'll never have anything answered to their satisfaction, because so much of the event was not covered by tv, or logs or records. Yes, I know a vast amount of it was. They are also not experts, and they are being used by a movement for the movement's own means.

The movement may not deserve respect in anyone's eyes, but these families of people who died that day do; at least to that fact.

The Jersey girls are not being used by the movement. They ARE the movement, which they pretty much started based on their own research and lack of responsiveness by the government. Are you aware that they gave the names of potential whistle blowers to the commission who were never called to testify? No wonder they are dissatisfied when few of their questions have been answered.

Have you heard them speak? They are primarily calling for accountability. I haven't seen that anyone was held accountable, only that the lying and manipulative Bush administration took full advantage of the tragedy to further the neo-con agenda as prescribed by PNAC.

[A W Smith]

One you say?
1#Brainster said "Breitweiser has not embraced "Trutherism" unlike Casazza, Kleinberg and Van Auken. I used to assume that the latter were just going along with the Troofers because their interests (a new investigation) coincided, but these days the three remaining Jersey Girls are pretty much nutbar conspiracy theorists, talking about how cellphones can't work, and why did Building 7 collapse and how did the Secret Service know Bush was safe at Booker Elementary."

2#njslm said "My neighbor who lives across the hall in my apartment building lost 2 of her sons who worked for Cantor Fitzgerald in North Tower. I don't hear her whining and spewing out idiotic truther crap...
Real classy lady .....

3# BenBurch said "Ah, only 4.

Truthers made it sound like there were many dozens of them.

So not even a proper subgroup, just a few more nuts in the can.


Do i need to go on Nick Terry??
Sorry chill, but i get upset sometimes. I`ll try to keep it civil.

Did you get upset when CIT accused Lloyd England of being involeved in a conspiracy?

Did you get upset when Dylan claimed the calls from 93 were faked? or that he would have laughed in the face of the hijackers when they produced their knives?

Did you get upset when Killtown and Jeff harassed Val McClatchey and accused her of priofiteering off the end of serenity photo?

did you get upset when troofers commented that Edna Cintron had to be wearing fire proof chinos as she waved from the gaping hole of the north tower moments before her death?

Did you get upset when troofers accused Barbara Olsons husband of lyiing about the phone call he recieved from her?

Did you get upset when Killtown doctored A Shanksville crash scene photo with the caption "new evidence found" and photoshopped a mound of excrement into the photo?




Spare us your fake indignation 370H SSV

[Brainster]

By the way, I think it's incredibly callous to call these women nutbars. They are victims themselves, albeit indirectly. They are grieving, and in a difficult place. They'll never have anything answered to their satisfaction, because so much of the event was not covered by tv, or logs or records. Yes, I know a vast amount of it was. They are also not experts, and they are being used by a movement for the movement's own means.

The movement may not deserve respect in anyone's eyes, but these families of people who died that day do; at least to that fact.

Fair enough; I do usually cut them some slack compared to the others. But it's an open question these days as to who's using whom for their own ends. And the Jersey girls used to be careful not to associate with the Troofers for PR reasons; now they are more open about it.

[VespaGuy]

This is appalling, its like spitting on the graves of these widow`s husbands.I believe if you have anything to say to them , write them an email or something. I`m sure one of their relatives would kindly smash your face. I think you guys crossed the line here.

Can the fake outrage, Tweeter. Your Virginia Tech gunman avatar displayed what you know about spitting on graves.

[RedIbis]

I don't feel they are thinking straight on these matters, and are not in a position to view the situation objectively.

Wow. They might not be able to be objective, but they can very much think straight. It's quite presumptious of you to suggest that they are not thinking straight and you are.

I would go so far as to say they know more about that day, have talked to more people and are in touch with far more research than anyone, yes anyone on this forum.

[Jonnyclueless]

Without trying to intentionally derail the thread further, my final comment on the whole name calling thing is that it really has little to do with the Jersey Girls themselves as much as it does having to go over the same issues that have been addressed 1000 times before. So the fire 900 times or so there is no such incident. But is it crazy to not expect it after going over it so many times?

[DGM]

Can the fake outrage, Tweeter. Your Virginia Tech gunman avatar displayed what you know about spitting on graves.
Nail on head. That was a pole vault over the line. A deliberate attempt at offending people.

[Pookster]

Wow. They might not be able to be objective, but they can very much think straight. It's quite presumptious of you to suggest that they are not thinking straight and you are.

I would go so far as to say they know more about that day, have talked to more people and are in touch with far more research than anyone, yes anyone on this forum.

Wow. You're indignant about her being "quite presumptuous" by being ... "quite presumptuous" yourself. Too funny.

[Pookster]

Without trying to intentionally derail the thread further, my final comment on the whole name calling thing is that it really has little to do with the Jersey Girls themselves as much as it does having to go over the same issues that have been addressed 1000 times before. So the fire 900 times or so there is no such incident. But is it crazy to not expect it after going over it so many times?

I call it the Cindy Sheehan effect. Eventually, the free pass gets used up for a lot of people.

[Walter Ego]

Did you get upset when CIT accused Lloyd England of being involeved in a conspiracy?

Did you get upset when Dylan claimed the calls from 93 were faked? or that he would have laughed in the face of the hijackers when they produced their knives?

Did you get upset when Killtown and Jeff harassed Val McClatchey and accused her of priofiteering off the end of serenity photo?

did you get upset when troofers commented that Edna Cintron had to be wearing fire proof chinos as she waved from the gaping hole of the north tower moments before her death?

Did you get upset when troofers accused Barbara Olsons husband of lyiing about the phone call he recieved from her?

Did you get upset when Killtown doctored A Shanksville crash scene photo with the caption "new evidence found" and photoshopped a mound of excrement into the photo?


Spare us your fake indignation 370H SSV

In addition to the examples above...

Truthers have harassed people who photographed ‘fake’ planes hitting the WTC:

PumpItOut.com speaks with 9/11 cameraman.

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v4101258CaFwrr29


They have harassed witnesses at Ground Zero:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108978

They've even gone after the widows (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/07162007/news/columnists/9_11_skeptics_lunatic_fringe_columnists_andrea_pey ser.htm)of victims on the hijacked planes.

Real classy these truthers.

[Tweeter]

Can we please only use names when the mentioned people are here to defend themselves? Thats all i`m saying.

[johnny karate]

That's commendable for you to say, but what makes you think they're being "used by a movement"?

Because they get name-dropped by charlatans and profiteers looking to lend a little credibility to themselves so they can sell more DVDs and books.

As misguided as some of their opinions might be, at least we know these women have honorable intentions. Too bad the same can't be said for pretty much everyone else involved in the Truth Movement.

[johnny karate]

Can we please only use names when the mentioned people are here to defend themselves? Thats all i`m saying.

Funny, I don't recall you saying this in any of the numerous threads where your brethren attack Larry Silverstein.

[Tweeter]

Can the fake outrage, Tweeter. Your Virginia Tech gunman avatar displayed what you know about spitting on graves.
I dont have a clue to what you are babbling about.

[Pookster]

Can we please only use names when the mentioned people are here to defend themselves? Thats all i`m saying.

Why? This is a discussion forum, not a courtroom. Again, they're free to join here and respond to any post at any time.

[Tweeter]

Funny, I don't recall you saying this in any of the numerous threads where your brethren attack Larry Silverstein.
So one say, all say? I have a few questions, that is all.
Im not the drug taking, woo-woo, violent ,ron paul, everything is a conspiracy nut that you try make everyone out to be. I`ve never supported anyones views but my own.

[Tweeter]

Why? This is a discussion forum, not a courtroom. Again, they're free to join here and respond to any post at any time.

So could you give me your name and address then?

[Pookster]

So could you give me your name and address then?

Why? I'm not one of the Jersey Girls.

[StoneWT]

Chillzero, the Jersey Girls and other family members deserve sympathy for their losses. They don't deserve respect for peddling worthless conspiracy theories that accuse innocent people of complicity in 911 (Silverstein, Secret Service, military, etc.) and lessen/ignore the responsibility of the hijackers. The Jersey Girls have been actively peddling bunk for years.

[beachnut]

This is appalling, its like spitting on the graves of these widow`s husbands.I believe if you have anything to say to them , write them an email or something. I`m sure one of their relatives would kindly smash your face. I think you guys crossed the line here.
9/11 truth is spitting on the graves of the Jersey girls husbands with each false statement. They have no evidence to support their false ideas.

If you support 9/11 truth, then you are spitting on the graves of the husbands. Your lack of knowledge on 9/11 does not give you a pass to be innocent and pass on your weak support of 9/11 truth false information.

My younger brother died, well before his time in 2002. I have no right to make up lies about his death and hide behind his death as I pass on false information. Jersey girls should not do it.

If the Jersey girls support 9/11 truth ideas that are false, they are not to be rewarded with praise. If they want to get even, then UBL is one of the people who told us all in the 90s he would kill us when he has the opportunity. Here you are with no facts or evidence, just a failed movement you barely are able to articulate any substantive support, when you could have gained knowledge to help prevent future accidents and terrorism in a way we all would approve of. Yet you support failed ideas and a group who spreads false information.

I did support the Jersey girls after 9/11 by doing my job in the USAF. All you have done is get upset about people pointing out their support of false ideas is not a good idea, and deserves no respect. When you finally understand the evidence about 9/11, you will start attacking others on their errors instead of your false ideas.

[johnny karate]

So one say, all say? I have a few questions, that is all.
Im not the drug taking, woo-woo, violent ,ron paul, everything is a conspiracy nut that you try make everyone out to be. I`ve never supported anyones views but my own.

I never said you took part in the attacking. I merely point out your hypocrisy and blatant appeal to emotion.

[chillzero]

Wow. They might not be able to be objective, but they can very much think straight. It's quite presumptious of you to suggest that they are not thinking straight and you are.

I would go so far as to say they know more about that day, have talked to more people and are in touch with far more research than anyone, yes anyone on this forum.

Wow.
Perhaps you missed the relevant words in my post - "in this matter". This is far too emotive an area for them to think straight. I didn't presume anything about them, or myself.

Chillzero, the Jersey Girls and other family members deserve sympathy for their losses. They don't deserve respect for peddling worthless conspiracy theories that accuse innocent people of complicity in 911 (Silverstein, Secret Service, military, etc.) and lessen/ignore the responsibility of the hijackers. The Jersey Girls have been actively peddling bunk for years.

But I don't think they deserve complete derision either. Speaking as a past victim of certain things myself, judgement can be skewed, particularly when you can't get all the answers. I don't think they deserve credit, but I definitely don't think they deserve to be ridiculed either, nor spoken of so harshly.

Now, perhaps we can all restore some civility to the thread, and stop bickering with each other. Otherwise I predict it won't be postable much longer.

[TC329]

Breitweiser has not embraced "Trutherism" unlike Casazza, Kleinberg and Van Auken. I used to assume that the latter were just going along with the Troofers because their interests (a new investigation) coincided, but these days the three remaining Jersey Girls are pretty much nutbar conspiracy theorists, talking about how cellphones can't work, and why did Building 7 collapse and how did the Secret Service know Bush was safe at Booker Elementary.


If the cell phones worked then can you list which passengers made cell phone calls because other than 2 people on UA93 it seems all the calls were made via airphone per the evidence presented by the FBI at the Moussaoui trial.

Nice to see you insult family members of 9/11 victims. "nutbar conspiracy theorists"...........

You dating that Ann Coulter guy or something?

[Redtail]

If the cell phones worked then can you list which passengers made cell phone calls because other than 2 people on UA93 it seems all the calls were made via airphone per the evidence presented by the FBI at the Moussaoui trial.

Nice to see you insult family members of 9/11 victims. "nutbar conspiracy theorists"...........

You dating that Ann Coulter guy or something?

... I would have to think it would be those two passengers then.

[SDC]

TC329, do you understand the concept of "on topic"? It doesn't mean whatever you feel like talking about at a given moment. Please check the OP.

Where's a mod when you need one. Oh, well.

[Arus808]

If the cell phones worked then can you list which passengers made cell phone calls because other than 2 people on UA93 it seems all the calls were made via airphone per the evidence presented by the FBI at the Moussaoui trial.

pleaser remember this is about the Jersey Girls. Please take your "cell" phone theory to the appropriate thread

[TC329]

TC329, do you understand the concept of "on topic"? It doesn't mean whatever you feel like talking about at a given moment. Please check the OP.

Where's a mod when you need one. Oh, well.

Are you accusing me of introducing the cell phones into this thread?

[SDC]

Upthread, someone (Red I., I guess) referred to the Jersey girls as being the truth movement. (To the exclusion of anyone else?) I am surprised, then, how little I hear about them. Must be something wrong with me.

Also there was a reference to their pointing to alleged potential whistleblowers. Pfeh. What did these alleged potential whistleblowers actually say?

[Arus808]

Are you accusing me of introducing the cell phones into this thread?

yes, you are introducing cell phones into this thread.

[Childlike Empress]

I don't think they deserve credit, but I definitely don't think they deserve to be ridiculed either, nor spoken of so harshly.


They don't deserve credit? Mr. Cheney told you already that without their efforts, there very likely wouldn't have been a 9/11 Commission at all. Without their continued efforts, the 9/11 Commission would've been headed by Henry Kissinger, of all people.

[MarkyX]

The Jersey girls are not being used by the movement. They ARE the movement, which they pretty much started based on their own research and lack of responsiveness by the government.

Really? How come Alex Jones, Chris Bollyn, David Ray Griffin, and Dylan Avery get the spotlight then?

[MarkyX]

Chillzero, the Jersey Girls and other family members deserve sympathy for their losses. They don't deserve respect for peddling worthless conspiracy theories that accuse innocent people of complicity in 911 (Silverstein, Secret Service, military, etc.) and lessen/ignore the responsibility of the hijackers. The Jersey Girls have been actively peddling bunk for years.

That, and the Jersey Girls are essentially accusing other victims are being part of the plot (i.e Flight 93 victims with the fake "cellphone" calls)

They shouldn't get a free pass with that remark, even if their loved ones died on 9/11.

[BenBurch]

Chillzero,

Well, I stand by my statement; If these three, or four, women believe this crap, no matter what the grief that leads them to WANT to, they are just like all the rest of the Truthers; nuts. Because when you decide to believe a lie, even if it is for reasons of grief, you have abdicated your sanity and by definition are nuts.

If you want to think me callous, fine, but I think THEY are callous for calling criminals so many of the firefighters and military personnel who gave all that they had on that day, because if they support the idea that it was an inside job, those people were by definition in on it.

-Ben

[gc051360]

While they have been through a tragedy, it's not callous to call the things they say crazy.

Also, trying to finagle that type of thing into "attacking victims" is quite stretching it. I give them a free pass to say crazy things, but I don't think crazy things said by people who have suffered tragedy, should go unchallenged. That's silly. Especially with the tactic the truth movement uses.

"Victims families believe some conspiracy theories...."

the response is "Well, they're crazy to believe those"

Truth movement "How dare you attack innocent victims"

eta: It's a highly dishonest, and pretty callous tactic. It's the same thing they did with Sheehan. You support what someone is saying, so you take advantage of their sympathetic situation, to further your political agenda. That seems pretty callous to me.

eta: And really. Most truthers are faking empathy, to try and further their movement. People on this board have observed truthers enough to know that they have no sense of compassion for those lost on 9-11. They routinely accuse people of murder, with very little evidence. They accuse people of being complicit in the murder of their son, they accuse people of being complicit in the murder of their comrades, and they accuse people of keeping quiet in order to save their jobs. And then these people try and grab a position of moral high ground???? No.

[BenBurch]

They don't deserve credit? Mr. Cheney told you already that without their efforts, there very likely wouldn't have been a 9/11 Commission at all. Without their continued efforts, the 9/11 Commission would've been headed by Henry Kissinger, of all people.

And what good was the 9/11 Commission? None according to the Truthers. And none according to me. And even if they heard every so-called "whistleblower," all we would have learned is more on how damned incompetent many parts of the American Bureaucracy have become, and how people hired for political reasons are bloody useless.

No no credit confers for having caused the USA to waste millions of dollars on a useless commission.

[Childlike Empress]

And what good was the 9/11 Commission? None according to the Truthers. And none according to me. And even if they heard every so-called "whistleblower," all we would have learned is more on how damned incompetent many parts of the American Bureaucracy have become, and how people hired for political reasons are bloody useless.

No no credit confers for having caused the USA to waste millions of dollars on a useless commission.


You think the 9/11 Commission was useless? How come?

edit: Assuming you think 9/11 was satisfyingly investigated, this statement is a little bit surprising, and i would like you to elaborate on it. If not, we certainly agree on the uselessness of a commission lead by people like Kean, businesspartner of the Saudis, and Zelikow, mythmaker and Rice buddy.

[TheRedWorm]

Who would you have run the commission, CE?

[SDC]

Please, not another discussion on "who should investigate." Isn't this thread chez Jersey Persons?

[TheRedWorm]

s/he started it! [j/k] You're right, SDC. CE please ignore my question. If you feel like answering, please bump an old thread.

[rwguinn]

They don't deserve credit? Mr. Cheney told you already that without their efforts, there very likely wouldn't have been a 9/11 Commission at all. Without their continued efforts, the 9/11 Commission would've been headed by Henry Kissinger, of all people.

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

All you folks who b'leeve that the US would have said
"Well, shucks, we had 2 airplanes crash into the WTC, one into the Pentagon, and another in a field in Pennsyltucky, all apparently hijacked, I guess that's the way things go"
and left it at that, the bus to the loony bin leaves in 5 minutes. There's a seat reserved for you...

[RedIbis]

I didn't presume anything about them, or myself.




Except that they couldn't or wouldn't think straight. Poor logic. You have no idea how straight they are able to think.

[Childlike Empress]

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

All you folks who b'leeve that the US would have said
"Well, shucks, we had 2 airplanes crash into the WTC, one into the Pentagon, and another in a field in Pennsyltucky, all apparently hijacked, I guess that's the way things go"
and left it at that, the bus to the loony bin leaves in 5 minutes. There's a seat reserved for you...


Read the part of my post you've bolded again. It's true. You are clueless like four laughing dogs. Or five.

[Childlike Empress]

Oh, and a thread about the Jersey Girls wouldn't be complete without the two videos with and about them. Isn't it so, Brainster? Here you go:

Press for Truth
3979568779414136481

In their own words
4399917864007973679

[Sizzler]

The Jersey girls are not being used by the movement. They ARE the movement, which they pretty much started based on their own research and lack of responsiveness by the government. Are you aware that they gave the names of potential whistle blowers to the commission who were never called to testify? No wonder they are dissatisfied when few of their questions have been answered.

Have you heard them speak? They are primarily calling for accountability. I haven't seen that anyone was held accountable, only that the lying and manipulative Bush administration took full advantage of the tragedy to further the neo-con agenda as prescribed by PNAC.

I second this post. Well said.

[tanabear]

Chillzero, the Jersey Girls and other family members deserve sympathy for their losses. They don't deserve respect for peddling worthless conspiracy theories that accuse innocent people of complicity in 911 (Silverstein, Secret Service, military, etc.) and lessen/ignore the responsibility of the hijackers. The Jersey Girls have been actively peddling bunk for years.

What worthless conspiracy theories are they peddling? Which innocent people have they accused of murder? Do you have a problem that this Administration has killed ten of thousands of innocent people based on a lie? How many Iraqi's have we killed that were in some way responsible for 9/11? Which is worse, killing innocent people or accusing people of murder?

Chillzero,

Well, I stand by my statement; If these three, or four, women believe this crap, no matter what the grief that leads them to WANT to, they are just like all the rest of the Truthers; nuts. Because when you decide to believe a lie, even if it is for reasons of grief, you have abdicated your sanity and by definition are nuts.

If you want to think me callous, fine, but I think THEY are callous for calling criminals so many of the firefighters and military personnel who gave all that they had on that day, because if they support the idea that it was an inside job, those people were by definition in on it.

-Ben

The only people who have decided to believe a lie are the people who continue to be apologists for this Administration. When did the Jersey Girls accuse firefighters of being criminals? Where did you get the crazy idea that if you believe that 9/11 was an inside job, then by definition the firefighters were in on it? People who believe Arabs were responsible for 9/11 believe we should exterminate all Muslims in the Middle East, right?

[Jonnyclueless]

I second this post. Well said.

Who coulda seen that coming....

[Jonnyclueless]

What worthless conspiracy theories are they peddling? Which innocent people have they accused of murder? Do you have a problem that this Administration has killed ten of thousands of innocent people based on a lie? How many Iraqi's have we killed that were in some way responsible for 9/11? Which is worse, killing innocent people or accusing people of murder?


Can anyone else point out the irony in this quote?

[Tweeter]

This thread should be enshrined. Exposing the debunkers for what they are has never been so evident.

[gtc]

Where did you get the crazy idea that if you believe that 9/11 was an inside job, then by definition the firefighters were in on it?

This is off-topic but I think it is an interesting topic in its own right.

I have started a thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=109818). In the new thread, can you explain how 9/11 could have been an inside job without the involvement of the FDNY?

[chillzero]

Chillzero,

Well, I stand by my statement; If these three, or four, women believe this crap, no matter what the grief that leads them to WANT to, they are just like all the rest of the Truthers; nuts. Because when you decide to believe a lie, even if it is for reasons of grief, you have abdicated your sanity and by definition are nuts.

If you want to think me callous, fine, but I think THEY are callous for calling criminals so many of the firefighters and military personnel who gave all that they had on that day, because if they support the idea that it was an inside job, those people were by definition in on it.

-Ben

Ben, If that's all we disagree about, I am ok with that.

While they have been through a tragedy, it's not callous to call the things they say crazy.

Also, trying to finagle that type of thing into "attacking victims" is quite stretching it.

I agree with both these statements.

Except that they couldn't or wouldn't think straight. Poor logic. You have no idea how straight they are able to think.

Again, I am talking about solely this matter. I don't know why you choose to ignore that. Victims and grieving families of those victims cannot judge the tragedy that made them victims in an objective manner. That takes away their ability to think straight on those matters.

[Pookster]

.... Again, I am talking about solely this matter. I don't know why you choose to ignore that. Victims and grieving families of those victims cannot judge the tragedy that made them victims in an objective manner. That takes away their ability to think straight on those matters.

Agreed. To believe they would be thinking straight on those specific matters shows a bit of naiveté itself.

[GregoryUrich]

Agreed. To believe they would be thinking straight on those specific matters shows a bit of naiveté itself.

This sounds like conjecture to me. Do you have any psychological research to support this position?

[Pookster]

This thread should be enshrined. Exposing the debunkers for what they are has never been so evident.

Oh, I can find plenty of better examples of debunkers showing their complete and utter disgust in even less civil ways at those who unjustifiably accuse innocent people of being an accomplice to murder on 9/11. The Jersey Girls only get a pass on their poor choice of actions and words but for so long.

Your indignation is cute though.

[Pookster]

This sounds like conjecture to me. Do you have any psychological research to support this position?

I have no psychological research to support it. It is based on life experience.

Careful you don't show your own naiveté about this too.

[chillzero]

This sounds like conjecture to me. Do you have any psychological research to support this position?

I don't have any to hand, but I'd be surprised if there was none. It is (IMO) silly to believe that victims are able to approach the subject of whatever victimised them in an objective fashion.

I work with missing persons charities, and have myself been a victim of violence, arson, and other crimes. I wouldn't consider myself able to think objectively about these matters, nor the families of the missing.

I also witnessed a situation in the UK where proposed law changes were driven by the surviving victims of a widely publicised crime, and IMO the proposal went too far. The media also utilised the victims to pull at public heartstrings in attempts to force it through (though they were really more concerned with selling papers); not what a democracy is supposed to do.

Anyway, not to derail this further, I think it is naive to look at grieving members of victims' families, watch them angrily proclaim that they are not getting the answers they need, and consider that they are thinking straight on the matter. (again, for those finding this difficult to keep up with, I don't know or question their ability to think straight about anything else at all - just the events of 911).

For goodness sake, it is difficult enough for so many people not directly victimised that day to think straight about it. Read through threads here, and you will see that often discussions are driven on emotion rather than calm, objective considerations.

[MarkyX]

This thread should be enshrined. Exposing the debunkers for what they are has never been so evident.

That we have high standards and 9/11 deniers like yourself refuse to answer questions?

None of you have even countered my points yet. I'm still waiting.

[GregoryUrich]

I don't have any to hand, but I'd be surprised if there was none. It is (IMO) silly to believe that victims are able to approach the subject of whatever victimised them in an objective fashion.

I work with missing persons charities, and have myself been a victim of violence, arson, and other crimes. I wouldn't consider myself able to think objectively about these matters, nor the families of the missing.

I also witnessed a situation in the UK where proposed law changes were driven by the surviving victims of a widely publicised crime, and IMO the proposal went too far. The media also utilised the victims to pull at public heartstrings in attempts to force it through (though they were really more concerned with selling papers); not what a democracy is supposed to do.

Anyway, not to derail this further, I think it is naive to look at grieving members of victims' families, watch them angrily proclaim that they are not getting the answers they need, and consider that they are thinking straight on the matter. (again, for those finding this difficult to keep up with, I don't know or question their ability to think straight about anything else at all - just the events of 911).

For goodness sake, it is difficult enough for so many people not directly victimised that day to think straight about it. Read through threads here, and you will see that often discussions are driven on emotion rather than calm, objective considerations.

I think this clearly depends on the individual person and the time frame. We are talking about close to 7 years.

Were blacks never able to think straight about civil rights?

Are victims of violent crime never able to think straight about the crimes committed against them?

[WildCat]

This sounds like conjecture to me. Do you have any psychological research to support this position?
Do you think that, for example, relatives of a murder victim should be allowed to sit on the jury of the suspects trial? If not, why?

[chillzero]

I think this clearly depends on the individual person and the time frame. We are talking about close to 7 years.

Were blacks never able to think straight about civil rights?

Are victims of violent crime never able to think straight about the crimes committed against them?

Civil rights are not crimes.

You should maybe take the topic to the Social Issues, or Philosophy section. It's a derail, as I mentioned before.

[RedIbis]

I think this clearly depends on the individual person and the time frame. We are talking about close to 7 years.

Were blacks never able to think straight about civil rights?

Are victims of violent crime never able to think straight about the crimes committed against them?

Exactly, going by Chill's logic, Elie Weisel or Simon Wiesenthal could never become activists against genocide.

[GregoryUrich]

Civil rights are not crimes.

You should maybe take the topic to the Social Issues, or Philosophy section. It's a derail, as I mentioned before.

Please don't abuse your power as a moderator. I gave a legimate hypothetical argument to prove a point that is directly on topic. I.e. the capability of victims thinking clearly. Lack of civil rights is not a crime unless you are the one who doesn't have any.

[rwguinn]

Civil rights are not crimes.

You should maybe take the topic to the Social Issues, or Philosophy section. It's a derail, as I mentioned before.
Restricting the is, indeed, a crime. At least in the US. I think.
At any rate, I believe that you are correct. On of the questions always asked of a potential juror, after "do you know or have any association with any of the parties involved" is essentially "have you ever been a victim of a crime of this nature", and a "yes" answer pretty much gets you sent home.

[Travis]

I also feel that the so called "Jersey Girls" should not be given a free pass to say any crazy thing they want. Sure they suffered a lot from grief but that doesn't excuse them from espousing a belief in things that are quite frankly, insane.

My own brother, Doug, was shot and killed by two police officers. Should I be allowed to run around screaming about "no good, pig cop, thugs?" No. You would all be wrong to allow me to rant and rave hysterically just because I suffered the loss of a loved one. Especially since it was three years ago and I got over what grief I had for my brother a long time ago. By the same token it's been almost seven years since 9/11. If the Jersey Girls haven't gotten through the grieving process by now I don't think they will. In that case it means they are sick and perhaps need counseling and medication.... it also means that anything they say should be suspect. If they are over the grief then they are not sick and actually believe these things due to faulty logic and ignorance. In that case they are no better than any standard Truther.

Either way anything they say should be analyzed critically and exposed as illogical if it meets that criteria. Doing so isn't spitting on anyones graves, or making light of what happened to them, it is merely the responsibility of anyone who is a critical thinker.

[uk_dave]

Do you think that, for example, relatives of a murder victim should be allowed to sit on the jury of the suspects trial? If not, why?

Good point, well made.

[Childlike Empress]

Either way anything they say should be analyzed critically and exposed as illogical if it meets that criteria. Doing so isn't spitting on anyones graves, or making light of what happened to them, it is merely the responsibility of anyone who is a critical thinker.


Go ahead already. What "insane" things do they believe in? Quotes are welcome.

[chillzero]

Please don't abuse your power as a moderator.

Excuse me? If I did so, I would expect someone to report it. Where did I do anything here as a moderator?

I gave a legimate hypothetical argument to prove a point that is directly on topic.

No, it's derailing into a generalised discussion of victims. Take it elsewhere.

Lack of civil rights is not a crime unless you are the one who doesn't have any.

I don't disagree with that. That's not the same as what we are discussing.
I'm happy to discuss it further, if you take it to a new thread in the appropriate forum section.

[WildCat]

Go ahead already. What "insane" things do they believe in? Quotes are welcome.
"The Pentagon is probably one of the most protected buildings in the world." - Lorie Van Auken

QED

Lots more here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/14058

[GregoryUrich]

Go ahead already. What "insane" things do they believe in? Quotes are welcome.

They believe they presented the names of potential whistle-blowers to the commission but that these people were not called to testify.

They believe the people who failed our nation should be held accountable instead of promoted.

They believe Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Fleischer and Rice lied when they said "I don't think anyone could have imagined", "Airplanes as missles? We didn't know...", etc.

The believe only a small portion of their questions were answered by the Kean Commission.

They believe Zelikov helped to serve the Bush administration's cover-up of incompetence or worse.

Get the men in white coats. I am a danger to myself and others...I believe these insane things too!

[GregoryUrich]

Excuse me? If I did so, I would expect someone to report it. Where did I do anything here as a moderator?

No, it's derailing into a generalised discussion of victims. Take it elsewhere.

I don't disagree with that. That's not the same as what we are discussing.
I'm happy to discuss it further, if you take it to a new thread in the appropriate forum section.

A moderator calling "off topic" as a regular poster carries a certain amount of weight.

It's OK for you to assert specific traits of victims, but when these are challenged you call "off topic". Great.

[chillzero]

A moderator calling "off topic" as a regular poster carries a certain amount of weight.

I didn't call 'off topic' as a moderator, otherwise it would have been in a mod box, and there'd have been splits made by now.

It's OK for you to assert specific traits of victims, but when these are challenged you call "off topic". Great.

I am not even going to start with this one. I'm reporting the continued derail, for another mod to assess and move.

But - my original post that started this was completely on topic, and also, in case you hadn't noticed, was in defense of the Jersey Girls. You remember the Jersey Girls - right? Yes - the topic of this thread... not the civil rights movement, or anything else. However, you seem to prefer to demonise me regardless. Go ahead, I can live with it.

[RedIbis]

But - my original post that started this was completely on topic, and also, in case you hadn't noticed, was in defense of the Jersey Girls. .

CZ,

I support your participation as a member, outside of mod duties. I will say that the line can get blurry. Regardless, your participation is valuable if for no other reason than you are civil, polite, and with all pun intended, moderate.

But to the point, your position on the JGs can hardly be called a defense. You are dismissing their perspective based on trauma. Several examples have been presented where the victims of horrific events have emerged more than clearheaded, if not downright heroic.

I maintain that it is poor logic to assert that because the JGs do not agree with your perspective, they must not be "thinking straight."

[GregoryUrich]

Do you think that, for example, relatives of a murder victim should be allowed to sit on the jury of the suspects trial? If not, why?

No they should be allowed to call for a grand jury investigation.

[chillzero]

CZ,

I support your participation as a member, outside of mod duties. I will say that the line can get blurry. Regardless, your participation is valuable if for no other reason than you are civil, polite, and with all pun intended, moderate.

Thank you.

But to the point, your position on the JGs can hardly be called a defense. You are dismissing their perspective based on trauma. Several examples have been presented where the victims of horrific events have emerged more than clearheaded, if not downright heroic.

I maintain that it is poor logic to assert that because the JGs do not agree with your perspective, they must not be "thinking straight."

I don't dismiss heroes or people acting under pressure or during tragedy. What I feel is the point, is when victims like the Jersey Girls try to make certain assertions about the tragedy in question. They are not qualified to speak about some things they claimed, and they were misinformed on others. Their whole driving force is because they are angry and they do not feel they have had their situation appropriately addressed. They are not using experts, nor taking relevant advice in order to drive their agenda. They are using their emotions, and the fact that they have huge empty holes where their loved ones were. They don't have someone to blame, they won't see justice done and most often, in traumatic events like this, that leaves victims and their familes with an uneasy feeling. Lack of proper counselling ensures they do not address their grief, but continue to look outward, to try and find someone physical and local to blame, that they can see punishment meted out upon.

As mentioned above, it's why certain victims get dismissed from certain juries.

I meant that I defended them only in that I was originally suggesting that to dismiss them as 'nutbars' was callous. I must say, I'm surprised to find that I'm the one getting bounced on for this, when I intended only to raise the civility of language being used to describe these women.

[chillzero]

No they should be allowed to call for a grand jury investigation.

Shouldn't they be expected to understand if one is not considered appropriate by legal experts, and also to comply with the findings should one be undertaken?

[SDC]

CZ,

I support your participation as a member, outside of mod duties. I will say that the line can get blurry. Regardless, your participation is valuable if for no other reason than you are civil, polite, and with all pun intended, moderate.

But to the point, your position on the JGs can hardly be called a defense. You are dismissing their perspective based on trauma. Several examples have been presented where the victims of horrific events have emerged more than clearheaded, if not downright heroic.

I maintain that it is poor logic to assert that because the JGs do not agree with your perspective, they must not be "thinking straight."

These are all red herrings, I would argue. (No, I'm not making a joke, about various sorts of red fauna, either.) The point is not whether the Jersey Persons are "thinking straight." The point is that they are making false and incorrect statements purporting to be facts (see WC, above, for a single example), and that some posters are, essentially, in favor of granting their statements special dispensation from substantive criticism because of their personal losses.

I've most often heard attributed to the late Daniel Moynihan that very, very true statement that anyone is entitled to his/ her opinion; but not to his/ her facts. I believe that applies here.

[RedIbis]

Thank you.

You're welcome, the moderation team is one of the primary reasons this is the most informative debate forum I've come across.


I don't dismiss heroes or people acting under pressure or during tragedy. What I feel is the point, is when victims like the Jersey Girls try to make certain assertions about the tragedy in question. They are not qualified to speak about some things they claimed, and they were misinformed on others. Their whole driving force is because they are angry and they do not feel they have had their situation appropriately addressed. They are not using experts, nor taking relevant advice in order to drive their agenda. They are using their emotions, and the fact that they have huge empty holes where their loved ones were. They don't have someone to blame, they won't see justice done and most often, in traumatic events like this, that leaves victims and their familes with an uneasy feeling. Lack of proper counselling ensures they do not address their grief, but continue to look outward, to try and find someone physical and local to blame, that they can see punishment meted out upon.
This is near entirely assumption. I wonder if you've researched the hard work they did to force the 9/11 Commission, if you're familiar with their infamous meeting with Henry Kissinger. I suspect not.

As mentioned above, it's why certain victims get dismissed from certain juries.
False analogy. They're not on any jury. However, their testimony would be a compelling part of a prosecution.

I meant that I defended them only in that I was originally suggesting that to dismiss them as 'nutbars' was callous. I must say, I'm surprised to find that I'm the one getting bounced on for this, when I intended only to raise the civility of language being used to describe these women.
I do agree. Your initial comments did raise the level of discourse. My analysis of your comments, I hope, was never acerbic, only a continuation of this important line of reasoning.

[RedIbis]

These are all red herrings, I would argue. (No, I'm not making a joke, about various sorts of red fauna, either.) The point is not whether the Jersey Persons are "thinking straight."


They're not infallable. Simple exaggerations and inaccuracies don't invalidate the totality of someone's work. By those standards, you wouldn't get past the first page of the Commission Report.

[GregoryUrich]

"The Pentagon is probably one of the most protected buildings in the world." - Lorie Van Auken

QED

Lots more here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/14058

Like these:

Question 2: NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, told the 9/11 independent commission three different stories with regard to their response on 9/11. We still don’t know how NORAD and the FAA interacted or how they actually responded on September 11th. This is because we have never seen any evidence to support the testimony of NORAD and the FAA. All we have is their contradictory testimony which they presented in front of the 9/11 Commission. The almost complete lack of military response to the September 11th attacks has never been adequately explained. In fact, in the book Without Precedent, written by 9/11 Commission Chair Thomas Kean and Vice-Chair Lee Hamilton, they say that the discrepancies that were presented to them by the U.S. military have never been resolved. Thomas Kean has been quoted as saying “We to this day don't know why NORAD told us what they told us," ... "It was just so far from the truth...It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

Question 10: Who funded the 9/11 attacks? Wouldn’t a real investigation “follow the money” to find the perpetrators? Instead we were told by the 9/11 Commission, that the funding of the attacks were of no real consequence.

[chillzero]

This is near entirely assumption. I wonder if you've researched the hard work they did to force the 9/11 Commission, if you're familiar with their infamous meeting with Henry Kissinger. I suspect not.

I'll admit - not in depth, no. However, I feel that they have neglected or ignored too much information and evidence to make their position a viable one. That is a large part of my reasoning that their sense of loss is overwhelming their ability to handle this matter.


False analogy. They're not on any jury. However, their testimony would be a compelling part of a prosecution.

But it shouldn't be.
Their testimony can only be information gained second hand at best, or emotional tribute to their families. Testimony is supposed to rely on facts to determine an outcome, not be swayed by sympathy for the testifier's loss.

I do agree. Your initial comments did raise the level of discourse. My analysis of your comments, I hope, was never acerbic, only a continuation of this important line of reasoning.

I have no issue with how you have discussed this here. I doubt we'll agree on the overall perception that should be allotted this group, but disagreement is fine.

[beachnut]

No they should be allowed to call for a grand jury investigation.
Oh, just like the vast amounts of evidence you have to present on 9/11 and you have signed up saying their is overwhelming evidence to support your ideas on 9/11. But as you are in error here is indicative of what you think evidence is; you think hearsay and false information from the mouths of 9/11 truth is evidence. You are unable to recognize evidence in any form on this topic. Your ability to jump to conclusions based on hearsay is proven by your own signatory status, and it appears this lack of evidence illusion is shared by those you say have evidence in this very thread.

You must be careful you seem to fall for hearsay information and treat it as if it were the overwhelming evidence you have signed up saying you have. It seems every so often you foray into areas well beyond the topics where you any real evidence.

Chill had some good points, maybe the best on how to treat the jersey girls, your ideas have not explained much of anything to illuminate the topic. You actually seem to be trying to fight with a mod instead of using your big pile of evidence.

[GregoryUrich]

Shouldn't they be expected to understand if one is not considered appropriate by legal experts, and also to comply with the findings should one be undertaken?

Sure, if the investigation is legitimate as opposed to politicized. There were obviously no legal obstacles to the investigations only political ones. A legitimate investigation of the largest terrorist attack in history might require more funding than investigating Bill Clinton's cigar games though. And then they might want to interview potential whistle-blowers. If the lead investigators concluded that a major witness (i.e. NORAD) was lying and didn't do anything about it, how are we supposed to trust their findings.

The Jersy girls bring these legitimate issues to light.

[RedIbis]

I'll admit - not in depth, no. However, I feel that they have neglected or ignored too much information and evidence to make their position a viable one. That is a large part of my reasoning that their sense of loss is overwhelming their ability to handle this matter.
.

Please watch this relatively short video til the end. It's gutwrenching, but I suspect you'll get a better understanding by allowing these women to speak for themselves.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4139847738616164170&q=jersey+girls&total=2460&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

[SDC]

Oh for heaven's sake! When in doubt, appeal to the Clinton/ Starr investigation. That is the reddest of herrings. It has no relevance to any investigation into 9/11.

You are using the Jersey persons -- 3 individuals, out of thousands of families with personal losses on that day -- to push your agenda. You and they are using their loss to validate your and their claims.

Organize your own investigation. What's stopping you? You can have the Jersey persons as your first witnesses. That'll be convincing.

As to why I say "persons" ... I refuse to call grownups "girls."

[Darat]

Please don't abuse your power as a moderator. I gave a legimate hypothetical argument to prove a point that is directly on topic. I.e. the capability of victims thinking clearly. Lack of civil rights is not a crime unless you are the one who doesn't have any.

Members of the Moderating Team have the same freedom to post as any other Member. If you have any comments or complaints regarding the Moderation of this Forum take it to the appropriate section - Forum Management.

[chillzero]

Please watch this relatively short video til the end. It's gutwrenching, but I suspect you'll get a better understanding by allowing these women to speak for themselves.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4139847738616164170&q=jersey+girls&total=2460&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

Gutwrenching indeed.
You may have noticed though, that they state themselves that they were asking questions when either grieving, or angry after grieving. It is referred to as 'part of their healing process'.

They had some memory of an incident years before that did not compare with the events at the towers. They didn't like Bush's reaction. And so on. There are also s few pieces of incorrect information in that ahich reduce its credibility - the collapse time; the 'never before happened' canard.

Basically, they had questions. Many people did. Just about everyone on the planet did. However, their status as victims does not give them special ability or knowledge that should allow them to ignore the answers.

[DavidJames]

Gutwrenching indeed.
You may have noticed though, that they state themselves that they were asking questions when either grieving, or angry after grieving. It is referred to as 'part of their healing process'.

They had some memory of an incident years before that did not compare with the events at the towers. They didn't like Bush's reaction. And so on. There are also s few pieces of incorrect information in that ahich reduce its credibility - the collapse time; the 'never before happened' canard.

Basically, they had questions. Many people did. Just about everyone on the planet did. However, their status as victims does not give them special ability or knowledge that should allow them to ignore the answers.Red and the other CTists like the JG's because they mimic their own opinions. As you state, the JG's are just asking questions and provide no evidence to support anything.

Red - Stop asking questions and starting producing evidence. After over 6 years all your team has is questions. Time to stop asking questions and start producing. Are you up to it?

[tanabear]

Gutwrenching indeed.
You may have noticed though, that they state themselves that they were asking questions when either grieving, or angry after grieving. It is referred to as 'part of their healing process'.

They had some memory of an incident years before that did not compare with the events at the towers. They didn't like Bush's reaction. And so on. There are also s few pieces of incorrect information in that ahich reduce its credibility - the collapse time; the 'never before happened' canard.

Basically, they had questions. Many people did. Just about everyone on the planet did. However, their status as victims does not give them special ability or knowledge that should allow them to ignore the answers.

Their status as victims does not give them special ability or knowledge. The fact that they spent hundreds of hours researching the topic and the issues surrounding 9/11 does, however. Most people know very little about 9/11. The Jersey Girls were the driving force behind the creation of the 9/11 Commission. They provided the Commission with many questions. Most of them were never answered. So you can't accuse them of not listening to answers when most of their questions went unanswered.

Red and the other CTists like the JG's because they mimic their own opinions. As you state, the JG's are just asking questions and provide no evidence to support anything.

Red - Stop asking questions and starting producing evidence. After over 6 years all your team has is questions. Time to stop asking questions and start producing. Are you up to it?

What is wrong with asking questions? The "debunkers" are bothered by the questions because there have been no good answers forthcoming.

[chillzero]

Their status as victims does not give them special ability or knowledge. The fact that they spent hundreds of hours researching the topic and the issues surrounding 9/11 does, however.

I'll certainly give them credit for spending time and effort. However, it does not make my comment about their use of the information irrelevant.

The Jersey Girls were the driving force behind the creation of the 9/11 Commission.

I have seen this stated a few times. Is it true?

They provided the Commission with many questions. Most of them were never answered. So you can't accuse them of not listening to answers when most of their questions went unanswered.

Such as? How many of those questions will ever be answerable? We don't have coverage of every second of what happened in every location that day. Some of the answers have to be from deduction. Also, how many of those questions concern security protected matters?

I doubt that there will ever be an action undertaken that will satisfy them, particularly if they maintain the path they have currently chosen, which goes against the evidence which is available.

[Disbelief]

What is wrong with asking questions? The "debunkers" are bothered by the questions because there have been no good answers forthcoming.

What is so tough to understand? CulTists have been given excellent answers, time and time again. Because they refuse to understand these answers is not the fault of the debunkers, but of the CulTists.

[WildCat]

What is wrong with asking questions?
The questions have been answered, over and over and over again.

The "debunkers" are bothered by the questions because there have been no good answers forthcoming.
There's your real problem: You want "good" answers. And by that, of course, you mean you will accept nothing short of INSIDEJOB!!1!!!!!!11

You don't like the answers, prove them wrong. So far, 6 and a half years after 9/11, all you have is crap like "north of the Citgo", "thermite cuts" no truther has been able to demonstrate are even possible, contentions that the mountains of evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon is all faked, demolition charges in WTC 1, 2, and 7 that for some reason cannot be heard on any recording, a list of conspirators that is at least 10,000 people long but for some reason no one has spilled the beans yet out of conscience, "pull it", space beams, thermite, "scientific papers" that have yet to be published in a real science journal, a complete lack of relevant experts to back up your ridiculous claims, a plane the size of a mini-van that swooped under a power line and crashed at Shanksville fooling all at the scene who mistook it for a 757, claims of planted body parts, plane parts etc, etc.

Your entire movement is a joke.

[DavidJames]

What is wrong with asking questions? The "debunkers" are bothered by the questions because there have been no good answers forthcoming.Others have responded with good answers but I'll add this.

I often compare you guys with my kids when they were very young, in that like them you guys ask the same questions over and over again, either because you can't remember the answers or, more likely, don't like the answers.

But here is where you and my kids differ. My kids grew up and learned to think on their own. They learned to do research and find their own answers. My kids learned that maybe they needed to look beyond their own knowledge or the what their friends told them. They learned they have to do honest research to find honest answers.

You guys have some growing up to do.

[Pardalis]

Please watch this relatively short video til the end. It's gutwrenching, but I suspect you'll get a better understanding by allowing these women to speak for themselves.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4139847738616164170&q=jersey+girls&total=2460&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

So are you LIHOP or MIHOP?

At some point you should make up your mind, since both positions are incompatible.

Seems to me you just want the US to be guilty, whatever the outcome is.

[Cicero]

The reason why the Jersey Devils have zero credibility, aside form their 911 "truth" grunion parroting, is that they garnered undo attention to protest the $1.6 million average 911 victims settlement, which they considered paltry. But even after they were successful in raising the payout, they could not bare for the spotlight to dim on their countenances, hence their continued fight for celebrity by using the deaths of their spouses as a springboard. In the words of Breitweiser: "We simply wanted to know why our husbands were killed and why they went to work one day and didn't come back."

It appears this women saw a conspriacy of epic proportions that targeted her husband in particular.

But as to the notion that everybody in ancient times figured the world was flat, one need only watch a ship with a tall mast sail out to sea and notice that the entire ship does not disappear from sight at the same time, but that the top of ship's mast is the last to disappear from sight because of the curvature of the earth.

[jhunter1163]

I lost a close friend in the North Tower on 9/11. We weren't married or anything, but her death probably saddened me more than any other during my life, except for my parents.

Today, 6 1/2 years on, the thought of her still saddens me, but I've accepted it and moved on. As another poster mentioned above, at some point you have to.

It discourages me to see these women wearing their status as 9/11 widows on their sleeves. They seem to feel that it gives them immunity from any kind of criticism, and the Truth movement is quick to hide behind their skirts. "You can't say anything about "9/11 Press For Truth" because you're BEING MEAN TO 9/11 WIDOWS!!!111!!!!ELEVEN!!"

I believe that constantly rehashing the events of 9/11 is, if anything, hindering the Jersey Girls' grieving process. The time has come for them to just let it go. I say this as one who, unfortunately, knows.

[tanabear]

I'll certainly give them credit for spending time and effort. However, it does not make my comment about their use of the information irrelevant.

I have seen this stated a few times. Is it true?.

This is what Thomas Kean said about the Jersey Girls, "They call me all the time. They monitor us, they follow our progress, they've supplied us with some of the best questions we've asked. I doubt very much if we would be in existence without them."

Such as? How many of those questions will ever be answerable? We don't have coverage of every second of what happened in every location that day. Some of the answers have to be from deduction. Also, how many of those questions concern security protected matters?

The Jersey Girls estimated that about 70% of their questions were not answered or adequately addressed. Here is a sample:

- Why didn't the CIA share vital information about the terrorists with the FBI?

- Why weren’t all suspected terrorists and wanted terrorists placed on watch lists to prevent them from entering our country? Why wasn’t this information shared with the INS guarding our borders?

- As Commander-in-Chief on the morning of 9/11, why didn’t you return immediately to Washington, D.C. or the National Military Command Center once you became aware that America was under attack? At specifically what time did you become aware that America was under attack? Who informed you of this fact?

- 9/11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi both received I-20 "Vocational" visas from Huffman Aviation. The OIG report indicates that the school should not have been allowed to issue this type of visa ... Why did the INS certify Huffman aviation as a full time vocational school?

- What were the findings and conclusions of the FBI/U.S. Customs investigation code- named Operation Greenquest?

- Why was Saudi Arabia given preferential treatment above all other
nations in immigration? (Visa Express). What was the reason for creating the Visa Express?

- What is the truth about the arrest of El Atriss who sold fake IDs to two 9/11 terrorists? There are discrepancies between the NY Times and WashingtonPost accounts of his arrest and release.

Etc...

[jhunter1163]

CIA and FBI didn't share information because it was illegal for them to do so. Google "Jamie Gorelick" or use the search function here for more information.

[gc051360]

So are you LIHOP or MIHOP?

At some point you should make up your mind, since both positions are incompatible.

Seems to me you just want the US to be guilty, whatever the outcome is.

A lot of truthers take the position, of not picking a side. When they can't defend their insane CD theories, is when they become LIHOP, only to post some more MIHOP a few days later.

[Pardalis]

A lot of truthers take the position, of not picking a side. When they can't defend their insane CD theories, is when they become LIHOP, only to post some more MIHOP a few days later.

Yeah, they don't see how inconsistent they are.

Their only means to discriminate facts and information is if whether or not the US is alleged to be involved/guilty. If what they learn incriminates the US, then they'll consider it, no matter what, if it doesn't, they'll dismiss it.

The rest they don't care about: they don't care if the facts are right, the studies are credible, or if any of this makes sense and fits together. They just want the US to be guilty of something, whatever that may be. Talk about having a bias.

[WildCat]

A lot of truthers take the position, of not picking a side. When they can't defend their insane CD theories, is when they become LIHOP, only to post some more MIHOP a few days later.
cough...RedIbis...cough

[pomeroo]

The Jersey girls are not being used by the movement. They ARE the movement, which they pretty much started based on their own research and lack of responsiveness by the government. Are you aware that they gave the names of potential whistle blowers to the commission who were never called to testify? No wonder they are dissatisfied when few of their questions have been answered.

Have you heard them speak? They are primarily calling for accountability. I haven't seen that anyone was held accountable, only that the lying and manipulative Bush administration took full advantage of the tragedy to further the neo-con agenda as prescribed by PNAC.


You know absolutely nothing about the neo-con "agenda."

[tanabear]

You know absolutely nothing about the neo-con "agenda."

If we are so ignorant, then would you care to enlighten us about the neo-con agenda?

[gc051360]

If we are so ignorant, then would you care to enlighten us about the neo-con agenda?

Seems like a bit of a derail.

[defaultdotxbe]

If we are so ignorant, then would you care to enlighten us about the neo-con agenda?
if we told you we'd have to kill you

[gc051360]

The Neo con agenda, is to come up with and carry out conspiracies that make no logical sense.

That way, we distract all of these internet free thinkers. These aren't your normal sheeple. They've seen the Matrix. They know what's up. We distract them with these nonsensical conspiracies.

Meanwhile, since anyone who could stop us (the truthers) are preoccupied with meaningless conspiracies....we are free to steal oil. We then store it at Pomeroo's house. It's in his garage.

Then. When global warming (which we created) melts the ice caps, and oil runs out....we start our post apocalyptic street gang. We drive around in dune buggies, and go carts. Have you seen The Road Warrior? Basically that. We then rule the wasteland that was once civilization.

And I can tell you this, because nobody will believe you. We've distracted the sheeple by using Fox News to our advantage.

eta: Building 7 wasn't us though. That came down due to structural damage from the tower we actually blew up, combined with the unfought fires.

[gtc]

- As Commander-in-Chief on the morning of 9/11, why didn’t you return immediately to Washington, D.C. or the National Military Command Center once you became aware that America was under attack?

There are very good reasons why questions like this were not answered.

The government probably does not want people to know precisely what will happen in the event of a terrorist strike. For all the government knows, the real purpose behind a terrorist attack may be to get Bush into a position where he can be targetted by a follow up attack.

More importantly, the attacks would have occurred in exactly the same way, no matter where Bush went or when he departed. The question is completely irrelevant to how and why the events occurred.

I am sure other questions on their list are just as irrelevant or just as much a matter of security.

[RedIbis]

The government probably does not want people to know precisely what will happen in the event of a terrorist strike. For all the government knows, the real purpose behind a terrorist attack may be to get Bush into a position where he can be targetted by a follow up attack.

.

But we do know how the Secret Service handled Bush in the event of a terrorist attack, and it's such an incomprehensible response, it deserves it's own thread.

[beachnut]

You know absolutely nothing about the neo-con "agenda."
That was funny; he is showing his 9/11 truth petition signing side, and left the "smoking gun evidence" in the hearsay ether of 9/11 truth fantasyland.

6 years and Greg is falling back in time to repeat each and every failed idea of 9/11 truth. I suspect his failure to use engineering to prove CD has left him with just hearsay.

Is this oldies week trutherville?

But we do know how the Secret Service handled Bush in the event of a terrorist attack, and it's such an incomprehensible response, it deserves it's own thread.
You have no idea what the SS did on 9/11, and you never will! It is not your business, it will never be! You ideas on this will only result in your inability to connect some more dots you don't have and come up with implied conclusions as bad as all 9/11 ideas.

[Walter Ego]

- As Commander-in-Chief on the morning of 9/11, why didn’t you return immediately to Washington, D.C. or the National Military Command Center once you became aware that America was under attack?

This is an unanswered question? Bush did want to return to Washington immediately. He was advised against it by the Secret Service and Cheney.

At specifically what time did [Bush] become aware that America was under attack? Who informed you of this fact?


He was informed by an aide when he was reading 'My Pet Goat.' This was on TV. Remember the expression on his face?

A lot of the Jersey Girls questions have been answered. If they were doing all that research they claimed they did they would have the answers already. They just want different answers.

[Walter Ego]

- Why didn't the CIA share vital information about the terrorists with the FBI?

- Why weren’t all suspected terrorists and wanted terrorists placed on watch lists to prevent them from entering our country? Why wasn’t this information shared with the INS guarding our borders?



Lawrence Wright in his book 'Al Qaeda And the Road to 9/11' dealt with the lack of communication and the lack of sharing of information between the various government agencies and the frustrations this caused to the FBI counter-terrorist agents. Did the Jersey Girls read this book?

[DavidJames]

But we do know how the Secret Service handled Bush in the event of a terrorist attack, and it's such an incomprehensible response, it deserves it's own thread.Please do start the thread and when you do please state specifically what should have happened and please, please, provide evidence to support your claim. No one cares what you think the SS should have done. What people care about is what they, per protocol, should have done and did they follow protocol.

Are you up to that? Can you start a thread and present actual, verifiable evidence or will you just ask questions?

Good Luck.

[DC]

....
The government probably does not want people to know precisely what will happen in the event of a terrorist strike. For all the government knows, the real purpose behind a terrorist attack may be to get Bush into a position where he can be targetted by a follow up attack.

...

exactly that is why ppl find it suspect that he stayed in a school, nobody seemed to care for the presidents security, as if they knew he was save, how xould they know?

[Redtail]

exactly that is why ppl find it suspect that he stayed in a school, nobody seemed to care for the presidents security, as if they knew he was save, how xould they know?

... How many schools were targeted on 9/11? Until the planes started crashing into buildings, how many knew how the hijackings would end? How many people have you been a bodyguard for? It seems "seems" is the key word in your post.

[Jonnyclueless]

exactly that is why ppl find it suspect that he stayed in a school, nobody seemed to care for the presidents security, as if they knew he was save, how xould they know?

People find it suspect because they are complete idiots who don't know the first thing about security. The school was the ONLY secured place. The route to the plane and any place outside of the school was not. The stupidest thing the SS could have done was remove him from the school before the area was secured. I mean we're talking pretty stupid thing to do.

With the logic of the twoofers, one need only cause some big incident that would cause the President to leave a secure area where he could then be ambushed on the way to his plane. One need not be too smart to understand this. Or we can be even stupider and think that a terrorist is going to plan everything in a couple months and try to visually find a little school from the air without being noticed. Heck, the only reason the Pentagon was hit was because the pilot couldn't find the white house.

So I can understand someone not being bright enough to understand how security works, but the ones who think the school was in danger of being hit by a plane? Well, that goes beyond stupidity.

[thatsmystory]

Lawrence Wright in his book 'Al Qaeda And the Road to 9/11' dealt with the lack of communication and the lack of sharing of information between the various government agencies and the frustrations this caused to the FBI counter-terrorist agents. Did the Jersey Girls read this book?
Wright's account isn't definitive. That isn't a knock on Wright rather it speaks to the difficulty in getting access to sensitive information.

Because there was a preexisting indictment for bin Laden in New York, and al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi were his associates, the bureau already had the authority to follow the suspects, wiretap their apartment, intercept their communications, clone their computer, investigate their contacts--all the essential steps that might have prevented 9/11. (pg. 330-331)

Soufan wondered why money was leaving Yemen when a major operation was about to take place. Could there be another operation under way that he didn’t know about? Soufan queried the CIA, asking for information about Khallad and whether there might have been an al-Qaeda meeting in the region. The agency did not respond to his clearly stated request. The fact that the CIA withheld information about the mastermind of the Cole bombing and the meeting in Malaysia, when directly asked by the FBI, amounted to obstruction of justice in the death of seventeen American sailors. Much more tragic consequences were on the horizon. (page 329)

Then the CIA chief drew Soufan aside and handed him a manila envelope. Inside were three surveillance photos and a complete report about the Malaysia meeting-the very material Soufan had been asking for, which the CIA had denied him until now. The wall had come down. When Soufan realized that the agency and some people in the bureau had known for more than a year and a half that two of the hijackers were in the country, he ran into the bathroom and retched. (page 362)


He doesn't seem to buy into the 'Gorelick wall' excuse.

Clarke, Hadley and Rice attended the July 10, 2001 'urgent briefing' with Tenet. Still waiting for any of these officials to explain how CIA/FBI turf battles affected their own conduct. Did any of these officials think it might be a good idea to bring the FBI into the loop? If so why didn't they?

[thatsmystory]

People find it suspect because they are complete idiots who don't know the first thing about security. The school was the ONLY secured place. The route to the plane and any place outside of the school was not. The stupidest thing the SS could have done was remove him from the school before the area was secured. I mean we're talking pretty stupid thing to do.

With the logic of the twoofers, one need only cause some big incident that would cause the President to leave a secure area where he could then be ambushed on the way to his plane. One need not be too smart to understand this. Or we can be even stupider and think that a terrorist is going to plan everything in a couple months and try to visually find a little school from the air without being noticed. Heck, the only reason the Pentagon was hit was because the pilot couldn't find the white house.

So I can understand someone not being bright enough to understand how security works, but the ones who think the school was in danger of being hit by a plane? Well, that goes beyond stupidity.

Is it idiotic to wonder why Bush didn't follow up with Card to get more information? Bush's response made no sense. No curiosity. No concern. Nothing to indicate that the President was in the loop during a national crisis. Was this proof that he was a front man in charge of photo ops, merely using the powers of the Presidency to run interference for the Rumsfeld/Cheney cabal?

I haven't heard a good explanation for his conduct in over six years.

[beachnut]

exactly that is why ppl find it suspect that he stayed in a school, nobody seemed to care for the presidents security, as if they knew he was save, how xould they know?
Only someone who lack knowledge on 9/11 would even bring up Bush at the school, or mention errors about what was said on 9/11

So, if you were president you would run out and hide where? Why is the President at risk at a small school in FL? The aircraft were hitting the biggest office buildings in the world, not schools. This is the red flag argument that shows you lack knowledge and the logic to make conclusion on 9/11 right out of the box. Did you just wake up recently to 9/11? Where have you been for 6 years. This is old debunked junk and has no real bearing on 9/11.

So if I was in charge of the SS; I would call the airport and put Air Force One on alert! I would have the Military plan on meeting AF1 and provide air cover; this takes time, it could take an hour to arm and get fighter escort; even longer! Why does 9/11 truth even use this lame Bush at the school ploy to gain those who lack knowledge? (oops, did I answer the question in the question?)

The bush at school ploy; old and worn out.

[Tweeter]

Yeah, its a good idea to endanger grade school kids after you`re notified the country is under attack. Wonder why those darn terrorists dont ever go after any bigger fish. Hmmmm

[DC]

... How many schools were targeted on 9/11? Until the planes started crashing into buildings, how many knew how the hijackings would end? How many people have you been a bodyguard for? It seems "seems" is the key word in your post.

exactly, thx, thats my point, nobody could knew who or what is under atack. they knew 2 planes hitted the world trade center. untill they are sure what is going on, they should have moved the president out of that room, into security.

but they did not do that. they knew they was udner atack. but how could they know they are not a target?

[DC]

... How many schools were targeted on 9/11? Until the planes started crashing into buildings, how many knew how the hijackings would end? How many people have you been a bodyguard for? It seems "seems" is the key word in your post.

exactly, thx, thats my point, nobody could knew who or what is under atack. they knew 2 planes hitted the world trade center. untill they are sure what is going on, they should have moved the president out of that room, into security.

but they did not do that. they knew they was udner atack. but how could they know they are not a target?

[DC]

exactly, thx, thats my point, nobody could knew who or what is under atack. they knew 2 planes hitted the world trade center. untill they are sure what is going on, they should have moved the president out of that room, into security.

but they did not do that. they knew they was udner atack. but how could they know they are not a target?

as far i know, it was public known where the president is, it was anounced on the whitehouse homepage.

so they could not be sure, they didnt plan to also atack the place where the president is. so it was not such a secure place like you would think.

only ppl that do not think skeptical, find it totaly normal reaction by the sec.serv. and the president.

[MikeW]

only ppl that do not think skeptical, find it totaly normal reaction by the sec.serv. and the president.

Richard Clarke said the Secret Service head didn't talk about Bush being moved until after 9:28. They also had to work on where to move him:

During the pause, I noticed that Brian Stafford, director of the Secret Service, was now in the room. He pulled me aside. "We gotta get him out of there to some place safe ... and secret. I've stashed FLOTUS."...

Franklin Miller, my colleague and Special Assistant to the President for Defense Affairs, joined Stafford. Frank squeezed my bicep. "Guess I'm working for you today. What can I do?"...

"Can you work with Brian," I told Miller. "Figure out where to move the President? He can't come back here until we know what the **** is happening." I knew that would not go down well with the Commander in Chief. "And Tom," I directed at Colonel Greenwood, "work with Roger - Cressey - on getting some CAP here - fast."

Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies

No surprise from Clarke that he hadn't been moved already. No automatic decision about where he should go, either - thought and time was required. Maybe the behaviour of the Secret Service isn't quite as surprising as deceptive propagandists like David Ray Griffin pretend.

[DC]

Richard Clarke said the Secret Service head didn't talk about Bush being moved until after 9:28. They also had to work on where to move him:



No surprise from Clarke that he hadn't been moved already. No automatic decision about where he should go, either - thought and time was required. Maybe the behaviour of the Secret Service isn't quite as surprising as deceptive propagandists like David Ray Griffin pretend.

how long was he sitting there with that book in his hand?
and like i got told here, the area was save, so the SS checked the place for security, but they had never thaught about what to do in an emergency?

[Travis]

how long was he sitting there with that book in his hand?
and like i got told here, the area was save, so the SS checked the place for security, but they had never thaught about what to do in an emergency?

Is it so hard to believe that the SS could have been complacent?

Actually, the SS probably had all sorts of contingency plans for what to do in all sorts of situations should they have occurred at that school but I doubt killer civilian jetliners was amongst them. However the SS seemed to reason that against that particular threat it was better to sit tight until a reasonable plan was formulated and the President had agreed to it. After all even if there hijacked airliners in the area it would be unlikely that the hijackers would know where that one little elementary school was let alone find it from the air and hit it.

[DC]

Is it so hard to believe that the SS could have been complacent?

Actually, the SS probably had all sorts of contingency plans for what to do in all sorts of situations should they have occurred at that school but I doubt killer civilian jetliners was amongst them. However the SS seemed to reason that against that particular threat it was better to sit tight until a reasonable plan was formulated and the President had agreed to it. After all even if there hijacked airliners in the area it would be unlikely that the hijackers would know where that one little elementary school was let alone find it from the air and hit it.

so something happens they never thaught off, and the best thing to do is, nothing? a little skeptical thinking would be good now.
it was known in wich school Bush was. its easy to find that school's coordinates. how could they know the school was not in danger ?

[WildCat]

so something happens they never thaught off, and the best thing to do is, nothing? a little skeptical thinking would be good now.
it was known in wich school Bush was. its easy to find that school's coordinates. how could they know the school was not in danger ?
Knowing the coordinates and hitting it are 2 different things. The only other buildings they hit that day were 3 of the largest buildings in the world, and easy ones to spot from the air. And the plane that hit the Pentagon nearly crashed into the ground first, and the second plane to hit the WTC had to make a sharp bank at the last second to hit it. Much, much harder to spot an elementary school from the air and hitting it.

[Travis]

so something happens they never thaught off, and the best thing to do is, nothing? a little skeptical thinking would be good now.

I never said the did "nothing" I said: the SS seemed to reason that against that particular threat it was better to sit tight until a reasonable plan was formulated and the President had agreed to it so what they were doing was formulating a plan. I suppose they could have rushed into the room and grabbed the President and hauled him outside before even explaining to him what they were doing but what would that have accomplished? Nothing and it would probably have panicked a great deal of people so it not only would accomplish nothing positive in terms of security it would be detrimental to public morale.

it was known in wich school Bush was. its easy to find that school's coordinates. how could they know the school was not in danger ?

Really. How exactly would they have even known what to look for? This was before there were resources like Google Earth so how in the world would they have even known what the school would look like from the air?

Even if they managed to get an aerial photograph it wouldn't have guaranteed anything. Many bomber pilots that had studied recon photographs of their target still ended up hitting the wrong things.

[Jonnyclueless]

Is it idiotic to wonder why Bush didn't follow up with Card to get more information? Bush's response made no sense. No curiosity. No concern. Nothing to indicate that the President was in the loop during a national crisis. Was this proof that he was a front man in charge of photo ops, merely using the powers of the Presidency to run interference for the Rumsfeld/Cheney cabal?

I haven't heard a good explanation for his conduct in over six years.

No, it's idiotic to not even be aware of the fact that they DID try to because one is too busy reading cult conspiracy web sites to have the right information before launching these absurd attacks/claims.

It's idiotic to sit here and pretend that the president and his people had no desire to find out what was going on. And what's more idiotic is then to make conjecture and assume that because you didn't even both to do any research that it proves some kind of inside job. And then to not understand why others laugh at those who make this mistake.

You haven't heard a good explanation because you don't want to hear one. You don't hear one because you would rather make up your own to fit your pre-determined conclusions. Finding out reality might interfere with those delusions.

[Jonnyclueless]

Yeah, its a good idea to endanger grade school kids after you`re notified the country is under attack. Wonder why those darn terrorists dont ever go after any bigger fish. Hmmmm

So now please explain to us how the kids, who were in the most secured area in the country at the time were being put in danger.

I don't think the answer will be too hard to predict for someone who can't even figure out why the terrorists don't go after the president himself. If one can't even do basic math, how can they be expected to do calc?

[Jonnyclueless]

so something happens they never thaught off, and the best thing to do is, nothing? a little skeptical thinking would be good now.
it was known in wich school Bush was. its easy to find that school's coordinates. how could they know the school was not in danger ?

It was only known for a few months and it took years to plan out the attack. As already stated, the reason they hit the Pentagon was because the pilot couldn't find the white house. It would have been next to impossible to find the school house, not to mention it would have served very little purpose for such a target with little chance of success.

So what would you do? Would you hit a target that has a very high success rate and would make your point clear? Or would you choose one that was nearly impossible and wouldn't strike fear into a population as much as it would the administration?


NOW. Please explain to us how you know that by the president remaining in the most secure area and not putting himself intentionally in danger by leaving the secure area that this proves an inside job. Don't sit here and pretend you aren't making that claim, sit here and show us how you know this. We want YOUR explanation now.

[DavidJames]

But we do know how the Secret Service handled Bush in the event of a terrorist attack, and it's such an incomprehensible response, it deserves it's own thread.
Please do start the thread and when you do please state specifically what should have happened and please, please, provide evidence to support your claim. No one cares what you think the SS should have done. What people care about is what they, per protocol, should have done and did they follow protocol.

Are you up to that? Can you start a thread and present actual, verifiable evidence or will you just ask questions?

Good Luck.

Just bumping for Red - I suspect Red's failure to open a ticket may be fall under the "at no time in history has a 9/11 CTists ever made a claim supported by evidence" troother meme ;)

[DC]

It was only known for a few months and it took years to plan out the attack. As already stated, the reason they hit the Pentagon was because the pilot couldn't find the white house. It would have been next to impossible to find the school house, not to mention it would have served very little purpose for such a target with little chance of success.

So what would you do? Would you hit a target that has a very high success rate and would make your point clear? Or would you choose one that was nearly impossible and wouldn't strike fear into a population as much as it would the administration?


NOW. Please explain to us how you know that by the president remaining in the most secure area and not putting himself intentionally in danger by leaving the secure area that this proves an inside job. Don't sit here and pretend you aren't making that claim, sit here and show us how you know this. We want YOUR explanation now.

As already stated, the reason they hit the Pentagon was because the pilot couldn't find the white house.

got evidence?

and where did i say this proofs an inside job? i didnt

and by the way, how could they be sure that all atacks would be with planes?

and i also dont think they should have rushed in and scare the kids to death and let them behind in panic.

and sorry, i really start to wonder when a president does not react after geting told his country is under atack.

what would you have done in his situation?

[Jonnyclueless]

As already stated, the reason they hit the Pentagon was because the pilot couldn't find the white house.

got evidence?

and where did i say this proofs an inside job? i didnt

and by the way, how could they be sure that all atacks would be with planes?

and i also dont think they should have rushed in and scare the kids to death and let them behind in panic.

and sorry, i really start to wonder when a president does not react after geting told his country is under atack.

what would you have done in his situation?


Uh, did you not read the confession from KSM where he talked about the targets? I guess your little conspiracy web sites left that out.

Oh OK. so you don't think there is an inside jobe, and then you agree that there is nothing conspiracy wise about the whole president staying in the school.

What they did had nothing to do with the kids.

What would I have done? I would have done whatever security told me to do. I would trust the people who do this for a living and have the expertise and training to know how to handle these situations. I would know that I myself could do very little if anything in such a situation and would let the people who's jobs it is to handle them do their jobs.

[DC]

KSM? after or before waterboarding? got a credible source?

[BenBurch]

You know absolutely nothing about the neo-con "agenda."

Neither do you, as if I understand the term, you aren't one.

(Under the STRICT definition of the term I am one, though; I am a social Liberal who thinks that projection of military force (to give Diplomacy teeth) is essential to keeping a country this size safe. However, the current crop of folks in office don't seem to understand anything at all about diplomacy, military doctrine, or how to choose your battles...)

[Arus808]

KSM? after or before waterboarding? got a credible source?
you do know that he confessed prior to being captured right?

[DC]

you do know that he confessed prior to being captured right?

no didnt know that.

[Jonnyclueless]

KSM? after or before waterboarding? got a credible source?


Before. Long before.

[WildCat]

Claim that al Jazeera is an instrument of the CIA coming in 3,2,1...

[defaultdotxbe]

Yeah, its a good idea to endanger grade school kids after you`re notified the country is under attack. Wonder why those darn terrorists dont ever go after any bigger fish. Hmmmm
yes, im sure part of the normal procedure for moving the president would have been to notify the terrorists that they were doing so, and let them know where they were moving him to, just to make sure the terrorists didnt hit the school after he left



fact is the school had been secured by the secret service before the presidents arrival, this eliminated the vast majority of threats to the president, moving to another location would have exposed him to additional threats until they got a good distance away from the school, im sure the secret service decided the benefit was not worth the additional risk and to just sit tight until they had a better understanding of whats going on

[DC]

Before. Long before.

but anyway, to me that claim makes no sence at all, coudnt find the white house?

hani hanjour learned how to fly planes, had a licence, knew how to opperate Autopilot, but hani then somehow didnt find the whitehouse?

after he turned of the autopilot, he must have know he had to pass the pentagon, the biggest building in the world, fly over that river, and then fly into that park and hit that white house.........
before he passed the pentagon, and before he flew over the potomac river, he started the turn to hit the pentagon?

no sorry, makes no sence to me

[johnny karate]

no sorry, makes no sence to me

Oh no.

[Arus808]

but anyway, to me that claim makes no sence at all, coudnt find the white house?

The white house isn't actually easy to find from way up in the air. The fact that Hani dropped so fast in so short of a distance and had to hit the Pentagon, shows that he had no idea where the white house was, and may have "overshot" it.

again, we dont know definitely if the white house was his TARGET.

However, the pentagon, from the air, is actually alot easier to find than the white house is. seeing as there is a big river that is one side of the Pentagon, and the white house is surround by greenery, and other buildings.

Every flown to DC before?



hani hanjour learned how to fly planes, had a licence, knew how to opperate Autopilot, but hani then somehow didnt find the whitehouse?

You do realize that he was doing most of the flying (not the autopilot) when he entered the DC airspace? which is why he did that really bad turn and hit the pentagon.



after he turned of the autopilot, he must have know he had to pass the pentagon, the biggest building in the world, fly over that river, and then fly into that park and hit that white house.........

again. we dont know what he was thinking. maybe he got scared and said "damn, I should just hit whatever building i see".

maybe the passengers were pounding on the cockpit door, threatening to take over the plane like flight 93 did. Maybe he felt pressured, and just wanted to complete his mission.

The longer he was in flight, the more time he was giving any "air" response the chance to intercept his flight.

factor in the chaos of what was happening that day, the scared passensgers, the length of time being in the air, he reacted as anyone under pressure would. Find something and just hit that instead.

[Jonnyclueless]

but anyway, to me that claim makes no sence at all, coudnt find the white house?

hani hanjour learned how to fly planes, had a licence, knew how to opperate Autopilot, but hani then somehow didnt find the whitehouse?

after he turned of the autopilot, he must have know he had to pass the pentagon, the biggest building in the world, fly over that river, and then fly into that park and hit that white house.........
before he passed the pentagon, and before he flew over the potomac river, he started the turn to hit the pentagon?

no sorry, makes no sence to me

So now the claims about Hani go from him being too inexperienced to even flying a plane to him now being too good to have missed his intended target.

How do you think these guys found their targets? Osmosis? They used visual cues. The whitehouse as big as it is is not easy to spot. The Pentagon however happens to be the easiest building to spot from the air.

I am sure a lot of things make no sense to you. He had to turn because clearly by the time he decided on the Pentagon he couldn't hit it without making a big turn. These were not expert pilots, the knew enough to get the plane somewhere.

[SDC]

So we finished off the Jersey Persons? How in heck did we get to the White House as a target?

[DC]

So now the claims about Hani go from him being too inexperienced to even flying a plane to him now being too good to have missed his intended target.

How do you think these guys found their targets? Osmosis? They used visual cues. The whitehouse as big as it is is not easy to spot. The Pentagon however happens to be the easiest building to spot from the air.

I am sure a lot of things make no sense to you. He had to turn because clearly by the time he decided on the Pentagon he couldn't hit it without making a big turn. These were not expert pilots, the knew enough to get the plane somewhere.

only short cause we are way OT :/

the claims about hani are from official side.

and maybe you realise somewhen, not all ppl with the labels "nutcase" "twoofer" "CT" think the same, claim the same :)

and to bring it back topic.

"Conspiracy-deniers" should also thank the Jersey Girls. its them that took care, there would be an investigation.

and i hope they keep fighting for a real investigation :)

[Arus808]

only short cause we are way OT :/

the claims about hani are from official side.

and maybe you realise somewhen, not all ppl with the labels "nutcase" "twoofer" "CT" think the same, claim the same :)

and to bring it back topic.

"Conspiracy-deniers" should also thank the Jersey Girls. its them that took care, there would be an investigation.

and i hope they keep fighting for a real investigation :)


which they already RECEIVEd. they are just not happy with the ANSWERS given. sorry, but what they perceive to be 'answers' are not the answers that everyone else looked for.

they want to place BLAME on someone, SOMETHINg. but seeing that they can't get "justice" from an organization half-way across the world (to pay for their husbands' deaths), they cannot, and WILL not accept any answer that doesn't place blame on the govt. They want someone to blame, they are not happy that the blame goes to people they have no way to bring to justice.

sorry, but WE spent $$$$$ on two investigations 911 comission and the NIST report. What more "investigation" needs to be done (save for ADDING ON to the existing reports?)

[Jonnyclueless]

Wrong there was an investigation starting on 9/11. We didn't need them. 9/11 commission was not the investigation it was just to find lapses in security and suggest improvements. Changes to how departments work and additional departments were made based on their findings. But again, the investigation started on the day of the attacks.

Yes the commission found that Hani was a decent enough pilot. But the argument used against this is that he was a bad pilot. You just think we're all stupid because you intentionally try to leave out your personal beliefs and think it allows you to say anything you want without saying anything. Don't pretend I don't know what you think. We all know what you think, and you ALL pretend you never make any claims.

The reason you get a lot of crap has nothing to do with any actual claims, it's the lemming mentality that every 30 days a new one of you comes along and does the same exact thing, thus infinitely repeating the cycle. And you all think you are the first ones, you all think you aren't a nutjob because you didn't specify what you think, you simply wait for someone else to, then attack whatever counter argument is made against that.

Maybe you should read posts from people like Sizzler and LastChild and see the same exact arguments. It gets old. You guys know you don't have a leg to stand on with your beliefs so they only option you have is to try and attack the experts. You think you can maybe look right if you try to make the experts look wrong. Unfortunately it doesn't work on this forum. The experts here didn't become experts because they were too stupid to see through these kinds of antics.

[Jonnyclueless]

So we finished off the Jersey Persons? How in heck did we get to the White House as a target?

Jersey girls > JG arguments about President not leaving school > how did they not know school was target > pilots weren't good enough to spot a small school > Case in point Hani Hanjor not being able to find his target.

Probably my fault, but Hani was simply an example to demonstrate the claim made by the Jersey Girls.

[DC]

which they already RECEIVEd. they are just not happy with the ANSWERS given. sorry, but what they perceive to be 'answers' are not the answers that everyone else looked for.

they want to place BLAME on someone, SOMETHINg. but seeing that they can't get "justice" from an organization half-way across the world (to pay for their husbands' deaths), they cannot, and WILL not accept any answer that doesn't place blame on the govt. They want someone to blame, they are not happy that the blame goes to people they have no way to bring to justice.

sorry, but WE spent $$$$$ on two investigations 911 comission and the NIST report. What more "investigation" needs to be done (save for ADDING ON to the existing reports?)

according to the Jersey girls, its not really the answer they got, its more the answers they did not get :)
according to them most of the questions was never answered.

:P

[WildCat]

according to the Jersey girls, its not really the answer they got, its more the answers they did not get
Because some of the questions were just stupid. For example IIRC they wanted to know why helicopters didn't come and toss parachutes to the people trapped in the towers.

[Jonnyclueless]

I would be pissed too i I wasn't told Bush's luggage combination. But at least I could then claim that there must be an inside job since he didn't answer my question. And people wonder why he didn't want to testify...

[defaultdotxbe]

according to them most of the questions was never answered.

:P
"according to them?"

have you not looked at their questions and checked for yourself if they were answered? because many that they claim werent answered were

[johnny karate]

according to the Jersey girls, its not really the answer they got, its more the answers they did not get :)
according to them most of the answers was never answered.

And what is the significance of this again?

The Jersey Girls are four out of tens of thousands of family members that lost loved ones on 9/11. Aside from them and maybe a handful of others, none of those family members have voiced any criticism with the official version of events or the 9/11 investigation.

And yet CTers constantly hawk these women as the voice of the victims' families as if they comprise some kind of consensus, when in reality they only compromise an extremely small percentage.

So why should we lend what these women say any weight, and ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of the the victims' families seem quite content with the official explanation?

[DC]

Because some of the questions were just stupid. For example IIRC they wanted to know why helicopters didn't come and toss parachutes to the people trapped in the towers.

this is one of the jersey girls questions?

[WildCat]

this is one of the jersey girls questions?
“What I saw on 9/11 totally flew in the face of everything I thought this country was about,” says Casazza. “For the people standing crowded and on their own in the opening of the broken windows of the towers, there were no police, Coast Guard, or military helicopters. They could have at least been thrown parachutes so that they could have attempted their own rescue."

Source (http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id358.html)

[DC]

And what is the significance of this again?

The Jersey Girls are four out of tens of thousands of family members that lost loved ones on 9/11. Aside from them and maybe a handful of others, none of those family members have voiced any criticism with the official version of events or the 9/11 investigation.

And yet CTers constantly hawk these women as the voice of the victims' families as if they comprise some kind of consensus, when in reality they only compromise an extremely small percentage.

So why should we lend what these women say any weight, and ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of the the victims' families seem quite content with the official explanation?


Family Members
Joanne Barbara, wife of FDNY Asst. Chief of Dept. Gerard Barbara
Gayle Barker, sister of William A. Karnes, WTC
Michele Bergsohn, wife of Alvin Bergsohn, Cantor Fitzgerald
Derrill Bodley, father of Deora Bodley, passenger on Flight 93
Kathryn C. Bowden, sister of Thomas H. Bowden, Jr. WTC1, 104th floor
Janet Calia, wife of Dominick Calia, Cantor Fitzgerald, WTC1
Maggie Cashman, wife of William Joseph Cashman, United Flight 93
Lynne Castrianno Galante, sister of Leonard Castrianno, 1WTC, 105th floor
Elza Chapa-McGowan, daughter of Rosemary Chapa, Pentagon
Bruce De Cell, father-in-law of Mark Petrocelli North Tower, 92nd floor
Ralph D'Esposito, father of Michael D'Esposito, WTC, 96th floor
Loisanne Diehl, Surviving Spouse, Michael D. Diehl, WTC2, 90th floor
Adina D. Eisenberg, sister of Eric Eisenberg, WTC
Jonathan M. Fisher, son of Dr. Gerald Paul "Geep" Fisher, Pentagon
Michael J. Fox, brother of Jeffrey L. Fox, Tower 2, 89th floor
Laurel A. Gay, sister of Peter A. Gay, AA Flight 11
Irene Golinsky, wife of Col. Ronald F. Golinski USA RET, Pentagon
Lori, Jerry, and Beatrice Guadagno, sister and parents of Richard Guadagno, Flight 93
Kristen Hall, daughter of fallen firefighter Thomas Kuveikis 9/11
Kurt D. Horning, father of Matthew D. Horning, WTC Tower One, 95th floor
Jennifer W. Hunt, wife of William C. Hunt, Euro Brokers
John Keating, son of Barbara Keating, passenger on AA Flight 11
L. Russell Keene II, father of Russ Keene III, WTC2, 89th floor, KBW
Peter Kousoulis, sister died in WTC
Paul & Barbara Kirwin, parents of Glenn Davis Kirwin, Cantor Fitzgerald 105th floor
Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli, mother of William E. Krukowski, NYC firefighter
Laura and Ira Lassman, parents of Nicholas C. Lassman, died in WTC, Tower One
Johnny Lee, husband of Lorraine Greene
Alicia LeGuillow, mother of Nestor A. Cintron III
Francine Levine, sister of Adam K. Ruhalter, who died on 9/11
Bob McIlvaine, father of Robert McIlvaine, WTC, Merrill Lynch
Mary McWilliams, mother of FF Martin E. McWilliams- Engine 22
Daryl J. Meehan, brother of Colleen Ann Barkow, WTC 1, 105th floor
Elvira P. Murphy, wife of Patrick Murphy, WTC 1
Natalee Pecorelli, sister of Thomas Pecorelli of Flight 11
James L Perry, M.D and Patricia J. Perry, parents of John W. Perry, Esq., NYPD Officer 9/11
David Potorti, brother of James Potorti, North Tower, WTC, Marsh & McLennan
Terry Kay Rockefeller, sister of Laura Rockefeller, North Tower, WTC
Grissel Rodriguez-Valentin, wife of Benito Valentin, WTC1, 94th floor
Alissa Rosenberg-Torres, widow of Luis Eduardo Torres, post-9/11 mother, writer
Elaine Saber, mother of Scott Saber
Julie Scarpitta, mother of Michelle Scarpitta, WTC Building 2, 84th floor
Paula Shapiro, mother of Eric Eisenberg, WTC2
Elizabeth Turner, wife of Simon Turner, lost on 11th September 2001
Adele Welty, mother of Firefighter Timothy Welty, FDNY, Squad 288
Joan W. Winton, mother of David Winton, WTC, South Tower, 89th floor
David Yancey, husband of Vicki Yancey, American Airlines Flight 77
Nissa Youngren, daughter of Robert G. LeBlanc, flight 175


i also think they are a minority, but you seem to have big hands

[DC]

“What I saw on 9/11 totally flew in the face of everything I thought this country was about,” says Casazza. “For the people standing crowded and on their own in the opening of the broken windows of the towers, there were no police, Coast Guard, or military helicopters. They could have at least been thrown parachutes so that they could have attempted their own rescue."

Source (http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id358.html)

indeed a stupid idea i think, but is this a question they forwarded to the commission?

[defaultdotxbe]

indeed a stupid idea i think, but is this a question they forwarded to the commission?
i think this is the "official" list of unanswered questions
http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

some of them are equally as stupid

[DC]

i think this is the "official" list of unanswered questions
http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

some of them are equally as stupid

this are indeed excerpts from the lists of questions the Family Steering Committee has submitted to the 9/11 Commission.

im sure on JREF they could find them all answered.

wich one do you find the most "stupid" one and wich one is the "best" ?

[defaultdotxbe]

double double post post

[defaultdotxbe]

indeed a stupid idea i think, but is this a question they forwarded to the commission?
i think this is their "official" list of unanswered questions
http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html (http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html)

just perusing through it many of them have already been answered, many more are fallacious (fallacy of many questions) and a few are just plain stupid

[johnny karate]

i also think they are a minority, but you seem to have big hands

And in true CTer fashion you choose to parse the words of my post rather than address the issue I raised.

Even with the addition of your list (and assuming its validity), you still have a very tiny minority.

Why should their opinions be lent any more credence than those of the overwhelming majority of family members who have chosen not to join their ranks?

[DC]

And in true CTer fashion you choose to parse the words of my post rather than address the issue I raised.

Even with the addition of your list (and assuming its validity), you still have a very tiny minority.

Why should their opinions be lent any more credence than those of the overwhelming majority of family members who have chosen not to join their ranks?

are all those, that did not speak out public or join a group etc, against new investigations?

[defaultdotxbe]

this are indeed excerpts from the lists of questions the Family Steering Committee has submitted to the 9/11 Commission.

im sure on JREF they could find them all answered.

wich one do you find the most "stupid" one and wich one is the "best" ?
this one is pretty close to the one wildcat quoted

5. Why was there no roof-top evacuation?

and considering this question
3. Why were the roof access doors locked?

i think we now know the answer to #5

[johnny karate]

are all those, that did not speak out public or join a group etc, against new investigations?

Of course I do not possess the ability to read minds, but considering that we are talking about people who had a loved one horrifically murdered, common sense would dictate that if any of them felt the reasons they were given were at all insufficient, they would be vocal about it, as in the case of the Jersey Girls.

I know CTers like to play the "silent masses" game in order to give the appearance of a consensus, but to imply that someone who had a loved one murdered would not publicly question an investigation into that murder they felt was inadequate is not only ridiculous, it's offensive.

The fact remains, you have a very small list of names out of a group of thousands of people. It's not even close to being a significant percentage, let alone a consensus.

So why do you feel that this very small minority's criticism of the 9/11 investigation is any more valid than the tacit approval given to it by the vast majority of others?

[DC]

Of course I do not possess the ability to read minds, but considering that we are talking about people who had a loved one horrifically murdered, common sense would dictate that if any of them who felt the reasons they were given were at all insufficient, would be vocal about it.

I know CTers like to play the "silent masses" game in order to give the appearance of a consensus, but to imply that someone who had a loved one murdered would not publicly question an investigation into that murder they felt was inadequate is not only ridiculous, it's offensive.

The fact remains, you have a very small list of names out of a group of thousands of people. It's not even close to being a significant percentage, let alone a consensus.

So why do you feel that this very small minority's criticism of the 9/11 investigation is any more valid than the tacit approval given to it by the vast majority of others?

when you take a look how those ppl are called here, and mostly ignored by the media, i am not so sure how many want to speak public.

[defaultdotxbe]

when you take a look how those ppl are called here, and mostly ignored by the media, i am not so sure how many want to speak public.
"my husband was murdered but i wont say anything because people on the internet might make fun of me"

riiiight

[johnny karate]

when you take a look how those ppl are called here, and mostly ignored by the media, i am not so sure how many want to speak public.

As I said, this particular implication is offensive.

You're basically saying that there are family members out there who accept what they consider to be an inadequate investigation into the murder of a loved one out of cowardice or lack of resolve.

What's truly amazing about such a despicable accusation is that in this very thread you and other CTers express indignation over the supposed shoddy treatment given the Jersey Girls, and yet you have no compunction about insulting a much greater number of victims' family members.

Of course all of this is just dodge to avoid answering my question anyway.

[LashL]

For all of the twoofers' claims about questions asked and left answered, I have not seen any evidence in support of such claims.

So... evidence.... got any?

[DC]

For all of the twoofers' claims about questions asked and left answered, I have not seen any evidence in support of such claims.

So... evidence.... got any?

http://www.911independentcommission.org/index.html

[Jonnyclueless]

I love how the CTers try to ride the coat tails of people who simply aren't satisfied and try to spin them into being other CTers. Not unlike how CTers leech onto anti-war protests to make it look like people actually listen to them.

[DC]

I love how the CTers try to ride the coat tails of people who simply aren't satisfied and try to spin them into being other CTers. Not unlike how CTers leech onto anti-war protests to make it look like people actually listen to them.

i just wonder why its always claimed that they make money off 9/11, but then you claim nobody listen to them, so i guess they dont sell theyr books and movies and nobody goes to theyr public "forums"

[johnny karate]

i just wonder why its always claimed that they make money off 9/11, but then you claim nobody listen to them, so i guess they dont sell theyr books and movies and nobody goes to theyr public "forums"

Being a fraud and charlatan and generally being ignored by the world at large are not mutually exclusive concepts,

[Disbelief]

http://www.911independentcommission.org/index.html

With a little research, maybe they will realize that a lot of those questions have been answered. I just perused some of them, and you could use the search function here and find the answers.

[DC]

With a little research, maybe they will realize that a lot of those questions have been answered. I just perused some of them, and you could use the search function here and find the answers.

i really dont think they want such important answers from a bunch of JREFers or CTers or whatever, they want those answers directly from the ppl the want to ask. bush cheney rummy condy clinton powel and so on.

[Disbelief]

i really dont think they want such important answers from a bunch of JREFers or CTers or whatever, they want those answers directly from the ppl the want to ask. bush cheney rummy condy clinton powel and so on.

Yeah, because they would not want sources that go along with the posts. I would again tell you to use the search function, read the posts and the accompanying links, but I know you won't. Just JAQing off without listening to the real answers.

[DC]

Yeah, because they would not want sources that go along with the posts. I would again tell you to use the search function, read the posts and the accompanying links, but I know you won't. Just JAQing off without listening to the real answers.

i didnt find any questions directed at JREF or at its posters, i see a hole bunch of good and some not so good questions to the involved ppl, not to some JREFers or truthers or whatever.

im sure your totaly convinced by the answers you can find here on jref, and some of the JREFers theorys are really good and plaisible. but i think thats not what they want. the directed questions to Cheney, Clinton Bush, Tennet and so on. the involved ppl, just cause you go convinced by some answers does not mean they are totaly undebunkable facts.

[Disbelief]

i didnt find any questions directed at JREF or at its posters, i see a hole bunch of good and some not so good questions to the involved ppl, not to some JREFers or truthers or whatever.

im sure your totaly convinced by the answers you can find here on jref, and some of the JREFers theorys are really good and plaisible. but i think thats not what they want. the directed questions to Cheney, Clinton Bush, Tennet and so on. the involved ppl, just cause you go convinced by some answers does not mean they are totaly undebunkable facts.

Just as I suspected, you are not going to do some research. Links are provided in the posts, but you will refuse to look. Specific questions are answered, with sources.

You will continue saying the questions are unanswered, like the other CulTists, bu that is because you are refusing to see what is before you.

[DC]

Just as I suspected, you are not going to do some research. Links are provided in the posts, but you will refuse to look. Specific questions are answered, with sources.

You will continue saying the questions are unanswered, like the other CulTists, bu that is because you are refusing to see what is before you.

who says i did not research? they claim theyr answers arent asked, and i know debunkers have found theorys for all kind os questions. and some are good indeed, but according to the Jersey girls, most questions was never answered. i guess they ment, it was never answered by the commission.

[Disbelief]

who says i did not research? they claim theyr answers arent asked, and i know debunkers have found theorys for all kind os questions. and some are good indeed, but according to the Jersey girls, most questions was never answered. i guess they ment, it was never answered by the commission.

So, when they ask this question:

Why didn't the CIA share vital information about the terrorists with the FBI?

And they get the response that it was illegal before 9/11 for the FBI and CIA to share it, that is not a good enough answer? Here is where your research fails, because you do not delve into why it was set up that way. Maybe if you did that, you would better understand the answer and why it is the only answer they will ever get.

[defaultdotxbe]

i didnt find any questions directed at JREF or at its posters, i see a hole bunch of good and some not so good questions to the involved ppl, not to some JREFers or truthers or whatever.

im sure your totaly convinced by the answers you can find here on jref, and some of the JREFers theorys are really good and plaisible. but i think thats not what they want.
i agree, answers are not what they want, as long as their questions are "unanswered" it keeps them in a spotlight

they dont want justice, they dont want truth, they just want a scapegoat, they want someone they can blame for their loss and then crucify that person, whether that individual is actually at fault or not

[DC]

So, when they ask this question:



And they get the response that it was illegal before 9/11 for the FBI and CIA to share it, that is not a good enough answer? Here is where your research fails, because you do not delve into why it was set up that way. Maybe if you did that, you would better understand the answer and why it is the only answer they will ever get.

wow my research i never have don according to you, failed now?
well sorry, it was illegal , maybe a good enough answer to you, but im more curious :)
such an answer leads to more questions

[defaultdotxbe]

wow my research i never have don according to you, failed now?
well sorry, it was illegal , maybe a good enough answer to you, but im more curious :)
such an answer leads to more questions
so then you admit the question has in fact been answered?

[DC]

i agree, answers are not what they want, as long as their questions are "unanswered" it keeps them in a spotlight

they dont want justice, they dont want truth, they just want a scapegoat, they want someone they can blame for their loss and then crucify that person, whether that individual is actually at fault or not

they want someone they can blame for their loss and then crucify that person, whether that individual is actually at fault or not.

well afaik they not even demanded some hangings. its still about investigations. was it the jersey girls that rushed to afghanistan to hunt a man on wich the FBI till today did not add those crimes on his most wanted poster's crime list. the did not even change "MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH"

or "In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."

[DC]

so then you admit the question has in fact been answered?

when the question is answered oc :)

[defaultdotxbe]

well afaik they not even demanded some hangings. its still about investigations.
right, they need to find out who they can hang first

read over their list of questions again, how many of them ask that a single individual be singled out? why do they assume that a single person was responsible for each decision they feel was made in error? because they want someone they can punish

OBL doesnt work because hes not in custody, i bet if we had caught and tried him right after 9/11 the jersey girls would have been happy, theyd have had their pound of flesh, but since we cant find OBL they need a more convenient scapegoat

[johnny karate]

but i think thats not what they want. the directed questions to Cheney, Clinton Bush, Tennet and so on.

And that's entirely their prerogative.

But the question remains: How are the supposed unanswered questions of a very small minority of victims' family members even remotely significant?

The overwhelming majority of the family members are not asking these questions or demanding a new investigation, so why should special consideration be given to a very tiny percentage?