Have you read the 9/11 report?

[firecoins]

How many people have actually read the 9/11 report? How about the first chapter?

[Arus808]

not the entire thing. just the bits and pieces that are needed for me to go up against morons.

[Walk The Line]

not the entire thing. just the bits and pieces that are needed for me to go up against morons.

I've read most of it, but didn't manage to finish it.

Don't ask me for any quotes.

[firecoins]

Don't ask me for any quotes.
I didn't ask if you memorized it. ;) I don't need people to quote it like the bible.

I have read it. Although I find people generally ask questions that they should already know or have an idea about.

[ZouPrime]

I've read parts, especially the first chapter.

[JanH]

The Congressional committee 9/11 report? Yes.

The FEMA report? Only small parts.

The NIST report? Yes, the main body, but not all appendices.

[T.A.M.]

I am on page 194 (I think). I have been away from it in the last week due to time constraints, and well...this damn website...lol

TAM

[firecoins]

98 views and only 6 replies. Does that mean the overwhelming answer is no? On a skeptics site, very few read

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

98 views and only 6 replies. Does that mean the overwhelming answer is no? On a skeptics site, very few read
The overwhelming answer might very well be 'no'.

I for one, have not taken up 9/11 'Truther' debunking as a cause, therefore I have no reason to read the entire report. I think the majority of people here would feel the same way.

[hellaeon]

no, only where someone has quoted it in a reply usually. I dont feel its imperative I read the entire thing to disprove a CD, no plane theories and other nonsense. In reality it would probably bore me to tears plus I would struggle to possibly understand a swag of it. However I trust its scientific judgement to know its the best source for the conclusion of some of the events for 9/11. I dont think me reading it would qualify anything...I am no engineer of any type.

[Bell]

Bits and pieces of both the 9/11 report and NIST, especially the bits about the tragic events of that day (NIST has also done a very insightful report on the evacuation of the buildings). Have to skim through the FEMA report yet.

[firecoins]

The overwhelming answer might very well be 'no'.

I for one, have not taken up 9/11 'Truther' debunking as a cause, therefore I have no reason to read the entire report. I think the majority of people here would feel the same way.
you are in the ct section.

[Trigood]

I am on page 194 (I think). I have been away from it in the last week due to time constraints, and well...this damn website...lol

TAM
I'm impressed. Don't let us keep you away from it, it's probably more important than us. LOL...

I've listened to the Executive Summary (on CD). I have the whole thing on reserve at the library (17 CDs!) but I doubt I'll have time to listen to all of it at the moment. Still, should be interesting to dip into....

[firecoins]

no, only where someone has quoted it in a reply usually. I dont feel its imperative I read the entire thing to disprove a CD, no plane theories and other nonsense. In reality it would probably bore me to tears plus I would struggle to possibly understand a swag of it. However I trust its scientific judgement to know its the best source for the conclusion of some of the events for 9/11. I dont think me reading it would qualify anything...I am no engineer of any type.
It isn't necessary to read it to necessarily to debunk CTs with no basis in reality. I ask because people who LIHOP or people who are curious about Bush's response to 9/11. Many people seem unaware of whats in the report when they "just ask questions"

[milesalpha]

I honestly don't see any point in reading it. I have no appropriate degrees or education that would allow me to make anything but superficial (and most likely erroneous) judgements about it. I am quite willing to take the word of a few hundred engineers and scientists on the matter. If I saw a rebuttal by a similar body then I would rethink my position. However since no such evidence is forthcoming (Philosophers and theologians don't carry much weight), I am still in a pretty comfortable zone.

It is easy to be a layman and criticize things you don't understand. In my field (well former field now) of history, I regularly see layman versions butcher events, theories and meaning. Several are used in the conspiracy threads. The Reichstag fire, Bush family links to Hitler, the PNAC are only a few that have been mutilated by the CT side in trying to support their theories. I feel that if that cannot get something as well researched as Nazi Germany right, I am not likely to trust their lay conclusions on advanced engineering.

[firecoins]

I honestly don't see any point in reading it. I have no appropriate degrees or education that would allow me to make anything but superficial (and most likely erroneous) judgements about it. I am quite willing to take the word of a few hundred engineers and scientists on the matter. If I saw a rebuttal by a similar body then I would rethink my position. However since no such evidence is forthcoming (Philosophers and theologians don't carry much weight), I am still in a pretty comfortable zone.

It is easy to be a layman and criticize things you don't understand. In my field (well former field now) of history, I regularly see layman versions butcher events, theories and meaning. Several are used in the conspiracy threads. The Reichstag fire, Bush family links to Hitler, the PNAC are only a few that have been mutilated by the CT side in trying to support their theories. I feel that if that cannot get something as well researched as Nazi Germany right, I am not likely to trust their lay conclusions on advanced engineering.
The 9/11 report was not put together by scientists but by investigators, lawyers and politicians. It was aimed for the general public as a summary of what happaned and what evidence they have to prove it.
<H4>About the Commission

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.
</H4>

[jskowron]

If I saw a rebuttal by a similar body then I would rethink my position. However since no such evidence is forthcoming (Philosophers and theologians don't carry much weight), I am still in a pretty comfortable zone.

Well said, milealpha. I haven't read the whole thing, just pieces in attempts to augment what I have read hear. I find these CTers comical, juvenile, dumb, and sometimes repulsive. I don't recall envountering much, if any talk of 9/11 conspiracy outside of my lurking on this forum. If a significant body of truly qualified individuals were to question the findings in the report, I might take a closer look. Given the current crowd of CTers and their incoherent, inconsistent, and insane arguments, I don't feel the need doubt the findings of the report.

[beachnut]

Read the report, but can only remember CT junk.

It is never referenced by CTers where it states the opposite of their ideas.

As in flight training and FAA tickets held by the terrorists.

[Alt+F4]

I read it (then of course I've also read the Ken Starr Report and the Bible) and frankly I had general questions that weren't answered. For example, I had read somewhere that some of the hijackers paid for their airline tickets in cash, other tickets had been bought in advance with the same credit card. I wanted the repor to address this issued, it didn't....unless I missed it somewhere.

So anyway, how did the hijackers pay for the tickets? If a credit card was involved was that followed up on?

[njslim]

Have read 9/11 commision report, most of the FEMA report, and summaries of
the NIST study in Fire magazines (Firehouse/Fire Engineering)

[Bell]

I've read on an internet forum somewhere that some people read the 9/11, NIST and FEMA reports.

[beachnut]

I read it (then of course I've also read the Ken Starr Report and the Bible) and frankly I had general questions that weren't answered. For example, I had read somewhere that some of the hijackers paid for their airline tickets in cash, other tickets had been bought in advance with the same credit card. I wanted the repor to address this issued, it didn't....unless I missed it somewhere.

So anyway, how did the hijackers pay for the tickets? If a credit card was involved was that followed up on?

bet they forgot to pay! the credit card,

I was thinking they mailed the anthrax letters, who could catch them!

They had a great scam, gee, I will charge all this stuff and never have to pay!!!

when I go one way with no checked baggage I get all the extra checking in security as if I hit a few of the key methods of the terrorist

[gumboot]

I read it (then of course I've also read the Ken Starr Report and the Bible) and frankly I had general questions that weren't answered. For example, I had read somewhere that some of the hijackers paid for their airline tickets in cash, other tickets had been bought in advance with the same credit card. I wanted the repor to address this issued, it didn't....unless I missed it somewhere.

So anyway, how did the hijackers pay for the tickets? If a credit card was involved was that followed up on?


As I recall, the credit card they used was registered to the same of said terrorist (one of the pieces of evidence that demonstrates they did infact do the deed).

I gather it was included in the Moussaoui trial.

-Gumboot

[Ducky]

How many people have actually read the 9/11 report? How about the first chapter?

I have it on my ipod in audio book form.

[ihaunter]

I'm currently reading it.
It's a little dry. I can understand why some CTists wouldn't want to read it and would rather just parrot what others say is or isn't in it. :)
Don't tell me how it ends, though. I'm hoping for a car chase.:D

[CptColumbo]

I read it, mainly for the
timeline.

[Alt+F4]

As I recall, the credit card they used was registered to the same of said terrorist (one of the pieces of evidence that demonstrates they did infact do the deed).

I gather it was included in the Moussaoui trial.

Thanks for the info. Perhaps the final 9/11 report should have been delayed until the Moussaoui trial was over.

[Bell]

I have it on my ipod in audio book form.

Do you have to buy that, or can you download it somewhere for free (just like the report itself)?

[Ducky]

Do you have to buy that, or can you download it somewhere for free (just like the report itself)?

I downloaded it for free somewhere. I think it was made with some speech creation/dictation software because the voice sounds slightly synthetic. Otherwise it's pretty good. If you can't find it on google somewhere, pm me. I will give you instructions on getting it from my ftp.

[Bell]

I downloaded it for free somewhere. I think it was made with some speech creation/dictation software because the voice sounds slightly synthetic. Otherwise it's pretty good. If you can't find it on google somewhere, pm me. I will give you instructions on getting it from my ftp.

Thanks fowlsound. I'll first try to Google it.

[Brainster]

I read it all when it came out; have re-read portions of it as necessary to debunk the Deniers. It's actually quite well-written; as with United 93, you may think you would not find it interesting because you already know the ending, but it grips you and won't let go.

[Bell]

I read it all when it came out; have re-read portions of it as necessary to debunk the Deniers. It's actually quite well-written; as with United 93, you may think you would not find it interesting because you already know the ending, but it grips you and won't let go.

I haven't seen it yet, but if everything goes well, it will be available on DVD this thursday. So that day's roster will be: take shower, drink coffee, smoke cigaret, buy DVD.

[Muckar-duva]

I've read the commission report.

Along with Dick Clarkes book, some of the NIST report, 102 minutes, 9/11: an oral history, and I have a few others on the readinglist, both sane and ct, for leverage.

[Trigood]

I read it, mainly for the
timeline.
I only read it for the articles. I never look at the pictures.

[ktesibios]

9/11 Commission Report: Chapter 1. I also have it saved for reference. The part that's of most interest to me is the narrative of the hijackings and the responses of the air traffic control and air defense systems. Policy recommendations aren't my cup of tea.

FEMA Building Performance Report: Read the whole thing when it was current. I don't have it saved because I tend to consider it superseded by NIST's work.

NIST Reports: I've read substantial parts of NCSTAR 1-6, most of NCSTAR 1-3 and portions of NCSTAR 1-5, along with parts of the sub-reports like NCSTAR 1-6A, etc. I also have most of these saved for easier reference.

[George152]

I have been explaining to the kooks who 'just know all about flying' exactly what it is about the aircraft and the suicide pilots that they misunderstand since 2002.
And yes I've read most of the official reports and some of the kookier webpages..

[firecoins]

I only read it for the articles. I never look at the pictures.
lol.

[CptColumbo]

I also have the comic book version.

[gumboot]

FEMA Building Performance Report: Read the whole thing when it was current. I don't have it saved because I tend to consider it superseded by NIST's work.


It's quite good for its info on damage to surrounding buildings - something NIST isn't overly concerned with. Perfect for debunking the "fell into own footprint" argument.

-Gumboot

[firecoins]

I have not read the FEMA report. I would assume that it would deal with emergency response more than building collapse.

[LashL]

I've read the 9/11 Commission Report. Although, admittedly, I skimmed through some parts. I plan to read it again, more thoroughly, one of these days.

ETA: I've also read the FEMA report, nearly all of the NIST reports and appendices, much of the 9/11 Commission hearings, several books, and way too many websites to count. My daughter thinks I'm obsessed; my partner thinks my perserverence is admirable; I prefer to view it as simply being thorough ;)

[qarnos]

I use it as a reference when required but I haven't read it cover to cover.

Let's face it - it's not Steven King material.

[CptColumbo]

Stephen King material isn't even Stephen King material anymore. His latest wasn't that great.

[Unfit4Command]

I'm going to order it within the next few days so I'll FINALLY be able to read it. So, nope, haven't had the chance yet.

[gumboot]

I have not read the FEMA report. I would assume that it would deal with emergency response more than building collapse.


I get the impression it was primarily to assess the situation at Ground Zero before major rescue and recovery operations commenced. Checking if it was safe, if any other buildings were about to collapse, etc.

I have read all of the 9/11 commission report, I think. However I don't really use it as a reference. I prefer to gather information from more direct sources, rather than relying on the perception of the commission.

For example, I don't really agree with their assessment that the NORAD chiefs must have been intentionally lying to the commission. Given the demands of Operation Noble Eagle, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the top brass in NORAD never heard the NEADS recordings between 9/11 and their briefing with the commission.

-Gumboot

[geggy]

I started following 9/11, what i called 'conspiracy theories' at the time in 2002 because I treated it with skepticism. Then I read the commission report in a year after it came out, and what I read was a totally different story from the story prior to the release of the report. I figured out after reading it that someone's been messing with us and we haven't been told the real story.

[Gravy]

I started following 9/11, what i called 'conspiracy theories' at the time in 2002 because I treated it with skepticism. Then I read the commission report in a year after it came out, and what I read was a totally different story from the story prior to the release of the report. I figured out after reading it that someone's been messing with us and we haven't been told the real story.What was the "totally different story" prior to the release of the report?

[T.A.M.]

I found the history of OBL/Al-Qaeda and the lead up to 9/11 a little dry, but the rest (of what I have read so far) I agree with Brainster, is actually an easy and at times very interesting read. Overall I would recommend it as background for anyone who likes to seriously debate the issues here.

TAM

[Gravy]

I'm going to order it within the next few days so I'll FINALLY be able to read it. So, nope, haven't had the chance yet.Hi, Unfit. Welcome to the forum. On the chance that you aren't kidding, the report is here. (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm) If you're in the USA, any library should have it. The "staff statements," lengthy reports on the financing and travel of the 9/11 terrorists, are also very interesting.

[twinstead]

All I can say is that I hope all those who claim the report is full of it have actually read it.

I mean, nobody would wave away the largest investigation in America's history as garbage without knowing anything about it, right?

[MikeW]

The "staff statements," lengthy reports on the financing and travel of the 9/11 terrorists, are also very interesting.
I'd just add that arguably the best one, the staff report on the four flights, is best in the version you'll find on the NARA site (http://www.archives.gov/legislative/research/9-11/staff-report-sept2005.pdf) -- that's the latest one with less redacted text. It's a chunky 6MB because it's scanned images, rather than text, but well worth a look for the detailed 9/11 timeline if you've not seen it already.

[firecoins]

edited

[firecoins]

Let's face it - it's not Steven King material.

I was thinking more along the lines of the Warren Commssion myself but alot better.

[firecoins]

All I can say is that I hope all those who claim the report is full of it have actually read it.

I mean, nobody would wave away the largest investigation in America's history as garbage without knowing anything about it, right?
yeah right:rolleyes:

According to CTists, its Bush's pet project when in reality it was done despite Bush's objections. Bush signed into law under mounting pressure from the families of vicitms.

[firecoins]

I have read all of the 9/11 commission report, I think. Your not sure :confused:

However I don't really use it as a reference. I prefer to gather information from more direct sources, rather than relying on the perception of the commission. You don't have to use their conclusions but their timelines, quotes from phone calls, tapes etc.

[gumboot]

Your not sure :confused:


Well there's all that "policy" and "US Government" stuff in there, and being an Antipod, I really couldn't care less about all that stuff... :p

So I don't know if I've real all that. I've read all the stuff about the actual attacks though.



You don't have to use their conclusions but their timelines, quotes from phone calls, tapes etc.


Certainly it's useful, don't get me wrong. However if the originals are available (like the NORAD tapes) I'd prefer to use them.

-Gumboot

[firecoins]

Certainly it's useful, don't get me wrong. However if the originals are available (like the NORAD tapes) I'd prefer to use them.

-Gumboot
Of course! No doubt. In fact I have been looking for audio clips. That being said, the 9.11 report does give the amount of evidence the offical "theory" of 9/11 is based on.