911: The chain of evidence

[Childlike Empress]

Hi, i am missing the chain of evidence for the theory that the 19 alleged highjackers commited the mass murder of September 11th 2001.

Please provide all sources but one - the "9/11 Commission"-Report.

[Hawk one]

But that report does present the chain of evidence, as collected by many different agencies and independent parties (such as the airplane companies). All you have to do is to read the facts.

[Shrinker]

Presumably all the parties who contributed to the report are also forbidden sources? FBI, FEMA etc, including all witnesses and individuals involved in the investigation. Because, if the report contradicted the individual findings then those parties would have spoken up by now. That they haven't spoken up shows that they are in on it too.

So that leaves a bunch of Quicktimes off the net, and 'alternative' media sources. We've already learned that these aren't useful ways to assemble a coherent theory. The 9/11 Truth movement is proof of that.

[EvilBiker]

Hi, i am missing the chain of evidence for the theory that the 19 alleged highjackers commited the mass murder of September 11th 2001.

It's in your sock drawer, where you always leave it! How many times do I have to tell you? Sheesh.

Idiot.

[MRC_Hans]

Let's see:

Planes being hijacked, as evidenced by flight control records.
Planes flying into the buildings as evidenced by millons of withnesses, tons of stills and video footage.
The hijacked planes failing to land in other places.
No other planes missing.
The passengers and crew on the hijacked planes failing to show up in other places.
Remains of the passengers and crew on the hijacked planes being identified on the crash sites.
Records and diaries of the hijackers being left behind.
Passenger lists showing that the hijackers boarded the hijacked planes.

MMmmm, I guess it all fits.

Hans

[Childlike Empress]

Planes being hijacked, as evidenced by flight control records.
Planes flying into the buildings as evidenced by millons of withnesses, tons of stills and video footage.
The hijacked planes failing to land in other places.
No other planes missing.
The passengers and crew on the hijacked planes failing to show up in other places.
Remains of the passengers and crew on the hijacked planes being identified on the crash sites.
Records and diaries of the hijackers being left behind.

Irrelevant. I want a chain of evidence. That's not "there were planes" but "these people did it".


Passenger lists showing that the hijackers boarded the hijacked planes.
Source?

@Shrinker: The parties are allowed. With independent (from the "report") statements.

[Anacoluthon64]

Please provide all sources but one - the "9/11 Commission"-Report.This request, in and of itself, just begs to be regarded with deep suspicion.

What, pray, is your agenda?

'Luthon64

[Shrinker]

@Shrinker: The parties are allowed. With independent (from the "report") statements.

So, an FBI statement that didn't make it into the report is okay, but if it did appear in the report it's disallowed? Or are you saying we can use any words in the report so long as we can also find them printed elsewhere?

One more thing, remind me, how much time and money the Commision required to pull together all the evidence and publish it as a coherent whole. How long would it have taken them if they had to Google for the information, or go to a library, or file FOIA requests? And why is it that only this amount of time and effort on our part, will settle the debate?

Why don't you settle it by showing us one single deception in the official report. Wouldn't that be quicker? Surely you have hundreds of these already...

[Childlike Empress]

So, an FBI statement that didn't make it into the report is okay, but if it did appear in the report it's disallowed? Or are you saying we can use any words in the report so long as we can also find them printed elsewhere?
I think the latter is ok for me.

remind me, how much ... money the Commision required to pull together all the evidence
Sure, that would be less than $167 (http://jonesreport.com/articles/030406_kean_commission.html) per murder.

[Hawk one]

Sure, that would be less than $167 (http://jonesreport.com/articles/030406_kean_commission.html) per murder.

Or it would be more like 20 million dollars (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1341479#post1341479), which is a lot more than the 400 000 dollar lie you're suggesting.

[Shrinker]

I think the latter is ok for me.


Sure, that would be less than $167 (http://jonesreport.com/articles/030406_kean_commission.html) per murder.

According to your link Al Qeada allegedly paid $166 per murder so that's a very poor answer. And next time, why don't you quote the relevant paragraph so I don't have to read the whole thing to find your badly mangled point.

You also seem to have missed a part...

Why don't you settle it by showing us one single deception in the official report. Wouldn't that be quicker? Surely you have hundreds of these already...

[Childlike Empress]

@Hawk one: What has your link to do with this thread? I am talking about the "9/11 Commission"-Report. Not the NIST-Report.

@Shrinker: I asked for evidence. Period.

[Anacoluthon64]

What, pray, is your agenda?Your silence only adds to the suspicion.

'Luthon64

[Shrinker]

@Shrinker: I asked for evidence. Period.

No you're making a childish and practically impossible challenge. It would take decades for any of us to replicate the 9/11 report using only spare time and personal resources, and you know it perfectly well. It would take minutes for you to show why the report is at fault, yet you can't do it. Why not?

[fsol]

@Shrinker: I asked for evidence. Period.

Period? No you didn't. What's wrong with the 9/11 commission report?

[Hawk one]

No, the link shows:

NIST redirected $3.4 million in fiscal year 2002 to begin a three-part plan in response to the WTC disaster. The agency received $16 million for the investigation in September from the FY 2002 supplemental appropriation. The FY 2003 appropriation includes an increase of $3 million.

Bolding mine. The other sums are additions to this main sum. Naturally, you wouldn't need as much money in 2004, because by then the bulk of the investigation is already done. That's the trick about reading comprehension. In other words, my mistake is that their total budget is a lot -more- than 20 million dollars, not less.

Besides, didn't you not want the 9/11 commision report anyway? Well, read the NIST report instead, then.

[Childlike Empress]

No, the link shows:

NIST redirected $3.4 million in fiscal year 2002 to begin a three-part plan in response to the WTC disaster. The agency received $16 million for the investigation in September from the FY 2002 supplemental appropriation. The FY 2003 appropriation includes an increase of $3 million.
And the link goes to what site? NIST. Watch Commander Kean speaking in the link i provided. Less than half a million for the Commission-Report. Compare that to one blowjob Mr. Clinton enjoyed.

No you're making a childish and practically impossible challenge. It would take decades for any of us to replicate the 9/11 report using only spare time and personal resources, and you know it perfectly well. It would take minutes for you to show why the report is at fault, yet you can't do it. Why not?
Gravy asked me if i really believe that there is no evidence for the "19 Highjackers"-CT and i said yes. Am i wrong? I thought this is a "skeptics"-Forum.

[fsol]

And the amount of money spent has what bearing on the findings exactly? I find it quite distasteful that you would then say "only" $167 per victim as if the number of victims and the amount spent on the report have any bearing on each other. What would have been an adequate amount to spend on the report "per victim?"

[Hawk one]

And the link goes to what site? NIST. Watch Commander Kean speaking in the link i provided. Less than half a million for the Commission-Report. Compare that to one blowjob Mr. Clinton enjoyed.

Why would I compare apples to oranges? I agree that the Clinton case was blown out of proportions, but that is an entirely separate matter.

The objectives are so wildly different, as NIST are doing the investigation, while the 9/11 commission made the end report.

Here's a tip: Any investigation will cost more to produce than a report. I'll leave it to you to figure out why this is.

Gravy asked me if i really believe that there is no evidence for the "19 Highjackers"-CT and i said yes. Am i wrong? I thought this is a "skeptics"-Forum.Basically, all the available and real evidence are pointing at the 19 hijackers, so yes, you are 99,999% likely to be wrong.

[Childlike Empress]

@fsol: What's the "defense" budget of the US? 400 Billion $? I would say: Investigate - money doesn't count.

[Childlike Empress]

The objectives are so wildly different, as NIST are doing the investigation, while the 9/11 commission made the end report.
That's wrong. NIST investigated only the collapse of the twin towers (we all wait for their report on wtc7). The "911 Commission"-Report (posed like it) investigated the criminals - and this investigation is what i am questioning here.

[Shrinker]

Gravy asked me if i really believe that there is no evidence for the "19 Highjackers"-CT and i said yes. Am i wrong? I thought this is a "skeptics"-Forum.

Yes you are wrong. The victims on the planes made phone calls and described hijackers. That is one piece of evidence. Why should we spend all our time assembling all of the evidence, when you refuse to acknowldege even this most basic and fundamental fact?

Skeptics do not disbelieve everything; they are suspicious of those things that appear to contradict the available evidence. The 9/11 report doesn't appear to contradict the avilable evidence, but you do. So do you know something we don't?

[kookbreaker]

So, I guess the fact that the Saudi's, who were very reluctant to admit that their children had anything to do with 911, admitted that the majority of the hijackers were their citizens holds no weight for you?

They were convinced, they had a lot more to lose by admitting it. What's your malfunction?

[fsol]

@fsol: What's the "defense" budget of the US? 400 Billion $? I would say: Investigate - money doesn't count.

Then why bring it up? And then why bring up a figure that has nothing to do with the amount the report cost? I suppose if the cost of making a report isn't high enough they could always send for take out and charge it to the account. Maybe buy chocolate biscuits instead of plain. I dunno.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Hi, i am missing the chain of evidence for the theory that the 19 alleged highjackers commited the mass murder of September 11th 2001.

Please provide all sources but one - the "9/11 Commission"-Report.

Is this a joke or a serious example of truth-seeker "open mindedness".

Tell you what, Childlike... instead of this little game, why don't you meet me on a nuetral, punkbuster enabled Battlefield 2 server?

At least that way I can be reasonably certain that we're playing a game you haven't deliberately rigged so that you will always win.

[Childlike Empress]

Then why bring it up? And then why bring up a figure that has nothing to do with the amount the report cost? I suppose if the cost of making a report isn't high enough they could always send for take out and charge it to the account. Maybe buy chocolate biscuits instead of plain. I dunno.
I'm sorry but i think i don't get your point.

@Sword_of_truth: That's easy: You smell strange.

@all: I leave for now. I hope there is a discussion going on. I was not joking when i opened this thread.

[Hawk one]

That's wrong. NIST investigated only the collapse of the twin towers (we all wait for their report on wtc7). The "911 Commission"-Report (posed like it) investigated the criminals - and this investigation is what i am questioning here.

OK, fair enough, I got a bit confused. But still, the commission didn't have to do much compared to NIST, which is the one fair investigation. How much money do you need to get the passenger list from the air plane companies? Hardly anything. It will cost more to then search out the information on the suspects - such as finding out that they had indeed been trained to fly commercial planes - but it's still a drop in the sea compared to the incredibly costly and time-consuming effort it is to check out Ground Zero as NIST did.

I will admit that there would probably have been spent more if the hijackers were still alive, because then they would investigate with the goal of prosecution. But since there's no point in prosecuting dead men, and since it was known from Day 1 that the planes were hijacked at all (thanks to the overwhelming evidence), then there is hardly much point in dragging it out longer than it needs to.

It's not just a question of quantity in dollars, it's a question of how effective each dollar is spent.

[Gravy]

Gravy asked me if i really believe that there is no evidence for the "19 Highjackers"-CT and i said yes. Am i wrong? I thought this is a "skeptics"-Forum.
I then asked you this:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1700813&postcount=2576

And you chose to start a new thread here in which you exclude the 9/11 Commission report.

So, have you read the report?
If so, what did it get wrong, and why?

[TriangleMan]

Please provide all sources but one - the "9/11 Commission"-Report.
As someone new to this topic could you please explain why the Report can not be used as a source?

[Gravy]

I was not joking when i opened this thread.
Then why are you running around the field with a blindfold on and goalposts attached to your head?

[Stellafane]

...I thought this is a "skeptics"-Forum.

It is. It is not, however, an "indulge those who live in their own little fantasy world" forum.

[Flo]

As someone new to this topic could you please explain why the Report can not be used as a source?


maybe because it doesn't vindicate her dearly held beliefs about the evilness of the US government ?

[TimmyBerry]

Don't you just love how they retreat when the evidence starts piling up around them?

[dubfan]

The CTs are suspicious of the 9/11 Commission report for several reasons:

1. Testimony of certain individuals is omitted (Edmonds, Rodriguez)

2. The report does not address WTC 7

3. The report contradicts other evidenciary sources on matters of fact (Otis fighter timeline)

4. Other matters have come to light since the report was released that cast doubt on its comprehensiveness (Able Danger)

5. The report is rather gentle in its political conclusions (it largely lets both Clinton and Bush off the hook, politically)

I think these are fair criticisms. I don't conclude from these, however, that 9/11 was a false flag op carried out by the government. I tend to conclude from all of this that internal political considerations played a big part and there was certainly a lot of ass-covering/incompetence/negligence going on, particulary in the case of the FBI (Edmonds).

That said, I think it's a mistake to dismiss the entire report, esp. as it is so well-sourced. In fact, the sourcing is what has made the inconsistencies so easy to find. I think the report could benefit from a revision to address/cleanup some of the contradictions, and to look at some of the things that have (rightly, IMO) been brought up since -- namely, Able Danger and Sibel Edmonds. I hope the Commission members will do that at some point.

Also, I think a lot of the criticism deals with facts around the "edges" of the story -- issues of who knew what when and were people doing the jobs they were supposed to be doing. None of that really undermines the basic truth that 19 jihadists hijacked some planes and flew them into some buildings (or the ground in PA) on 9/11.

Edit: typo

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
Also, I think a lot of the criticism deals with facts around the "edges" of the story -- issues of who knew what when and were people doing the jobs they were supposed to be doing. None of that really undermines the basic truth that 19 jihadists hijacked some planes and flew them into some buildings (or the ground in PA) on 9/11.
However, that was the doubt raised in the opening post.

It did not even address possible ass covering and hand-washing (of which I'm sure there is quite a bit) in the report.

The claim of the CTs is not: "9/11 happened roughly like reported, but we think some people here and there have ducked responsibilities"

It is "Something entirely different happened, and the US govt was deeply involved in plannning and executing the event".

Hans

[aggle-rithm]

(we all wait for their report on wtc7).

Here, I'll give you a preview:

Two 110 story buildings fell down near WTC 7, raining tons of debris on it.

WTC 7 fell down.

There, was that so hard to understand?

[kookbreaker]

Here, I'll give you a preview:

Two 110 story buildings fell down near WTC 7, raining tons of debris on it.

WTC 7 fell down.

There, was that so hard to understand?

You forgot the 'WTC7 was on fire for seven hours' part.

[dubfan]

However, that was the doubt raised in the opening post.

It did not even address possible ass covering and hand-washing (of which I'm sure there is quite a bit) in the report.

The claim of the CTs is not: "9/11 happened roughly like reported, but we think some people here and there have ducked responsibilities"

It is "Something entirely different happened, and the US govt was deeply involved in plannning and executing the event".

Hans

Yes, I agree completely. That post was for the benefit of Childlike. I'm trying to show that it's possible for it to be true that the 9/11 Report is flawed and also the case that 19 jihadists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings. The one does not exclude the other.

[Regnad Kcin]

...Am i wrong? I thought this is a "skeptics"-Forum.It is more a forum dedicated to critical thinking. Though this does often include an initial or ongoing skeptical point of view.

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, I agree completely. That post was for the benefit of Childlike. I'm trying to show that it's possible for it to be true that the 9/11 Report is flawed and also the case that 19 jihadists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings. The one does not exclude the other.In that case, we agree.

Hans :)

[gfunkusarelius]

@all: I leave for now. I hope there is a discussion going on. I was not joking when i opened this thread.


the original poster said she was leaving. lets please drop this thread, it was obviously a hit and run and there are TONS of similar threads already. i always feel bad seeing how well this works...
:(

[rikzilla]

Hi, i am missing the chain of evidence for the theory that the 19 alleged highjackers commited the mass murder of September 11th 2001.

Please provide all sources but one - the "9/11 Commission"-Report.

I will agree...but first I'll need you to explain why the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

Please provide all sources but one - the "The Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica" - Report.

:rolleyes:

-z

[Hutch]

the original poster said she was leaving. lets please drop this thread, it was obviously a hit and run and there are TONS of similar threads already. i always feel bad seeing how well this works...
:(

FWIW, I think she meant that she had too leave the discussion at the present time (in another post the empress has indicated she is 10,000 miles from Florida, indicating an Austra-Asian posting site IMHO, so based that she has made 40+ posts over a couple of days and has been much politer than DJ ever aspired to, I think we owe her the benefit of the doubt (IMHO as always).

And while I also tend to concur with the apparent consensus that there may be an ulterior motive behind her question (i.e., that the 19 conspirators did not originate from Al-Queda and maybe weren't involved at all), it might not hurt (as an exercise) to provide a link or two on the chain of evidence--if for no other reason than for others who browse this thread.

For they are unlikely to get it from Loose Change or any site such as that.

Just my tattered two Egyptian Pounds worth...

[LTC8K6]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13288953/

Al-Qaeda admits it was behind 9/11 and names the 20th hijacker.

“Turki bin Fheid al-Muteiri -- Fawaz al-Nashmi -- may God accept him as a martyr (was) the one chosen by Sheikh Osama bin Laden to be the martyrdom-seeker number 20 in the raid on September 11, 2001,” the statement said.

“The (Sept. 11) operation was brought forward for some circumstances that brother Mohamed Atta explained to the general leadership,” it said, indicating that Muteiri could not join the other hijackers, led by Atta, in time.

[Apollyon]

Hi, i am missing the chain of evidence for the theory that the 19 alleged highjackers commited the mass murder of September 11th 2001.

Please provide all sources but one - the "9/11 Commission"-Report.
Seeing as there is no criminal trial for the accused hijackers and never will be one, can you provide a sprocket of logic as to why a chain of evidence is even necessary?

Please provide all sources but one - Hopsicker.

[chipmunk stew]

Gravy asked me if i really believe that there is no evidence for the "19 Highjackers"-CT and i said yes. Am i wrong?Yes. And the fact that you ignore the Commission Report (and its many cited sources that you can check for yourself) is evidence of your wrongness. You may disagree with the conclusions, and you may be suspicious of the sources, but to say there is NO evidence is just aggressive confirmation bias.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Hi, i am missing the chain of evidence for the theory that the 19 alleged highjackers commited the mass murder of September 11th 2001.

Please provide all sources but one - the "9/11 Commission"-Report.

You are asking us to reproduce the efforts of the 9/11 Commission. Those being



About the Commission | Report | Hearings | Staff Statements | Press | Archive | For Families
Frequently Asked Questions About the 9-11 Commission

What is the Commission's mandate?

When was the Commission created, and when is it supposed to report?

How is the Commission staff organized?

How many people serve on the Commission staff?

What is the Commission's budget?

How many people have you interviewed?

Will President Bush and President Clinton meet with the Commission?

Are you satisfied with the current level of cooperation you have been receiving?

Was the Commission able to review the Presidential Daily Briefs (PDBs)?

Has the Commission used its power of subpoena?

What is the Commission’s view of the Report of the Joint Inquiry?

What is the Commission's mandate?

* The Commission's mandate is to provide a “full and complete accounting” of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and recommendations as to how to prevent such attacks in the future.

Specifically, Section 604 of Public Law 107-306 requires the Commission to investigate "facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001," including those relating to intelligence agencies; law enforcement agencies; diplomacy; immigration, nonimmigrant visas, and border control; the flow of assets to terrorist organizations; commercial aviation; the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation; and other areas determined relevant by the Commission for its inquiry.

Back to Top

When was the Commission created, and when is it supposed to report?

* The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (known as the 9-11 Commission) was created by Public Law 107-306, signed by the President on November 27, 2002. P.L. 107-306 originally required the Commission to report to the President and Congress 18 months after enactment, or no later than May 27, 2004. Recently Congress passed and the President signed legislation which extends the reporting deadline by two months, to July 26, and the termination date by 30 days, to August 26. This additional time will allow the Commission to fulfill its mandate.

Back to Top

How is the Commission staff organized?

* In response to the requirements under law, the Commission has organized work teams to address each of the following eight topics:
o Al Qaeda and the Organization of the 9-11 Attack;
o Intelligence Collection, Analysis, and Management (including oversight and resource allocation);
o International Counterterrorism Policy, including states that harbor or harbored terrorists, or offer or offered terrorists safe havens;
o Terrorist Financing;
o Border Security and Foreign Visitors;
o Law Enforcement and Intelligence Collection inside the United States;
o Commercial Aviation and Transportation Security, including an Investigation into the Circumstances of the Four Hijackings;
o The Immediate Response to the Attacks at the National, State, and Local levels, including issues of Continuity of Government.

Back to Top

How many people serve on the Commission staff?

* The Commission has nearly 80 full-time employees, contractors, and detailees on staff. All the Commissioners and staff have received the security clearances they need to carry on the investigation.

The Commission has been highly successful in attracting the talents of an experienced, outstanding group of professionals, including a former Deputy Director of Intelligence, a former State Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, a professor of international history and foreign intelligence from Harvard, experts on cross-border money transfers, several former federal prosecutors, and several staff from the Congressional Joint Inquiry.

What is the Commission's budget?

* Public Law 107-306 provided for the reprogramming of $3 million for the Commission. Congress subsequently appropriated, and the President signed into law, an additional $11 million appropriation for the Commission. Recent legislation authorized an additional $1 million, bringing the Commission’s total budget to $15 million.

The Commission is confident that it can fulfill its mandate with this amount. We appreciate very much the support of Congress and the President for this level of funding.

How many people have you interviewed?

* As of March 15, 2004, we have interviewed more than 1000 individuals in ten countries. The Commission has also held ten days of public hearings to date, during which it received testimony from 110 federal, state, and local officials, and experts from the private sector.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/faq.htm#q4

This is not feasible. What is feasible, is for you to say, "I have issues/questions/etc with point X (or Y or Z) from the report." and then we discuss those issues/questions/etc.

[Bronze Dog]

One wonders if we'll be asked to produce the exact dimensions of millions of individual graves over in Europe, next.

[Gravy]

You are asking us to reproduce the efforts of the 9/11 Commission. Those being
http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/faq.htm#q4

This is not feasible. What is feasible, is for you to say, "I have issues/questions/etc with point X (or Y or Z) from the report." and then we discuss those issues/questions/etc.
Not so fast, Arkan. In my spare time I have reproduced the efforts of the Commission. I'm just waiting to use it as a debunk to DJLegacy's debunk of my debunk.

[gfunkusarelius]

FWIW, I think she meant that she had too leave the discussion at the present time

maybe you're right, time will tell. from my relatively limited experience here i have seen quite a few people who get kicks from stirring up a mess and running.

[kookbreaker]

What is the Commission's budget?

* Public Law 107-306 provided for the reprogramming of $3 million for the Commission. Congress subsequently appropriated, and the President signed into law, an additional $11 million appropriation for the Commission. Recent legislation authorized an additional $1 million, bringing the Commission’s total budget to $15 million.

Hmmmm. That's a bit more than the CT'ers were claiming.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Not so fast, Arkan. In my spare time I have reproduced the efforts of the Commission. I'm just waiting to use it as a debunk to DJLegacy's debunk of my debunk.
You realize, of course, I must now send my dog to your house to poop in your shoes, don't you?

[Shrinker]

One wonders if we'll be asked to produce the exact dimensions of millions of individual graves over in Europe, next.

Or a complete account of the evolution of single cell lifeform into human...

Or a complete proof of the non-existence of God...

[MikeW]

Hmmmm. That's a bit more than the CT'ers were claiming.
And the NIST millions are on top of that, I think. Haven't they had even more cash now? <goes off to check>

[chipmunk stew]

And the NIST millions are on top of that, I think. Haven't they had even more cash now? <goes off to check>Not to mention all the other involved agencies that had their own standard operating budgets to work with.

[Gravy]

You realize, of course, I must now send my dog to your house to poop in your shoes, don't you?
Go ahead. i'll just rinse them with some of Peter Poopoff's Miracle Spring Water.

[MikeW]

NIST funding for their investigation:
The agency received $16 million for the investigation in September 2002 from the FY 2002 supplemental appropriation. NIST redirected $3.4 million in fiscal year 2002 to begin a three-part plan in response to the WTC disaster. The FY 2003 appropriation included an increase of $3 million for related research and development.
wtc nist gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs htm
Last dot-free URL now I've reached 15 posts.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

NIST funding for their investigation:

Last dot-free URL now I've reached 15 posts.

So we have, what, roughly US$15 million for the Commission and another US$22.4 million for NIST? Yeah, I'd say US$37.4+ million for an investigation is significant.

[MikeW]

So we have, what, roughly US$15 million for the Commission and another US$22.4 million for NIST? Yeah, I'd say US$37.4+ million for an investigation is significant.
I assume NIST must have had other funding, too, as they've continued working on this & still have the WTC7 report to do. & as chipmunk stew points out, there are also the costs of the other agencies investigations. What did the FBI & CIA spend investigating 9/11, for instance?

[Belz...]

Gravy asked me if i really believe that there is no evidence for the "19 Highjackers"-CT and i said yes. Am i wrong? I thought this is a "skeptics"-Forum.

Your burden of proof, actually.

[Belz...]

@fsol: What's the "defense" budget of the US? 400 Billion $? I would say: Investigate - money doesn't count.

So, you're not a taxpayer, then ?

@all: I leave for now. I hope there is a discussion going on. I was not joking when i opened this thread.

No, just trolling.

[Belz...]

Not so fast, Arkan. In my spare time I have reproduced the efforts of the Commission. I'm just waiting to use it as a debunk to DJLegacy's debunk of my debunk.

...You're not still waiting for that, are you ?

[Childlike Empress]

@Hutch: Thanks. :blush:

@kookbreaker: What is the Commission's budget?

* Public Law 107-306 provided for the reprogramming of $3 million for the Commission. Congress subsequently appropriated, and the President signed into law, an additional $11 million appropriation for the Commission. Recent legislation authorized an additional $1 million, bringing the Commission’s total budget to $15 million.
I stand corrected. I misunderstood that statement by Thomas Kean. Sorry for that.

Ok, so far we have the following:
Passenger lists showing that the hijackers boarded the hijacked planes.
without sources. That's all?

@Belz...: I mentioned the connection Adnan Khashoggi/John Gray/9/11 Truth movement and provided some "evidence" in form of mainstream media articles to "Belz..." Any opinion on that, "Belz..."?

[kookbreaker]

@Hutch: Thanks. :blush:

@kookbreaker:
I stand corrected. I misunderstood that statement by Thomas Kean. Sorry for that.

Ok, so far we have the following:

without sources. That's all?

@Belz...:

We have passenger lists. We have a trail leading to the hijackers (all of this is in the Commission report) we have eyewitnesses who saw them at the various counters.

Again, more telling is that the Saudi's admitted that 15 of the hijackers were their citizens. They really, really, really, did not want to admit that fact. The evidence provided managed to change a very reluctant nation's mind.

[aggle-rithm]

We have passenger lists. We have a trail leading to the hijackers (all of this is in the Commission report) we have eyewitnesses who saw them at the various counters.

Again, more telling is that the Saudi's admitted that 15 of the hijackers were their citizens. They really, really, really, did not want to admit that fact. The evidence provided managed to change a very reluctant nation's mind.

Oh, they were in on it, too! That whole country is controlled by the Joooos, doncha know? ;)

[dubfan]

Ok, so far we have the following:

without sources. That's all?


The passenger lists belong to the airlines. Have you contacted UAL or AA to have them released?

We also have video evidence from security cameras, we have eyewitness accounts from passengers (via the airphone calls), eyewitness accounts from airline personnel and passengers who witnessed the 9/11 dry runs, we have forensic DNA for 3 of the hijackers whose remains were recovered from the WTC, 5 sets of remains identified via process of elimination on flight 77, visa and immigration records, credit card & ATM receipts, hotel records, housing & car rental records, eyewitness accounts from people who observed the hijackers training to fly planes as well as in their daily affairs, personal effects and correspondence left behind in cars & hotels (which was also a source of baseline DNA for comparison), statements by people close to the hijackers (one of the hijackers' girlfriend spoke to media, in Hamburg, IIRC), acknowledgement of the nationality and residence by 15 of the hijackers' home country's government, and an acknowledgement of complicity and a "tribute" video by the umbrella organization and the leader of the organization they belonged to and were trained by, that specifically mentions the individuals, and provides pictures and names.

Apart from all that, though, I agree -- it's a big mystery.

[chipmunk stew]

Oh, for cripe's sake.

We not only have passenger lists, but also cockpit voice recordings, physical evidence including materials used in planning and rehearsing for the attacks, flight training records of the hijackers, the fact that they disappeared off the face of the earth on 9/11/01, the Hamburg cell & Atta's financial ties, passports, DNA that could not be accounted for by any other passengers or pilots--to name a few.

You may question the validity of this evidence, but to claim there is no evidence at all is lunacy.

[Childlike Empress]

Again, more telling is that the Saudi's admitted that 15 of the hijackers were their citizens. They really, really, really, did not want to admit that fact. The evidence provided managed to change a very reluctant nation's mind.
They changed their minds a long time after 9/11. Look at this (http://web.archive.org/web/20031015183433/http://www.saudiembassy.net/press_release/01-spa/09-20-Saud2.htm) press release (saved by the wayback machine - disappeared in October 2003):

Regarding the inclusion of Saudi names in the published list of the suspects, Prince Saud commented that haste in publishing the names of suspects has been acknowledged, and that it has been proven that five of the people listed had nothing to do with what happened, adding: "We very much hope that before being published, information, names and pictures will be verified."

In late 2003 the saudis said (http://www.broeckers.com/toronto.htm):
„Regarding your request from Aug. 27th 2003 on the alleged press-release of HRH Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal after his meeting with US-President George W.Bush on Sept 20th 2001, in which he is supposed to have said that five names on the FBI’s suspects-list had nothing to do with what happend, the Embassy of the Saudi Arabian Kingdom intimates, that HRH the Foreign Minister never gave such a statement and this means, that what is written in the book „Facts, Forgeries and the supressed evidence of 9-11“ lacks any foundation.“

We have passenger lists.
Do we?

we have forensic DNA for 3 of the hijackers whose remains were recovered from the WTC
Really? Please provide a link.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...

You are asking us to reproduce the efforts of the 9/11 Commission. Those being
http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/faq.htm#q4

This is not feasible. What is feasible, is for you to say, "I have issues/questions/etc with point X (or Y or Z) from the report." and then we discuss those issues/questions/etc.

Do you agree with this assessment? Yes or no.

[Childlike Empress]

Do you agree with this assessment? Yes or no.
No.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Let's see:

Planes being hijacked, as evidenced by flight control records.
Planes flying into the buildings as evidenced by millons of withnesses, tons of stills and video footage.
The hijacked planes failing to land in other places.
No other planes missing.
The passengers and crew on the hijacked planes failing to show up in other places.
Remains of the passengers and crew on the hijacked planes being identified on the crash sites.
Records and diaries of the hijackers being left behind.
Passenger lists showing that the hijackers boarded the hijacked planes.

MMmmm, I guess it all fits.

Hans
You forgot the gazillion eye witnesses, those that saw the planes boarding and leaving from the airports as well as everyone who happened to turn on the TV that morning, or were in the vicinity of the crashes. Just think how many people would have had to have been involved in the operation had it been this conspiracy. That alone makes it an utterly absurd proposition.

Why do people believe weird things. Even Shermer's book can't explain this one. The government was so incompetent along with a few missteps by the FBI management, they let it happen. Sure. So are they all faking incompetence? No way was Bush a good enough actor to have faked that look on his face of utter, "Oh my God, what do I do?" which was caught on film at the school where he was sitting for a photo op. Wouldn't they have planned a better response? Or did someone leave Bush out of this loop?

Turn off your TV, ChildE. You're letting the world of fantasy spill over into your real life.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Please provide a link? As if evidence matters to people who fantasize these sorts of conspiracies.

The Earth is 6,000 years old, Noah's flood carved the Grand Canyon, and the Trilateral Commission is secretly ruling the world. Right!

[rikzilla]

@Hutch: Thanks. :blush:

@kookbreaker:
I stand corrected. I misunderstood that statement by Thomas Kean. Sorry for that.

Ok, so far we have the following:

without sources. That's all?

@Belz...:

Well IMHO CE has already shown herself to be what I like to call a "black stone" writeoff....

Originally posted by James Randi:
We at JREF must offer to test any and every applicant, because we cannot be the judges of whether a claim is likely to be valid. Only occasionally, we encounter a claim that is just so silly or dangerous, that we do not offer to go ahead with negotiations. Example: a person claimed to be controlling every event in the world just by wagging his head back and forth, and he even sent us a video of himself in action. He also "fed" a spirit living in a black stone, through a hole in that stone. We are tolerant, but not quite naive enough to spend time discussing such a claim.

....so we're wasting our time entertaining the silly and loaded question of a person who asks for a "chain of evidence" as long as we don't use the extant chain of evidence!! We will never disabuse CE of her beliefs. She's going to keep feeding her stone...we should be laughing at this nutter instead of playing her stupid game.

-z

[dubfan]

Really? Please provide a link.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/27/hijackers.remains/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2808599.stm

There was a third set of remains found a bit later (I thought), but can't locate the link off-hand. It may have been in a review I read of this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000C47RQO/104-2393167-6922343?v=glance&n=551440

[kookbreaker]

They changed their minds a long time after 9/11. Look at this (http://web.archive.org/web/20031015183433/http://www.saudiembassy.net/press_release/01-spa/09-20-Saud2.htm) press release (saved by the wayback machine - disappeared in October 2003):


The date on that is nine days after 9-11. What does this link prove?

In 2002, the Saudi's admitted their Nation's sons were in on theplot. They did not want to admit it, and added to the confusion regarding identification with comments like your link above.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm

[Hellbound]

The date on that is nine days after 9-11. What does this link prove?

Not to mention that it is later officially denied.

[Childlike Empress]

Turn off your TV, ChildE.
I don't have one, sister.

@fowlsound: The wayback machine-entry is from October 2003 (chronology (http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.saudiembassy.net/press_release/01-spa/09-20-Saud2.htm)). Month after that, the saudis denied that the press release ever existed. The link proves that they lied.

@dubfan: Thanks, i'll check that.

[Childlike Empress]

*laughs at rikzilla*

[Ducky]

I've gone over this thread three times, but I can't find where I posted that you are responding to Child E.

I think that means we have evidence that you aren't really here for debate, nor do you pay attention to the responses to you.





edited for spelling and to add quote:


@fowlsound: The wayback machine-entry is from October 2003 (chronology (http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.saudiembassy.net/press_release/01-spa/09-20-Saud2.htm)). Month after that, the saudis denied that the press release ever existed. The link proves that they lied.

[Hellbound]

By the way, Child:

Would this (http://www.saudiembassy.net/2001News/News/UsrDetail.asp?cIndex=3180) be the statement you said the Saudi Embassy removed from it's site?

They weren't trying to hide it, it's listed under thier "Saudi-U.S. Relations" page, for the 2001 Recent News Link.

Since we're on the subject of your inability to verify your statements, do you have any official link to the Saudi Governments retraction of that statement, or any additional commentary from a Saudi government site?

[kookbreaker]

I think Childlike has things backwards, that the Saudi's first admitted that the hijackers were Saudis then denied it. In fact it was the other way roung, they denied/obfuscated the matter it and then admitted when the evidence was clear.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No.

Then there is nothing to discuss, as you do not understand how debate works, how scientific inquiry is done, or how to have a focused topic discussion on a message board. Welcome to ignore, enjoy your stay.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hey, speaking of Saudi Arabia, if 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US gov., why wouldn't they have made the hijackers Iraqis?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then there is nothing to discuss, as you do not understand how debate works, how scientific inquiry is done, or how to have a focused topic discussion on a message board. Welcome to ignore, enjoy your stay.What was your first clue?

:deadhorse

[Hellbound]

I think Childlike has things backwards, that the Saudi's first admitted that the hijackers were Saudis then denied it. In fact it was the other way roung, they denied/obfuscated the matter it and then admitted when the evidence was clear.

Sounds like it.

Something else that might help here is an understanding of how names are given in that part of the world. It isn't quite the same as we do it over here. Duplicate names are actually not that uncommon, and this could very likely be a simple case of mistaken identity...Prince Saud looked up information on people with those names, but had the wrong people. Similar to the situation in the U.S. if someone told you "I was shot by a man named John Smith, from Texas". As more information, DNA, photo evidence, and other things, became available to provide better identification, it could well be that this was an honest mistake later corrected.

Or it could very well have been waffling, for which I wouldn't blame the Saudi government at all. The U.S. was thirsty for blood at that point, and frankly, if I were them, I'd be pretty nervous myself.

[Childlike Empress]

@dubfan:
Examiners could not say which of the hijackers' remains had been discovered because the FBI did not identify which of the DNA samples belonged to which hijacker, she said.
No names were attached to those profiles. We matched them, and we have matched two of those profiles to remains that we have.
WTF?

@Huntsman: Interesting. They only changed the link. But they denied the press releases existance. Broeckers linked (http://www.broeckers.com/sb.html) to the denial (i quoted the translation). It was the answer to a question from DER SPIEGEL. They used it in their "debunk"-stories.

@Arkan_Wolfshade. Ignorance is bliss. Congratulations!

[Johnny Pixels]

Where's the chain of evidence that leads anywhere other than to the hijackers in the official report?

I've asked this question before and never got a satisfactory answer, so I'll ask again: Why is the conspiracy suggested by CTs more complicated than an episode of mission impossible? Anyone who makes good plans makes simple plans. There is less to go wrong and less of these "obvious" holes in them, picked up by ordinary people on the street. Why didn't 9/11 follow the same MO as the previous attack on the WTC, bombing the car park, if the desired outcome was to drop the towers? Why a complex aerial ballet syncronised with fireworks that leaves doubt in CT minds about the physics behind it all? Why not the Mother Of All Car Bombs in the car park taking out key support structures and collapsing the tower? There's no complex physics involved, no pancake theories, no fire melting steel doubts, no "demolition squibs" for everyone to see. Anyone can understand "bomb blows up foundations, building he fall down". Why on Earth would somone try to convince Joe Average that his city is being attacked by using an overly complex plan that Joe Average has difficulty understanding?

If I want to get out of something, I lie and say that I'm busy. I don't tell people I have a broken pelvis and my dad's been taken into custody for shooting the pope. That's much too complicated and doesn't make any sense. People can prove me wrong. If I just BS and tell tehm I'm busy, they can't prove otherwise. Simple plan works. Needlessly complex plan, fails.

Look at military plans for invasions, look at how they created deception to fool the enemy into where their forces were being built up, and how they hid the real invasion forces. They are nearly always laughably simple, like inflatable tanks, passing some real information to make the enemy accept the mountain of fake. They know that deception can only last a few minutes, a few hours, maybe days if you're lucky.

It's a cliche, but you really can only fool some of the people all of the time.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

What was your first clue?

:deadhorse
Yeah, but how often do they out and out admit it. Even geggy and Chistophera could be kept quasi-on a limited topic.

[Overman]

@ChildlikeEmpress: I am insane:hypnotize

[Bronze Dog]

Simple plan works. Needlessly complex plan, fails.
Just ask Mojo Jojo and The Brain.

[dubfan]

@dubfan:


WTF?


The samples provided by the FBI were ID'd by what's called a "K code" (apparently K stands for "known"). The NYC medical examiners were given DNA identified by K code, not by the hijackers' names. The FBI's own forensics people collected the DNA from the hotel rooms, cars, etc. used by the hijackers, isolated the individual DNA fingerprints, and gave each unique individual's DNA its own "K" code.

I recall reading about this but the link isn't handy. If I can find it again, I'll re-post, but I'm pretty sure it was in material related to the NYC medical examiner's book.

ETA:

[Interviewer]Were you able to identify the terrorists?

[NYC Medical Examiner Shaler]We identified three of the terrorists. There was the thinking that both planes exploded, and people would be gone but apparently not. When the planes exploded, the fragments were spread around and didn't all get caught up in the fireball. We asked the government for [DNA] profiles of the terrorists.

[Interviewer]How did the government get the DNA profiles of the terrorists?

[NYC Medical Examiner Shaler]They never told us, but they probably knew where they'd lived in various cities around the world and collected personal items from these people.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/051205/5book_2.htm

Also, more here:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/354992p-302463c.html (Credit to Mike Williams' 911myths.com site for this link)

I admit, by itself, this probably isn't very convincing if you're not inclined to trust the FBI.

[Pardalis]

The CTs are suspicious of the 9/11 Commission report for several reasons:

1. Testimony of certain individuals is omitted (Edmonds, Rodriguez)

2. The report does not address WTC 7

3. The report contradicts other evidenciary sources on matters of fact (Otis fighter timeline)

4. Other matters have come to light since the report was released that cast doubt on its comprehensiveness (Able Danger)

5. The report is rather gentle in its political conclusions (it largely lets both Clinton and Bush off the hook, politically)

I think these are fair criticisms. I don't conclude from these, however, that 9/11 was a false flag op carried out by the government. I tend to conclude from all of this that internal political considerations played a big part and there was certainly a lot of ass-covering/incompetence/negligence going on, particulary in the case of the FBI (Edmonds).

That said, I think it's a mistake to dismiss the entire report, esp. as it is so well-sourced. In fact, the sourcing is what has made the inconsistencies so easy to find. I think the report could benefit from a revision to address/cleanup some of the contradictions, and to look at some of the things that have (rightly, IMO) been brought up since -- namely, Able Danger and Sibel Edmonds. I hope the Commission members will do that at some point.

Also, I think a lot of the criticism deals with facts around the "edges" of the story -- issues of who knew what when and were people doing the jobs they were supposed to be doing. None of that really undermines the basic truth that 19 jihadists hijacked some planes and flew them into some buildings (or the ground in PA) on 9/11.

Edit: typo

Nice post Dub.

[Hellbound]

@Huntsman: Interesting. They only changed the link. But they denied the press releases existance. Broeckers linked (http://www.broeckers.com/sb.html) to the denial. It was the answer to a question from DER SPIEGEL. They used it in their "debunk"-stories.

No, allegedly the Saudi Embassy in Germany denied its existence. And he linked to a letter hosted on his own site.

For those who speak German, here is the text of the message in German:

Bezug nehmend auf Ihre Anfrage vom 27.08.2003 über die angebliche Presseerklärung Seiner Königlichen Hoheit des Außenministers Prinz Saud Al-Faisal nach seinem Treffen mit dem amerikanischen Präsidenten George W Bush am 20.09.2001, in dem er gesagt haben soll, dass fünf der auf der Liste des FBI stehenden Namen nichts mit dem zu tun hatten was passierte, teilt die Botschaft des Königreichs Saudi Arabien in Berlin mit, dass SKH der Außenminister solch eine Erklärung nicht abgegeben bat und dies bedeutet, was in dem "Buch, Fakten, Fälschungen und die unterdrückten Beweise des 11.09" steht, jeder Grundlage entbehrt.

Now, I speak a very small amount of German, and can't translate this. IF anyone is a native speaker, you could be helpful. A free translation produces the following:

Reference taking on your inquiry of the 27.08.2003 over the alleged press statement of its royal highness of the Foreign Minister prince Saud al-Faisal after its meeting with the American President George W bush at the 20.09.2001, in which he should have said to do that five of the name standing on the list the FBI nothing with that had what happened, the message of the kingdom Saudi Arabia in Berlin divides with, that SKH of that Explanation delivered did not ask and means this, does without, what stands in the book, facts, forgery and the suppressed proofs of the 11.09, each base.

Which is, admittedly, hard to decipher. It sounds like the only thing they said was that the messgae they got disagrees with that. It is not clear whether they are saying that they disagree the statement was made, or disagree with the content of the statement. I'm hoping a native speaker can verify a translation here.

[Childlike Empress]

No, allegedly the Saudi Embassy in Germany denied its existence
Exactly. The translation i quoted in #68 is correct (sorry, i added "(i quoted the translation)" to #86 in an edit).

I admit, by itself, this probably isn't very convincing if you're not inclined to trust the FBI.
You name it. It is no real evidence for an involvement of any of the 19 alleged highjackers. But thanks anyway, it is interesting.

[Pardalis]

What is a "chain of evidence" supposed to be exactly?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

What is a "chain of evidence" supposed to be exactly?

http://www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/baloney.html

17. Is a chain of evidence (links) offered?
If chain of evidentiary links for a claim is presented, every link must be solid. A proposed chain of evidence fails completely if even one link fails. If someone claims that A causes B, B causes C, C causes D, and D causes E, they had better be prepared to demonstrate EVERY link. If, for example, all links are proven except that C causes D, which cannot be in any way demonstrated, then there is no proof that A results in E.

[The_Fire]

ETA: Answer to post 93
Almost. I read it as, paraphrased:
No, His Royal Highnes did NOT claim that five of the names on the FBI-List were without connection to the actions of 9/11.
That last part translate badly, but I'll give it a go:
[snip starts from dies bedeutet.....]..THis means that what is presented in the book as facts, falsifications and suppressed evidence of 9/11 have no basis what so ever.....

In other words: The book they are talking about doesn't hold water and is at best a piece of fiction.

[Pardalis]

Thanks Arkan! ;)

[Hellbound]

ETA: Answer to post 93
Almost. I read it as, paraphrased:
No, His Royal Highnes did NOT claim that five of the names on the FBI-List were without connection to the actions of 9/11.
That last part translate badly, but I'll give it a go:
[snip starts from dies bedeutet.....]..THis means that what is presented in the book as facts, falsifications and suppressed evidence of 9/11 have no basis what so ever.....

In other words: The book they are talking about doesn't hold water and is at best a piece of fiction.

Okay, so either the Berlin enbassy was mistaken or lying in regards to this, or the U.S. Embassy was mistaken or lying in regards to this.

Thanks for the verification, Fire :)

P.S. They were discussing a book titled "Facts, Lies, and Suppressed Evidence of 9/11". I left out any quotation marks, so that may be where the last part is causing confusion.

[dubfan]

You name it. It is no real evidence for an involvement of any of the 19 alleged highjackers.

I wouldn't go quite that far. I'd say that it makes the DNA evidence against the 19 hijackers circumstantial, rather than conclusive.

[chipmunk stew]

They changed their minds a long time after 9/11. Look at this (http://web.archive.org/web/20031015183433/http://www.saudiembassy.net/press_release/01-spa/09-20-Saud2.htm) press release (saved by the wayback machine - disappeared in October 2003):



In late 2003 the saudis said (http://www.broeckers.com/toronto.htm):



Do we?


Really? Please provide a link.The depth of your disconfirmation bias is astonishing.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm sorry but i think i don't get your point.

@Sword_of_truth: That's easy: You smell strange.

@all: I leave for now. I hope there is a discussion going on. I was not joking when i opened this thread.

Thank you for your prompt, to-the-point and "childlike" response, Empress.

[Kochanski]

Childlike. I have no idea why these guys are so patient with you. You behave precisely the way Creationists do.

Creationists demand fossil evidence of evolution and when it is provided, they nit-pick and demand for to be shown further fossil evidence, wanting every gap to be filled with another intermediate step. It doesn't matter how much evidence is given, they will endlessly insist on being shown more, while providing no evidence whatsoever to support their own hypothesis of divine creation. They are unwilling to accept the evidence presented as being sufficient because they want to believe in divine creation and see every unanswered question, every unfilled gap as something to cling to.

You are doing precisely the same thing. Just because every single question is not answered in the reports you are not willing to accept that the preponderance of evidence supports it. You provide no reasonable support for the outlandship 9/11 conspiracies and insist on being shown more and more evidence. It doesn't matter how much evidence they give you, you will just keep asking for more without ever giving any reason why anyone should believe the claims of the 9/11 CTers. We just get questions and no answers.

You need to accept that it is unlikely that every single question will be answered simply because of the magnitude of the event. There will always be some loose ends, some things that are not explained.

And just as the lack of a complete fossil record do not prove the Creationist view of the origins of life on Earth, so too with any unanswered questions about 9/11, they do not prove the CTers view of the event.

[EvilBiker]

This is like, waaay over the top:

Stacy @ Jun 13 2006, 07:48 PM)
I have a hard time believing that something other than a plane his both WTCs. For one, my husbands good friend (they worked together at United at the time of 9/11) was one of the chosen employees to visit with the family members of the passengers on the plane. I've been around the airline industry for many years and I'm sorry, but it was definitely a plane.

But again, that's just my opinion.

Hi Stacy,

Understand that at best, that just proves that the passengers had family members. It really doesn't prove anything else.

The planes could have easily been swapped and the real plane taken elsewhere and the passengers murdered a different way without the family members knowing any differently. This applies to ALL 9/11 flights.

Hope that helps!

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6260&st=0&#entry5287611

I'd love to know *what* that helps...

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What is a "chain of evidence" supposed to be exactly?

I'm uncertain as to how Childlike is using the term, but from my studies under Professor McCoy and Professor Schiff at the Dick Wolf School of Law, I believe "chain of evidence" refers to the tracking of who has custody of things like DNA samples, fingerprints, various items taken from the crime scene, etc so that it can be established that such evidence has not contaminated or deliberately tampered with.

The problem with Childlike's declared intention to disregard the Commission report is that since the chain of custody wich carries evidence from the crime scene to the courtroom is composed almost entirely of officers and agents of the state (wich she ostensibly believes to be in on the conspiracy) she has poisoned the well. She has set up her own personal grounds to disregard anything wich contradicts what she wants to be true.

Wich is why I refused to play her rigged game.

EDIT: I should have read Arkan's response before typing mine.

[Childlike Empress]

Childlike. I have no idea why these guys are so patient with you. You behave precisely the way Creationists do.
I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth. So far there was no evidence provided. Instead i was repeatedly refered back to the Commission-Report.

[Pardalis]

I'm uncertain as to how Childlike is using the term, but from my studies under Professor McCoy and Professor Schiff at the Dick Wolf School of Law, I believe "chain of evidence" refers to the tracking of who has custody of things like DNA samples, fingerprints, various items taken from the crime scene, etc so that it can be established that such evidence has not contaminated or deliberately tampered with.

The problem with Childlike's declared intention to disregard the Commission report is that since the chain of custody wich carries evidence from the crime scene to the courtroom is composed almost entirely of officers and agents of the state (wich she ostensibly believes to be in on the conspiracy) she has poisoned the well. She has set up her own personal grounds to disregard anything wich contradicts what she wants to be true.

EDIT: I should have read Arkan's response before typing mine.

Your post makes a good point though.

As you said, by her refusing the Commission report, she discredits anything we might say, therefore a debate is impossible with her.

So her only option, is to redo the Commission Report all over by herself.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm uncertain as to how Childlike is using the term, but from my studies under Professor McCoy and Professor Schiff at the Dick Wolf School of Law, I believe "chain of evidence" refers to the tracking of who has custody of things like DNA samples, fingerprints, various items taken from the crime scene, etc so that it can be established that such evidence has not contaminated or deliberately tampered with.

The problem with Childlike's declared intention to disregard the Commission report is that since the chain of custody wich carries evidence from the crime scene to the courtroom is composed almost entirely of officers and agents of the state (wich she ostensibly believes to be in on the conspiracy) she has poisoned the well. She has set up her own personal grounds to disregard anything wich contradicts what she wants to be true.

Wich is why I refused to play her rigged game.

EDIT: I should have read Arkan's response before typing mine.

I think your definition (chain of custody) is an equally valid guess as mine (chain of evidentiary links) as to what CE is trying to talk about.

[Kochanski]

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth. So far there was no evidence provided. Instead i was repeatedly refered back to the Commission-Report.

Ah, you ignored my point completely, didn't you. As I expected. You keep asking questions but will not answer them. Ever using the defensive tactics of the Creationist.

[Legalduck]

Sword of Truth,
I think you're confusing chain of evidence with chain of custody. Chain of custody is a legal term of art of determining the sequence of events from the time evidence is discovered through all subsequent handling. Prosecutors are required to follow this to establish that the firearm being presented at the hearing is the same firearm that was tested and is now before the Court. (Hoo-Woo, years of legal training pay-off with an informed post)

I now draw on my largely untested powers of prophecy. CE will repeated refuse to accept any evidence, or discount the evidence a la "provide with me with all/any sources except that one." At some point, CE give up in a huff and return to LC or some other forum proclaiming victory over the (insert insult of your choice) skeptics at the JREF forums. With a prediction like that, anyone think I could nab the JREF prize:D

[Hellbound]

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth. So far there was no evidence provided. Instead i was repeatedly refered back to the Commission-Report.

Well. You can regard it as one source, but you've yet to give any reason why it's an inaccurate source.

The Commission report has already done what you're asking us to do here. They've sourced their material and statements. They've looked into these issues. You can check where they got their information.

If you throw that out, I fail to see how we, with fewer resources, less time, and less expertise, coudl present anything of a higher evidentiary value.

If the report is wrong, you should be able to point out where. We can then look at those issues, and go back to the primary source to verify the situation.

What you're asking for is liek expecting someone to prove Einstein's Relativity theory, but disallowing them from making any reference to the theory itself. In other words, you've pre-selected arbitrary rules to make the task nigh-impossible, and very few of us have the free time or the inclination to cater to your childish whims.

If the report is wrong, expose it. Show the errors, and provide sources for the alternate version you think has better evidence.

If you can't do this, you have no basis for your allegations. Expecting us to re-write "The Grapes of Wrath" because you don't like Steinbeck is pretty silly.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Ah, you ignored my point completely, didn't you. As I expected. You keep asking questions but will not answer them. Ever using the defensive tactics of the Creationist.

I keep telling my BS of Sociology wife that Creationists, Holocaust Deniers, and 9/11 CT'ers would make a fascinating study group.

[Bronze Dog]

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth. So far there was no evidence provided. Instead i was repeatedly refered back to the Commission-Report.
Also ignoring that the "ONE source" is actually a collection of sources and evidence.

Of course, CE's engaging in obfuscation tactics by poisoning the well (http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2006/05/doggerel-3-youre-just-insert-evil.html), employing a false dilemma enthymeme like Creationists, and apparently assuming, also in an enthymeme, that all government organizations are like-minded with no conflicting agendas.

If the government wasn't internally conflicted, they'd be doing a much better job in just about everything.

[Shrinker]

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth. So far there was no evidence provided. Instead i was repeatedly refered back to the Commission-Report.

Like I said in post 3 or thereabouts, the report is compiled from many sources. If the data has been altered between leaving the source and entering the report it ought to be extremely easy to prove. Go ahead, show us where the evidence has been tampered with. It'll take you two minutes. Go on, show us.

And there's your answer. We believe this 'one source' because nobody out of an army of hundreds of raving internet crackpots, who dedicate hours of their daily lives to their so-called research, has been able to find any flaw in the report which even vaguely hints at a murderous government conspiracy

[LTC8K6]

Loose Trains (http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/)

[Bronze Dog]

Loose Trains (http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/)
:dl:

[Mr. Skinny]

Hilarious, LCT. :D (and it's a quick read)

[Drysdale]

I'm uncertain as to how Childlike is using the term, but from my studies under Professor McCoy and Professor Schiff at the Dick Wolf School of Law, I believe "chain of evidence" refers to the tracking of who has custody of things like DNA samples, fingerprints, various items taken from the crime scene, etc so that it can be established that such evidence has not contaminated or deliberately tampered with.

The problem with Childlike's declared intention to disregard the Commission report is that since the chain of custody wich carries evidence from the crime scene to the courtroom is composed almost entirely of officers and agents of the state (wich she ostensibly believes to be in on the conspiracy) she has poisoned the well. She has set up her own personal grounds to disregard anything wich contradicts what she wants to be true.

Wich is why I refused to play her rigged game.

EDIT: I should have read Arkan's response before typing mine.



This is exactly what I was thinking except not quite so eloquently.
She's playing riddles. No matter how you answer her since she refuses to accept anything since it must be tainted by the govt.
The only thing the riddler will accept is if one of the hijackers lived and confessed directly to her and then she would cry he's been made to confess by the govt.
This will all lead to a pointless finale but I'll ride along reading it for the kicks,
what the heck.

[delphi_ote]

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth. So far there was no evidence provided. Instead i was repeatedly refered back to the Commission-Report.
Which you dismiss, supposedly because it's tainted second-hand knowledge. You claim to want first-hand facts, but you seem to readily accept third and fourth hand accounts. This seems inconsistent to me.

That said, we're never going to get anywhere with your quesiton unless we can establish some common ground. Some baseline of truth. Were planes flown into those buildings? Were they hijacked planes? Are you specifically asking for proof that those 19 people were the hijackers, or are you also looking for proof that the planes were hijacked? Do we have to prove that the planes existed in the first place? Do we have to produce evidence that the Twin Towers actually existed? If you'd genuinely like our help answering these questions, we've got to have a place to start.

Also, what will you accept as evidence? Eye witness testimony? Expert testimony? Mainstream media reports? Do I have to physically mail you a piece of each hijacker's DNA and a video tape of each taking over the flight and navigating it to the crash site?

The problem we frequently run into with conspiracy theorists and proponets of pseudoscience is that they don't have a consistent burden of proof. They alter what they'll accept as evidence based on whether it supports or detracts from their belief. I'm not accusing you of this, just warning you that people here have little patience for that kind of run around.

So honestly ask yourself, "What would it take to change my mind?"

Just to be fair, I'll let you know what would change my mind. If I found that several eye witnesses gave consistent and independent testimony soon after the event that contradicted the established story, I would certainly have to re-examine my position. If several experts (intelligence officials or the coroners or the air traffic controllers) came forward and testified that the facts were inconsistent, I would seriously question the official story. If a main stream media outlet published a detailed report and sited sources as mentioned above, I would certainly investigate further and re-evaluate my position. If I found physical evidence myself or was shown clear video evidence that the event did not take place (i.e. video footage of someone else hijacking the plane,) obviously I'd have to doubt my version.

Clearly this last example is unreasonable, but I think it's quite realistic to expect to find the rest of my proposed evidence if what I currently believe was wrong. I'm sure there's more, but I think this list will do for now.

My mind can be changed. Can yours?

[hellaeon]

Please provide a link? As if evidence matters to people who fantasize these sorts of conspiracies.

The Earth is 6,000 years old, Noah's flood carved the Grand Canyon, and the Trilateral Commission is secretly ruling the world. Right!

I cannot agree more. Even when you show actual real evidence, they will scurry to the pro CT sites and dig up more propaganda, loose coincidences and outright lies. The evidence may be there, but so is the refusal to believe it.

Just browse over the LC forum for the evidence of half the stuff they have sprouted. "I think the planes flew off the coast and were ditched into the sea" etc. Just making up rubbish which then somehow gets put into the witches brew that is the 9/11 CT's.

[Gravy]

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth. So far there was no evidence provided. Instead i was repeatedly refered back to the Commission-Report.
Post of the week! :eye-poppi

[kookbreaker]

Loose Trains (http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/)

That's old hat. We now know that it was Abby Scott! (http://abbyscott.blogspot.com/2006/05/who-was-responsible-for-911.html)

[RandFan]

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth. So far there was no evidence provided. Instead i was repeatedly refered back to the Commission-Report.Ad hominem argument. The report contains data and logical argument. If you are intellectually honest you can't simply dismiss the report by attacking the source. You are going to have to attack the evidence in the report.

[Regnad Kcin]

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth...Question: Is it your assertion that the NIST report is "one source?" Yes or no, please.

[Regnad Kcin]

Childlike. I have no idea why these guys are so patient with you...She might be hot.

[Drysdale]

She might be hot.

Yea, but would it be possible to sit thru an evening with this banter geez.
It took me about 20 posts from her at least to understand what the hell she was alluding to. For or against CT? I did'nt know what was going on.
Now granted Idont know brainiac fu like a lot of you ninjas but I know BS when I see it. And brother they're still carting it out.

[Flange Desire]

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth. So far there was no evidence provided. Instead i was repeatedly refered back to the Commission-Report.

Generalisations - ... you all take a story ...
Lies - ... only backed up by ONE source ...
Willful ignorance - you repeatedly ingnore posts that try to help you.

[chipmunk stew]

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth. So far there was no evidence provided. Instead i was repeatedly refered back to the Commission-Report.The Commission Report is not a source. At least not an original one. There are these things in the back of the Report called "endnotes" that list many original sources--HUNDREDS of them, in fact. By referring to these, you can check for yourself whether or not the Report reported things accurately. It's a pretty clever device, I think, these "endnotes".
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm

[demonologist]

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why the facts in the 911 commission report don't count as evidence. We're not talking about editorial interpretation here, we're talking about just the facts. Did the government pay off all of those witnesses?

[demonologist]

Where's the chain of evidence that leads anywhere other than to the hijackers in the official report?

I've asked this question before and never got a satisfactory answer, so I'll ask again: Why is the conspiracy suggested by CTs more complicated than an episode of mission impossible? Anyone who makes good plans makes simple plans. There is less to go wrong and less of these "obvious" holes in them, picked up by ordinary people on the street. Why didn't 9/11 follow the same MO as the previous attack on the WTC, bombing the car park, if the desired outcome was to drop the towers? Why a complex aerial ballet syncronised with fireworks that leaves doubt in CT minds about the physics behind it all? Why not the Mother Of All Car Bombs in the car park taking out key support structures and collapsing the tower? There's no complex physics involved, no pancake theories, no fire melting steel doubts, no "demolition squibs" for everyone to see. Anyone can understand "bomb blows up foundations, building he fall down". Why on Earth would somone try to convince Joe Average that his city is being attacked by using an overly complex plan that Joe Average has difficulty understanding?

If I want to get out of something, I lie and say that I'm busy. I don't tell people I have a broken pelvis and my dad's been taken into custody for shooting the pope. That's much too complicated and doesn't make any sense. People can prove me wrong. If I just BS and tell tehm I'm busy, they can't prove otherwise. Simple plan works. Needlessly complex plan, fails.

Look at military plans for invasions, look at how they created deception to fool the enemy into where their forces were being built up, and how they hid the real invasion forces. They are nearly always laughably simple, like inflatable tanks, passing some real information to make the enemy accept the mountain of fake. They know that deception can only last a few minutes, a few hours, maybe days if you're lucky.

It's a cliche, but you really can only fool some of the people all of the time.

Not to mention that the more elaborate the conspiracy, the more people who know about it and therefore have to be trusted to keep it hush. Which would never fly anyways. Conspiracies have to be simple and small. No more than a few people can know.

[bignickel]

What I can never understand is why the altCT-ers refuse to apply their strict demands for a 'proper chain of evidence' to their own CTs. If their demands for evidence are so high that the 911 commission can't pass it, how can their own pet theories even come close?

To wit: why do they demand impossible-to-meet standards of evidence for the conventional theory, but refuse to impose those same standards on their own feeble conjectures?

[Regnad Kcin]

Well, bignickel, I seem to recall a recent post by Childlike Empress in which she indicated an intent to first nullify the conventional wisdom vis-a-vis Sept. 11 before progressing any further.

ETA: "I'm trying to falsify the common hypothesis." (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1695794&postcount=2279)

[Yahzi]

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth.
I have to agree with her. Everybody in business knows what a bad idea "sole-sourcing" is.

With that in mind, I would like someone to prove to me that the Allies won WWII. Without referring to the monolithic source known as "the media," which we all know is controlled by Aliens. By media, I mean newspapers, films, newscasts, photographs, government records, eye-witnesses, and material evidence.

In fact, I bet you foos can't prove there even was a WWII without resorting to your ONE source called "history."

Please provide just one internet link to evidnce that WWII actually occurred and was not a huge government scam to write off bad debt. Keep in mind this link can't refer to any "media" or "history," since those are only single sources and hence obviously under the control of the Aliens.

:D

[Yahzi]

What I can never understand is why the altCT-ers refuse to apply their strict demands for a 'proper chain of evidence' to their own CTs.
Because CTers aren't interested in fairness.

[valis]

Compare that to one blowjob Mr. Clinton enjoyed.

Pres. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not the actual act of oral sex (see you can say it without being crude, we all know what the words mean).

Besides I'll bet he got more than one.

[Childlike Empress]

What I can never understand is why the altCT-ers refuse to apply their strict demands for a 'proper chain of evidence' to their own CTs.
I did not present a detailed CT and i will continue to refuse presenting one (nice try, delphi_ote). I created this thread to see if you apply the high standards you demand from "the CTs" to your own theories. It's an experiment. You make fun of "the CTs" for believing Loose Change and i make fun of you for believing the Commission Report.

Of course the Commission uses a mountain of sources but they decided which (parts of the) sources were used, how they were used, what wasn't used and - most important - they narrated the story.

Where is Gravys debunk of the Report? Unlike the video of some college students, the recommendations made in the Commission-Report were taken very serious. f.e., they were the inspiration for reforming the intelligence apparatus of the US. The position of the "National Intelligence Director" was recommended (look at the diagram on page 413) and created.

John Negroponte got the job. Negroponte is a very controversial character who is known for his involvement in the covert funding of the Contras and for covering up human rights abuses in honduras.

So, was the 911-Commission really independent? I think not and i don't believe their version of the events of 9/11. That doesn't mean i don't trust any of the sources they used.

Some quotes and links:

Claims of bias within the commission

Some members of victims' families have claimed that the commission has numerous conflicts of interest. 9/11 CitizensWatch, in particular, called for the resignation of Philip D. Zelikow, the executive staff director. Zelikow is a Bush-appointee who served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. He spent three years on the President George H. W. Bush's National Security Council. Zelikow worked closely with Bush NSC advisor Condoleezza Rice and even co-wrote a book with her. Some worry that Zelikow may be using his power to deflect blame from himself and to protect Rice.

In addition, many members had ties which could be viewed as conflicts of interest.


Thomas Kean has ties to the National Endowment for Democracy, a long-time conduit of CIA covert operations abroad. Kean also has a history of investments that link him to Saudi investors who have financially supported both George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden in the past. One example is his former business connections to Khalid bin Mahfouz, an alleged terrorist financier. He was also at one point or still is on the board of Pepsi Bottling, Amerada Hess, UnitedHealth Group, CIT Group and Aramark.

Fred F. Fielding has done legal work for two of Bush's leading "Pioneer" fund-raisers. Fielding also works for a law firm lobbying for Spirit Airlines and United Airlines.

Slade Gorton has close ties to Boeing, which built all the planes destroyed on 9/11, and his law firm represents several major airlines, including Delta Air Lines.

James Thompson is the head of a law firm that lobbies for American Airlines, and he has previously represented United Airlines.

Richard Ben-Veniste has represented Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe, and continues to represent Boeing and United Airlines.

Max Cleland, former US senator, has received $300,000 from the airline industry. He has since resigned from the commission.

Lee Hamilton sits on many advisory boards, including those to the CIA, the president's Homeland Security Advisory Council, and the US Army.

Tim Roemer represents Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

Jamie Gorelick's firm has agreed to represent Prince Mohammed al Faisal in the suit by the 9/11 families. The families contend that al Faisal has legal responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. According to Attorney General John Ashcroft in his testimony before the commission, Gorelick wrote a procedural memo that would have prevented communication between various government agencies (the wall memo[2]). She is on the board of United Technologies.


The commission's defenders claim that these do not represent significant conflicts of interest, and that the commission can be expected to maintain its neutrality.
Wikipedia: 9/11 Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Terrorist_Attacks_Upon_the_ United_States)

Prof. Zelikow's area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, "public myths" or "public presumptions," which he defines as "beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community." In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called "‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene. In the United States, beliefs about the formation of the nation and the Constitution remain powerful today, as do beliefs about slavery and the Civil War. World War II, Vietnam, and the civil rights struggle are more recent examples." He has noted that "a history’s narrative power is typically linked to how readers relate to the actions of individuals in the history; if readers cannot make a connection to their own lives, then a history may fail to engage them at all" ("Thinking about Political History," Miller Center Report [Winter 1999], pp. 5-7).
Wikipedia: Philip D. Zelikow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow)

[Thomas] Kean is a director of Amerada Hess, an oil giant married up to Saudi Arabia's Delta Oil in a venture to pump black gold in Azerbaijan. (The partnership is incorporated in a secretive offshore "tax haven," natch. You can't expect a worthy like Kean to pay taxes like some grubby wage slave.)

One of Delta's biggest backers is the aforesaid Mahfouz, a Saudi wheeler-dealer who has bankrolled some of most dubious players on the world scene: Abu Nidal, Manuel Noreiga, Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush. Mahfouz was also a front for the bin Laden family, funneling their vast wealth through American cut-outs in a bid to gain power and influence in the United States.

One of those cut-outs was Mahfouz factotum James Bath, a partner in George W.'s early oil venture, Arbusto. Bath has admitted serving as a pass-through for secret Saudi money. Years later, when Bush's maladroit business skills were about to sink another of his companies, Harken Energy, the firm was saved by a $25 million investment from a Swiss bank--a subsidiary of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), partly owned by the beneficent Mahfouz.

What was BCCI? Only "one of the largest criminal enterprises in history," according to the U.S. Senate. What did BCCI do? "It engaged in pandemic bribery of officials in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas," says journalist Christopher Bryon, who first exposed the operation. "It laundered money on a global scale, intimidated witnesses and law officers, engaged in extortion and blackmail. It supplied the financing for illegal arms trafficking and global terrorism. It financed and facilitated income tax evasion, smuggling and prostitution." [...]

Somehow we doubt that worthy Kean will poke very hard at the nexus of intersections between his own business partner, Mahfouz, and the bin Ladens, the Bushes, the Saudi royals, Saddam, the CIA and BCCI. We've only scratched the surface here, but even this cursory glance makes the current world crisis look less like some grand geopolitical "clash of civilizations" and more like a nasty falling out among thieves, with rival mafias--who sometimes collude, sometimes collide--now duking it out for turf, cloaking their murderous criminality with pious rhetoric about freedom, security, jihad and God.
Kean Insight - Bush, bin Laden, BCCI and the 9/11 Commission (http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd01312003.html)

Hmm ... BCCI, Saudi billionaires? Remember Adnan Khashoggi?

Khashoggi, BCCI and Iran Contra (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/19rogers.htm)

Genesis Intermedia Fraud (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_19/b3832095_mz020.htm)

AMENDED COMPLAINT (search for John Gray) (http://www.mjktrustee.com/pdf/Amended_Complaint.pdf)

John Gray spoke at the alternative 911 Inquiry Conference in Toronto 2004 and sponsored the event with 15000 $ (http://www.911inquiry.org/Weblog.htm)

Saudi Entrepeneur Adnan Khashoggi Linked to 911 Terrorists (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/10/298507.html)

What was in the 28 pages of the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry suppressed by the White House?

Spencer Ackerman and John B. Judis have more on the suppressed pages of the report in an August 2003 New Republic piece, here (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=ackermanjudis080103):

Since the joint congressional committee investigating September 11 issued a censored version of its report on July 24, there's been considerable speculation about the 28 pages blanked out from the section entitled "Certain Sensitive National Security Matters." The section cites "specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers," which most commentators have interpreted to mean Saudi contributions to Al Qaeda-linked charities. But an official who has read the report tells The New Republic that the support described in the report goes well beyond that: It involves connections between the hijacking plot and the very top levels of the Saudi royal family. "There's a lot more in the 28 pages than money. Everyone's chasing the charities," says this official. "They should be chasing direct links to high levels of the Saudi government. We're not talking about rogue elements. We're talking about a coordinated network that reaches right from the hijackers to multiple places in the Saudi government."

But, as Spencer notes in an email exchange on this issue, why did the independent 9/11 commission also refuse to acknowledge Saudi financial support for two of the hijackers? In a related issue, WaPo journalist Douglas Farah has also been questioning on his excellent blog (http://douglasfarah.com/blog/) why the 9/11 commission has to date refused to acknowledge that al Qaeda has also laundered its finances through West African blood diamonds.
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/001093.html

What does all this mean? My impression is that a nexus of financiers, organized crime, "intelligence", polititians and corporations exists which was involved in 9/11 and wants to make us believe the story of the lone highjackers and Osama as evil genius in the background. A rogue element in western (and middle eastern) society. They try to play the oldest game in the book and to create a backlash into fear and barbarianism to save their interests - at a moment in history when it's time for humanity to grow up.

Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. (...) The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Experience proves that it is rather the so-called intelligentsia’ that is most apt to yield to these disastrous collective suggestions.

[Regnad Kcin]

...Of course the Commission uses a mountain of sources...Ah, so then you agree that this next statement of yours is incorrect:

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth...Moving along...

...So, was the 911-Commission really independent? I think not and i don't believe their version of the events of 9/11...Which "version" do you "believe?" Why?

[chipmunk stew]

I did not present a detailed CT and i will continue to refuse presenting one (nice try, delphi_ote). I created this thread to see if you apply the high standards you demand from "the CTs" to your own theories. It's an experiment. You make fun of "the CTs" for believing Loose Change and i make fun of you for believing the Commission Report.The same high standards were applied. The Commission Report cleared the hurdle with few exceptions (Sibel Edmonds and Able Danger being among them). Loose Change tripped and fell on its face before it could even get airbound.

[Apollyon]

CE,

How can we take seriously what you posted above? All your references came from ONE source - the internet.

[Bandersnatch]

Of course the Commission uses a mountain of sources but they decided which (parts of the) sources were used, how they were used, what wasn't used and - most important - they narrated the story.


Watch this:

Of course the Loose Change Movie uses a mountain of sources but they decided which (parts of the) sources were used, how they were used, what wasn't used and - most important - they narrated the story.

Out of curiousity, how many engineers, scientists and witnesses were in the report compared to LC?

[Belz...]

You are doing precisely the same thing. Just because every single question is not answered in the reports you are not willing to accept that the preponderance of evidence supports it. You provide no reasonable support for the outlandship 9/11 conspiracies and insist on being shown more and more evidence. It doesn't matter how much evidence they give you, you will just keep asking for more without ever giving any reason why anyone should believe the claims of the 9/11 CTers. We just get questions and no answers. .

I'd like to have one of those!!! ;)

[Hellbound]

I'd like to have one of those!!! ;)

Belz...:

Didn't you get this week's Globalist Ninja quarterly?

Your team should have both an outlandship and an inlandship in the appropriate Globalist Conspiracy Hanger nearest you.

Of course, only the French Poodle on your team is authorized to drive, per regulation 1,567 section 4 subsection 18 paragraph B, lines 14 through 16:

"Outland- and Inland- ships, persuant to applicible Globalist policy, all require appropriate licensing for operation. The licensing procedure can be obtained by taking a current Pizza Hut Menu, cutting it into a string of three paper dolls (not, two, not four, and five is right out), and mailing it to a random "Smith" address found in the South Hampton phone book. Canines are exempt from this licensing policy."

[Gravy]

IWhere is Gravys debunk of the Report?
The government pays me to harrass the Loosers. If you'll pay me more, I'll gladly write up any kind of report you want on the 9/11 Commission's findings. It will cost quite a lot, though. The government had a pesky habit of employing conclusions based on facts gathered by thousands of expert investigators, and it will take some effort for me to come up with a convincing debunking. You can PM me for details on where to send the money.

I've asked you a couple of times if you've read the 9/11 Commission's report, and if so, what you think it got wrong. You can give me a big head start with my debunking!

[MarkyX]

Hahahaha childlike says she is a skeptic.

A skeptic isn't someone who says "No one can convience me", that's someone with an agenda.

Stop throwing that title around Childlish, it's useless to you.

[sackett]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress :
I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth.

Because we are STRONG, and it amuses us to toy with weaklings like you.

<cue sardonic laughter>

[Moochie]

CE, while I absolutely loathe your present government and all it does, I think you are a raving loony who only exacerbates the dim view non-Americans hold of your great nation.

Thankfully, I happen to know that your silly ideas aren't widely held among your sensible, educated citizenry.

If you're hell bent on conspiracy, look to your own mind. You're a glaring example of where the "American dream" went horribly wrong.

M.

[Drysdale]

OK, let me jump in here.

Empress, seems like a lot of the supposed conflict of interest links are via the airlines.

Isnt that kinda self defeating? If all those guys are affiliated with airlines thats even more reason to believe they would'nt do what they did as it killed the airline industry for awhile. I still dont think they've recoverd completely yet.

So what were they to gain if I guess as you're implying they were invloved in the conspiracy. Is that what you're saying?

And yes there probably is ties with Saudi's. If you are an oil investor there's gonna be ties there more than likely. Have you looked to see what ties some of the critics have? Surely you've done that also right?
Guys like Michael Moore do have stocks in oil you know.
Maybe that should be looked into also before you just look for the ones that suit your view eh?

[Gravy]

CE, while I absolutely loathe your present government and all it does, I think you are a raving loony who only exacerbates the dim view non-Americans hold of your great nation.

Thankfully, I happen to know that your silly ideas aren't widely held among your sensible, educated citizenry.

If you're hell bent on conspiracy, look to your own mind. You're a glaring example of where the "American dream" went horribly wrong.

M.
I think she may be from your neck of the woods, Moochie. She spoke of a 10-hour time difference between her clock and JREF's.

[Pardalis]

With that in mind, I would like someone to prove to me that the Allies won WWII. Without referring to the monolithic source known as "the media," which we all know is controlled by Aliens. By media, I mean newspapers, films, newscasts, photographs, government records, eye-witnesses, and material evidence.

I implore you to keep WW2 out of the discussion, please!

[Pardalis]

I did not present a detailed CT and i will continue to refuse presenting one (nice try, delphi_ote). I created this thread to see if you apply the high standards you demand from "the CTs" to your own theories. It's an experiment. You make fun of "the CTs" for believing Loose Change and i make fun of you for believing the Commission Report.

So you're just here to troll. You're even worst thant the CTs. You just doubt everything, regardless of proof.

Of course the Commission uses a mountain of sources but they decided which (parts of the) sources were used, how they were used, what wasn't used and - most important - they narrated the story.

Relevance?

BTW since when do you use Wikipedia?

[Stellafane]

Is it just me, or is the "JREF Infiltration" arm of the 9/11 CT movement kind of losing steam? I mean geez, first DJLegacy and now Childlike Empress. At least geggy and the others had some life to them, like they really thought what they were saying meant something. But Childlike just seems to be going through the motions, like she drew the short straw and now it's her turn to post here.

[Moochie]

I think she may be from your neck of the woods, Moochie. She spoke of a 10-hour time difference between her clock and JREF's.

Thanks Gravy, I really needed to know that. :)

Looking back at my post, though, it's a good fit for Australia, with very little alteration.

M.

(Edit to add -- Australia's currently 14 hours ahead of US East Coast and 17 hours ahead of US West Coast. Don't know about a 10-hour difference.)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Thanks Gravy, I really needed to know that. :)

Looking back at my post, though, it's a good fit for Australia, with very little alteration.

M.

Ah, think of it this way Moochie; your words still ring true for DJ, Dylan, Jenabell, etc.

[R.Mackey]

I did not present a detailed CT and i will continue to refuse presenting one (nice try, delphi_ote). I created this thread to see if you apply the high standards you demand from "the CTs" to your own theories. It's an experiment. You make fun of "the CTs" for believing Loose Change and i make fun of you for believing the Commission Report.
You have grossly mischaracterized our approach. Probably on purpose, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and explain.

It's really quite simple. We take two theories. One is the the "official" story. The other is whatever alternative we're presented with -- note you still refuse to explain your theory, though we've been able to tease out bits and pieces, but you're not helping much.

The two theories don't agree. One of them is, therefore, in error. So we look for sources of the error.

The reason we make so much fun of the Loosers is because the errors are legion, trivial to uncover, and have not been corrected despite being pointed out over and over again.

This is not the way to go. A rational person changes her opinion when faced with verifiable evidence that doesn't agree with her theory. For example, you pointed out a minor error of fact that I made, and I thank you for it -- I learned something, and my own opinion is now stronger for it.

Now, if you want to contribute to this process, find some errors in the 9/11 Commission Report. There probably are a few. But I will be shocked if you can find enough to change the overall conclusion, or even cast it into doubt. Get to work.

As a warmup, the political backgrounds of Commission members is not proof of anything. This is just an elaborate "ad hominem" attack. If their bias led them to make errors, find the errors and we'll listen.

I'm also still waiting for you to explain why you believe Bin Laden was captured and killed in late 2001, and how you know his acceptance of responsibility was a forgery. Let's see -- ahem -- whether you "apply the high standards you demand to your own theories."

[Belz...]

Not to mention that the more elaborate the conspiracy, the more people who know about it and therefore have to be trusted to keep it hush. Which would never fly anyways. Conspiracies have to be simple and small. No more than a few people can know.

The only way to have an air-tight conspiracy is for it to contain 2 people only, and have the first guy kill the second guy.

[Belz...]

Of course the Commission uses a mountain of sources but they decided which (parts of the) sources were used, how they were used, what wasn't used and - most important - they narrated the story.

So check all those sources, then.

[Belz...]

Belz...:

Didn't you get this week's Globalist Ninja quarterly?

Your team should have both an outlandship and an inlandship in the appropriate Globalist Conspiracy Hanger nearest you.

Of course, only the French Poodle on your team is authorized to drive, per regulation 1,567 section 4 subsection 18 paragraph B, lines 14 through 16:

"Outland- and Inland- ships, persuant to applicible Globalist policy, all require appropriate licensing for operation. The licensing procedure can be obtained by taking a current Pizza Hut Menu, cutting it into a string of three paper dolls (not, two, not four, and five is right out), and mailing it to a random "Smith" address found in the South Hampton phone book. Canines are exempt from this licensing policy."

Why are we ALWAYS doing these things so complicated ?

I'll walk, thank you.

[c4ts]

Ugh. This is just like Rodney. Hey guys, prove to me that the Egyptians built the pyramids but don't use any simple machines!

[Pardalis]

What does all this mean? My impression is that a nexus of financiers, organized crime, "intelligence", polititians and corporations exists which was involved in 9/11 and wants to make us believe the story of the lone highjackers and Osama as evil genius in the background.

Nobody cares about your "impression".

A rogue element in western (and middle eastern) society.

What? What's this sentence? There's no verb, what are you talking about?

They try to play the oldest game in the book and to create a backlash into fear and barbarianism to save their interests - at a moment in history when it's time for humanity to grow up.

That sounds alot like what Al Qaeda is trying to do.

ETA: Do you deny Al Qaeda's existence as well?

[Yahzi]

I implore you to keep WW2 out of the discussion, please!
Exactly what I would expect a government stooge to say!

Obviously, 9/11 was just a coverup of the murder of some finanicieers in the Towers who discovered that WWII was faked (so that the governments of the world could raise taxes).

Go ahead, prove me wrong!

:D

[Dark Jaguar]

Such a cool name... too bad there's no logic behind it...

[senorpogo]

I've noticed that when a woo starts up a post here at JREF it follows a general trend. In a very nonchalant manner he or she will make a seemingly innocent statment and follow it up with a very general question that transfers the burden of proof onto the other party. And sometimes they throw a non-sequitar in there. And they do so in a way that tries to appear neutral and innocent.

I hear there are serious questions about the moon landing. Do you have any points that proved we landed on the moon?

Cultures in the Middle East seem less developed than ours. Do you have any proof that shows that Muslims aren't evil?

Hi, i am missing the chain of evidence for the theory that the 19 alleged highjackers commited the mass murder of September 11th 2001.
Please provide all sources but one - the "9/11 Commission"-Report.

Slowly throughout the thread, the woo reveals himself or herself to be a fundamentalist who has already made up his or her mind despite the complete lack of proof.

[Kent1]

The Commission Report is not a source. At least not an original one. There are these things in the back of the Report called "endnotes" that list many original sources--HUNDREDS of them, in fact. By referring to these, you can check for yourself whether or not the Report reported things accurately. It's a pretty clever device, I think, these "endnotes".
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm

He doesn't even have to read the Commission report.

He can read the trial transcripts of USA v. Zacarias Moussaoui
http://cryptome.quintessenz.at/mirror/usa-v-zm-dt2.htm

Combine that with the documents page and you have lots of good reading
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/index.php?sortby=datedesc

[Childlike Empress]

@Pardalis: Stop stalking me. If you want me to answer the question if i "deny Al-Qaeda's existence", you have to clarify what this term means for you. A monolithic worldwide terror network let by Bin Laden, a label for the ideology of loose connected militant islamistic groups or the name of a list of participants in afghan training camps (in advance: yes, no, no).

btw: I like wikipedia. I simply don't like it when people make statements like "that doesn't fit my definition of ..." and then, asked what that definition is, link to Wikipedia. That's rhetoric.

So what were they to gain if I guess as you're implying they were invloved in the conspiracy. Is that what you're saying?
One could speculate that they covered up irregularities with the planes or the security system of the companies. But i don't say it is so and i don't say that they were all involved. I think the list found in the Wikipedia article is interesting as a whole - that's why i posted it.

And yes there probably is ties with Saudi's. If you are an oil investor there's gonna be ties there more than likely. Have you looked to see what ties some of the critics have? Surely you've done that also right?
Sure i did. Look at my posts. Surprise: Some of them have ties to saudis billionaires. And so has Mr. Kean.

It's really quite simple. We take two theories. One is the the "official" story. The other is whatever alternative we're presented with -- note you still refuse to explain your theory, though we've been able to tease out bits and pieces, but you're not helping much.

The two theories don't agree. One of them is, therefore, in error. So we look for sources of the error.
Isn't it possible that both are wrong? Did you really search for errors in the official story with the same enthusiasm you did for "the CTs"?

This is not the way to go. A rational person changes her opinion when faced with verifiable evidence that doesn't agree with her theory. For example, you pointed out a minor error of fact that I made, and I thank you for it -- I learned something, and my own opinion is now stronger for it.
Same here. I learned i was wrong with the budget and other details - i have no problem with accepting facts. One fact is, you can't convince me that the Commission Report is true with "debunking" LC.

@Kent1: Thanks, i'll take a look at the transcripts.

[Belz...]

@Pardalis: Stop stalking me.

You mean, he actually follows you around ??

btw: I like wikipedia.

It's a useful tool for personnal research, but since anyone can edit and modify it, I wouldn't bet any of my important opinions on it.

One could speculate that they covered up irregularities with the planes or the security system of the companies.

Key word highlighted.

The two theories don't agree. One of them is, therefore, in error.
Isn't it possible that both are wrong?

Your logic and grammar skills are abysmal. Since both theories don't agree, ONE of them HAS to be wrong, no matter if the other one is right or not.

[Drysdale]

OK, I have to say I'm having a hard time understanding where you're coming from and what you are wanting. Let me see if I can pin these down.

1. You believe Al Queda is a fabrication?
2. You believe there was a conspiracy?

I guess what I'd like to know is what is the motive? Please be clearer as to what would be gained IN YOUR VIEW not a handful of links everywhere.

[RandFan]

@btw: I like wikipedia. I simply don't like it when people make statements like "that doesn't fit my definition of ..." and then, asked what that definition is, link to Wikipedia. That's rhetoric. I'm not exactly sure what you mean. How is that rhetoric? A dictionary or encyclopedia can demonstrate the common and not so common usage of a word. I think debating definitions is silly and I really avoid it now. I also like Wikipedia but I think people should understand it's limitations and inherent problems. In other words you need to look at the context of the word and how it is used and you should also look at multiple sources. But if I say that a certain word can be understood to mean "A", then using Wikipedia to demonstrate that is by definition not rhetoric.

In the end we are simply talking about words and their usage. "A rose by anyother name..."

[dubfan]

Isn't it possible that both are wrong? Did you really search for errors in the official story with the same enthusiasm you did for "the CTs"?

You didn't address this to me, but I'll address it as a member of the skeptical community. I hope this doesn't seem like piling on, but you've asked a fair question and I think you deserve a broad answer.

The answer to that, in my case at least, is yes. I treated the "official story" with the same skepticism as the CTs. And yes, there are indeed gaps and anomalies in the official version of events. I've pointed them out here in previous posts.

The problem -- for CTs -- is that these gaps, in my view, don't point in the direction that the US government carried out the attacks. They point more in the direction that the US government may have acted irresponsibly with respect to its intelligence handling, and to a certain degree, in its immediate response to the attacks. They point in the direction that perhaps modern skyscrapers aren't as robust as we maybe thought prior to 9/11. The old maxim, "never assume malice before stupidity has been ruled out" applies in spades here.

Furthermore, when I looked at the products of the investigation -- namely, the Kean report and the NIST/FEMA reports -- I found them serious, credible, but admittedly flawed documents. The flaws are not serious enough -- in my view -- that they invalidate the documents and their sources as a whole, and they certainly don't invalidate the primary facts of the events of 9/11. To me, the evidence is simply overwhelming that 19 jihadists hijacked some airplanes and crashed them into buildings.

EVERYTHING ELSE -- who knew what when, should the US have done more about AQ in the months or years prior, what was the precise mechanism of the structural failure at WTC, was it the hat truss, was it column instability, was it the angle clips, was it the blown-off fireproofing, etc. -- is open for debate. But the essential facts are not.

In contrast, I find the "evidence" offered by CTs to be problematic in the extreme. I find the CTs neither serious, nor credible. For one thing, there is no single coherent theory, apart from general claims of "cover-up" or "inside job". As different aspects of the various theories are debunked, new ones appear, like the heads of a hydra. The ground shifts constantly. They are rife with outright nonsense, bad logic, and internal contradiction. Secondly, the CTs do not have the weight of solid scientific reasoning, modeling, and physical evidence behind them, the so-called "Scholars" for 9/11 Truth notwithstanding.

[kookbreaker]

You didn't address this to me, but I'll address it as a member of the skeptical community. I hope this doesn't seem like piling on, but you've asked a fair question and I think you deserve a broad answer.

The answer to that, in my case at least, is yes. I treated the "official story" with the same skepticism as the CTs. And yes, there are indeed gaps and anomalies in the official version of events. I've pointed them out here in previous posts.

The problem -- for CTs -- is that these gaps, in my view, don't point in the direction that the US government carried out the attacks. They point more in the direction that the US government may have acted irresponsibly with respect to its intelligence handling, and to a certain degree, in its immediate response to the attacks. They point in the direction that perhaps modern skyscrapers aren't as robust as we maybe thought prior to 9/11. The old maxim, "never assume malice before stupidity has been ruled out" applies in spades here.

Furthermore, when I looked at the products of the investigation -- namely, the Kean report and the NIST/FEMA reports -- I found them serious, credible, but admittedly flawed documents. The flaws are not serious enough -- in my view -- that they invalidate the documents and their sources as a whole, and they certainly don't invalidate the primary facts of the events of 9/11. To me, the evidence is simply overwhelming that 19 jihadists hijacked some airplanes and crashed them into buildings.

EVERYTHING ELSE -- who knew what when, should the US have done more about AQ in the months or years prior, what was the precise mechanism of the structural failure at WTC, was it the hat truss, was it column instability, was it the angle clips, was it the blown-off fireproofing, etc. -- is open for debate. But the essential facts are not.

In contrast, I find the "evidence" offered by CTs to be problematic in the extreme. I find the CTs neither serious, nor credible. For one thing, there is no single coherent theory, apart from general claims of "cover-up" or "inside job". As different aspects of the various theories are debunked, new ones appear, like the heads of a hydra. The ground shifts constantly. They are rife with outright nonsense, bad logic, and internal contradiction. Secondly, the CTs do not have the weight of solid scientific reasoning, modeling, and physical evidence behind them, the so-called "Scholars" for 9/11 Truth notwithstanding.

Nominated.

[RandFan]

Furthermore, when I looked at the products of the investigation -- namely, the Kean report and the NIST/FEMA reports -- I found them serious, credible, but admittedly flawed documents. The flaws are not serious enough -- in my view -- that they invalidate the documents and their sources as a whole, and they certainly don't invalidate the primary facts of the events of 9/11. To me, the evidence is simply overwhelming that 19 jihadists hijacked some airplanes and crashed them into buildings.

EVERYTHING ELSE -- who knew what when, should the US have done more about AQ in the months or years prior, what was the precise mechanism of the structural failure at WTC, was it the hat truss, was it column instability, was it the angle clips, was it the blown-off fireproofing, etc. -- is open for debate. But the essential facts are not.

In contrast, I find the "evidence" offered by CTs to be problematic in the extreme. I find the CTs neither serious, nor credible. For one thing, there is no single coherent theory, apart from general claims of "cover-up" or "inside job". As different aspects of the various theories are debunked, new ones appear, like the heads of a hydra. The ground shifts constantly. They are rife with outright nonsense, bad logic, and internal contradiction. Secondly, the CTs do not have the weight of solid scientific reasoning, modeling, and physical evidence behind them, the so-called "Scholars" for 9/11 Truth notwithstanding.Good post. Thank you.

When I first heard about loose change I watched it with an open mind which is rather difficult to do with this program. It is very poorly done and the errors were stark and obvious. When I went to the loose change web site I found a lot of disparate theories and outrageous claims. Now, none of this proves that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. It did however demonstrate that it was difficult to find any credible evidence to cause me to doubt that 9/11 was carried out by hijackers.

The thing that I feel is most compelling is that so many of the questions are easily answered with only a minimum amount of thought and research yet these questions are still out there and believed by CT'ers.

I'm willing to entertain anything that would cast serious doubt on the official version but so far the evidence just isn't there.

[Childlike Empress]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. How is that rhetoric?
Your statement was "I'm sorry but that doesn't really fit the definition of "Conspiracy Theory" as I understand the term.", not "as it is decribed by Wikipedia". But lets forget about that. Pardalis repeatedly came up with "Wikipedia, Empress?" and i only wanted to clarify my position on it (which is roughly the same as yours and Belz's).

@Drysdale: I believe the "war on terror" is a weapon of mass control.

@dubfan: Thanks. I answer later.

[CptColumbo]

As different aspects of the various theories are debunked, new ones appear, like the heads of a hydra.
What I've also noticed is that once the new idea has been debunked or called into question the old one returns, apparently the CT community thinks the skeptics have short memories. That is what I find disturbing, because then we have to cover the same ground again, and the cycle continues. If you get frustrated and give up, they claim victory. When all they've done is bore you into ceasing to care about their ideas.

[Yahzi]

@Drysdale: I believe the "war on terror" is a weapon of mass control.
So you don't think any of the terrorist bombs were real? The ones in Spain - were those set by the CIA to cover our tracks, or were they set at the behest of the Spainish government which is in on the deal?

The London tube bombings - the Bali bombing - the daily list of horror from Iraq. Is the government setting the bombs that kill our soldiers?

How about the suicide bombings in Israel for the last twenty years? Did Bush Sr. use his time as head of the CIA to instigate those bombings as the pre-cursor to the grand 9/11 plan?

Your idea that the WoT is just a scheme cooked up by Bush Jr. to extend the power of the government requires one to be wholly ignorant of the last fifty years of global history. Which, I imagine, describes you pretty accurately.

There is only one question that anyone here actually wants to see you answer. There is only one question that any of us really find interesting, and it is this:

Why don't you apply the same level of skepticism to your own theories? You disregard the Commission's report, asserting that every sentence is a lie; why don't you find the Loose Change video equally unfounded and unreliable? If it is possible for the government to present a report that is patently false... why isn't it possible for Loose Change to do the same?

[Yahzi]

What I've also noticed is that once the new idea has been debunked or called into question the old one returns,
Like astrology?

Old woo ideas never die, they just... well, they never die. I defy anyone to find a single woo idea that has ceased to be believed by someone, somewhere.

:D

[CptColumbo]

"People are always anxious to get things out into the open where they can put a name to them, even a meaningless name, so long as it has something of a scientific ring."

Shirley Jackson
The Haunting of Hill House

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

"People are always anxious to get things out into the open where they can put a name to them, even a meaningless name, so long as it has something of a scientific ring."

Shirley Jackson
The Haunting of Hill House

Now that's just blatant scientifimystification and there is no call for it! :D

[Childlike Empress]

Why don't you apply the same level of skepticism to your own theories? You disregard the Commission's report, asserting that every sentence is a lie; why don't you find the Loose Change video equally unfounded and unreliable? If it is possible for the government to present a report that is patently false... why isn't it possible for Loose Change to do the same?
Huh? Yahzi, hello? Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not defending LC here. Please discuss this movie over at the monster-thread. I never said that every sentence in the report is a lie. And i never said that the Bush family or "the" CIA is behind 9/11. You seem to mistake me for someone.

I'll explain why i think that the "war on terror" is a weapon of mass control in my answer to dubfan - please be patient. And dont' mix this up with palestine - that's a different issue.

[drfrank]

All this puts me in mind of a popular Creationist tactic - avoiding stating another hypothesis (that inevitably holds about as much water as a damp sponge) and just try and poke holes in the well-supported and accepted theory.

Sorry, no dice: point out specific errors in the report that you want to address and people will be ecstatically happy to help you, I have no doubt.

[RandFan]

I'll explain why i think that the "war on terror" is a weapon of mass control in my answer to dubfan - please be patient. And dont' mix this up with palestine - that's a different issue. I think that war serves many interests. I don't know what "mass control" is but there is no question that the powers that be can benefit from war. Certainly there is money to be made from it (*see Eisenhower's warning). And patriotism during times of war can be used to rally support for political leaders. I'm willing to acknowledge that these things play a part. But what is your hypothesis? That 9/11 was caused or allowed to precipitate the war? If so, select one please, what is your evidence? Please make a cogent argument that includes supporting evidence. Vacuous speculation will not be received very well I'm afraid.

Good luck and I look forward to your hypothesis.

* Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961 (http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html)

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

[Pardalis]

@Pardalis: Stop stalking me. If you want me to answer the question if i "deny Al-Qaeda's existence", you have to clarify what this term means for you. A monolithic worldwide terror network let by Bin Laden, a label for the ideology of loose connected militant islamistic groups or the name of a list of participants in afghan training camps (in advance: yes, no, no).

So, to you there's no link between the 19 hijackers and this "monolithic worldwide terror network"?

BTW I didn't stalk you, I just stumbled upon your other post on the other thread and found it funny to see you refer to Wikipedia. Now you've answered, thanks.

ETA: Geez, you conspiracists are paranoid.

[Gravy]

4x ask now
ask much make tired

C.E.:
Read Report?
If so
What wrong?

R.S.V.P.

[SezMe]

Gravy
getting cold
lumpy
must reheat

Q.E.D.

[delphi_ote]

Which you dismiss, supposedly because it's tainted second-hand knowledge. You claim to want first-hand facts, but you seem to readily accept third and fourth hand accounts. This seems inconsistent to me.

That said, we're never going to get anywhere with your quesiton unless we can establish some common ground. Some baseline of truth. Were planes flown into those buildings? Were they hijacked planes? Are you specifically asking for proof that those 19 people were the hijackers, or are you also looking for proof that the planes were hijacked? Do we have to prove that the planes existed in the first place? Do we have to produce evidence that the Twin Towers actually existed? If you'd genuinely like our help answering these questions, we've got to have a place to start.

Also, what will you accept as evidence? Eye witness testimony? Expert testimony? Mainstream media reports? Do I have to physically mail you a piece of each hijacker's DNA and a video tape of each taking over the flight and navigating it to the crash site?

The problem we frequently run into with conspiracy theorists and proponets of pseudoscience is that they don't have a consistent burden of proof. They alter what they'll accept as evidence based on whether it supports or detracts from their belief. I'm not accusing you of this, just warning you that people here have little patience for that kind of run around.

So honestly ask yourself, "What would it take to change my mind?"

Just to be fair, I'll let you know what would change my mind. If I found that several eye witnesses gave consistent and independent testimony soon after the event that contradicted the established story, I would certainly have to re-examine my position. If several experts (intelligence officials or the coroners or the air traffic controllers) came forward and testified that the facts were inconsistent, I would seriously question the official story. If a main stream media outlet published a detailed report and sited sources as mentioned above, I would certainly investigate further and re-evaluate my position. If I found physical evidence myself or was shown clear video evidence that the event did not take place (i.e. video footage of someone else hijacking the plane,) obviously I'd have to doubt my version.

Clearly this last example is unreasonable, but I think it's quite realistic to expect to find the rest of my proposed evidence if what I currently believe was wrong. I'm sure there's more, but I think this list will do for now.

My mind can be changed. Can yours?

Do let us know if there's any kind of evidence that would convince you to re-examine your position, Child.

[Pardalis]

I did not present a detailed CT and i will continue to refuse presenting one (nice try, delphi_ote).

[...]

What does all this mean? My impression is that a nexus of financiers, organized crime, "intelligence", polititians and corporations exists which was involved in 9/11 and wants to make us believe the story of the lone highjackers and Osama as evil genius in the background. A rogue element in western (and middle eastern) society. They try to play the oldest game in the book and to create a backlash into fear and barbarianism to save their interests - at a moment in history when it's time for humanity to grow up.

How does a global criminal amalgam of such different denominations get to be so unified and organised as to plan these attacks so perfectly? How did they get to have this single objective in mind so clear?

How many of these financiers/politicians/corporations had to be involved in secrecy, and who did what, and how? With facts please, not "impressions".

Who is the chief of operations, the one making the final decisions? Who makes this thing go in one direction, keep everything in check?

What is their motive to kill 3 000 innocent New Yorkers, and to destroy the world's most important financial complex?

What is their motive to want a war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan?

What exactly is their link to the 19 terrorists who hijacked the planes?

What makes the people who worked on the commision suspicious of anything because they were involved with these different agencies and companies (the ones mentioned in Wiki)? Wouldn't that make them even more expert on the matter?

What about the bombings in London, Bali, Madrid, and Iraq? How is this "global mafia" connected to all this? And what are their motives in each of these cases? What part of their international scheme does these attacks play?

Usually, when dealing with thieves, you usually get alot of detractors and wistleblowers. Usually criminals can be easily bribed, they will go the the most offering hand and change their "camp" without remorse. Why haven't on of them spoken out yet? Is this "global mafia" so rich that no one has deserted?

But hey, these are just questions.

All you got here are some links between people. No actual proof of involvement in the specific 9/11 plot, no motive, and no cohesive, all encompassing and conclusive narrative that would help draw a picture of what happened.

Guess what, the 9/11 Commission has all that, and so far, to me, it makes sense and holds up to scrutiny. But you could be right, your "impressions" may possibly be on to something, keep researching. It's a free world. But until then, we want facts, not inuendos and impressions.

[R.Mackey]

Childlike: Welcome back. Dubfan covered most of the important points, but let me add to that with my reply.

Isn't it possible that both are wrong? Did you really search for errors in the official story with the same enthusiasm you did for "the CTs"?
No, it isn't really possible that both are wrong, not in the sense you mean. Let me explain the mechanics of discourse and scientific thought.

We know that something caused the events of Sept. 11th. Therefore, there is a explanation, somewhere.

Any hypothesis is an attempt to approximate the true explanation. As a consequence, at any time, there is a leading hypothesis, that is to say the one that appears to be closest to the truth. I believe I can speak for most people here when I say that, for us, the leading hypothesis is very close to the 9/11 Commission Report, owing for small corrections such as those pointed out by Dubfan.

Different people may have different opinions on which hypothesis is most likely, of course. But everyone taking part in the debate has a leading hypothesis.

The arrival of new evidence, or unexplained questions, is no different than comparing two different hypotheses. When this happens, what we do is find a way to discriminate between the two hypotheses. We go back to the original sources, perform some calculations, run experiments, etc. Then we compare the results to the two hypotheses and see which one fits better. A result that fits both, or that fits neither, is not a discriminant. In that case we find a different test.

What this means is that we cannot debunk one theory without confirming the other. It is a symmetric approach. When we debunk conspiracy theories, we are not presupposing the alternative. So when our result weakens the conspiracy theory, it also confirms the leading hypothesis.

Thus the answer is yes: We have searched the official story for errors with the same enthusiasm. If my experiments found an error in the official story, I would post it here for the world to see, and expect others to look for holes in my reasoning. That's the way science works. Even if I'm wrong, I win, because I've learned something.

Same here. I learned i was wrong with the budget and other details - i have no problem with accepting facts. One fact is, you can't convince me that the Commission Report is true with "debunking" LC.
This is a non sequitur. If, for you, the Commission Report is not the leading hypothesis, then you must have a better one in mind. If you want to discuss that, fine, let's talk about it. But if you don't, you're just being obstinate.

It's like the joke about the two campers threatened by a bear, one runs while the other hangs back and laces up his track shoes... Our theory doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be the best. We refine our theories through competition with other ideas. If you don't like my theory because you've got a better one, I'm interested, please share it with me. But if you don't like my theory "just because," that's your problem. You have nothing to teach me in that case. We are not obligated to make you believe.

So any time you want to show why my theory is impossible, or why your theory is better, let us know.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Hermann Göring, 1946 :
Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. (...) The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

(I thought you might not agree with this particular Wikipedia definition, but I'm giving it a shot)

[Regnad Kcin]

Well done, posts #184 and 185.

[Belz...]

Nominated.

Seconded.

[rikzilla]

Seconded.

Thirded

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein, 1932 :
Experience proves that it is rather the so-called intelligentsia’ that is most apt to yield to these disastrous collective suggestions.

Relevance? Context?

Argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority)

[Eos of the Eons]

With all the crap on the net, one of my brothers bought a conspiracy film with a few well known faces saying that the pentagon was not hit by a plane, but a missile. They use shots at angles that omit most of the debris, and shows a little tiny hole in the pentagon. We can dig up pictures that show completely the opposite, but he now believes the tape instead of anything else.

I like the Flight 93 movie by A&E because it clearly timelines everything that happened that day.

http://www.aetv.com/flight_93/f93_history.jsp I relived all my feelings of shock as I realized these planes full of people were being slammed into buildings on purpose. I also remember the footage of pakistanis and other populations that celebrated that day. They were overjoyed! I, for the first time, realized how hated the US was. I started to investigate why. It blew my mind. It was mostly due to scapegoating and religion, but also due to percieved and actual meddling by the US in foreign affairs. There are some very very angry people out there. Some of the angry people have a lot of money and time on their hands to recruit and convince people to fight the infidels.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/21stCenturySurvival/message/2308?viscount=100&l=1Kent added groups like al-Qaeda "dip into the mainstream aspects of &[Islamic] tradition, extract an array of ideas on the value of martyrdom and use this to justify violent action.''


And not to mention, those tapes from laden himself:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/alqaeda/alqaeda49.html

http://www.rickross.com/groups/alqaeda.html
http://www.rickross.com/reference/alqaeda/alqaeda17.html
http://www.culteducation.com/binladen.html


http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/usterror.html
http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/arabis.html
http://www.september11news.com/

BACKGROUND RESEARCH

Arab-Israeli Conflict | Arab World | Arab Americans | Biological Defense | Books | Civil Rights | Economics | Energy
Federal Agencies | Federal Agency Reports | Foreign Economics | Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution | Journals | Laws and Regulations
Military Background | News | Psychology | Religion | Statistics | Terrorism | Think Tanks | Treaties




Laden exists, Qaeda exists, and many support them in their efforts to rid the world of "pharaohs" and infidels.

". . . Bush, the pharaoh of the century . . ." In the language of the Koran, "pharaoh" is a phrase often used to refer to all infidel rulers, not just of Egypt. It has been adopted by radical Islamists to describe non-Islamic rulers of Muslim nations, and as a term of derision for Western leaders.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/alqaeda/alqaeda40.html

[pgwenthold]

So let's go to the bare basics, here. CE claims there is NO evidence for the 19 highjackers. Really?

Which of the following facts are in dispute?

1) Four planes were hijacked on 9/11
If this is true, that means we can seriously limit the number of suspects. Heck, IIRC, one of the planes only had something like 45 passengers, which means that there is a very short list of suspects

2) The accused 19 highjackers were passengers on those planes
That means that those 19 highjackers are among the top suspects for the highjacking

3) In order to do what the highjackers did with the planes (fly them into buildings, and just not being completely lost in the cockpit) means that the highjackers had some pilot training.

Now given the short list of suspects, and the requirement that they have some pilot training, then we can pare the suspect list down to those passengers who we know have had pilot training. That makes the list very short indeed, but it still contains many (all?) of the accused highjackers.

4) Relationships with other highjackers: there is also good reason to suspect anyone who is known to have relationships with other highjackers, including those suspects identified by using steps 1-3. If 1-3 does not account for all 19 highjackers, then step 4 will provide the basis for suspecting the rest.

Now, this is all very straightforward information. What parts are in dispute? That planes were hijacked? That some/many/all of the accused highjackers had pilot training? That those who didn't have pilot training had some relationship to those who did?

If nothing else, the fact that the accused highjackers were on the plane is evidence that they were highjackers. Of course, it is not sufficient to ID them to the exclusion of all the others on the plane, but it does put them onto the short list.

Blood type doesn't ID a criminal to the exclusion of all other people, but finding the blood at the scene of a crime with the same blood type as the accused (knowing that the criminal was injured while committing the crime) is still evidence.

Hence, in order for CE's claim that there is NO evidence to be correct, she would have to argue that either no planes were hijacked, or that the actions of the hijackers did not require some pilot training, or that none of the people accused had any pilot training, or that they weren't on the planes.

[Pardalis]

4) Relationships with other highjackers: there is also good reason to suspect anyone who is known to have relationships with other highjackers, including those suspects identified by using steps 1-3. If 1-3 does not account for all 19 highjackers, then step 4 will provide the basis for suspecting the rest.


http://www.orgnet.com/prevent.html

[Eos of the Eons]

Here's bin laden bragging about it in a transcript:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2001/12/13/transcript.pdf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,618261,00.htmlSpeaking to a room of supporters, possibly in the Taliban's former stronghold of Kandahar, Bin Laden said that none of the 19 hijackers knew the details of the operation until just before they boarded the planes.

"The brothers who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America, but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter.

"But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the plane," he added.

He confirmed that Mohammed Atta was the leader of the group

[pgwenthold]

http://www.orgnet.com/prevent.html

Very nice.

So which of the highjackers are known to have taken pilot's lessons?

[Gravy]

With all the crap on the net, one of my brothers bought a conspiracy film with a few well known faces saying that the pentagon was not hit by a plane, but a missile. They use shots at angles that omit most of the debris, and shows a little tiny hole in the pentagon. We can dig up pictures that show completely the opposite, but he now believes the tape instead of anything else.
The U.S. has some impressive military hardware, but that would have to be a REALLY special missile.

First, it would have to work in conjunction with some kind of mass-hallucination technology that made all these people see an airliner hit the Pentagon right in front of them.
http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html

That technology would also have to work on the Air Traffic Controllers, and on the crew of the C-130 that saw the attack:

Reagan National controllers then vectored an unarmed National Guard C130H cargo aircraft, which had just taken off en route to Minnesota, to identify and follow the suspicious aircraft. The C-130H pilot spotted it, identified it as a Boeing 757, attempted to follow its path, and at 9:38, seconds after impact, reported to the control tower: "looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir." (From the 9/11 Commission Report)
Then, for it to damage the light poles and generator, it would either have to have a wingspan of over 100 feet, or it would have to take the path shown by the red line below.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904492d566cc9fe.jpg

Then, it would have to somehow scatter tons of American Airlines debris over the Pentagon lawn and through the building, while leaving no trace of itself..

Finally, it would have to deposit the remains of all of flight 77's passengers and crew (The remains of one two-year-old weren't recovered. Perhaps that child is responsible for the attack).

My apologies to whoever did the graphics overlay on the Pentagon photo above. I don't remember who did it. I just drew the red line.

Sorry for the aside. I'm impressed with the clear thinking being displayed here. Carry on.

[pgwenthold]

Hey Gravy, what do the green and red spots correspond to?

It looks like light blue are light poles still standing, and those in yellow were knocked down.

[Gravy]

Hey Gravy, what do the green and red spots correspond to?

It looks like light blue are light poles still standing, and those in yellow were knocked down.
Yes, the aqua spots are intact light poles, the yellow, damaged ones. The green rectangle by the building is the generator trailer that was struck. The spots on the building indicate damaged columns, IIRC.

[Childlike Empress]

2) The accused 19 highjackers were passengers on those planes
Please show me the evidence.

[Belz...]

Please show me the evidence.

No, no. First I need evidence that you're really a person.

Have you even READ the reports ?

[R.Mackey]

Please show me the evidence.
It's been shown. Refute the evidence or show counter-evidence.

It's been explained to you why ignoring it or asking for more is irrelevant. You are either unable to reply to this logic, or unwilling. Which is it?

[Gravy]

Please show me the evidence.
Fifth time.
Have you read the 9/11 Commission report?
If so, what did it get wrong?

[chipmunk stew]

Please show me the evidence.http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch7.htm
Please refer to chapter 7 endnotes 1-192:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm


edit: also--
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
Please refer to chapter 1 endnotes 1-89
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm

[Kiwiwriter]

I've noticed that when a woo starts up a post here at JREF it follows a general trend. In a very nonchalant manner he or she will make a seemingly innocent statment and follow it up with a very general question that transfers the burden of proof onto the other party. And sometimes they throw a non-sequitar in there. And they do so in a way that tries to appear neutral and innocent.

I hear there are serious questions about the moon landing. Do you have any points that proved we landed on the moon?

Cultures in the Middle East seem less developed than ours. Do you have any proof that shows that Muslims aren't evil?

Hi, i am missing the chain of evidence for the theory that the 19 alleged highjackers commited the mass murder of September 11th 2001.
Please provide all sources but one - the "9/11 Commission"-Report.

Slowly throughout the thread, the woo reveals himself or herself to be a fundamentalist who has already made up his or her mind despite the complete lack of proof.


Holocaust deniers do the same thing at history forums...they start off with the "innocent questions" about the Holocaust, which knowledgeable folks answer. The deniers then dispute the answer and start spouting their line of rubbish, usually along with a passel of lies, and the discussion turns into an acrimonious debate.

The denier is trying to pass himself off as a scholar merely asking incovenient and difficult questions about a historic event, a reasonable fellow, dontcha know, who just has some trouble with the "ambiguities" of the Holocaust and the "official story."

In this way, the denier and his condescending tone sounds like a lofty philosopher and oracle on his subject, while making his interlocutors sound like ignorant idiots...which is the object of the exercise...to make the defenders of truth either explode with rage or convert to denial.

It's a good and clearly well-tried tactic.

[Gravy]

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch7.htm
Please refer to chapter 7 endnotes 1-192:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm


edit: also--
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
Please refer to chapter 1 endnotes 1-89
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm
Shame on you for helping a cheater, Chipmunk! :D She obviously hasn't read the Commission report. She even started this thread after I asked if she'd read it, and she declared the report off-limits. What a joke.

[Stellafane]

No, no. First I need evidence that you're really a person.

...or at least older than, say, 11 or so.

I have to give CT'ers this much: Each one that comes here is maddening to debate, but at least each is maddening in his or her own way.

[chipmunk stew]

Shame on you for helping a cheater, Chipmunk! :D She obviously hasn't read the Commission report. She even started this thread after I asked if she'd read it, and she declared the report off-limits. What a joke.I was always helping out other kids in school, too, out of a naive faith that they just needed a leg up just this once--I could show them a good example and they'd take it from there.

Of course, they cheated their way all the way through school, and are probably successful executives now.

[Childlike Empress]

@R. Mackey (and dubfan):

Thanks for explaining science to me. I admit that my english is very limited and it may seem that i don't know what i'm talking about.

My problem with the commission report: This is not natural science but an investigation of a crime. To formulate a hypothesis we have to have access to the existing facts. We have to know what exactly happened.

The scientific community has an open source approach. Data is accessible to everyone who wants to find a better hypothesis. This is not the case here. The people that formulated the leading hypothesis are the only ones that had access to the data. You have to trust them to believe they described the data correctly AND found the best hypothesis for explaining it.

That's not how the scientific process works and i doubt you had access to the complete archive of their interviews and sources.

[chipmunk stew]

@R. Mackey (and dubfan):

Thanks for explaining science to me. I admit that my english is very limited and it may seem that i don't know what i'm talking about.

My problem with the commission report: This is not natural science but an investigation of a crime. To formulate a hypothesis we have to have access to the existing facts. We have to know what exactly happened.

The scientific community has an open source approach. Data is accessible to everyone who wants to find a better hypothesis. This is not the case here. The people that formulated the leading hypothesis are the only ones that had access to the data. You have to trust them to believe they described the data correctly AND found the best hypothesis for explaining it.

That's not how the scientific process works and i doubt you had access to the complete archive of their interviews and sources.We have an unprecedented level of access. The endnotes point to exactly which documents to reference in a FOIA request. There's relatively little digging to do to obtain the source material. The process was extremely transparent, despite the Bush administration's obstructions.

Name one major event in US history that's had as much public access to information.

If you think they should have let the public handle and examine the physical evidence, that's just lunacy. Think of the potential for contamination.

[R.Mackey]

The scientific community has an open source approach. Data is accessible to everyone who wants to find a better hypothesis. This is not the case here. The people that formulated the leading hypothesis are the only ones that had access to the data. You have to trust them to believe they described the data correctly AND found the best hypothesis for explaining it.

That's not how the scientific process works and i doubt you had access to the complete archive of their interviews and sources.
Sorry, but this is completely wrong.

We are not restricting information to that controlled by government sources. Any verifiable evidence is included. Some of that evidence comes from other countries.

You may bring whatever evidence to the table that you wish.

So far you haven't brought any.

[Ketyk]

… I admit that my english is very limited…
Not from what I have read. Your problem is laziness in typing the English language.

This is not natural science but an investigation of a crime.
Who committed a crime? What crime do you refer to?

Data is accessible to everyone who wants to find a better hypothesis. This is not the case here.
Other than this being a contradictory statement, where would you like to me to look for the data? Can you point me in a direction?

The people that formulated the leading hypothesis are the only ones that had access to the data.
I have access to the data, but had no part in formulating any hypothesis.

I know your original post asked for sources, and you have been given dozens. Do you have a source that has a conclusion that is different from the 9/11 Commission Report?

I would really like an answer to that. Please? PM me the source if you don’t want to post it here.

[Drysdale]

@R. Mackey (and dubfan):

This is not natural science but an investigation of a crime. To formulate a hypothesis we have to have access to the existing facts. We have to know what exactly happened.



Well no not exactly.

n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz)
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
The antecedent of a conditional statement.

If we knew exactly what happened we would'nt need a hypothesis.
It would be a fact. Again, you're asking for something only the hijakers
themselves or Al Quaida could answer. And I'm betting if they did you'd still dispute it. There is nothing in this world that will convine you that's obviuos.

[dubfan]

@R. Mackey (and dubfan):

Thanks for explaining science to me. I admit that my english is very limited and it may seem that i don't know what i'm talking about.

And thank *you* for the gratuituous sarcasm. I gave you a polite and genuine answer. I'm sorry you didn't see it that way.

My problem with the commission report: This is not natural science but an investigation of a crime. To formulate a hypothesis we have to have access to the existing facts. We have to know what exactly happened.

The scientific community has an open source approach. Data is accessible to everyone who wants to find a better hypothesis. This is not the case here. The people that formulated the leading hypothesis are the only ones that had access to the data. You have to trust them to believe they described the data correctly AND found the best hypothesis for explaining it.

That's not how the scientific process works and i doubt you had access to the complete archive of their interviews and sources.

On the surface your argument has some merit. And, as I've admitted, there are some "missing pieces" that remain in the custody of the government. It would indeed clear up a lot if they were more forthcoming with some things. It would be fruitful if the DNA evidence could be put in the public domain, along with what exists of the FDR and CVR data, radar tapes, ATC interviews, etc. Point taken.

However, it is not accurate to apply a model of pure scientific investigation here. 9/11 was not a natural phenomenon, and it was not a crime. It was an act of war. As such, there are national security and intelligence issues to consider, as well as the privacy demands of the inviduals who were killed or injured.

It is also incorrect to state that somehow the government has been in complete control of all of the evidence here. It has not been. 9/11 didn't happen inside some hermetically sealed government vacuum. The 19 hijackers interacted with hundreds of people, many of whom have given interviews and spoken publically. The physical evidence has been handled by thousands of people -- fire & rescue personnel, medical examiners, engineers, cleanup crews. Eyewitnesses to this event number in the 10s of thousands, if not millions (if you include TV viewers).

Many parts of the investigation were public -- the 9/11 Commission held public hearings in addition to the closed-door sessions that dealt with classified material. Testimony of key government officials is on record. The NIST/FEMA report was released in draft form for public comment, and NIST/FEMA published those comments. FOIA requests are starting to pry loose some of the evidence held in government custody.

Is the government's case *completely* airtight? Certainly not by the standards of proof you seem to demand. But for me, in the absence of anything else convincing -- and no CT I've yet seen even remotely approaches "serious", let alone convincing -- I have no choice but to believe the essential facts of this thing. The evidence for it is too strong, and the evidence against it very weak indeed.

[Childlike Empress]

And thank *you* for the gratuituous sarcasm. I gave you a polite and genuine answer. I'm sorry you didn't see it that way.
You are right. My apology for including you in the "@". I'm quite busy and don't have the time to answer all the upcoming postings in detail. The first sentence was directed to R. (and was only partly sarcastic) and i will come back to your earlier and current post when i find the time.

@Drysdale: All in all i share my opinion on the "war on terror" with Michel Chossudovsky. If you are interested in it, i suggest you listen to the interview he gave to "Guns & Butter": Part 1 (http://157.22.130.4/data/20060118-Wed1300.mp3) Part 2 (http://157.22.130.4/data/20060222-Wed1300.mp3) Part 3 (http://157.22.130.4/data/20060301-Wed1300.mp3). Sadly he uses the term "New World Order" - which connotates the Illuminati-Stuff.

@Kiwiwriter: Don't dare putting me in a corner with holocaust deniers. I'm here to fight fascism.

[Gravy]

@Kiwiwriter: Don't dare putting me in a corner with holocaust deniers. I'm here to fight fascism.
How about "9/11 Commission Report Denier?"

Sixth time: have you read it? If so, what did it get wrong?

[chipmunk stew]

How about "9/11 Commission Report Denier?"

Sixth time: have you read it? If so, what did it get wrong?By the way, Childlike, I have read it. I have, I believe, a pretty good idea of what it got wrong, or at least what was left incomplete and deserves further investigation. I've dropped a couple hints up thread. As have others.

I wouldn't want to spoil the thrill of discovery for you. But I'm here and available if you get stuck and would like a hint.

[Gravy]

@Drysdale: All in all i share my opinion on the "war on terror" with Michel Chossudovsky.
@Kiwiwriter: Don't dare putting me in a corner with holocaust deniers. I'm here to fight fascism.
B'nai B'rith Canada complained to the University of Ottawa in August 2005 that one of its faculty members, economist Michel Chossudovsky, maintains a web site that includes postings alleging Jewish conspiracies and denying the Holocaust. Articles on Chossudovsky's web site, www.globalresearch.ca, include "The Hilarious Auschwitz Story," "The HolyCo$t Lie is Finished," "Jewish Lies of Omission (about the 'Holocaust')," and "Jewish Hate Responsible For Largest Mass Killing at Dachau."

Interviewed by The Ottawa Citizen, Chossudovsky said the postings are "anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic."
http://www.wymaninstitute.org/articles/HolocaustDenial2005.pdf

[Ketyk]

Please provide all sources but one - the "9/11 Commission"-Report.


Do you have a source that has a conclusion that is different from the 9/11 Commission Report?

I would really like an answer to that. Please?

Maybe I am being too persistent, but I'd like an answer to this.

[Gravy]

By the way, Chossudovsky is the idiot who thinks the U.S. military can control the weather.
The US Air Force has the capability of manipulating climate either for testing purposes or for outright military-intelligence use. These capabilities extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20040927&articleId=319

[Childlike Empress]

@Gravy: Chossudovsky is an antifascist and critic of corporate globalisation. I read his books and frequently visit globalresearch.ca. A lot of authors contribute to the site and i never saw anything like holocaust deniing. This is a smear campaign and you are an ********, Sir.

[Ducky]

@Gravy: Chossudovsky is an antifascist and critic of corporate globalisation. I read his books and frequently visit globalresearch.ca. A lot of authors contribute to the site and i never saw anything like holocaust deniing. This is a smear campaign and you are an ********, Sir.


Given that Gravy has provided links to back up his assertions and you are just throwing insults, I would say you lose this round.

Do you have any evidence to refute Gravy's links and assertions?

[Gravy]

@Gravy: Chossudovsky is an antifascist and critic of corporate globalisation. I read his books and frequently visit globalresearch.ca. A lot of authors contribute to the site and i never saw anything like holocaust deniing. This is a smear campaign and you are an ********, Sir.
Touched a nerve there, eh?

You're saying the B'nai B'rith claim is false? (eta: Think before answering, Empress. I do my homework.)

Shall we play by your rules, where the burden of proof is on you to show that he's not a Jew-hater?

Seventh time: have you read the Commission report. If so, what did it get wrong?

[Ketyk]

Please provide all sources but one - the "9/11 Commission"-Report.

Maybe I am being too persistent, but I'd like an answer to this.

Do you have a source that has a conclusion that is different from the 9/11 Commission Report?
I would really like an answer to that. Please?

[Bandersnatch]

I go to the University of Ottawa, but I've not heard of this guy. Then again, Engineering students and Managment students have a bit of a rivalry.

In the mean time while I look him up abit, try here (http://www.sciencepolitique.uottawa.ca/eco/eng/profdetails.asp?login=mchossudovsky) to check out his various writings as listed in the school's website.

ETA: Also, have you read the report?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Here's his online archive: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060520&articleId=2479

[Childlike Empress]

Shall we play by your rules, where the burden of proof is on you to show that he's not a Jew-hater?
He is a jew and a descendent of holocaust victims. The postings were made in the forum of globalresearch.ca. The Story (http://www.israpundit.com/archives/2005/08/u_of_o_professo.php).

Now stop attacking the messenger, Gravy. To answer your question: i've read the commission report.

[Stellafane]

@Gravy: Chossudovsky is an antifascist and critic of corporate globalisation. I read his books and frequently visit globalresearch.ca. A lot of authors contribute to the site and i never saw anything like holocaust deniing. This is a smear campaign and you are an ********, Sir.

Aw shucks, here I was thinking that you're basically a naive, misled soul. Instead, I see you've aligned yourself with an advocate of literally the oldest CT in the world ("the Joos did it") who's a lunatic to boot (the U.S. controls the world's weather??).

Unless you come up with some pretty fancy backtracking very quickly, I'm going to be hard pressed not to dismiss you as yet another anti-Semite (or at least a fellow-traveller). "Here to fight fascism," how ironic.

[Pardalis]

@Kiwiwriter: Don't dare putting me in a corner with holocaust deniers. I'm here to fight fascism.

Wrong country. Better move to Iran if you want to do that.

[Stellafane]

Wrong country. Better move to Iran if you want to do that.

...or better yet, go to the LC forum and fight the fascist tactics of the administrators (until you get banned after two posts).

[Pardalis]

...or better yet, go to the LC forum and fight the fascist tactics of the administrators (until you get banned after two posts).

Yeah, her "global mafia" conspiracy won't stand a chance against their holograms and built-in C4.

[chipmunk stew]

He is a jew and a descendent of holocaust victims. The postings were made in the forum of globalresearch.ca. The Story (http://www.israpundit.com/archives/2005/08/u_of_o_professo.php).

Now stop attacking the messenger, Gravy.That's more like it!

Now, apply that same resourcefulness and firm grounding to your counter-arguments against the Commission Report, and we can have a real discussion about 9/11.

[Pardalis]

Here's his online archive: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060520&articleId=2479

Oh, this is rich! Some of the headlines:

-The Invasion of Canada :boxedin:
-Indian Ocean Tsunami: The Untold Truth :confused:
-Indian Ocean Tsunami Foreknowledge of A Natural Disaster: :confused: :confused:
-Is America Preparing for Martial Law? :jaw-dropp

This guy is nuts.

[Pardalis]

To formulate a hypothesis we have to have access to the existing facts. We have to know what exactly happened.


Commercial airline jets were highjacked, two of them flew into the World Trade Center towers, another flew into the Pentagon and another crashed in a Pennsylvania field. Let's start with that

[pgwenthold]

Please show me the evidence.

What would you accept? Unfortunately, I don't have the video of a couple of the accused going through security referenced in the 911 Commission report, but then, you would just claim that it doesn't actually show them on the plane.

I don't have the tapes of the flight attendant describing the hijackers, even though she said they were middle eastern, with one not able to speak english very well, which is the same description that the counter attendant gave for one of the hijackers. Of course, I haven't talked to her directly. But if that is what you require, then it would mean that I would have to basically go back and re-do the whole 9/11 commission investigation. Is that what you require?

What evidence would you accept to conclude that the accused hijackers were actually on the plane?

FWIW, you realize that even the most ardent JFK conspiracy supporters still accept evidentiary aspects of the Warren report (testimony, pictures (well, with the exception of that one of Oswald holding the weapon, timetables).

[Pardalis]

i've read the commission report.

So what is wrong with it, exactly?

[delphi_ote]

Please show me the evidence.
WHAT CONSTITUTES EVIDENCE?

[MarkyX]

...or better yet, go to the LC forum and fight the fascist tactics of the administrators (until you get banned after two posts).

Iran has more human rights than the LC forums.

[RandFan]

Please show me the evidence.Have you had an opportunity to work on your hypothesis?

I'll explain why i think that the "war on terror" is a weapon of mass control in my answer to dubfan - please be patient. And dont' mix this up with palestine - that's a different issue.

[Yahzi]

I'm not defending LC here.
So you're not saying they're right... you're just saying the Commission is wrong.

Is there any theory that you think is right? Is there any evidence that would change your mind?

All you have is an impression. You choose that over piles and piles of facts, evidence, logic, and reason. You demand evidence be delivered to your doorstep, but you don't seem to think you need to provide any evidence of your own. All you have to do is ask questions, and then expect the whole world to leap to explain it all to you, to make it all nice and clear and comfy for you.

Your moniker is well chosen.

[RandFan]

@R. Mackey (and dubfan):

Thanks for explaining science to me. I admit that my english is very limited and it may seem that i don't know what i'm talking about.

My problem with the commission report: This is not natural science but an investigation of a crime. To formulate a hypothesis we have to have access to the existing facts. We have to know what exactly happened.

The scientific community has an open source approach. Data is accessible to everyone who wants to find a better hypothesis. This is not the case here. The people that formulated the leading hypothesis are the only ones that had access to the data. You have to trust them to believe they described the data correctly AND found the best hypothesis for explaining it.

That's not how the scientific process works and i doubt you had access to the complete archive of their interviews and sources. I'm sorry but this is just wrong. It's clear that you haven't even looked at the report. How can you dismiss something you know nothing about? The report is sourced. It is based on hard science and evidence. I'm beginning to think that you are not sincere?

Please read the report and check the sources before you come here and tell us this crap.

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK ChildE, riddle me this...How many conspirators would be the fewest one could have and still carry out this plot?

You have to have imaginary people on the jets and people to plant the bombs, and for the Trade Towers, which would have to include enough people to set these cleverly disguised explosives during a building evacuation (...I forget how the conspiracy goes.) So let's here the specifics of the hypothetical plan.

[Ketyk]

Please provide all sources but one - the "9/11 Commission"-Report.

Maybe I am being too persistent, but I'd like an answer to this:

Do you have a source that has a conclusion that is different from the 9/11 Commission Report?

I would really like an answer to that. Please? PM me the source if you don’t want to post it here.

[Moochie]

What's happened to CE? Working on her tuna casserole recipe?

M.

[gtc]

And dont' mix this up with palestine - that's a different issue.

Why do you say that? There seem to be strong links between the ideologies and the terrorists behind Palestinian suicide bombings and the suicide attacks on September 11 and 7 July (among others).

[UNLoVedRebel]

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth. So far there was no evidence provided. Instead i was repeatedly refered back to the Commission-Report.Bolding mine.

:bump2 for Childlike Empress.

It's been 3 years this you wrote this. Do you still stand by it? How far have you come in 3 years?