911 twoofer here [Archive]

uk_dave

9th April 2008, 02:15 AM

but all those reports are written by the government?

No, they're written by individuals and organisations and presented by the government.

If you're going to dismiss everything the US government presents then you're going to have to deal with the following problems:

The US government is made up of many different departments and employs thousands of people. Are they all to be considered 'in on it'?
The organisations which investigated 9-11 and the individuals within those organisations are aware of the case presented by the US government. Are they all to be considered 'in on it'?
The worlds media is aware of the case presented by the US government. Are they all to be considered 'in on it'?
The main opposition political party in the US is aware of the case presented by the US government. Are they to be considered 'in on it'?
Major professional bodies throughout the world are aware of the case presented by the US government. Are they to be considered 'in on it'?

Arus808

9th April 2008, 02:16 AM

sorry god, but YOU did not read any debunking sites, nor the reports. So again:

you should start by doing your own research. There is a sticky thread at the top of this forum, that has links to pertinent websites:
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

Read the NIST report, completely
Read the 911 commission report COmpletely
Read the Pentagon Performance report, Completely.

come back in 3 months after you've done this (it will take you that long at least to get through all those reading materials)

If you have any questions, after doing the above, then post here with those questions.

the fact that you are replying shows that you are not here to "learn" anything.

Read the debunking sites, read aLL the reports completely. YOu can't have read any of that in the 10 minutes you've been here (It took me 3 months just to read the NIST report)

Get to it. You're 7 years behind.

Walter Ego

9th April 2008, 02:17 AM

GodisEnergy

9th April 2008, 02:18 AM

The world media .obviously in on it .It doesnt mean everyone has to be in on it just a few people in select positions .Did the media cover building 7?
Did the 911 commision investigate building 7 ?

Arus808

9th April 2008, 02:20 AM

God, again, you've only been here 10 minutes. YOu have 3 months of reading to do. You will not learn anything by posting the same debunked crap here:

AGAIN:

you should start by doing your own research. There is a sticky thread at the top of this forum, that has links to pertinent websites:
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

Read the NIST report, completely
Read the 911 commission report COmpletely
Read the Pentagon Performance report, Completely.

come back in 3 months after you've done this (it will take you that long at least to get through all those reading materials)

If you have any questions, after doing the above, then post here with those questions.

Others, please do not respond with other than these suggestions. We have to stop falling into these truther traps of JAQ's posts.

uk_dave

9th April 2008, 02:24 AM

The world media .obviously in on it .It doesnt mean everyone has to be in on it just a few people in select positions .Did the media cover building 7?

Yes, but no one died in wtc7 and many other buildings on the wtc site were damaged beyond repair on that day. Are you going to mention those?

Did the 911 commision investigate building 7 ?

No one died in wtc7 and many of the buildings on the wtc site were damaged beyond repair on that day.

The 9-11 commission was tasked with pulling together the various investigations carried out by law enforcement in order to provide a narrative for the events of that day, explain how 3000 people lost their lives and examine whether it could have been avoided. WTC7 is an insignificant feature of interest only to building professionals, insurers and internet conspiracy fantasists who can't get anyone to believe that the towers were a controlled demolition.

GodisEnergy

9th April 2008, 02:28 AM

Lol Kicked off in 10 mins is that a record.
Why do you assume i havent been researching this for 3months arsus ? i have read alot of debunking911.com etc.Lets just go through point by point so we can argue ok

GodisEnergy

9th April 2008, 02:30 AM

yes dave i beleive its responsibilty so that engineers in the future will know about building 7 so that they can prepare modern buildings for construction purposes etc.

Arus808

9th April 2008, 02:31 AM

God, its apparent that you did not research for 3 months, let alone for 3 minutes.

Again:

you should start by doing your own research. There is a sticky thread at the top of this forum, that has links to pertinent websites:
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

Read the NIST report, completely
Read the 911 commission report COmpletely
Read the Pentagon Performance report, Completely.

come back in 3 months after you've done this (it will take you that long at least to get through all those reading materials)

If you have any questions, after doing the above, then post here with those questions.

when you have specific questions, then and only then should you come back and post them. Other than that, you have a lot of reading to do.

debunkin911.com is one site. You ahve a 10,000 page report to read, another 1000 page report to read, the 800 report to read and numerous academic papers done by other scientists to read.

You're 7 years behind. get to it.

Dave Rogers

9th April 2008, 02:35 AM

Hey im a 911 twoofer , theres so many posts here debunking 911 please a summary of what conclusions you skeptics have made would be nice please

Scroll up to the top of the page listing forum threads, and you'll see the stickies - threads which are of sufficient general importance that they're shown on every page. One of these has the title "Gravysites: Where 9/11 Conspiracies are Laid to Rest (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82689)", and this will give you links to a large repository of conclusions and analysis by members of this forum on key aspects of the shortcomings of the 9-11 conspiracy theories. Also worth reading is the site http://www.911myths.com which, while not derived specifically from this forum, is maintained by a forum member and has contributions from other forum members. Neither of these is affiliated to the US Government in any way.

I'll warn you that there is a lot of material here, so it would be a good idea to familiarise yourself at least with the layout of these two sites. That way, if you have anything you want to discuss, you'll be able to get a good idea of what's already been said here so you can avoid repeating long-debunked canards. I'd also recommend that you read the material for yourself and apply the same critical assessment to the conspiracy theories as you do to the media accounts in doing so; you may find that an honest reappraisal of the evidence changes your outlook.

Dave

GodisEnergy

9th April 2008, 02:36 AM

Arus808

9th April 2008, 02:37 AM

Re: Norad Stand down

Use hte SEarch feature of this forum. Your question has been answered numerous times.

Anyone else. do not respond unless its a question that hasn't been addressed here.

MRC_Hans

9th April 2008, 02:39 AM

The world media .obviously in on it .It doesnt mean everyone has to be in on it just a few people in select positions .Did the media cover building 7?
Did the 911 commision investigate building 7 ?This is simply ridiculous. The world media is in on it? So French, Arabian, Russian, Chinese (just to mention a few where the notion is blatantly absurd) media are dancing to the whistle of the US government?

Tell me:

How old are you?

Do you know anything at all about how the world functions?

Hans

beachnut

9th April 2008, 02:40 AM

God, its apparent that you did not research for 3 months, let alone for 3 minutes.

Again:

when you have specific questions, then and only then should you come back and post them. Other than that, you have a lot of reading to do.

debunkin911.com is one site. You ahve a 10,000 page report to read, another 1000 page report to read, the 800 report to read and numerous academic papers done by other scientists to read.

You're 7 years behind. get to it.
He asked for a summary. Why would a truther want an education? Gee whiz, they are the ones with "ample evidence"!
I could give him a summary like this:
Summary. Since you are a truther, there is no summary for the true truther, since they only post false information. Gee, why ask for a summary since you know the "truth". I mean you are ironically asking the dumbest question yet. You are a truther why ask for a summary when you have "ample evidence"? I read your truther petition, you guys already have the "ample evidence", what is wrong, nobody can get the Pulitzer Prize or connect the dots?

Or a summary like this:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447460d8430f0ca9.jpg

You gave him the summary, he is off learning and will try again.

Dave Rogers

9th April 2008, 02:41 AM

The world media .obviously in on it .It doesnt mean everyone has to be in on it just a few people in select positions .Did the media cover building 7?

Yes, it was on the front page of at least one major newspaper on September 12th 2001, and has been covered in detail by Popular Mechanics and the BBC. This is one of the questions that has been asked and answered many times here.

Did the 911 commision investigate building 7 ?

As is this. The 9-11 Commission didn't investigate engineering questions, as that was the role of the FEMA BPAT and the NIST investigations. The 9-11 Commission report didn't mention the WTC7 collapse because it was outside its scope, for the same reason it didn't mention the destruction of the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church.

If you want a serious discussion, do the groundwork first, then you'll be taken seriously.

Dave

Dave Rogers

9th April 2008, 02:42 AM

Ok ill get to specific questions.Lets start with ''Norad standing down'' apparently the transponders were turned off but primary radar doesnt work unless its in WW2.Also they couldnt find the dots on the radar screen because of high traffic but wasnt that due to 22 phantoms being placed on military radar during Military wargames.

http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html

Alternatively, search posts by Gumboot, who has posted a large body of highly detailed research into the NORAD response to the 9-11 hijackings. If you're lucky he might even give you some key links himself.

Dave

GodisEnergy

9th April 2008, 02:44 AM

This is simply ridiculous. The world media is in on it? So French, Arabian, Russian, Chinese (just to mention a few where the notion is blatantly absurd) media are dancing to the whistle of the US government?

Tell me:

How old are you?

Do you know anything at all about how the world functions?

Hans

Yes i know Freemasons run the world ask one to join ?

Drs_Res

9th April 2008, 02:48 AM

Actually that is just disinfo.
The Freemasons do not run the world, the Stonecutters do.

GodisEnergy

9th April 2008, 02:48 AM

Yes, it was on the front page of at least one major newspaper on September 12th 2001, and has been covered in detail by Popular Mechanics and the BBC. This is one of the questions that has been asked and answered many times here.

As is this. The 9-11 Commission didn't investigate engineering questions, as that was the role of the FEMA BPAT and the NIST investigations. The 9-11 Commission report didn't mention the WTC7 collapse because it was outside its scope, for the same reason it didn't mention the destruction of the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church.

If you want a serious discussion, do the groundwork first, then you'll be taken seriously.

Dave

Yes maybe it was mentioned but how many times.You see repetition is the key to the media i bet the repeated 1000 stories on paris hilton and 1 on Building 7.
Why the does the media not cover stories like Dyncorp sex scandals and CIA whistleblowers who report nuclear blackmarket

Arus808

9th April 2008, 02:53 AM

god, please stick to the topic (that you created). What specific questions do you have concerning the topics on the debunking sites, and the reports, of which, now, you have all read in the last 20 minutes? And please do not post questions that have been asked, and answered prior. Use the SEarch function to make sure that your topic has already been discussed.

beachnut

9th April 2008, 02:54 AM

And then there were two.

Summary #3?
Two types of people on 9/11. Those that figured it out, like the passengers (heroes) on flight 93 who figured out 9/11 in minutes and took action.

Then there is 9/11 truth, who, in 6 years, have messed up 9/11 ideas so bad, they fail to have a coherent story, and now you are presenting us the same old false information again, as if it was 2004.

At least the action part of 9/11 truth has remained the same throughout.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904670cd1dc0fcb.jpg
The action packed 9/11 truth.

Hokulele

9th April 2008, 02:55 AM

Why the does the media not cover stories like Dyncorp sex scandals and CIA whistleblowers who report nuclear blackmarket

Why don't you ask various media directors?

uk_dave

9th April 2008, 02:56 AM

yes dave i beleive its responsibilty so that engineers in the future will know about building 7 so that they can prepare modern buildings for construction purposes etc.

Good, you'll be happy to know that NIST is investigating the collapse of WTC7 for that very purpose.

gtc

9th April 2008, 02:56 AM

I concur with Arus808, however, while you read you might like to explain why knowing that 'zelikow' headed up an investigation makes you suspicious.

GodisEnergy

9th April 2008, 02:59 AM

Ok lets talk about primary Radar and 22 phantom jets being placed onto radar screens as a wargame how is this debunked?

scissorhands

9th April 2008, 03:00 AM

Hey im a 911 twoofer

Its good to see that the twoofers have taken to the name invented for them by skeptics.
Its a much more apt description than "truthers".

beachnut

9th April 2008, 03:00 AM

Yes maybe it was mentioned but how many times.You see repetition is the key to the media i bet the repeated 1000 stories on paris hilton and 1 on Building 7.

Summary #4:

Paris Hilton does real things. (cringe) Albeit real stupid stuff.

9/11 truth made up all the WTC7 stuff. I.E. False information and no evidence or facts. You really want news people make fun of 9/11 truth?

I even compared and contrasted Paris H, and 9/11 truth. Differences and similarities; need some help on that?

uk_dave

9th April 2008, 03:03 AM

Ok lets talk about primary Radar and 22 phantom jets being placed onto radar screens as a wargame how is this debunked?

Nah, let's talk about paris hilton. I heard that 'the hottie and the nottie' sucked big time.

Dave Rogers

9th April 2008, 03:04 AM

Yes maybe it was mentioned but how many times.You see repetition is the key to the media i bet the repeated 1000 stories on paris hilton and 1 on Building 7.

The problem is, this is a circular argument. Let's look at two scenarios.

Scenario 1. 9-11 was an inside job, and the WTC7 collapse was a part of the plot. Media coverage of the collapse of WTC7 is therefore suppressed because greater awareness of the collapse would promote greater awareness of the conspiracy.

Scenario 2. 9-11 was not an inside job, and the WTC7 collapse was a consequence of fire and debris impact. The media is overwhelmed with 9-11 stories and therefore covers only the ones that are of greatest public interest. The collapse of an evacuated building with no loss of life is not widely covered because other stories displace it from notice.

A lack of reporting of WTC7 is therefore evidence for neither scenario, as it is to be expected in either. Put slightly differently, the lesser coverage of the WTC7 collapse is only suspicious if suspicion has already been established. Therefore, it's not worth pursuing as evidence of an inside job.

Dave

Dave Rogers

9th April 2008, 03:06 AM

Ok lets talk about primary Radar and 22 phantom jets being placed onto radar screens as a wargame how is this debunked?

Asking the same question a second time while ignoring the response you got when you asked it the first time is a good way to make sure you never get any credibility in a debate.

Dave

GodisEnergy

9th April 2008, 03:06 AM

Ok well you dont know that 911 truth is made up (and if it is not then your ''in on it'') because there is no hard evidence either way..apart from norad tapes and fake videos of osama.

uk_dave

9th April 2008, 03:08 AM

There's also scenario 1a - 9-11 was an inside job, the purpose of which was to instill fear into the US population by the use of shock and awe, which is why the towers HAD to come down rather than be left as smouldering hulks for all to see. The media suppression of the collapse of WTC7 was....ummmmmmm....errrrrrrrr....hmmmmmmmm

Hokulele

9th April 2008, 03:10 AM

Ok lets talk about primary Radar and 22 phantom jets being placed onto radar screens as a wargame how is this debunked?

Done!

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103059&highlight=radar

gtc

9th April 2008, 03:13 AM

Its good to see that the twoofers have taken to the name invented for them by skeptics.
Its a much more apt description than "truthers".

I seriously question the sincerity of someone who calls themselves a twoofer. Arus808's response seems to be the best approach irrespective of whether this is a skeptic or truther having a laugh at our expense or even, an actual truther.

GodisEnergy

9th April 2008, 03:14 AM

Ok dave i havent had time to read this while trying to respond to 4 people at the same time.
Building 7 is one example of media coverage
youtube.com/watch?v=EgJuHNfk7no why wont the media show?
,yet there are 600 more smoking guns which were hardly mentioned too
heres a favourite

Bush planned war day before 911

cant post url yet sorry

GodisEnergy

9th April 2008, 03:16 AM

Or maybe im a conspirator having a laugh ...

Hokulele

9th April 2008, 03:16 AM

no why wont the media show?

Have you tried asking anyone in the industry?

Arus808

9th April 2008, 03:18 AM

40 minutes and God has been able to read a 10,000 page report, visit all the links in the stick threads at the top of this forum, and of cousre read the 911 Comission report, and the Pentagon Performance repor.t

that's some record. I believe the speed reading record is 46,000 words in 21 minutes. How many words are found in the above reports altogether?

Arus808

9th April 2008, 03:19 AM

Ok dave i havent had time to read this while trying to respond to 4 people at the same time.

which is why i told you post 2, to take 3 months and READ eveyrhting before posting again,

but you rather post, and not read.

typical

So, again

Read everything in post 2.

come back in 3 months when you have real questions to ask.

You are again, repeating long debunked and heavily addressed claims.

Search function is your friend. USE it.

Reply ONLY when you have a question that hasn't been asked here a 100 times before you have.

Walter Ego

9th April 2008, 03:20 AM

Or maybe im a conspirator having a laugh ...

Okay, fess up. You're a gubmit shill (http://savannah911truth.blogspot.com/2008/04/gubment-shill-walter-watch-this-one.html). :mad:

Hokulele

9th April 2008, 03:20 AM

that's some record. I believe the speed reading record is 46,000 words in 21 minutes. How many words are found in the above reports altogether?

Well, the NIST report does have a lot of pictures and tables, and certain sections are repeated in each chapter, so the ~ 10,000 pages do go quicker than one might think. ;)

Arus808

9th April 2008, 03:22 AM

lots of tables, but mostly text. Still took me 3 months to finish it (well, that's in between having a life, work and traveling)

Please do not let this thread go on for 9 pages, of the same tired claims being asked again, by someone who is too lazy to do his own work.

beachnut

9th April 2008, 03:26 AM

Or maybe im a conspirator having a laugh ...
that may be an even chance to being dictator cheney tired of his esl bit, so he has you as a sock so he can relax from the esl bit.

Summary #4.

Most truthers do just as you. No real substance but spewing large amounts of old debunked 9/11 truth statements; you could try to research and ask intelligent question not yet asked. Or something.

GodisEnergy

9th April 2008, 03:29 AM

No its just what we do for fun ,doing redicously blatant things like saying we need a new world order and then getting kicks out of seeing skeptics debunk them for us

GodisEnergy

9th April 2008, 03:32 AM

gtc

9th April 2008, 03:37 AM

GodisEnergy

9th April 2008, 03:38 AM

Edited to remove breaches of Rules 4 and 11.

uk_dave

9th April 2008, 03:40 AM

Actually it's a direct cut and paste from http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were-tracked-even.html

As usual, 'truthers' will question everything experts present and yet swallow whole and without thought the ramblings of anonymous internet blogs.

Such is life.

uk_dave

9th April 2008, 03:41 AM

some stuff

Wrong part of the forum.

Get thee away from here.

EvilBiker

9th April 2008, 03:42 AM

No its just what we do for fun ,doing redicously blatant things like saying we need a new world order and then getting kicks out of seeing skeptics debunk them for us

:troll

This nutter is pushing all the right buttons: username, language, beliefs.

Welcome to ignore, ignoramus.

Hokulele

9th April 2008, 03:43 AM

As usual, 'truthers' will question everything experts present and yet swallow whole and without thought the ramblings of anonymous internet blogs.

And assume no one will notice when their diction suddenly improves dramatically. :boggled:

Dave Rogers

9th April 2008, 03:44 AM

Ok dave i havent had time to read this while trying to respond to 4 people at the same time.

And yet you had time to repeat the question.

There is no need to respond to every post. If you go away and come back later having studied the field in more detail, you'll get a lot more respect than if you persist with knee-jerk JAQing.

Dave

timhau

9th April 2008, 03:46 AM

Is it just me but is the quality of sock puppets in serious decline recently? :mad:

Yeah. The good news is that it can't go much lower from here.

GodisEnergy

9th April 2008, 03:47 AM

Actually if you just ignore the blog part and just take the links from these sites and make up your own mind insted of listening to ''experts'' like popular mechanics ::))

GodisEnergy

9th April 2008, 03:48 AM

I came here to recruit not to have a Dictionary lesson under the hypnosis i know your smart peoples.

Hokulele

9th April 2008, 03:50 AM

Boring. I'm with EvilBiker.

Dave Rogers

9th April 2008, 03:50 AM

This makes no sense, because America's air defenses need to protect our nation against foreign fighter jets and other airplanes invading our country. Is our trillion-dollar defense system set up so that a Russian or Chinese pilot can invade undetected if he just turns off his transponder?

Yes, providing said Russian or Chinese pilot takes off from a US air base. The problem is, however, that most Russian and Chinese air bases are outside the US, so the Russian or Chinese pilot has to cross a region just outside the borders of the USA called the Air Defense Interception Zone (ADIZ) to get into US airspace. The ADIZ, unfortunately for our hypothetical Russian or Chinese pilot, is very comprehensively covered by primary radar, because for some inexplicable reason US defence doctrine is based on intercepting enemy aircraft before they get to US airspace, rather than waiting for them to get to their target and drop their bombs and then trying to intercept them on the way back home.

Dave

padragan

9th April 2008, 03:50 AM

I think it's fairly obvious that he/she isn't serious.

"Hmm, what happens if I press THAT button?"

johnny karate

9th April 2008, 03:52 AM

The above is a direct quote from an American Idol usenet group (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.american-idol/browse_thread/thread/a04201fdde107b93/7d7717785b54b62d) (what an odd place).

Which in turn is a direct quote from this blog (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/confirmed-911-planes-were-tracked-even.html), and thus a violation of the membership agreement. Reported.

ETA: uk_dave beat me to it.

GodisEnergy

9th April 2008, 03:54 AM

And if 99percent of chinese military planes are intercepted at ADIZ then that leaves one to nuke the hallow center

SezMe

9th April 2008, 03:55 AM

And I've reported #56 which is from numerous sites around the web.

johnny karate

9th April 2008, 03:57 AM

He's been here less than two hours, and GiE has already proven himself to be a liar and a thief. Well done!

Dave Rogers

9th April 2008, 03:59 AM

And if 99percent of chinese military planes are intercepted at ADIZ then that leaves one to nuke the hallow center

Feel free to make up stupid numbers, but don't be surprised when they lead you to stupid conclusions.

Dave

chillzero

9th April 2008, 03:59 AM

This thread is headed for Abandon All Hope if it continues as it's going just now. Please keep it civilly on a topic, or ignore it. Please do not post irrelevant material from other sites, or copyrighted material.

GodisEnergy

9th April 2008, 04:02 AM

Do not ignore moderator warnings, or you will find yourself suspended.

GodisEnergy

9th April 2008, 04:04 AM

[edit=chillzero]As above[/mod]

SezMe

9th April 2008, 04:07 AM

God, #74 is your third violation of your membership agreeement on one page, which I have reported.

T.A.M.

9th April 2008, 04:13 AM

I can see the quality of truther (and that is a stretch from the get go) has declined SEVERELY in the last few weeks.

1. If you wish to discuss a topic you feel is a "Conspiracy" godisenergy, do a search of the site to see if it has been discussed. If it has, add a comment to the thread it is discussed in, and that will bring the thread back to the top of the topics list. If the topic is new (very unlikely), start a new thread on it.

2. Re-read your membership agreement.

TAM:)

Brainache

9th April 2008, 04:21 AM

You know, I wasn't sure about all this inside job stuff before, but now I see that the church of satan are planning an orgy I guess it's time I started taking it all a bit more seriously...

The Doc

9th April 2008, 04:51 AM

GodisEnergy,

Please be aware that you are repeating theories that were debunked several years ago, and have been debunked over and over again since.

You're dealing with people here that have been researching this kind of stuff for 6+ years. Most of them (including myself) have no vested interest in repeating arguments against your theories that can be found with the most basic of research. It doesn't serve anyone any good.

Do some research, exercise your critical thinking, and come back to us if you have a real argument.

I'm sure we'd all be happy to link you to areas of the internet that you can find this information.

Again, no one here is going to go out of their way to debunk something they've debunked several times in the past. The reason you see these debunking websites is so we have a catalog of information and research, and so we don't have to repeat ourselves to everyone who brings up a conspiracy theory.

lee5

9th April 2008, 04:56 AM

I think this guy is pulling everyones chain.

With the level of seriousness around here, I can see why somebody might have fun playing a "truther".

I would ignore this online personality.

gumboot

9th April 2008, 05:15 AM

One of the most important parts of the official story is that the government couldn't track the location of the hijacked planes because the hijackers had turned the transponders off. The official version is that, with transponders turned off, only "primary radar" was available to civilian air traffic controllers. Primary radar can track location, but not altitude.

Granted I'm stupid even bothering posting, but hey I have a rule of giving everyone at least one chance. So here we go.

The above is false. The official story is that three of the four flights were continually tracked from the moment of hijacking until they dropped below radar coverage. The fourth aircraft was lost on radar coverage until about 5 minutes before it crashed at which point it was tracked until the moment of impact.

I strongly recommend you read the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST and ASCE building report summaries so that you actually know what the "official story" is before you start trying to find flaws in it. Otherwise it just makes you look like an idiot.

ETA. A minor correction, two flights were tracked on radar until they dropped below radar coverage (AA11 and UA93), one was tracked on radar until impact (UA175) and one was lost on radar until 5 mins before impact, then tracked for the final five minutes (AA77).

twinstead

9th April 2008, 05:26 AM

You mean GodisEnergy has NO idea what the 'official story' is, yet doesn't believe it?

I'm shocked. SHOCKED I tell you!

uk_dave

9th April 2008, 05:42 AM

You mean GodisEnergy has NO idea what the 'official story' is, yet doesn't believe it?

I'm shocked. SHOCKED I tell you!

Well, he's avoided reading the 9-11 commission report and the NIST report in favour of reading blogs and watching videos produced by people he has no information about regarding their competency to produce such information or their ability to draw reasoned conclusions from the available data.

But they tell him what he wants to hear so...........

....welcome to the weird and wonderful world of the online 'truther'. May the mental health practitioners have longer lunch breaks as a result.

Drudgewire

9th April 2008, 05:47 AM

Just posted today and we're already on page three for someone who hasn't presented a single theory and can't handle basic spelling and punctuation?

I mean sure, I wake up some mornings and think "man I'd like to push a helpless retard down a flight of stairs today" but the rest of you are supposed to be better than me. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/colbert.gif

Horatius

9th April 2008, 05:52 AM

I came here to recruit not to have a Dictionary lesson under the hypnosis i know your smart peoples.

If you're here to "recruit" because you (allegedly) think we're "smart people" here, shouldn't you at least try presenting the sorts of evidence and arguments that might actually convince smart people to join you, rather than the same old stuff we've discussed dozens of times before?

Come on, you could be the first twoofer to ever actually do this!

WildCat

9th April 2008, 06:19 AM

yet there are 600 more smoking guns
I don't think that term means what the truth movement thinks it does.

padragan

9th April 2008, 06:35 AM

I don't think that term means what the truth movement thinks it does.

INCONCEIVABLE!

(don't we all love "The Princess bride"?)

boloboffin

9th April 2008, 07:39 AM

Quick summary of skeptic arguments:

You're doing it wrong.

gc051360

9th April 2008, 08:55 AM

So, this person is either a troll, or very new to this whole truther business.

Either way, seems like a waste of time.

Thunder

9th April 2008, 09:02 AM

dont feed the troll.

they arent here to learn anything. just for entertainment purposes.

HawksFan

9th April 2008, 11:06 AM

BTW, what time is the satanic orgy? I'd hate to be late (again).

dudalb

9th April 2008, 11:10 AM

He's been here less than two hours, and GiE has already proven himself to be a liar and a thief. Well done!

Or it's a very bad failed attempt at humor.

twinstead

9th April 2008, 11:12 AM

dudalb

9th April 2008, 11:14 AM

Well, he's avoided reading the 9-11 commission report and the NIST report in favour of reading blogs and watching videos produced by people he has no information about regarding their competency to produce such information or their ability to draw reasoned conclusions from the available data.

But they tell him what he wants to hear so...........

....welcome to the weird and wonderful world of the online 'truther'. May the mental health practitioners have longer lunch breaks as a result.

I am beginning to wonder that a lot of truthers prefer youtube because they don't read very well.
The reluctance of most twoofers to actually do research on 9/11 is one reason why the movement is such a huge laughing stock.
Reading the NIST report is very heavy going...it is pretty much a technical paper...but there is no freaking excuse for claiming to be a 9/11 "researcher" and not reading the 9/11 commision report, and at least surveying the NIST report.

deep

9th April 2008, 11:21 AM

The problem is, this is a circular argument. Let's look at two scenarios.

Scenario 1. 9-11 was an inside job, and the WTC7 collapse was a part of the plot. Media coverage of the collapse of WTC7 is therefore suppressed because greater awareness of the collapse would promote greater awareness of the conspiracy.

Scenario 2. 9-11 was not an inside job, and the WTC7 collapse was a consequence of fire and debris impact. The media is overwhelmed with 9-11 stories and therefore covers only the ones that are of greatest public interest. The collapse of an evacuated building with no loss of life is not widely covered because other stories displace it from notice.

A lack of reporting of WTC7 is therefore evidence for neither scenario, as it is to be expected in either. Put slightly differently, the lesser coverage of the WTC7 collapse is only suspicious if suspicion has already been established. Therefore, it's not worth pursuing as evidence of an inside job.

This is, of course, a silly argument. It wasn't just the media - WTC7 was not mentioned by the 9/11 Commission or NIST.

tanabear

9th April 2008, 11:37 AM

you should start by doing your own research. There is a sticky thread at the top of this forum, that has links to pertinent websites:
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

Read the NIST report, completely
Read the 911 commission report COmpletely
Read the Pentagon Performance report, Completely.

come back in 3 months after you've done this (it will take you that long at least to get through all those reading materials)

If you have any questions, after doing the above, then post here with those questions.

It is interesting to note that I have already posted three questions in this forum regarding the Pentagon attack. They were all issues brought up by the Pentagon Building Performance Report(PBPR), but the report failed to provide explanations. The first question was what caused the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon. The next question was why didn't the tail of the plane damage the Pentagon's facade. The last question had to do with where the right wing impacted the building. The debunkers always accuse the Truthers of being obsessed with the minutiae of the attacks. However, all these issues were brought up by the PBPR. The color of Hani Hanjour's socks were not. If the report sought fit to mention these issues, there should also be an attempt to provide explanations as well. The last question pointed out that Mark Roberts had the incorrect angle at which the right wing hit the Pentagon, according the PBPR.

Of course, when the debunkers tell the Truthers to read government reports, their goal is to get them to shut up and go away.

Viper Daimao

9th April 2008, 11:40 AM

This is, of course, a silly argument. It wasn't just the media - WTC7 was not mentioned by the 9/11 Commission or NIST.

pretty sure that's incorrect. At least I remember seeing a lot of pictures of WTC7 in the NIST report.

uk_dave

9th April 2008, 11:40 AM

This is, of course, a silly argument. It wasn't just the media - WTC7 was not mentioned by the 9/11 Commission or NIST.

Yeah coz....coz.... coz..... they wanted it hidden......

...and they would've gotten away with it if it hadn't been for you......

....pesky kids!

(Of course the fact that NIST is tasked with investigating the exact cause kinda shoots that theory out of the water too..... unless.... unless you want to claim that NIST was only instructed after the fearless intrepid amateur internet sleuths started obsessing over it?)

defaultdotxbe

9th April 2008, 12:01 PM

This is, of course, a silly argument. It wasn't just the media - WTC7 was not mentioned by the 9/11 Commission or NIST.
This is, of course, a dishonest argument. You know very well NIST is working on their WTC7 report at this very moment.

16.5

9th April 2008, 12:11 PM

The last question pointed out that Mark Roberts had the incorrect angle at which the right wing hit the Pentagon, according the PBPR.

Oh yeah! The slight upward tilt thing!

Gravy's simplified, clearly not to scale, demonstrative aid was missing a "Slight. Upward. Tilt."

That was: it was missing a slight upward tilt.

I thought we had addressed this?

I thought the consensus was that it was completely frivolous and stupid?

Anyway, lets not thread jack!

Alferd_Packer

9th April 2008, 01:56 PM

applecorped

9th April 2008, 02:04 PM

Didn't Beck have a song about troothers?

"I'm a trooother baby, so why don't you kill me"

Par

9th April 2008, 02:45 PM

This is, of course, a silly argument. It wasn't just the media - WTC7 was not mentioned by the 9/11 Commission or NIST.

The former claim – that World Trade Center 7 was not mentioned by the 9/11 Commission – is one I can essentially understand. On the one hand, you are wrong and World Trade Center 7 was mentioned by the 9/11 Commission. On the other hand, however, it was only mentioned in passing, due to the fact that it was effectively irrelevant to the issue with which the Commission was interested.

However, the latter claim – that World Trade Center 7 was not mentioned by NIST – is rather less forgivable. Seemingly, there are only two possible explanations for you having made it:

You are simply wholly ignorant of NIST’s investigation into World Trade Center 7, and consequently also unaware of the preliminary and interim reports that said investigation has thus far produced. (This is rather a disquieting possibility given that you are a conspiracy theorist who grounds much of his incredulity upon the issue of World Trade Center 7.)
You straightforwardly – and rather desperately – lied, hoping that no one would highlight your dishonestly.

So, it would appear that you are either alarmingly incompetent, or you are simply a liar. You can make the call.

Dave Rogers

9th April 2008, 02:47 PM

This is, of course, a silly argument. It wasn't just the media - WTC7 was not mentioned by the 9/11 Commission or NIST.

This is, of course, an exceptionally silly statement. WTC7 was outside the scope of the 9/11 Commission, is currently under investigation by NIST, and was mentioned at least once in NIST's preliminary report on WTC7.

Oh, and of course WTC7 is mentioned in the 9-11 Commission Report; it's the collapse that isn't mentioned.

But none out of two isn't all that bad.

DAve

Drudgewire

9th April 2008, 02:50 PM

So, it would appear that you are either alarmingly incompetent, or you are simply a liar. You can make the call.
I'd like to order a combo platter, please. :D

Almo

9th April 2008, 03:19 PM

Hmm... can't seem to find the "lock thread" button.

OldTigerCub

9th April 2008, 05:03 PM

Yes i know Freemasons run the world ask one to join ?

We do? Dang!! I gotta get to lodge meetings more often....I'm always the last one to find out the good stuff!!!:mad:

stateofgrace

9th April 2008, 05:35 PM

,yet there are 600 more smoking guns which

Wow, 600 smoking guns. The USG commits mass murder and leaves a trail of 600 smoking guns behind.

Missed by all,apart from those pesky kids.

Cl1mh4224rd

9th April 2008, 05:58 PM

You mean GodisEnergy has NO idea what the 'official story' is, yet doesn't believe it?

I'm shocked. SHOCKED I tell you!

You can tell when a truther's only exposure to the "official story" is pre-digested and regurgitated by their mentors.

Seems like a serious conflict of interest to me. They go on-and-on (or used to, at least) about conflicts of interest with the members of the 9/11 Commission, but the idea that, maybe... just maybe... the conspiracy theorist bigwig(s) they look up to might have a vested interest in misrepresenting the "official story" to anyone willing to listen, either doesn't phase them, or doesn't even occur to them.

Foolmewunz

9th April 2008, 06:19 PM

My read, FWIW....

I see veteran conspiradroid, and who cares if it's a sock or not. That'll take care of itself in due time, and besides, as has been pointed out, even a sock deserves answers if it behaves itself. (If it doesn't? Well, it puts on the lotion or it gets the hose again. :spjimlad: )

EdisEnergy sounds like a fundy troofer (screen name + JAQing). There are a number on LCF as most of you know. And there are a number much more familiar with chatroom styles and thus the "Hi peeps, tell me what you know..." style.

Here's the deal, GodIsEnergy... You have specific questions? Ask them. Do not be surprised as with your silly query about Norad, that you will get directed to threads that have already addressed that question. If you have something new to add to a particular hot topic, then start a thread. And, again, do not be surprised to be directed to source material right here or on other sites.

We are not a collective brain. What "we" know is comprised of all of our individual parts. We are not a hive, as much as the TM would like to think so. We have differing opinions on some things. (Some of us think, for instance, that Killtown should be boiled in rancid cooking oil. Others would settle for drawing and quartering. It's a matter of personal taste.) Thus, breaking your cherry with "Tell me what you know" is going to garner the kinds of responses you got.

Questions like, what about the 600 smoking guns beg the response, "Please list your 600 smoking guns." And if you can actually do so, I'm willing to bet you an 11 ounce jar of CheezWhiz that someone, if not several someones, will actually respond. You're not going to any DU type, "Whoa, it's so obvious, man." responses if you take the time to formulate the query and actually have real points to make.

Ask real questions and you'll get real answers. Just throwing out buzzwords is going to get you figuratively relegated to the Island of Lost Boys with Tweeter and LastChild.

(Okay, I know this may have been futile, but I'm in Rodney King mode, today. This is my effort for April in the WhyCan'tWeAllJustGetAlong sweepstakes.)

Pato2747

9th April 2008, 06:44 PM

Yes i know Freemasons run the world ask one to join ?

Yes, because my family is running the world :rolleyes:

Yes, some of my family members are actually freemasons, and my grandfather was on a relatively high position. If my family was looking for world domination, I would have joined them.

And on all seriousness:

GodisEnergy, if you are not suspended, listen:

Be kind to others. Go to the top of the page, and read the banner. "Friendly and lively way". Keep it friendly.

Now, let's just set this straight: I will answer your post simply: We have reached the conclusion that the events of September 11th, 2001 were not "made up by the goverment". If you have any doubts about this, use the Search Function and type in words related to your claims, rather be "WTC7" "Molten Metals" "Missile" "12-ft hole", whatever.

If you haven't found your answer, post your question here.

PhantomWolf

9th April 2008, 07:39 PM

Ha, you're all wrong. Rotary is running the world and 9/11 never happened. The conspiracy is that the Twin Towers never existed at all and the whole thing was a sham created by Mayor Guilani and the people of NY City to draw in tourists and sympathy in a bid to turn around their reputation as the crime capital of the world. It just got way out of control and now they can't admit they played everyone on the planet like fools. You are all suckers for falling for it all. I have witnesses that say the Towers weren't there and that there were no causalties in the hospitals that day. It was all a staged hoax. How can the US government have done something that never actaully happened? Prove me wrong!

Magenta

9th April 2008, 09:25 PM

You're not going to any DU type, "Whoa, it's so obvious, man." responses if you take the time to formulate the query and actually have real points to make.

Ask real questions and you'll get real answers.
[bolding added]

This seems so obvious to me and yet the majority of truthers who turn up here are either unable or unwilling to do this. Maybe if they could think clearly, articulate their own opinions and figure out how to word a question so as to get a helpful and detailed answer they wouldn't be mired in the CT nonsense to begin with.

GodisEnergy

10th April 2008, 01:09 AM

Yea i havent read it !I cant research everything can i.Others have already done that for me.
its a well known fact that there are lies ,i mean come on even mainstream news is reporting it has so many inconsisitencies.there are many more conspiracys to investigate.To waste my time reading Zelikows Masonic lies.
i Prefer to go to harder evidence instead of timelines which change 3 times.Audio and video recordings which i have to trust a dodgy government affiliated source.

Sure i got many smoking guns .In fact it is more obvious than you think like Bush meeting the bin laden family on sep 11 (wtf??!!!) ,oh yea and bush approving the plan to invade afghanistan the day before 911 ,

Its like they Dont even try and hide the fact that they did it.
I MEAN THINK ABOUT IT THE AUDACITY TO PULL OF SUCH AN ATTACK IN MIDDLE OF THE DAY IS ABSURD.
Which adds to my point it doesnt matter if there were bombs and explosions which look identical to a controlled demolotion and passports flying out of aircrafts with dick chenry sitting in the pentagon,A UFO could have landed in New york and did it and you still wouldnt beleive it happened they would have destroyed any hard evidence and then its your word vs mine opinions and beleifs
because you could explain it away with some absurd theory yourself

Sporanox

10th April 2008, 01:23 AM

Yea i havent read it !I cant research everything can i.Others have already done that for me.

This has probably been said of a thousand other statements, but this is pretty much the truth movement in a nutshell. Mindlessly follow the data interpretations of superstar (superdunce) Dylan Avery (or Jones, or whoever) like a pack of...drones...robots...sycophants...what's the word I'm looking for here...oh yeah, SHEEPLE. :rolleyes:

On the other hand, debunkers/skeptics/rational people have looked at the data carefully for themselves instead of trying to parrot a few nutcases' snippy little snipings (e.g. garbage that has already been proven wrong).

The rest of your post is FULL of this garbage. Trump up outright falsehoods in favor of COMMON SENSE.

GodisEnergy

10th April 2008, 01:33 AM

Thats abit hypocritical don't you think.After all you never research from our side either,at least i have given countless hours reading debunking,and so far i have found them ALL! misleading.

Sporanox

10th April 2008, 01:51 AM

Thats abit hypocritical don't you think.

No, we would be hypocritical if we just took the conclusions from the government reports and didn't bother reading and analyzing them. It's simply tragic that by doing so debunkers were rendered impervious to trippy Loose Change logic.

After all you never research from our side either

And what would you propose "research from our side" actually means? If it means examining the evidence behind your claims, then we've done that in bucketloads. That's how debunkers refute truthers.

at least i have given countless hours reading debunking,and so far i have found them ALL! misleading.

I highly doubt this, seeing as you haven't even read the reports you're attempting to criticize. If you have specific problems with the debunking facts and reasoning, bring them forward, and we'll examine them. If you don't, at least be straight about it.

The more this goes on, I find it hilarious that truthers always compare non-CT people to the soma addicts in Brave New World, the Borg, stormtroopers, or peasants under the grip of the medieval Catholic Church, yet are in a movement that has more clearly defined high priests than anything the mainstream has to offer.

The Doc

10th April 2008, 02:01 AM

Thats abit hypocritical don't you think.After all you never research from our side either,at least i have given countless hours reading debunking,and so far i have found them ALL! misleading.

How could debunking possibly exist without first having an understanding of the conspiracy theories?

Debunking directly targets specific conspiracy theories. For this, a high knowledge of your opponents argument and its specifics are required. Take for example Gravy's Loose Change Guide, or my 9/11 Mysteries Guide. They both deal with the conspicists arguments word-for-word for the whole film.

Conspiracists indirectly target broad sections of the official story whilst simultaneously inventing their own story. For this, they only need to nitpick at a large area of study done by NIST of the 9/11 Commission. Take fore example Loose Change. It mentions very minimal amounts of the 9/11 commission report out of context and claims to debunk it.

The only time a conspiracist ever tries to debunk the "official" story, is if it's getting in the way of his/her fairytale. Even then, they will only attack about 1 line of a 10,000 page report and still attack it out of context.

GodisEnergy

10th April 2008, 02:17 AM

What hard evidence is their in this 10,000 page report ?

Jonnyclueless

10th April 2008, 02:21 AM

What hard evidence is their in this 10,000 page report ?

:dl:

The Doc

10th April 2008, 02:27 AM

What hard evidence is their in this 10,000 page report ?

Too much to list in one post. For that I'd need, say, 10,000 pages.

If you really are a truth seeker, read it and do your research. You're arguing against a position you aren't even close to understanding.

GodisEnergy

10th April 2008, 02:38 AM

The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden with the 9/11 attacks on america" - FBI spokesman Rex Tomb

applecorped

10th April 2008, 07:50 AM

Other than he admitted it.

Dave Rogers

10th April 2008, 07:54 AM

The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden with the 9/11 attacks on america" - FBI spokesman Rex Tomb

The key word here is "hard".

Dave

Foolmewunz

10th April 2008, 09:03 AM

Okay, I tried. You're going to continue to troll like this? You're going to be treated like one. Welcome to The Island of Lost Boys.

That Dubya meeting with the Bin Ladens on 9/11 is a new one to me. I'd love to see the transcripts/evidence of that one.

thehipi

10th April 2008, 10:00 AM

Asked how much 'hard evidence' the Commission's Report contains:
Too much to list in one post. For that I'd need, say, 10,000 pages.

If you really are a truth seeker, read it and do your research. You're arguing against a position you aren't even close to understanding.

It never ceases to amaze me how many self-professed skeptics consider this report in the least bit authoritative. MSNBC reported and confirmed it based it's most crucial findings on CIA summaries of torture confessions, including the torture of an insane man - and Commissioners Hamilton and Kean have said the investigation was "stonewalled,"obstructed, "set up to fail," and "deliberately misled;" and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

---
"We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We're desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth." - Sydney Schanberg

Jonnyclueless

10th April 2008, 10:05 AM

Asked how much 'hard evidence' the Commission's Report contains:

It never ceases to amaze me how many self-professed skeptics consider this report in the least bit authoritative. MSNBC reported and confirmed it based it's most crucial findings on CIA summaries of torture confessions, including the torture of an insane man - and Commissioners Hamilton and Kean have said the investigation was "stonewalled,"obstructed, "set up to fail," and "deliberately misled;" and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

---
"We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We're desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth." - Sydney Schanberg

Yeah it's crazy how experts would rely on a scientific study for authority. Funny how scientists would rely on the indepth calculations that are open for everyone to see and debate.

Crazy of them when all they have to do is watch a youtube video and say "Hey it looks like a CD to me".

And BTW, it was the NIST report being referred to, not the 9/11 commission. And only 2 people were tortured. And one of them confessed PRIOR to being captured. And those 2 guys who you use to say it was stonewalled? Have you asked them if they think it was an inside job? Because they don't think so.

Is it me, or are twoofers getting dumber and dumber?

Disbelief

10th April 2008, 10:08 AM

Drudgewire

10th April 2008, 10:58 AM

It never ceases to amaze me how many self-professed skeptics consider this report in the least bit authoritative. MSNBC reported and confirmed it based it's most crucial findings on CIA summaries of torture confessions, including the torture of an insane man - and Commissioners Hamilton and Kean have said the investigation was "stonewalled,"obstructed, "set up to fail," and "deliberately misled;" and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Conversely, it never amazes me anymore when twoofers completely talk out of their backsides to rant about something which has no relevance whatsoever to the topic at hand. "Commsion report? NIST report? Eh, same difference. INSIDE JOB!!"

Just par for the course. :rolleyes:

thehipi

10th April 2008, 02:09 PM

It never ceases to amaze me how CulTists lack basic reading comrehension skills. The 10,000 page report is of course the NIST report.

Thank you all for correcting me, and my sincere apologies for the mistake. I haven't memorized the page lengths of the two reports and mistakenly assumed Doc's "10,000 page report" comment was referencing the Commission after I scrolled back and saw his previous post.

While I hate to get in the way of you all's eagerness to revel in your superiority over us ignorant "cultists" who "lack reading comrehension [sic] skills," this is his previous quote:

For this, they only need to nitpick at a large area of study done by NIST of the 9/11 Commission. Take fore example Loose Change. It mentions very minimal amounts of the 9/11 commission report out of context and claims to debunk it.

The only time a conspiracist ever tries to debunk the "official" story, is if it's getting in the way of his/her fairytale. Even then, they will only attack about 1 line of a 10,000 page report and still attack it out of context.

The quote quite clearly conflates the two. But again, my sincere apologies for my mistake. Perhaps one of you would like to comment on any of the actual points raised:

MSNBC reported and confirmed it based it's most crucial findings on CIA summaries of torture confessions, including the torture of an insane man - and Commissioners Hamilton and Kean have said the investigation was "stonewalled,"obstructed, "set up to fail," and "deliberately misled;" and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

---
"We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We're desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth." - Sydney Schanberg

16.5

10th April 2008, 02:14 PM

The quote quite clearly conflates the two. But again, my sincere apologies for my mistake. Perhaps one of you would like to comment on any of the actual points raised....

Kean stuff, blah, blah, blah

:

Sure sunshine. Here is what Kean actually wrote:

"Both of us were aware of grumbling around Washington that the 9/11 Commission was doomed--if not designed--to fail: the commission would splinter down partisan lines; lose its credibility by leaking classified information; be denied the necessary access to do its job; or alienate the 9/11 families who had fought on behalf of its creation. What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce within and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our success."

So despite numerous obstacles, they ultimately succeeded! Thanks Hipi for cracking the Truth!

Sporanox

10th April 2008, 02:19 PM

"Both of us were aware of grumbling around Washington that the 9/11 Commission was doomed--if not designed--to fail: the commission would splinter down partisan lines; lose its credibility by leaking classified information; be denied the necessary access to do its job; or alienate the 9/11 families who had fought on behalf of its creation. What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce within and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our success."

So despite numerous obstacles, they ultimately succeeded! Thanks Hipi for cracking the Truth!

If I could think of a single larger slip of omission...

uk_dave

10th April 2008, 02:29 PM

So, did 'thehipi' arrive at the 'set up to fail' all by itself, or was it told what to think by 'truthers' with their own agenda?

thehipi

10th April 2008, 03:29 PM

Sure sunshine. Here is what Kean actually wrote:

"Both of us were aware of grumbling around Washington that the 9/11 Commission was doomed--if not designed--to fail: the commission would splinter down partisan lines; lose its credibility by leaking classified information; be denied the necessary access to do its job; or alienate the 9/11 families who had fought on behalf of its creation. What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce within and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our success."

So despite numerous obstacles, they ultimately succeeded! Thanks Hipi for cracking the Truth!

Thank you for posting that quote. I hadn't read this before but was aware, as I assumed the audience was, that the Commissioners haven't stated that their investigation was a failure. However, my quote is from a later CBC interview.

In the interest of clarity I'd like to confess to mistakenly putting quotes around "deliberately misled" instead of "obstructed," the former is a quote from a WaPo article paraphrasing the belief of some 9/11 staffers and Commissioners.

Hamilton said this in the interview, which I'm not doubting you neglected to mention for innocent reasons:

Solomon: You write.. the first chapter of the book is 'the Commission was set up to fail.' - my goodness, for the critics - who suggest that it was indeed set up to fail as some kind of obfuscation - you certainly dangled a juicy piece of bait out there in the river. Why do you think you were set up to fail?

Hamilton: Well, for a number of reasons: Tom Kean and I were substitutes - Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell were the first choices; we got started late; we had a very short time frame - indeed, we had to get it extended; we did not have enough money - 3 million dollars to conduct an extensive investigation. We needed more, we got more, but it took us a while to get it.

We had a lot of skeptics out there, who really did not want the Commission formed. Politicians don’t like somebody looking back to see if they made a mistake.
The Commission had to report right, just a few days before the Democratic National Convention met, in other words, right in the middle of a political campaign. We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. We knew the history of commissions; the history of commissions were they.. nobody paid much attention to 'em.

So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail. We decided that if we were going to have any success, we had to have a unanimous report, otherwise the Commission report would simply be filed.

This quote seems to echo the earlier quotations I mentioned, "obstructed," and "stonewalled," and all of these quotes/information came out after the 'success' quote you've provided. But the primary point I'd like to emphasize is that it's based on the confessions of tortured men, one argued by Suskind and an FBI agent to be "certifiably insane," - whose authenticity have been questioned by a variety of MSM sources including fmr. CIA agent Robert Baer, "considered perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East." Does this bother any of you? Do you feel any doubt is cast on the Commission's Report as a result of this, or that mistakes were made in the substance or composition of the Report?

uk_dave

10th April 2008, 03:38 PM

Solomon: You write.. the first chapter of the book is 'the Commission was set up to fail.' - my goodness, for the critics - who suggest that it was indeed set up to fail as some kind of obfuscation - you certainly dangled a juicy piece of bait out there in the river. Why do you think you were set up to fail?

Hamilton: Well, for a number of reasons: Tom Kean and I were substitutes - Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell were the first choices; we got started late; we had a very short time frame - indeed, we had to get it extended; we did not have enough money - 3 million dollars to conduct an extensive investigation. We needed more, we got more, but it took us a while to get it. So Henry Kissinger was one of the original choices and had he been kept on board it wouldn't have been 'set up to fail'? 'truthers' of the world unite behind kissinger!!

Oh and they needed more money in order to get the job done, without that money they would fail so it was important that they got the money that they felt they needed otherwise they would fail and....ermmmmm.... they got the money..... hmmmm

We had a lot of skeptics out there, who really did not want the Commission formed. Politicians don’t like somebody looking back to see if they made a mistake.Well colour me surprised

The Commission had to report right, just a few days before the Democratic National Convention met, in other words, right in the middle of a political campaign. We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. We knew the history of commissions; the history of commissions were they.. nobody paid much attention to 'em.huh? They felt under pressure because the democratic national convention was coming up and no one pays attention to commisions?

So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail. We decided that if we were going to have any success, we had to have a unanimous report, otherwise the Commission report would simply be filed.Did they get a unanimous report?
Did they fail?

16.5

10th April 2008, 03:51 PM

gtc

10th April 2008, 04:04 PM

thehipi,

You are completely wrong about 9/11 but I respect you for admitting your mistake in such a polite way.

regards,

gtc.

MothraAttack

10th April 2008, 10:28 PM

The world media .obviously in on it .It doesnt mean everyone has to be in on it just a few people in select positions .Did the media cover building 7?
Did the 911 commision investigate building 7 ?

Have you ever worked in a newsroom? From my anecdotal experience, journalists are by their very nature, both at work and in their private lives, nosy, gossipy people. This is no insult; it's just the nature of their jobs and that professional culture. Something as explosive as reasonable evidence for 9/11 being an inside job could not be kept secret in a major Western newsroom.

I'd also like to add a recent quote of Robert Baer's as per the discussion:

"For the record, I don't believe that the World Trade Center was brought down by our own explosives, or that a rocket, rather than an airliner, hit the Pentagon. I spent a career in the CIA trying to orchestrate plots, wasn't all that good at it, and certainly couldn't carry off 9/11. Nor could the real pros I had the pleasure to work with."

From: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1692518,00.html

fullflavormenthol

10th April 2008, 10:32 PM

Have you ever worked in a newsroom? From my anecdotal experience, journalists are by their very nature, both at work and in their private lives, nosy, gossipy people. This is no insult; it's just the nature of their jobs and that professional culture. Something as explosive as reasonable evidence for 9/11 being an inside job could not be kept secret in a major Western newsroom.

I'd also like to add a recent quote of Robert Baer's as per the discussion:

"For the record, I don't believe that the World Trade Center was brought down by our own explosives, or that a rocket, rather than an airliner, hit the Pentagon. I spent a career in the CIA trying to orchestrate plots, wasn't all that good at it, and certainly couldn't carry off 9/11. Nor could the real pros I had the pleasure to work with."

From: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1692518,00.html
Exactly. A newsroom is not easy to control at all. Anyone at a station or network could leak information at any time without the Network being able to stop them. For example it came out pretty fast about the Fox Memos about how to spin the news, that was because people in house leaked the information. GiE is being a little naive here.

Pardalis

10th April 2008, 10:40 PM

Lee Hamilton clearly does not believe in any way shape or form that the US government was involved with 9/11:

RgnMHLiL9rk

Sword_Of_Truth

11th April 2008, 04:17 AM

God is NOT energy.

The Bible states that man is created in Gods image.

Since I am not energy, ergo God is not energy either.

Yes, yes, I know what you're going to say. But I am bored and the newcomer amuses me. ;)

11th April 2008, 04:21 AM

Disbelief

11th April 2008, 06:33 AM

Thank you all for correcting me, and my sincere apologies for the mistake. I haven't memorized the page lengths of the two reports and mistakenly assumed Doc's "10,000 page report" comment was referencing the Commission after I scrolled back and saw his previous post.

An intrepid researcher should know the length of the NIST report, especially when it has been pointed out specifically in this thread, not just where Doc mentioned it.

While I hate to get in the way of you all's eagerness to revel in your superiority over us ignorant "cultists" who "lack reading comrehension [sic] skills," this is his previous quote:
Nice attempt at trying to equate a spelling mistake with poor reading comprehension.

The quote quite clearly conflates the two. But again, my sincere apologies for my mistake.
Once again, there were more posts in this thread which stated the lengths of the report, so you should rely on more than one source, especially if there is some ambiguity.

Perhaps one of you would like to comment on any of the actual points raised:
MSNBC reported and confirmed it based it's most crucial findings on CIA summaries of torture confessions, including the torture of an insane man - and Commissioners Hamilton and Kean have said the investigation was "stonewalled,"obstructed, "set up to fail," and "deliberately misled;" and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Since Doc was speaking of NIST, would your points not be invalid as a rebuttal since you are speaking of the commission report? If you want to discuss the commission report, why not start a new thread.

thehipi

11th April 2008, 05:30 PM

thehipi,

You are completely wrong about 9/11 but I respect you for admitting your mistake in such a polite way.

regards,

gtc.

Thx :)

thehipi

11th April 2008, 05:36 PM

Hipi:

"Hamilton said this in the interview, which I'm not doubting you omitted for innocent reasons." Well, thanks, I think you are just super duper too!

Anyway, why don't we all have a super big hug, and maybe you can actually read the entire damn quote I posted, hmmm?

My point with that bit was I felt it was more appropriate to give a poster the benefit of the doubt in questions like these. Perhaps in the future you could extend the same courtesy?

"Both of us were aware of grumbling around Washington that the 9/11 Commission was doomed--if not designed--to fail: the commission would splinter down partisan lines; lose its credibility by leaking classified information; be denied the necessary access to do its job; or alienate the 9/11 families who had fought on behalf of its creation. What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce within and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our success."

Jeepers creepers, Hipi! He said the same damn thing as your quotes, and then concluded that their Commission was a success! I am starting to think that you are not being straight with me.

It looks to me like Kean and Hamilton are saying in this quote that others in Washington were saying it was "doomed--if not designed--to fail," while my quote "set up to fail" was expressed as Hamilton's personal opinion. I think I may have also said in the previous post that all of the quotes and information I listed came to light after your quote expressing unequivocal success so I don't believe it explains away these questions.

While I'm aware that Kean and Hamilton have not labeled their investigation a failure and do not believe 9/11 was a result of U.S. complicity, I find the "set up to fail," "obstructed," deliberately misled, and "stonewalled" statements no less remarkable. I also don't find an investigator's endorsement of his own investigation, in general, an especially strong argument for accuracy. The CBC interview I mentioned before does include an update on their measure of their own success though:

Solomon: Do you consider the 9/11 Commission to have been a success, and if so, under what ways do you measure that success? How do you call it a success?

Hamilton: The 9/11 Commission was created by statute. We had two responsibilities - first, tell the story of 9/11; I think we've done that reasonably well. We worked very hard at it; I don’t know that we’ve told the definitive story of 9/11, but surely anybody in the future who tackles that job will begin with the 9/11 Commission Report. I think we’ve been reasonably successful in telling the story.

The primary sticking point for me in regard to the explanations the Commission offered is that they were based on tortured confessions, one from a reportedly insane man. While Baer clearly believes al Qaeda was involved in the attacks, as I do, it is his serious doubting of these confessions that I hoped to discuss. Kean and Hamilton, saying in their NYT op-ed that the CIA summaries of torture they relied upon "raised more questions than answers," seem to have also had qualms with these confessions. Are these doubts shared by any of the 'debunkers' (?) who've been kind enough to respond and could maybe share their pov?

Foolmewunz

11th April 2008, 07:51 PM

TheHipi (are you really a hippie.. e.g. my age group, veteran of the East Village, or Taos, or Woodstock, or Haight-Ashbury, or Pentagon March, or Chicago Demonstrations... beads, patuli oil, long hair, buckskin fringe jackets, et al..?)

If you read through this sub-section you'll find that a lot of us have differing political views, and you're not going to get many who will run up to defend everything ever done by the Bush administration, or for that matter, any administration. (That's a popular them on a lot of CT boards, I know... so if you mistake our disdain for conspiradroid beliefs for being fervent right wing neocons, you should disabuse yourself of that notion, too sweet.

You might want to take your discusssion on over to the Politics sub-forum, where you'll get a good discussion of the viability of confessions under torture or the moral stand of torture, itself. Just use the search features of the forum - you'll find existing threads on several variations of the topic.

thehipi

15th April 2008, 10:22 PM

Foolmewunz -

Thanks for the advice. Most of those descriptors don't apply to me so I suppose I'm not really a hippie. While the morality and viability of torture confessions generally are interesting topics I was just curious if any of the 'debunkers' (is there a preferred title?) here had any doubts about the accuracy of the 9/11 Commission. Frankly, not having qualms about these issues seems to me entirely counter to what the idea of a 'skeptic' represents.

Blender Head

15th April 2008, 10:37 PM

gumboot

15th April 2008, 11:27 PM

The primary sticking point for me in regard to the explanations the Commission offered is that they were based on tortured confessions, one from a reportedly insane man.

Conspiracy Theorists have been throwing around this claim repeatedly lately, and it really bugs me.

At best, if the tortured statements are totally false, this does nothing more than undermine the 9/11 Commission's points regarding Al Qaeda's planning of the attacks.

The 9/11 Commission Report consists of 13 chapters. They cover the following areas:

1. "We Have Some Planes"
An account of the attacks and how the US responded to them.

2. The Foundation Of The New Terrorism
A history of Al Qaeda

3. Counterterrorism Evolves
An account of changing US counter-terrorism procedures

4. Responses To Al Qaeda's Initial Assaults
A summary of US responses to earlier Al Qaeda attacks

5. Al Qaeda Aims At The American Homeland
A summary of the development of the 9/11 plot

6. From Threat To Threat
A summary of continuing US reactions to Al Qaeda activities and threats

7. The Attack Looms
A summary of the 9/11 plotters activities inside the USA

8. "The System Was Blinking Red"
A summary of potential warnings of the 9/11 plot

9. Herrorism And Horror
A summary of first responder efforts at the disaster sites on 9/11

10. Wartime
A summary of the US military response to the attacks

11. Foresight - And Hindsight
An analysis of government efforts in predicting and imagining attacks

12. What To Do? A Global Strategy
Broad summary of 9/11 Commission's recommendations in addressing Terrorism

13. How To Do It? A Different Way Of Organizing The Government
Specific recommendations for the US government in order to achieve the points in chapter 12.

Now looking at that, Chapter's 1, 7 and 9 are primarily a result of the FBI investigations as well as the reports of first responders. No torture involved.

Chapters 2, 3 and 4 deal with the historic development of Al Qaeda and US terrorism policy, and again do not require anyone to be tortured.

Chapters 6, 8 and 10 are sourced from US government agencies and do not require any torturing.

Chapter 11 is an analysis of preceding chapters, and requires no torturing.

Chapters 12 and 13 are the 9/11 Commission's conclusions based on the preceding chapters, and require no torturing.

That leaves only one chapter - 5 - that really relies on a significant amount of coerced confession. Of the 132 references in Chapter 5, many reference prisoner interrogations and intelligence reports, the majority referencing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. However many of his claims were made before he was captured, which undermines any claim that he was "made" to confess.

In addition, these interrogations do not stand on their own - for example much of the information about KSM is supported by the FBI investigation into the 1993 WTC bombing and the Philippines investigation into Operation Bojinka.

I would estimate that probably no more than 5% of the contents of the 9/11 Commission Report actually relies on intelligence agency interrogations.

So can we please, please abandon this utter nonsense about the 9/11 Commission "relying" on the testimony of two tortured terrorists? It's simply not true.

thehipi

18th April 2008, 07:51 PM

Conspiracy Theorists have been throwing around this claim repeatedly lately, and it really bugs me...[snipped]

That leaves only one chapter - 5 - that really relies on a significant amount of coerced confession. Of the 132 references in Chapter 5, many reference prisoner interrogations and intelligence reports, the majority referencing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. However many of his claims were made before he was captured, which undermines any claim that he was "made" to confess.

I'm interested to hear more about this, do you know what/where he specifically said these things? I know in his confession he claims an Al Qaeda reporter inaccurately quoted him claiming responsibility, but I'm guessing there are other sources for this?

I would estimate that probably no more than 5% of the contents of the 9/11 Commission Report actually relies on intelligence agency interrogations.

Specifically, the NBC News analysis shows 441 of the more than 1,700 footnotes in the Commission’s Final Report refer to the CIA interrogations. Moreover, most of the information in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 of the Report came from the interrogations. Those chapters cover the initial planning for the attack, the assembling of terrorist cells, and the arrival of the hijackers in the U.S. In total, the Commission relied on more than 100 interrogation reports produced by the CIA.

can't post links yet but you can find this by googling "9/11 Commission controversy" and "deep background"

Since these are the chapters which I consider most relevant to the planning and enactment of the attacks, I think it's fair to say the meat of this report is based on torture. I'm not claiming those confessions or the general narrative are entirely false, but in a court of law a case based on this evidence would be thrown out and I'd suspect possible action taken against any prosecutor who used it. To know that this investigation relied on such incredibly shoddy methods, as noted by the director of NYU's Center of Constitutional Law in this article, is just one of many issues which taints the investigation and I think casts serious doubt on it's integrity and reputation as the 'full story.'

So can we please, please abandon this utter nonsense about the 9/11 Commission "relying" on the testimony of two tortured terrorists? It's simply not true.

It did rely on the testimony of two tortured terrorists. At best, we can say the narrative they offer is true, despite that fact. But the tainted connotation this phrase lays on the investigation is entirely accurate.

Drudgewire

18th April 2008, 08:01 PM

can't post links yet
You can now. :cheerleader1

gumboot

20th April 2008, 05:49 PM

I'm interested to hear more about this, do you know what/where he specifically said these things? I know in his confession he claims an Al Qaeda reporter inaccurately quoted him claiming responsibility, but I'm guessing there are other sources for this?

During an interview with Al Jazeera's Yosri Fouda in September 2002.

Specifically, the NBC News analysis shows 441 of the more than 1,700 footnotes in the Commission’s Final Report refer to the CIA interrogations. Moreover, most of the information in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 of the Report came from the interrogations. Those chapters cover the initial planning for the attack, the assembling of terrorist cells, and the arrival of the hijackers in the U.S. In total, the Commission relied on more than 100 interrogation reports produced by the CIA.

Me thinks the staff at NBC didn't read the report. There's 261 footnotes in Chapter Six. Only four of them cite CIA interrogations. By my calculations that's about 1.5%. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't consider that to me "most of the information". In addition, of the 192 footnotes in Chapter 7, only 51 rely solely on intelligence reports and interrogations (I'm being nice and assuming the intelligence reports relate solely to the interrogations). Even that's only 26.5%, again hardly "most of the information".

It's worth point out that if a footnote cites an interrogation and other sources you cannot claim that the 9/11 Commission was relying on the interrogation.

pomeroo

20th April 2008, 05:59 PM

Uh yea im ready i have read alot of debunking site so far and every time i find information contradicting this so far so im a bit skeptical when it comes to reports like the 911 commision because it was headed by zelikow.
And i dont want another magic bullet theory to explain away stuff

The suggestion that you do some serious reading was well-intentioned, but pointless: you are clearly ineducable. The "magic-bullet" theory was a fabrication of muddle-headed conspiracists. There was no "magic bullet." You have no idea what possible significance to anything Zelikow has and you don't have the slightest interest in the events of 9/11/01.

When you claim that you have read material on rationalist sites, e.g., 911myths.com, I'm afraid that I simply don't believe you. I have learned through experience that fantasists are among the least intellectually-curious primates on the planet.

pomeroo

20th April 2008, 06:15 PM

The suggestion that you do some serious reading was well-intentioned, but pointless: you are clearly ineducable. The "magic-bullet" theory was a fabrication of muddle-headed conspiracists. There was no "magic bullet." You have no idea what possible significance to anything Zelikow has and you don't have the slightest interest in the events of 9/11/01.

When you claim that you have read material on rationalist sites, e.g., 911myths.com, I'm afraid that I simply don't believe you. I have learned through experience that fantasists are among the least intellectually-curious primates on the planet.

Geez, I posted this when I was still on page one of this thread. I respond to this sort of drivel without reading the whole thread and then I call the loon who posted it a dunce and a fool? Physician, heal thyself. I should get more fresh air and exercise.

thehipi

21st April 2008, 04:27 PM

During an interview with Al Jazeera's Yosri Fouda in September 2002.

This is the interview KSM claimed he was misreported in..are there any others?

It's worth point out that if a footnote cites an interrogation and other sources you cannot claim that the 9/11 Commission was relying on the interrogation.

Is this why your estimates differ from NBC's?

gumboot

21st April 2008, 04:45 PM

This is the interview KSM claimed he was misreported in..are there any others?

To be honest I wouldn't put too much stock in Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's comments regarding anything he's a braggart and a liar. If a well respected journalist with a long history of credibility says he said these things, I believe them, however that doesn't mean I believe they're true.

Is this why your estimates differ from NBC's?

No. You'll note that in Chapter Six, for example, there are only four footnotes citing interrogations full stop. From memory all four of them also cite other sources.

My only conclusion is:

A) The NBC reports didn't actually look at the report

or

B) They've included all intelligence reports and all interviews by both the CIA and FBI

Given how dishonest and sensationalist the mainstream media is, I consider either of these likely explanations.