Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission

[Scott Sommers]

I was sent this. It's Homepage is dated January 11, 2005
Anyone know what it is?

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

[TexasJack]

It looks like the Jersey Girls organization.

[Scott Sommers]

This got sent around with a message about the media boycott (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=183728) I posted earlier

In less than ten days, we will begin our television boycott. Still, for maximum effectiveness, our group will need a significant amount of participation. In the coming days, please do all you can to bring in new members and peak interest in our cause.

Nine years is far too long. The criminals of September 11th still remain at large. In ten days, let's get the media's attention and FINALLY make the countless unanswered questions regarding 9/11 public knowledge.

[Childlike Empress]

i was sent this. It's homepage is dated january 11, 2005
anyone know what it is?

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


3865048042993700360

[BigAl]

The 9/11 Commission was established in the teeth of Republican opposition. The families of the victims played a large part in rousing public opinion and shaming the administration into it.

The establishment of the commission was a political compromise because the 9/11 report was due be delivered just before the 2004 presidential election. As a comprimise, the work was split into two phases with the second phase to deal with the administration's decision making and actions leading up to 9/11, and to be delivered well after the election. The second phase almost didn't happen and public outrage was necessary.

I think what you have is part of the campaign to make phase II happen. The date is right.

IMO, awareness of the above has disappeared down the memory hole.

The report was delivered in May 2007. This is probably a good summary of the report.

http://www.dawn.com/2007/05/27/int6.htm

[Childlike Empress]

And the documentary "Press for Truth" i've posted above tells their story, which is pretty much interwoven with the story of the 9/11 commission. Seriously Scott, with this thread you got off my "suspected shills" list. ;)

[BigAl]

And the documentary "Press for Truth" i've posted above tells their story, which is pretty much interwoven with the story of the 9/11 commission. Seriously Scott, with this thread you got off my "suspected shills" list. ;)

If the "Truth Movement" stuck with reality instead of basing demands for a new investigation on the existence of man-made demolition, no-planes, space beams, etc, they might have accomplished something good. Instead, to the extent anyone was aware of them, they served to discredit all critics of the administration.

[Childlike Empress]

There is no "they", see general discussion thread. The real failure lies with the american public to act on reality. And of course, there's always the "South Park" element to muddy the waters.

[Sam.I.Am]

The reality is that there is absolutely not one shred of evidence for, and a mountain of evidence against, such a vast majority of truther claims that the very small percentage of their claims that might have had a point to be made are buried under their own bull manure in a cesspit of their own making. I have no sympathy for them when they start to complain that nobody listens to them while at the same time never listening to people explaining to them, often in in excruciating detail, why they are wrong and where their flawed logic derailed them into the land of woo. You can't help them because they don't want to be helped.

So I point and laugh at them instead. It's much more cathartic than banging my head on my desk...

[Disbelief]

There is no "they", see general discussion thread. The real failure lies with the american public to act on reality.

What reality is that?

[Childlike Empress]

What reality is that?

http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/

[Disbelief]

http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/

Yawn. So, do you have an argument of your own or do you plan on relying on "facts" from some o ther source?

[Childlike Empress]

You expect me to write an essay responding to your four words post? Forget it. Face reality or not, i don't care.

[triforcharity]

That silly little site is rediculous. I found many errors in their "facts" and use logical fallacies time and time again.

[Childlike Empress]

^ pantomime debunking

[Disbelief]

You expect me to write an essay responding to your four words post? Forget it. Face reality or not, i don't care.

No, I would expect you to be able to express yourself in a reasonable manner to discuss something you find this important. Instead, you link to a site that is full of rhetoric and is rather short on facts.

[triforcharity]

^ pantomime debunking

Retarded post.

[Childlike Empress]

I prefer "pantomime debunking" (an original Stundie, btw), but your term is of course also correct. Seriously, you can't make that stuff up:

I found many errors in their "facts" and use logical fallacies time and time again.

[carlitos]

A truth so nice they told it twice!
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_334674c8107cb6614f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=20948)

The political stuff is just innuendo at that site. On September 9, we (and Russia) already had plans to combat Afghanistan, which was being governed by an evil, woman hating, 11th Century cult who vowed to kill us. This is called good governance, if anything.

Quote mining - Bush says "This is a great opportunity." From a conversation 12 hours after the attacks, and referring to our relations with China and Russia.

Presented without comment:
Fact #40
A document entitled, “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” from 1962 proves BEYOND THE SHADOW OF DOUBT that elements within our Government are MORE THAN CAPABLE of devising a “9/11 Type” plan.

Really, if Jon Gold or anyone would present a hypothesis that better explains events vs. the common narrative, I'd be happy to listen. So far, they seem to want to throw a bunch of "facts" at the wall, and see what sticks. "That's why we need a new investigation" is not an excuse for not presenting an affirmative hypothesis.

ETA - that quote above is unintentionally hilarious, I'll give CE that.

[Childlike Empress]

Really, if Jon Gold or anyone would present a hypothesis that better explains events vs. the common narrative, I'd be happy to listen. So far, they seem to want to throw a bunch of "facts" at the wall, and see what sticks. "That's why we need a new investigation" is not an excuse for not presenting an affirmative hypothesis.


BS. You are confusing a criminal investigation with a scientific experiment.

[carlitos]

Who (had motive, means, opportunity), how, why, where, what is the very essence of a criminal investigation. It's like, 9 years after the fact, you want to act as if nothing is known, and start over. Logically speaking, this isn't really very different from those who need to try and understand every aspect of building collapse themselves, rather than relying on the collective expertise of the engineering community.

The fact that Jon Gold can't understand what happened doesn't really mean anything.

Have any of the politically-focused proponents of a new investigation read The Looming Tower? Or Ghost Wars or the bin Ladens by Cole?

[Childlike Empress]

ETA - that quote above is unintentionally hilarious, I'll give CE that.


Nominated! :D

[Childlike Empress]

Who (had motive, means, opportunity), how, why, where, what is the very essence of a criminal investigation.


Exactly that's what Gold's facts are dealing with.

And in a criminal investigation, if it turns out that the suspect couldn't have done it, the defense doesn't have to come up with an "alternative narrative" to let him go.

edit: For those who don't know: Jon Gold is a close associate of the Jersey Girls from the beginning, so what he writes is very much on topic.

[Disbelief]

Exactly that's what Gold's facts are dealing with.

And in a criminal investigation, if it turns out that the suspect couldn't have done it, the defense doesn't have to come up with an "alternative narrative" to let him go.

edit: For those who don't know: Jon Gold is a close associate of the Jersey Girls from the beginning, so what he writes is very much on topic.

Well, many of his "facts" have already been debunked and others have little to no relationship to the attacks. Also, you fail to understand that real investigations were done and you just do not like the results.

[Scott Sommers]

I had never heard of a 911 conspiracy until last year. Coming at it from this perspective, the first question that hits me is, why don't these Truthers get it? No one is interested in this. And when you say this, they pull some poll from 2004 that says 99.9% of Americans think that Bush exploded the WTC with thermite. So you ask why no one shows up at their demonstrations or why they get laughed at when they talk about this in public. And tell you that America is waking up. So you ask them why not one of the candidates - including Ron Paul - mentioned a new 911 investigation in the 2008 election. And they give you some blah blah website that claims 99.9% of Americans believe that Bush exploded the WTC with thermite.

I honestly doubt there are more than a handful of Truthers who really care what real issues emerged from 911. It was them who made it embarrassing for public figures to talk the real issues of 911. Presidential candidates can't even bring these issues up because they might get labeled as 911 conspiracy nutters. Not even Ron Paul wants anything to do with Steven Jones.

It's Truthers who made it embarrassing to be concerned about the way 911 was handled. It's their friendships with the Nazis. It's their space guns and dustified buildings. It's their vicsims, and it's their super duper nano thermite. It's the way they run around yelling like these are things you should care about.

[twinstead]

Some people have no idea why intelligent people have a problem being called sheeple and having irrational, cockamamie theories rammed down their throats.

[Childlike Empress]

I had never heard of a 911 conspiracy until last year. Coming at it from this perspective, the first question that hits me is, why don't these Truthers get it? No one is interested in this. And when you say this, they pull some poll from 2004 that says 99.9% of Americans think that Bush exploded the WTC with thermite. So you ask why no one shows up at their demonstrations or why they get laughed at when they talk about this in public. And tell you that America is waking up. So you ask them why not one of the candidates - including Ron Paul - mentioned a new 911 investigation in the 2008 election. And they give you some blah blah website that claims 99.9% of Americans believe that Bush exploded the WTC with thermite.

I honestly doubt there are more than a handful of Truthers who really care what real issues emerged from 911. It was them who made it embarrassing for public figures to talk the real issues of 911. Presidential candidates can't even bring these issues up because they might get labeled as 911 conspiracy nutters. Not even Ron Paul wants anything to do with Steven Jones.

It's Truthers who made it embarrassing to be concerned about the way 911 was handled. It's their friendships with the Nazis. It's their space guns and dustified buildings. It's their vicsims, and it's their super duper nano thermite. It's the way they run around yelling like these are things you should care about.


Scott, about three years ago i made a comic strip about this. The characters were supposed to be me and Gravy:

The easy way out
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/99074c811c3689e47.png

[carlitos]

I'm almost tempted to post my Monbiot quotes about the impotence of the "truth" movement being the actual goal of the movement. They need the all-powerful government to keep them powerless, so they can avoid the hard work of effecting real political change.

Why. Don't. You. Investigate. Whatever. You. Want???

Or are you asking the US government for permission to investigate the US government? If so, that's a giant circle jerk.

Seriously, please quit whining about it. You don't even have to be the new Woodward and Bernstein, you already had the actual Bob Woodward on the inside, listening in as decisions were made. He wrote 2 books about it already. He had access to the highest levels of government. What's stopping Jon Gold?

[Childlike Empress]

To make this thread more complete, from 2008:

In late 2006, the movie 9/11 Press For Truth became a worldwide underground hit. It exposed the story of the "Jersey Girls" and their allies -- the 9/11 families who had fought for the Commission but ultimately failed in seeing 70% of their questions answered. IN THEIR OWN WORDS: THE UNTOLD STORIES OF THE 9/11 FAMILIES is the new, official companion DVD to 9/11 Press For Truth. Over 2 hours of unseen families' interviews and rare news clips originally intended for inclusion in the movie ended up on the cutting room floor -- until now


4399917864007973679

[Disbelief]

To make this thread more complete, from 2008: In late 2006, the movie 9/11 Press For Truth became a worldwide underground hit. It exposed the story of the "Jersey Girls" and their allies -- the 9/11 families who had fought for the Commission but ultimately failed in seeing 70% of their questions answered. IN THEIR OWN WORDS: THE UNTOLD STORIES OF THE 9/11 FAMILIES is the new, official companion DVD to 9/11 Press For Truth. Over 2 hours of unseen families' interviews and rare news clips originally intended for inclusion in the movie ended up on the cutting room floor -- until now


4399917864007973679

Bolding mine. So, have they removed the 30% from their website so we know which ones have been answered? Also, some of the questions are really rather dumb and don't warrant a response.

[Childlike Empress]

There's a pdf where all questions are listed and the answered ones are striked out. I'm sure i have it somewhere in case it isn't still on their website.

edit: Here (http://www.911truth.org/downloads/Family_Steering_Cmte_review_of_Report.pdf) you go. (500kb)

[Sabretooth]

There's a pdf where all questions are listed and the answered ones are striked out. I'm sure i have it somewhere in case it isn't still on their website.

edit: Here (http://www.911truth.org/downloads/Family_Steering_Cmte_review_of_Report.pdf) you go. (500kb)

There are an awful lot of questions in this pdf form that are absolutely irrelevant to the events of 9/11 or the Commission.

Specifically:

Questions to Part I: 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34.

Questions to Dick Cheney numbers: 1, 2, 3, 10, 11.

Questions to Condy Rice numbers: several...but the numbering system is stupid and I don't feel like deciphering it.

I just scanned the rest of this nonsense, but found question #6 in “Part 2: Intelligence” of particular interest. There are two parts. The first part is the question and the second part is a comment with a quote and a source.

Given the testimony in the trial in May, 2001 [below] were flight schools advised to be vigilant for Middle Eastern men training to be pilots and advised to report anything unusual? If not, please explain.
“MAY 29, 2001 Four men are convicted in the bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Witnesses testified at the trial that Osama bin Laden was sending al Qaeda agents to the US for flight-school training and acquiring planes.”
www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/21phoenix.memo/

The problem here is the source. It does not make any mention of the four men convicted of bombing embassies. But, what is more important, is that this article actually answers the question. There is a clear explanation as to what the flight schools were advised of, as well as the general locations.

The rest of these questions are useless. Even if they answered, it doesn’t alter the course of history. We already know the government dropped the ball, why do you need more evidence of that? Talk about beating a dead horse.

[Sabretooth]

Smoly Hokes...

This pdf is getting even more ridiculous.


Why weren’t the flight schools shut down, or the terrorists deported, if the “FBI Knew Terrorists Were Using Flight Schools” for years, as reported in the Washington Post, September 23, 2001.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/fbi_knew_terrorists_using_flight_schools.html

Hilite mine.

How the hell can you push a question claiming Washington Post when the article is from Propaganda Matrix with fake WP headers?!

This pdf isn’t worth the simulated paper it’s printed on.

[Childlike Empress]

The CNN site says "page not found". Where did you read it?

[DGM]

Didn't the "family steering committee" disband shortly after the commission report came out?

[Sabretooth]

The CNN site says "page not found". Where did you read it?

I had to type it by hand initially, but the link auto-directed to this:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/21/phoenix.memo/

[DGM]

I had to type it by hand initially, but the link auto-directed to this:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/21/phoenix.memo/
If we had reacted to that memo on 9/10 everyone would be up in arms about "profiling" and we all know it. Hindsight is always 20-20.

[Childlike Empress]

ah, thanks. For some reason it didn't redirect me. Now please quote the part that in your opinion answers the question. I can't find it.

Given the testimony in the trial in May, 2001 were flight schools advised to be vigilant for Middle Eastern men training to be pilots and advised to report anything unusual? If not, please explain.
... [B]this article actually answers the question. There is a clear explanation as to what the flight schools were advised of ...

[Sabretooth]

ah, thanks. For some reason it didn't redirect me. Now please quote the part that in your opinion answers the question. I can't find it.


Given the testimony in the trial in May, 2001 [below] were flight schools advised to be vigilant for Middle Eastern men training to be pilots and advised to report anything unusual? If not, please explain.


The article explains that the memo did not follow the proper chain to get to the right people. Thus answering the portion of the question "If not, please explain".

[Sam.I.Am]

Scott, about three years ago i made a comic strip about this. The characters were supposed to be me and Gravy:

The easy way out
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/99074c811c3689e47.png

That is a good example of what I mentioned earlier and a good example of how a truther sees it. The truther will completely ignore the 30 comic panels previous to this one where "Gravy" points out why Alex Jones is a considered a Kook and that the answers to the question in your first panel were already answered. This is a person in the "Either bang your head on your desk or just point and laugh at them." stage.

[carlitos]

Laziness?
Ignorance?
Lack of funds?
????

[Childlike Empress]

The article explains that the memo did not follow the proper chain to get to the right people. Thus answering the portion of the question "If not, please explain".


You are kidding, right? There's nothing in the article that answers the question if this investigation led to any advises to flight schools. You really have to do better than that. I won't bother to look into anything else you've written above.

[Childlike Empress]

That is a good example of what I mentioned earlier and a good example of how a truther sees it. The truther will completely ignore the 30 comic panels previous to this one where "Gravy" points out why Alex Jones is a considered a Kook and that the answers to the question in your first panel were already answered. This is a person in the "Either bang your head on your desk or just point and laugh at them." stage.


It's irrelevant if Alex Jones is a kook or not - that's the point you missed - and the fact remains that the Bush admin tried to prevent ANY broader investigations from happening and many commission members had serious conflicts of interest, above all Zelikow.

Without the Jersey Girls, the commission investigation (if it had happened at all) would have been headed by Henry Kissinger, of all people, as you can see in the videos.

I'm quite sure you'd have nothing to complain about this, too. Such a nice elder statesman. :rolleyes:

[Sabretooth]

You are kidding, right? There's nothing in the article that answers the question if this investigation led to any advises to flight schools. You really have to do better than that.

Did you not read my response?

The question asked if the memo reached the flight schools. All of us already know that it did not, and this CNN article that the FSC referenced confirms that fact. So asking the Commission to look into is a complete waste of time and resources.

In addition, the CNN article also says this about the Memo:

The computer-generated memo was at least three pages long. It cites several students by name and Embry-Riddle University, an aeronautical school with campuses in Prescott, Arizona, and Daytona Beach, Florida.

None of the names in the memo have been identified by the FBI as any of the September 11 hijackers.


Emphasis mine.

So, even if the Memo WAS made public, it would have done little good in stopping Atta & Friends.


I won't bother to look into anything else you've written above.

Fine by me...I won't lose any sleep over it. Just another truther plugging their ears and humming. ;)

[TexasJack]

It's irrelevant if Alex Jones is a kook or not - that's the point you missed - and the fact remains that the Bush admin tried to prevent ANY broader investigations from happening and many commission members had serious conflicts of interest, above all Zelikow.

Without the Jersey Girls, the commission investigation (if it had happened at all) would have been headed by Henry Kissinger, of all people, as you can see in the videos.

I'm quite sure you'd have nothing to complain about this, too. Such a nice elder statesman. :rolleyes:

Here are the members of the commission. Please explain their conflict of interest.

Thomas Kean (Chairman) - Republican, former Governor of New Jersey
Lee H. Hamilton (Vice Chairman) - Democrat, former U.S. Representative from the 9th District of Indiana
Richard Ben-Veniste - Democrat, attorney, former chief of the Watergate Task Force of the Watergate Special Prosecutor's Office
Max Cleland - Democrat, former U.S. Senator from Georgia. Resigned December 2003, stating that "the White House has played cover-up
Fred F. Fielding - Republican, attorney and former White House Counsel
Jamie Gorelick - Democrat, former Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration
Slade Gorton - Republican, former U.S. Senator from Washington
Bob Kerrey - Democrat, President of the New School University and former U.S. Senator from Nebraska. Replaced Max Cleland as a Democratic Commissioner, after Cleland's resignation.
John F. Lehman - Republican, former Secretary of the Navy
Timothy J. Roemer - Democrat, former U.S. Representative from the 3rd District of Indiana
James R. Thompson - Republican, former Governor of Illinois

[Childlike Empress]

Here's the question again:

Given the testimony in the trial in May, 2001 [below] were flight schools advised to be vigilant for Middle Eastern men training to be pilots and advised to report anything unusual? If not, please explain.


You REALLY underestimate the intelligence of the readers here, sabretooth.

Seriously Scott, with this thread you got off my "suspected shills" list. ;)


Didn't take too long to find a replacement. :p

TexasJack, IIRC the wikipedia article on the commission has a good section about that, also the Zelikow article. Or use the search function here.

[TexasJack]

TexasJack, IIRC the wikipedia article on the commission has a good section about that, also the Zelikow article. Or use the search function here.

I've seen the truther versions, none of them explain what conflicts of interest these 10 men had. They are there, so can you specifically state individually what the actual conflicts are? If you think Richard Ben-Veniste is some kind of Bush loyalist, I'm going to break out the laughing dogs.

[DGM]

Let me get this straight. We're having a conversation about the questions that a group that disbanded 5 years ago originally asked. Wouldn't it seem to reason the questions were answered OR they were "bought out". If it's the later, are they are they not "in on it" also?

[Sabretooth]

Will someone other than CE read my post #44 and let me know if my approach to answering the FSC question is flawed?

[DGM]

Will someone other than CE read my post #44 and let me know if my approach to answering the FSC question is flawed?
Seems logical to me.

My question is. Considering they disbanded 5 years ago wouldn't that mean the questions were answered to their satisfaction (at least to the majority).

[Childlike Empress]

I've seen the truther versions, none of them explain what conflicts of interest these 10 men had. They are there, so can you specifically state individually what the actual conflicts are? If you think Richard Ben-Veniste is some kind of Bush loyalist, I'm going to break out the laughing dogs.


Why not focus on Zelikow? Show me what you find and i may expand, although this is slightly off-topic.

[Childlike Empress]

Seems logical to me.


Then please quote the part of the article that answers the question.

[carlitos]

Let me get this straight. We're having a conversation about the questions that a group that disbanded 5 years ago originally asked. Wouldn't it seem to reason the questions were answered OR they were "bought out". If it's the later, are they are they not "in on it" also?

See my post 28 above. It's not about new investigations, or "truth," or anything of the sort. It's a displacement activity, whereby some would-be political mavericks can safely rail against "the man," without fear of reprisal.

[TexasJack]

Why not focus on Zelikow? Show me what you find and i may expand.

Zelikow was a member of the commission staff, he was not one of the 10 commission members. He also recused himself in some matters. I don't think he should have been there at all either, but one person, even with a conflict of interest, isn't going to override the ten that had the biggest impact. So do any of the ten have a conflict of interest or not?

[BigAl]

It's irrelevant if Alex Jones is a kook or not - that's the point you missed - and the fact remains that the Bush admin tried to prevent ANY broader investigations from happening and many commission members had serious conflicts of interest, above all Zelikow.

Tried and failed to block the creation of the commission for the basic conclusions.

You seem to be ignoring the Phase II commission which is what this thread is about.


Without the Jersey Girls, the commission investigation (if it had happened at all) would have been headed by Henry Kissinger, of all people, as you can see in the videos.

But that didn't happen, did it?


I'm quite sure you'd have nothing to complain about this, too. Such a nice elder statesman. :rolleyes:

I have plenty to complain about but it doesn't involve man-made demolition, no-planes and space beams.

[beachnut]

A truth so nice they told it twice!
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_334674c8107cb6614f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=20948)

The political stuff is just innuendo at that site. On September 9, we (and Russia) already had plans to combat Afghanistan, which was being governed by an evil, woman hating, 11th Century cult who vowed to kill us. This is called good governance, if anything.

Quote mining - Bush says "This is a great opportunity." From a conversation 12 hours after the attacks, and referring to our relations with China and Russia.

Presented without comment:


Really, if Jon Gold or anyone would present a hypothesis that better explains events vs. the common narrative, I'd be happy to listen. So far, they seem to want to throw a bunch of "facts" at the wall, and see what sticks. "That's why we need a new investigation" is not an excuse for not presenting an affirmative hypothesis.

ETA - that quote above is unintentionally hilarious, I'll give CE that.
Failure for 8 years; Jon and 911 truth. No evidence, just talk. Is he that stupid?

The questions from the OP. Kind of stupid. UBL plotted the murders, why not ask him! Why not go get him if you are upset. However, I understand why people who lost their families and friends might be upset.

I think the questions are good if everyone takes responsibility. We elected the bums, or tried to elect other bums, it is our fault we are naive, complacent, and not being prepared for the unknown.

If killing pilots and crashing planes into buildings was so easy to figure out, why did we all fail to take action before the event; the only question I think is valid. Do these people think politicians have a clue?

I find it sad 911 truth takes advantage of the families to push their delusions. Like Jon they are not firing on all eight.

[Childlike Empress]

Zelikow was a member of the commission staff, he was not one of the 10 commission members. He also recused himself in some matters. I don't think he should have been there at all either, but one person, even with a conflict of interest, isn't going to override the ten that had the biggest impact. So do any of the ten have a conflict of interest or not?


Zelikow had BY FAR the biggest impact. If you want to discuss this, please start a thread about it. I'll participate.

BigAl, so what? It didn't happen because of the Jersey Girls. We agree. We know - it could have been worse. Why do you invoke space beams?

[TexasJack]

Zelikow had BY FAR the biggest impact. If you want to discuss this, please start a thread about it. I'll participate.


Of course you can't back up that claim, because it's not true.

[Childlike Empress]

Of course I can, and to say it's not true shows that you don't pay attention. Again, start a thread about it if you can't figure it out yourself. But be patient, today i am already busy here and elsewhere.

[DGM]

Then please quote the part of the article that answers the question.
Ask the members of the "steering committee". They seem to be satisfied.

The OP is using their name although they no longer have the questions he claims they have. Do you agree? If not, explain why they disbanded (be careful not to accuse them of being "in on it").

[TexasJack]

Of course I can, and to say it's not true shows that you don't pay attention. Again, start a thread about it if you can't figure it out yourself. But be patient, today i am already busy here and elsewhere.

I'm not going to start a thread. If you can't back up a claim, it's garbage until you do, regardless of your busy schedule.

[Childlike Empress]

DGM: In other words, what seemed to be logical to you turned out to based on nothing (but bolded). You can't produce a quote.

This question came from the PDF i've posted. The authors are not satisfied.

[DGM]

DGM: In other words, what seemed to be logical to you turned out to based on nothing (but bolded). You can't produce a quote.

This question came from the PDF i've posted. The authors are not satisfied.
Were the "authors" the "Family steering committee"?

[Childlike Empress]

Did you watch the videos?

[BigAl]

DGM: In other words, what seemed to be logical to you turned out to based on nothing (but bolded). You can't produce a quote.

This question came from the PDF i've posted. The authors are not satisfied.

As of what date? Any historical demand for an investigation has been overcome by events.

[Childlike Empress]

BigAl, why did you invoke space beams?
DGM, please tell sabretooth that his reasoning was flawed.

[DGM]

Did you watch the videos?
No, why? I don't really like being told what to think. I looked at the original question and researched for myself. How about you?

[Childlike Empress]

... deleted. cu

[funk de fino]

Didn't the "family steering committee" disband shortly after the commission report came out?

They seemed pretty happy with work of the Commission.

When the Commission concluded its investigation, it issued a report containing 41 recommendations for improving our nation's security. The report did not answer all of our questions, but its in-depth analysis of intelligence, foreign policy, security and other failures and subsequent recommendations for improvement were reforms we could endorse. The FSC then focused our efforts on ensuring that those recommendations would be implemented. Congress responded by holding hearings and drafting legislation. After a rigorous battle, a bill incorporating many of the 9/11 Commission recommendations passed both Houses of Congress and was signed
into law on December 17, 2004.

[funk de fino]

... deleted. cu

That was a good idea.

[Sabretooth]

BigAl, why did you invoke space beams?
DGM, please tell sabretooth that his reasoning was flawed.

The question part 1:
Were flight schools notified?

Answer: no.

The question part 2:
If not, then why?

Answer: because the memo was not passed up the proper chain.

Read the article.

[BigAl]

BigAl, why did you invoke space beams?
DGM, please tell sabretooth that his reasoning was flawed.

Because when an advocate for a "new independent investigation" bases the demand on fantasy and impossible physics instead of making his case based on, say, a fact-based description of how much the FBI offices knew prior to 9/11/2001 and how the investigation was botched at FBI HQ.

101% of the people demanding a new investigation don't know who a hero, Coleen Rowley is and why she is all by herself an argument that there are investigations to be done, or there were until Amy B. Zegart wrote her recent book, Spying Blind.

Instead, the people demanding a new investigation are distracted and blinded by bright shiny objects; man-made demolition, no-planes and space beams.

[Childlike Empress]

Instead, the people demanding a new investigation are distracted and blinded by bright shiny objects; man-made demolition, no-planes and space beams.


Well, what are you going to do about it? I know about Coleen Rowley and she's also mentioned in Gold's factsheet:

Fact #19
Several Whistleblowers have come forward over the years with information pertinent to the 9/11 attacks.

Most were ignored or censored by the 9/11 Commission.

Some of these people are John M. Cole (Senior Counterintelligence Operations Manager-FBI), Bogdan Dzakovic (Former Red Team Leader-FAA), Sibel Edmonds (Language Specialist-FBI), Behrooz Sarshar (Language Specialist-FBI), Melvin A. Goodman (Former Senior Analyst/ Division Manager-CIA), Gilbert Graham (Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence-FBI), Coleen Rowley (Retired Division Counsel- FBI), John Vincent(Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism-FBI), Robert Wright (Veteran Special Agent, Counterterrorism-FB), Mark Burton (Senior Analyst- NSA), Mike German (Special Agent, Counterterrorism-FBI), Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, and Scott Philpott.

9/11 Family Member Patty Casazza said “Sibel came to, actually, the four widows, and asked us if she could get a hearing with the Commission because nobody of the Commission was responding to her requests to testify. And part of the problem with testifying, um… as someone who’s working for one of the agencies, is that, they have to be careful with state secrets, what they reveal. And, in order to be a whistle-blower, and not be retaliated against, most whistle-blowers need to be subpoenaed, cause then their co-workers, and those who might retaliate against them, know that under penalty of, ya know, law, they could be… um… ya know, accused of being traitors and what not, and put in jail, or executed. So, most whistle-blowers were… did not come forward on the basis of what happened to Sibel Edmonds. Um, Sibel brought us many whistle-blowers, and I submitted them personally to Governor Kean, who was the Chairman of the Commission. And I said, “these people are not being subpoenaed. They will not come before the Commission voluntarily unless they are subpoenaed.” And, he promised me… to my face that “every whistle-blower would be… indeed heard.” And, most were not heard. Sibel was only heard because we dragged her in and surprised the Commission on one of the days we were meeting with them… that we had her with us. Um, we met other whistle-blowers on the side of the road in Maryland, ya know, to hear what they could tell us. None of them revealed state secrets to us by the way (laughs)… um, but, they had information… and basically, the Government knew… ya know, other than the exact moment… they knew the date, andthe method of which the attacks were supposed to come. (pauses) And none of this made it to mainstream media. None of it made it into the Commission. And yet, again, all of your Representatives, on the day that the Commission book came out, were on their pulpits saying, “What a fabulous job this Commission has done. A real service to this nation.” And it was anything but a service. It was a complete fabrication.”

On October 29th, 2007, Sibel Edmonds agreed to break the gag order that was placed on her, and tell her entire story to the media. Until very recently, the only paper to take the challenge was the Sunday Times. At the time, the media in this country did not give her the time of day with one exception that I know of, and it wasn’t prominently displayed. Sibel’s story mentions the same alleged financier of the 9/11 attacks that Rep. Porter Goss, Sen. Graham, and Sen. Kyl met with on the morning of 9/11. More about Sibel will be mentioned later.


Last i've heard from Rowley was an interview (http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2010/01/31/podcast-show-22/) she's given to mentioned Sibel Edmonds in January this year:

Coleen Rowley shares with us her views on the latest spectacle surrounding the Christmas Day foiled terrorist attempt, and how it reflects on policies that were implemented after 9/11. She provides us with insight into the pretend investigations carried out by the 9/11 Commission, and how they conducted many of their interviews of FBI witnesses and experts inside the FBI HQ and offices. Ms. Rowley talks about the absence of real investigations and accountability in almost any government related wrong doing and issues, our shameful treatment of inmates in Guantanamo detention center, the alarming desensitization of our people bolstered by the culprit mainstream media, and much more.


What is the new information in the book you've mentioned?

[jammonius]

The 9/11 Commission was established in the teeth of Republican opposition. The families of the victims played a large part in rousing public opinion and shaming the administration into it.

The establishment of the commission was a political compromise because the 9/11 report was due be delivered just before the 2004 presidential election. As a comprimise, the work was split into two phases with the second phase to deal with the administration's decision making and actions leading up to 9/11, and to be delivered well after the election. The second phase almost didn't happen and public outrage was necessary.

I think what you have is part of the campaign to make phase II happen. The date is right.

IMO, awareness of the above has disappeared down the memory hole.

The report was delivered in May 2007. This is probably a good summary of the report.

http://www.dawn.com/2007/05/27/int6.htm

BigAl,

Did the family of your colleague and work-mate, Ed Felt, participate in the struggle to get an investigation into what happened on 9/11?

[BigAl]

BigAl,

Did the family of your colleague and work-mate, Ed Felt, participate in the struggle to get an investigation into what happened on 9/11?

What difference could any answer make to a no-planer?

[grandmastershek]

Scott, about three years ago i made a comic strip about this. The characters were supposed to be me and Gravy:

The easy way out
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/99074c811c3689e47.png

I would love for you you cite where Gravy ever did anything even close to that at anytime anywhere with anyone. Just more evidence you can't handle reality and make up your own to suit your beliefs.

[BigAl]

Well, what are you going to do about it? I know about Coleen Rowley and she's also mentioned in Gold's factsheet:

So which is it? Do you accept Rowley's conclusion that Arab Islamists perpetrated the 9/11 hijackings and caused all the death and destruction or was it something else, an "inside job", man-made demolition, etc.

It's kind of either/or.




Last i've heard from Rowley was an interview (http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2010/01/31/podcast-show-22/) she's given to mentioned Sibel Edmonds in January this year:

What is the new information in the book you've mentioned?

Read it for yourself.

Spying Blind by Amy B. Zegart

[Childlike Empress]

So which is it? Do you accept Rowley's conclusion that Arab Islamists perpetrated the 9/11 hijackings and caused all the death and destruction or was it something else, an "inside job", man-made demolition, etc.

It's kind of either/or.


No it isn't. If Rowley's conclusion is what you describe, i accept it, but she doesn't know. Like you and me. She only knows about her window of experience re:9/11, and this adds to the strong evidence we have that the people who were accused of being the hijackers and sole culprits of 9/11 really existed and that their activities were observed by several entities including the FBI, with investigations apparently tampered with. Rowley's experience, covered up by the 9/11 commission, says nothing about whether or not inside job, man-made demolitions or space beams were part of 9/11.

[BigAl]

No it isn't. If Rowley's conclusion is what you describe, i accept it, but she doesn't know. Like you and me. She only knows about her window of experience re:9/11, and this adds to the strong evidence we have that the people who were accused of being the hijackers and sole culprits of 9/11 really existed and that their activities were observed by several entities including the FBI, with investigations apparently tampered with. Rowley's experience, covered up by the 9/11 commission, says nothing about whether or not inside job, man-made demolitions or space beams were part of 9/11.


That's a whole lot of word salad following that "if".

None of it appears to be grounded in reality.

[Childlike Empress]

Evade much?

[Childlike Empress]

Thanks for changing your earlier post, Al. My answer still fits. ;)

Spying Blind (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8498.html) by Amy B. Zegert:

In this pathbreaking book, Amy Zegart provides the first scholarly examination of the intelligence failures that preceded September 11. Until now, those failures have been attributed largely to individual mistakes. But Zegart shows how and why the intelligence system itself left us vulnerable.

Amy B. Zegart is associate professor of public policy at the University of California, Los Angeles. She is the author of Flawed by Design: The Evolution of the CIA, JCS, and NSC.


Ever since the end of the cold war, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency, and more than a dozen other intelligence organizations that answer to the president had been struggling to adapt their sources and methods to the new menace. As Amy B. Zegart argues in Spying Blind, they just weren't up to the job.... Zegart, blaming institutional inertia more than individuals, counts more than 20 specific instances where the CIA or the FBI missed chances to stop the 9/11 attacks.


There is no longer any doubt of the failure of our intelligence agencies in the years following the Cold War. Amy Zegart has examined the reasons for this failure in addition to the well-meaning but mistaken attempts to address the problem. An important book for all those interested in the nation's security.

Spying Blind is a timely and sweeping overview of the organizational challenges confronting our intelligence agencies in an age of terrorism. Amy Zegart has written a comprehensive and engaging book that will be of interest to anyone who seeks a better understanding of America's national-security agencies.

[BigAl]

Thanks for changing your earlier post, Al. My answer still fits. ;)

Spying Blind (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8498.html) by Amy B. Zegert:

Read the book.

[Childlike Empress]

Here (http://hcgroups.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/writing-blind-or-turning-a-blind-eye-the-confused-world-of-amy-zegart/) is a critical review of the book, written on the newsgroup of historycommons.org, filed under "complete 9/11 timeline":

[...] Basically, Zegart takes the 9/11 Commission’s no-fault thesis to the nth degree by claiming the whole thing was systemic failure and holding no individual accountable for his or her failures.

Here are a typical couple of paragraphs of dreck, about the FBI’s search for Almihdhar and Alhazmi:

Culture also played an important role. It turns out that the FBI analyst who requested the manhunt actually believed the matter had some urgency. She was so worried about finding Almihdhar, in fact that she called an agent in New York’s bin Laden squad to alert him even before finishing her formal request. This was something she had never done before.14 A few days later, she sent him an e-mail urging, “I… want to get this going as soon as possible.”15 In addition, when another counterterrorism agent pressed to have the manhunt opened as a full-scale, high priority criminal investigation, she explicitly considered the matter and sought legal advice. Yet she ultimately assigned the manhunt the lowest possible priority: a “routine” intelligence case. Why?

The answer lies in pervasive attitudes and beliefs, not individual errors. Like nearly all FBI officials, the analyst believed that criminal investigations—which are designed to solve past crimes—took precedence over intelligence investigations designed to gather information about future attacks. After September 11, the analyst told Justice Department officials that although she considered finding Almihdhar to be important, this investigation was “no bigger” than any other intelligence investigation at the time.16 Good instincts led the analyst to take unusual steps to expedite the search, but old attitudes prevailed: when pressed to prioritize the manhunt relative to the bureau’s traditional law enforcement work, she put down “routine.”


Those knowledgeable of the issues will have identified in this passage Dina Corsi (the FBI analyst), Craig Donnachie (the bin Laden squad agent) and Steve Bongardt (the other counterterrorism agent). Having read the relevant sources, Zegart knows who these people are, but, with the exception of a walk-on part for Bongardt in an end note late in the book, she doesn’t trouble her readers with them. This means that unless you have read all of Zegart’s sources five times yourself, you can’t tell that some of the same people are involved in multiple failures.

You can also only marvel at Zegart’s description of Corsi’s actions. Zegart has her charging hard to get the case started, but it took her a week to send the five-page lead to New York, so how much did she really want it? And your jaw can only drop in wonder at Zegart’s explanation for Corsi giving the lead routine precedence. As Zegart must know, Almihdhar and Alhazmi were being sought as material witnesses in the Cole bombing investigation, which was actually a past crime, having occurred the previous October. This, in Zegart’s world, should mean that the investigation gets a high priority, but Zegart keeps this from her readers, giving them the impression the two men were being sought for some other reason.

There are also three things startling by their absence here. One is the complete absence of Tom Wilshire, referred to variously and vaguely throughout the book, but never by name and never by an alias readers can keep track off. Zegart cites The Looming Tower repeatedly, so she must know who he is, but she isn’t telling her readers. Second, in the whole of the discussion of the failed hunt for Almihdhar the two things conspicuous by their entire absence from the book are the NSA’s permission to share its intelligence on Almihdhar and Alhazmi with Bongardt and other criminal agents and Sherry Sabol’s alleged (and probably fabricated) opinion that Bongardt could not be present at an interview of Almihdhar if the FBI did find him. Why does Zegart miss them out? We don’t know, but we do know that they are pretty powerful evidence of intentional wrongdoing by Corsi, and that if you wanted to write a book claiming systemic failure was the main cause of 9/11, you’d better leave them out. [...]


Closing the review, the author remarks the "near-total absence of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice from the book" and links to a UCLA biography of Mrs. Zegert, archived 2006 by the Wayback Machine (http://web.archive.org/web/20060901232242/http://www.spa.ucla.edu/dept.cfm?d=ps&s=faculty&f=faculty1.cfm&id=283):

She received a Ph.D. in Political Science from Stanford University, where she studied under Condoleezza Rice.

:cool:

[BigAl]

Here (http://hcgroups.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/writing-blind-or-turning-a-blind-eye-the-confused-world-of-amy-zegart/) is a critical review of the book, written on the newsgroup of historycommons.org, filed under "complete 9/11 timeline":



Read the book.

[Childlike Empress]

No.

[Disbelief]

Read the book.

No.

Spoken like an intrepid truth seeker.

[grandmastershek]

Spoken like an intrepid truth seeker.

Maybe if we do a books on tape via youtube with compelling music? Ahhh...screw it. Let's just make a 5 min video of me jiggling my keys.

[BigAl]

No.

bye.

[triforcharity]

BigAl,

Did the family of your colleague and work-mate, Ed Felt, participate in the struggle to get an investigation into what happened on 9/11?

STFU. Your mother should be so proud.........:rolleyes:

[triforcharity]

Here (http://hcgroups.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/writing-blind-or-turning-a-blind-eye-the-confused-world-of-amy-zegart/) is a critical review of the book, written on the newsgroup of historycommons.org, filed under "complete 9/11 timeline":




Closing the review, the author remarks the "near-total absence of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice from the book" and links to a UCLA biography of Mrs. Zegert, archived 2006 by the Wayback Machine (http://web.archive.org/web/20060901232242/http://www.spa.ucla.edu/dept.cfm?d=ps&s=faculty&f=faculty1.cfm&id=283):



:cool:

I hilited your problem for you. Historycommons.org is know for keeping lies and ************ on their site, even when asked to correct it.

[dc1971]

That silly little site is rediculous. I found many errors in their "facts" and use logical fallacies time and time again.

Maybe logical fallacies, maybe not, either way I think at the time this web page went live (says Copyright 2003) they felt there were a lot of unanswered questions. And yes, there were legitimate concerns unlike the concerns of the truther movement!

[triforcharity]

Maybe logical fallacies, maybe not, either way I think at the time this web page went live (says Copyright 2003) they felt there were a lot of unanswered questions. And yes, there were legitimate concerns unlike the concerns of the truther movement!

I couldn't agree more. At the time, those were legitimate questions. The ones that can be answered, have been. The ones that won't be answered ( presidential procedure, things like that) I am sure we will never know the answer to. I am ok with that. So are the majority of the FSC.

[Childlike Empress]

bye.


I looked at both sides and shared my investigation with you. This book written by a student of Condi is as official as it gets. I will learn nothing from reading it.

Apropos Condi, two paragraphs from the wikipedia article on Philip Zelikow, executive director of the 9/11 Commission:

In 1989, in the George H. W. Bush administration, Zelikow was detailed to join the National Security Council, where he was involved as a senior White House staffer in the diplomacy surrounding the German reunification and the diplomatic settlements accompanying the end of the Cold War in Europe. During the first Gulf War he aided President Bush, National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, and Secretary of State James Baker in diplomatic affairs related to the coalition. He went on to co-author, with Condoleezza Rice, the book Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft , an academic treatment of the politics of reunification, which was published in 1995. [...]

At the recommendation of Lee H. Hamilton, the vice-chair, Zelikow was appointed executive director of the 9/11 Commission, whose work included examination of the conduct of Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush and their administrations. Zelikow's prior involvement with the administration of George W. Bush led to opposition from the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, citing a conflict of interest. In response to the concerns, Zelikow agreed to recuse himself from any investigation matters pertaining to the National Security Council's transition from the Clinton to Bush administrations, which Zelikow had helped manage.

[TexasJack]

Of course, the whole point of Al's post was to demonstrate that if truthers could focus on the real issues of 9/11, in this case institutional ones, instead of the sci-fi platform of man-made demolitions or space beams, they could actually be a viable group. This is why they fail and will continue to fail.

[dc1971]

I couldn't agree more. At the time, those were legitimate questions. The ones that can be answered, have been. The ones that won't be answered ( presidential procedure, things like that) I am sure we will never know the answer to. I am ok with that. So are the majority of the FSC.

It's all good!

[ozeco41]

Of course, the whole point of Al's post was to demonstrate that if truthers could focus on the real issues of 9/11, in this case institutional ones, instead of the sci-fi platform of man-made demolitions or space beams, they could actually be a viable group. This is why they fail and will continue to fail.

Spot on.

I have commented many times on the crazy tactics of lots of truthers. Why don't those truthers or genuine sceptics who have concerns about issues of collusion/corruption/conspiracy stick to those issues?

Tying their political concerns to demolition of WTC, no plane at the Pentagon etc immediately destroys any credibility their claims may have. It is simply too easy to rebut the technical claims and any conspiracy claims tied to them fall with them.

[Childlike Empress]

But the thing is that even without any technical evidence, the - call them political - known facts alone are enough to demand a new investigation. Anything else can only add, never substract.

So, unlike Bush and Cheney, Condi publically testified under oath to the 9/11 commission, whose executive director was her old personal friend Philip Zelikow. She was interviewed by Richard Ben-Veniste in front of the 9/11 widows.

And she blatantly lied. Here's a five minute clip:

CcrgeuLb3dQ
Consequences for Mrs. Rice? Career boost.

[beachnut]

But the thing is that even without any technical evidence, the - call them political - known facts alone are enough to demand a new investigation. Anything else can only add, never substract.

So, unlike Bush and Cheney, Condi publically testified under oath to the 9/11 commission, whose executive director was her old personal friend Philip Zelikow. She was interviewed by Richard Ben-Veniste in front of the 9/11 widows.

And she blatantly lied. Here's a five minute clip:

CcrgeuLb3dQ
Consequences for Mrs. Rice? Career boost.
Why does the president have to testify to Congress? Under oath? 911 truth are not too good at using logic - have you noticed that? Give it up - 8 years of failure for 911 truth - you were right, give it up is what 911 truth needs to do. With your superior efforts failing to support any 911 truth claims, it is over.

Prove she lied. 8 years and nothing.

[Childlike Empress]

Jon Gold has produced a couple of short videos to make the facts contained in his collection (http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/) more accessible. Here are three of them.

9/11 Commission (see Fact #26) (5:42min)
PkU1fL5IJXU

Philip Zelikow (see Fact #16) (6:04min)
HMQNyhoAcBY

Max Cleland (see Fact #37) (4:04min)
7EBzowgCCXk

[beachnut]

Jon Gold has produced a couple of short videos to make the facts contained in his collection (http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/) more accessible.
They are not facts you can use to support his delusions on 911. 911 truth is challenged, they can't figure out 911 after 9 years. Perfected failure, is 911 truth's only product, and idiotic videos which prove the authors are not firing on all eight.

Posting moronic videos; is this your new hobby? How does making up lies and false information help the families affected by 911?

[Miragememories]

They are not facts you can use to support his delusions on 911. 911 truth is challenged, they can't figure out 911 after 9 years. Perfected failure, is 911 truth's only product, and idiotic videos which prove the authors are not firing on all eight.

Posting moronic videos; is this your new hobby? How does making up lies and false information help the families affected by 911?
I'm sure you've said this before?

Like maybe a million times?

Aren't there spam bots that can do this?

MM

[beachnut]

I'm sure you've said this before?

Like maybe a million times?

Aren't there spam bots that can do this?

MM
Are you the one holding all the evidence; you have nothing for 9 years and today you post all of it at once? The big zero evidence posts; full of nothing. No help for the families, you only produce this, calling people spam bots. You post nothing to support your idiotic cd claims, and you can't help the families who lost so much. 9 years of failure; are you going for 10 years of no evidence and make it a decade of failure? Evidence yet? No!

What have you for this OP? http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html
Are these the same questions you have?

[Miragememories]

bye.
Bye.

MM

[Miragememories]

Are you the one holding all the evidence; you have nothing for 9 years and today you post all of it at once? The big zero evidence posts; full of nothing. No help for the families, you only produce this, calling people spam bots. You post nothing to support your idiotic cd claims, and you can't help the families who lost so much. 9 years of failure; are you going for 10 years of no evidence and make it a decade of failure? Evidence yet? No!

What have you for this OP? http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html
Are these the same questions you have?
Y a w n

MM

[Sabretooth]

Y a w n

MM

Translation: I'm a big, bad Truther and I know about all this secret stuff that no one has ever heard of that proves the government is lying. But I'm not going to share any of it.

[beachnut]

Y a w n

MM
Wow, the evidence is posted! You have the same evidence as all 911 truth. Wow.

KB



5. Please draw up a chart of NORAD's response to the Payne Stewart Lear jet incident vs. the 9/11 incident. Why was protocol not followed on 9/11? What is the name of the individual who did not follow protocol? Where are the transcripts from the F-16s? Where is the log and record from NORAD?
Gee, this is hard, it took 80 minutes to intercept Payne Stewart's plane, unless you are an idiot and can't convert time from central to Eastern, or to z-time.

It is best to yawn, you offer zero evidence to help 911 truth and you are not interested in answering questions. Should that be F-15s, or 16s?

[Childlike Empress]

BigAl?

[DGM]

BigAl?
The "family steering committee" disbanded year ago. Why would you drag this back out?

[Foolmewunz]

BigAl?

Jeez, you've been waiting by the phone for his call for almost a year? The guy hasn't posted in nine months! Are you tidying up your ToDo list?

[Orphia Nay]

I was sent this. It's Homepage is dated January 11, 2005
Anyone know what it is?

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

It looks like the Jersey Girls organization.

Here are the 12 members of the Family Steering Committe:

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

The majority were happy with the 9/11 Commission. Only 4 went on to become the Jersey Girls.

[Edx]

Here are the 12 members of the Family Steering Committe:

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

The majority were happy with the 9/11 Commission. Only 4 went on to become the Jersey Girls.

Have there been any interviews with the others on the final 4?

[Orphia Nay]

Have there been any interviews with the others on the final 4?

Not as far as I know. I emailed one of them a few years ago, but did not receive a reply. It's probably (and not surprisingly) a touchy subject.

[dafydd]

Jon Gold has produced a couple of short videos to make the facts contained in his collection (http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/) more accessible. Here are three of them.

9/11 Commission (see Fact #26) (5:42min)
PkU1fL5IJXU

Philip Zelikow (see Fact #16) (6:04min)
HMQNyhoAcBY

Max Cleland (see Fact #37) (4:04min)
7EBzowgCCXk
Have you ever looked up the word 'facts' in a dictionary?

[dafydd]

Translation: I'm a big, bad Truther and I know about all this secret stuff that no one has ever heard of that proves the government is lying. But I'm not going to share any of it.

They never do. I wonder what the reason is?

[dafydd]

Maybe if we do a books on tape via youtube with compelling music? Ahhh...screw it. Let's just make a 5 min video of me jiggling my keys.

Truthers are attracted by shiny objects.