Did 911 need a Commission?

[mjd1982]

All,

Do the OTers on this thread believe that 911 deserved to have a Commission to investigate it? And if yes, should such a Commission have performed its role with completeness and effectiveness? And if not, then would you support a new Commission? (absent any onus on investigatin gov complicity)

I say this for the simple fact that by most reasonable yardsticks, the 911 Commission was neither complete nor effective; indeed was a long way off both.

There are many ways of evaluating the report; 2 simple ones would be 1) to look at the evaluations of some of the people who were part of it, and 2) to look at the evaluations of those who instigated it. Let's do this.

Thom Kean and Lee Hamilton , Chair and Dep Chair, say, in ch1 of their book, "Without Precedent", that "the Commission was set up to fail."

The evident corrolary to this being that it was set up by the government to fail; i.e. the government wanted it to fail.

They were also woefully short on resources: "Tom Kean and I were substitutes - Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell were the first choices; we got started late; we had a very short time frame - indeed, we had to get it extended; we did not have enough money - 3 million dollars to conduct an extensive investigation."

They had problems with access: "We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people...we were fighting the question of access right up to the end of the Commission's work."

Why does he think this was the case?: "I think basically it’s because they were afraid we were going to hang somebody, that we would point the finger, right in the middle of a presidential campaign - 'Mr. Bush, this was your fault'"

They were thus not able to point any fingers at powerful people: "we had to produce a lot of reports which were...not out to hang anybody"

This is a slight shame, seeing as in his eyes, " a lot of people have things to hide...right up to Bill Clinton or George Bush."

Hamilton agrees that the CR is not "the definitive story of 911".

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html

***

Max Cleland, former commissioner, resigned from the Commission, stating that parts of the conduct of the commission meant that he "cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access,”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/kerr-d12.shtml

He indeed describes the Commission as "a national scandal"
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/11/21/cleland/index.html
***

A second way would be to look at the evaluations of those who were instrumental in setting it up- the Jersey Girls. Let's see what they had to say:

Kristen Breitweiser described it as "an utterly hollow report."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Girls#_ref-6

Lorie Auken described it as "statements that truly insulted the intelligence of the American people. Violated our loved ones’ memories, and might end up hurting us, one day soon...It was a pathetic excuse of a report...the report is incomplete"

Patty Cassazza: “It’s hard for us to come to any other conclusion than that the 9/11 Commission was a political cover-up from the word go”
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id358.html
They also submitted a list of 167 questions to the 911 Commission. Of the 167, only 27 were answered adequately, in their eyes.

***

Now, given the unanimous declarations of some of the major participants, the questions are quite simple- Did 911 deserve an investigation? If so, should the investigation have been satisfactorily complete and effective? And if this is not the case, is it important enough to have a new one, even absent a mandate of investigating government collusion?

[Anti-sophist]

given the unanimous declarations of some of the major participants...

Sorta like how Bush won unanimous support of some of the American people, I suppose.

[T.A.M.]

The 9/11 commission was of value, and was needed in order to clear up the details/specifics of the day.

The commission did a good job WITHIN ITS MANDATE. Now if you have trouble with the mandate, than that is fine, each to their own, but for what they were asked to do, they did a good job.

The commission was not a law making/legislative body, so how could it be "effective" beyond making the many recommendations it did to congress, who ARE a legislative body?

TAM:)

[Sabrina]

I believe quite a few of those recommendations have been carried out, TAM, if you go by the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration, the position of Director of National Intelligence (currently occupied by Mike McConnell, who is trying with a good deal of success to integrate the intelligence community so that the sharing of information is easier between agencies), etc and so forth.

To answer the question posed in the OP; yes, I do feel 9/11 deserved a commission; no, I don't feel it answered EVERY question about 9/11, but it answered with a reasonable amount of certainty every question it was MANDATED to answer.

Quite simply, it is almost impossible to answer every question about that day, because most of the people involved in actually carrying out the actions of that day are now dead. I sympathize with the victim's families, but quite frankly I don't think the Jersey Girls truly understood what the Commission was created for. And as for Kean and Hamilton, I am of the impression they simply want to play CYA in order to save their political careers, and putting blame on others is a time-honored way of doing so in the political system. There were so many complaints about the outcome of the 9/11 Commission by the people who wanted it in the first place (largely because they failed to fully define what they wanted from the investigation in the first place) that my opinion is Kean and Hamilton simply wanted to distance themselves from the Commission in any way they could. This is all strictly my opinion, of course, but I see little evidence that the Commission was an utter failure; it did what it set out to do.

That being said, am I opposed to a new investigation? No, I am not. I simply don't feel it will find anything drastically different from the current investigations that exist. Note I said "drastically"; I'm sure there would be minor differences from report to report, but ultimately the evidence for the current conclusions are far too overwhelming (in my OPINION) to overcome. However, if a valid investigation were mounted (and not populated only by truther personnel or the "NWO shills") that uncovered a new conclusion, I'd be amenable to changing my current stance. I have yet to see that happen, but if valid evidence for a different conclusion were to come to light, I would be happy to entertain a modification of my current position on the 9/11 matter. Let me know if that happens, and provide the evidence, kay?

[defaultdotxbe]

Do the OTers on this thread believe that 911 deserved to have a Commission to investigate it?
yes

And if yes, should such a Commission have performed its role with completeness and effectiveness?
yes

And if not, then would you support a new Commission?
no, i feel it is unnecessary and redundant, and would be a waste of taxpayer money, however if this follow-up commission were privately funded i wouldnt have a problem and would support its right to access any evidence they mght need to perform their job


now i have a question for you mjd:

If a second commission was formed, and in the course of their investigation found no evidence whatsoever of government complicity and found that the first commission was in fact correct on all major aspects of 9/11, would you accept these conclusions, or go on demanding a third investigation?

[Par]

Thom Kean and Lee Hamilton , Chair and Dep Chair, say, in ch1 of their book, "Without Precedent", that "the Commission was set up to fail."

The evident corrolary to this being that it was set up by the government to fail; i.e. the government wanted it to fail.

They were also woefully short on resources: "Tom Kean and I were substitutes - Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell were the first choices; we got started late; we had a very short time frame - indeed, we had to get it extended; we did not have enough money - 3 million dollars to conduct an extensive investigation."

They had problems with access: "We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people...we were fighting the question of access right up to the end of the Commission's work."

Why does he think this was the case?: "I think basically it’s because they were afraid we were going to hang somebody, that we would point the finger, right in the middle of a presidential campaign - 'Mr. Bush, this was your fault'"

They were thus not able to point any fingers at powerful people: "we had to produce a lot of reports which were...not out to hang anybody"

This is a slight shame, seeing as in his eyes, " a lot of people have things to hide...right up to Bill Clinton or George Bush."

Hamilton agrees that the CR is not "the definitive story of 911".



While they indeed had sincere reservations about how it was formed, funded and so forth, neither Hamilton nor Keane believe that the 9/11 Commission was ultimately unsuccessful. In fact, the opposite is true. The following is also a quotation from their book Without Precedent:


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



In short, whether or not they believe that the Commission was "set up to fail," they don't believe that it actually did fail.

[Brainster]

Kean and Hamilton did not feel the commission failed, as Par points out. Cleland was upset that the commission would not try to assess blame for failing to stop the terrorist attacks. But he's not an "inside job" kook; he's currently on the board of directors of the Ex-Im Bank, to which position he was appointed by President Bush.

The Jersey Girls have gone crackpot (http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrakerrepo rt.com%2Fid358.html):

“There are just so many unanswered questions,” says Van Auken. “I would say you need roughly 400 hours of research to graduate from 9/11 kindergarten class. That’s why it’s so hard to keep people on the same page, because they’re coming at this issue from a million different angles. A friend might tell them about building 7, or they might watch Loose Change on the internet, or they’ll say, ‘Hold it a second, you can’t make cell phone calls from an airplane.’ And then suddenly a little alarm bell goes off in their brain, and they say, ‘Wow, we don’t know the whole story about this.’ That’s all it takes, the little alarm bell, and then, bam, welcome to the place we’ve been living in for the last six years.”

[T.A.M.]

I am now waiting for the boiler plate "What about no mention of WTC7 in the report" Rebuttal...and in 5....4...3...2...

TAM;)

[Revolutionary91]

Lee Hamilton said the commission was set up to fail. It was dragged out of Bush 441 days after 911. Its executive director was myth-maker Zelikow, the Bush admin insider who wrote the article about the twin towers collapsing being a new pearl harbour....in 1998.

[T.A.M.]

I thought Mr. Donnely wrote the "Rebuilding Americas Defenses"...am I wrong.

TAM;)

Are you talking about another article???

TAM:)

[defaultdotxbe]

rev91, perhaps youd like to answer my question?

now i have a question for you mjd:

If a second commission was formed, and in the course of their investigation found no evidence whatsoever of government complicity and found that the first commission was in fact correct on all major aspects of 9/11, would you accept these conclusions, or go on demanding a third investigation?

[T.A.M.]

"Catastrophic Terrorism" article, written by Ashton B. Carter, John M. Deutch, and Philip D. Zelikow in 1998

Is this the article you are referring to, and if so, where is the full article? Have you read it?

Here is the link:

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/visions/publication/terrorism.htm

TAM:)

[Corsair 115]

Lee Hamilton said the commission was set up to fail.I refer you to post #6, which addressed Mr. Hamilton's comment and put it into the proper context.

[T.A.M.]

I believe this is the passage you are referring to Rev....



Readers should imagine the possibilities for themselves, because the most serious constraint on current policy is lack of imagination. An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans’ fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible. Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after." The effort and resources we devote to averting or containing this threat now, in the "before" period, will seem woeful, even pathetic, when compared to what will happen "after." Our leaders will be judged negligent for not addressing catastrophic terrorism more urgently.

TAM:)

[Revolutionary91]

I refer you to post #6, which addressed Mr. Hamilton's comment and put it into the proper context.

So why would they set up a commission into the biggest terrorist attacks in history and set it up to fail? Regardless of the outcome, does setting it up to fail not bother you?

[Revolutionary91]

I believe this is the passage you are referring to Rev....



TAM:)


Yes it is.

[T.A.M.]

The article, on brief read through is quite good actually.

It basically says (back in 1998) that there are signs that terrorism is on the rise, and it is only a matter of time before a "big event" occurs. It says that the USA should adopt a policy of preventitive defense, in order to PREVENT such attacks. It then goes into various ways this can be achieved.

What is your issue with the article Rev...you don't like the policy of "preventitive defense"?

TAM:)

[Revolutionary91]

The article, on brief read through is quite good actually.

It basically says (back in 1998) that there are signs that terrorism is on the rise, and it is only a matter of time before a "big event" occurs. It says that the USA should adopt a policy of preventitive defense, in order to PREVENT such attacks. It then goes into various ways this can be achieved.

What is your issue with the article Rev...you don't like the policy of "preventitive defense"?

TAM:)

Only a true skeptic could read that and RAD and not see a problem lol

[defaultdotxbe]

rev91, perhaps youd like to answer my question?

didnt think so

[T.A.M.]

lol...what does either article have to do with skepticism. They are both policy pieces, indicating what direction America should take. There is nothing to be skeptical about wrt the documents themselves...you either agree with them or you do not...

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Its like me saying now, that I should wear bright clothing at night so I don't get hit by a car, and then 3 years later, I have not heeded my own advice, and I get hit by a car. Then, as a result of the accident, I decide to reconsider my earlier suggestion, and begin to wear bright clothing while walking at night.

TAM:)

[Corsair 115]

So why would they set up a commission into the biggest terrorist attacks in history and set it up to fail? Regardless of the outcome, does setting it up to fail not bother you?Considering that the man you claim said it was set up to fail after the commission was completed said it had not failed, it would seem you have not properly read post #6. So I refer you back to post #6 once more.

[Revolutionary91]

Considering that the man you claim said it was set up to fail after the commission was completed said it had not failed, it would seem you have not properly read post #6. So I refer you back to post #6 once more.

No, I said regardless of outcome. Why did they set it up to fail?

[DGM]

Corsair:
Don't forget, word games are more important than the truth.

[Unsecured Coins]

did it fail??

[Corsair 115]

No, I said regardless of outcome. Why did they set it up to fail? How can it be a failure if the man you quoted as saying it was set up to fail says at the end it was not a failure? You don't see the inherent contradiction to your question?

[Revolutionary91]

How can it be a failure if the man you quoted as saying it was set up to fail says at the end it was not a failure? You don't see the inherent contradiction to your question?

No. The commission was set up to fail. Regardless of what happened it was set up to fail. The intention was there even if it didnt work out for them. Please answer the question....why did they want this to fail?

[Revolutionary91]

In a sense it did fail

Hamilton agrees that the CR is not "the definitive story of 911".

[nicepants]

No. The commission was set up to fail. Regardless of what happened it was set up to fail. The intention was there even if it didnt work out for them. Please answer the question....why did they want this to fail?

Based on this...

If a second commission was formed, and in the course of their investigation found no evidence whatsoever of government complicity and found that the first commission was in fact correct on all major aspects of 9/11, would you accept these conclusions, or go on demanding a third investigation?

[defaultdotxbe]

No. The commission was set up to fail. Regardless of what happened it was set up to fail. The intention was there even if it didnt work out for them. Please answer the question....why did they want this to fail?
perhaps they didnt want it to become common knowledge among terror circles that a few dozen determined martyrs could utterly destroy an american landmark

[Corsair 115]

No. The commission was set up to fail. Regardless of what happened it was set up to fail. The intention was there even if it didnt work out for them. Please answer the question....why did they want this to fail?Assuming this supposed "set up to fail" matters at all, the most reasonable explanation is that the current administration did not want to come out looking like a bunch of incompetent twits who mismanaged a major emergency situation and who perhaps missed possible opportunities which might have hindered the terrorists' plans.

Do you know of any government anywhere that likes to be portrayed as bumbling or incompetent? For that matter, do you know of any private management of a company that likes for info to come out which portays said management as bumbling or incompetent?

No one likes to be embarrassed.

[Revolutionary91]

perhaps they didnt want it to become common knowledge among terror circles that a few dozen determined martyrs could utterly destroy an american landmark

But that is exactly what was concluded. Hamilton seems to think they didnt want the government being blamed. It is clearly a cover up.

[Corsair 115]

Hamilton seems to think they didnt want the government being blamed. It is clearly a cover up.See my prior post for an alternative explanation.

[defaultdotxbe]

But that is exactly what was concluded.
so if that is the case, the commission would have been set up to fail, but in the end did not fail, correct?

[Hokulele]

I don't see where in the quote Par provided that it was proven that the committee was "set up to fail" in the first place. It only seems to imply that there were rumors that it was "doomed to fail" due to factors beyond the administration's control, and that it might have been designed to fail, but no proof of this.

[HyJinX]

"set up to fail" is a figure of speech...not a literal term.

Example: An employee who is tasked to do something very important for his/her department but was not given the necessary tools in order to complete that task efficiently or accurately is said to have been "set up to fail". The goal was to have this employee do this task correctly...not purposefully denied the tools in order for the task to not be completed.

Big difference.

My two pesos.

[Civilized Worm]

Ah yes, "Lee Hamilton said the commission was set up to fail", the twoofer equivalent of "Darwin said that to suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection seems absurd".

[parky76]

The only questions the Commissions should have looked deeper into and failed to reveal to the USA was Saudi Arabian and Pakistani connections to the funding of 9-11. Other then that, they answered all the relevant questions.

And just as in the JFK investigation, we will indeed eventually see more questions answered by Congress

[defaultdotxbe]

Ah yes, "Lee Hamilton said the commission was set up to fail", the twoofer equivalent of "Darwin said that to suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection seems absurd".

OMG darwin said that? evolution must be wrong, i gotta go post this on youtube!!!!!

[T.A.M.]

If there is a major fault with the commission, it is not in their findings, but rather in the limits of their scope. I feel this is where they were "pressured" by the administration. I have little doubt they were asked to avoid certain areas, but I think it was to avoid exposing the IGNORANCE of the administration, not the ACTIVE ROLE in the 9/11 plot the twoofers advocate.

TAM:)

[WildCat]

Hamilton agrees that the CR is not "the definitive story of 911".

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html
I invite anyone here to read that interview with Lee Hamilton and see how nutty you'd have to be to come away from it thinking Hamilton lends even a shred of credibility to the "truth" idiocy.

BTW, I've had that very interview bookmarked for a long while now. I wonder if mjd1982 even read it?

[WildCat]

From mjd1982's own link (http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html):

Solomon: You write.. the first chapter of the book is 'the Commission was set up to fail.' - my goodness, for the critics - who suggest that it was indeed set up to fail as some kind of obfuscation - you certainly dangled a juicy piece of bait out there in the river. Why do you think you were set up to fail?
Hamilton: Well, for a number of reasons: Tom Kean and I were substitutes - Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell were the first choices; we got started late; we had a very short time frame - indeed, we had to get it extended; we did not have enough money - 3 million dollars to conduct an extensive investigation. We needed more, we got more, but it took us a while to get it.
We had a lot of skeptics out there, who really did not want the Commission formed. Politicians don’t like somebody looking back to see if they made a mistake.
The Commission had to report right, just a few days before the Democratic National Convention met, in other words, right in the middle of a political campaign. We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. We knew the history of commissions; the history of commissions were they.. nobody paid much attention to 'em.
So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail. We decided that if we were going to have any success, we had to have a unanimous report, otherwise the Commission report would simply be filed.
Is this really that hard to understand? Also bear in mind he has a book to sell, have to spice it up here and there.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

No, I said regardless of outcome. Why did they set it up to fail?


Listen, kid... When you grow up, move out into the real world, get a real job working on real projects... you're going to vocally bitch about how your superiors aren't giving you the resources or time you need. It always feels that way. Trust me.

And in the end you pull it together anyway, regardless of how you feel at the outset, because you're good at what you do. These people were good at what they did.

You'll get there someday.

[Civilized Worm]

Oh you are so getting ignored now!

[Tippit]

Assuming this supposed "set up to fail" matters at all, the most reasonable explanation is that the current administration did not want to come out looking like a bunch of incompetent twits who mismanaged a major emergency situation and who perhaps missed possible opportunities which might have hindered the terrorists' plans.

Do you know of any government anywhere that likes to be portrayed as bumbling or incompetent? For that matter, do you know of any private management of a company that likes for info to come out which portays said management as bumbling or incompetent?

No one likes to be embarrassed.

Without a proper investigation, it is impossible to know whether or not an event was the result of incompetence, or malfeasance. By making your rationalization for a poor or incomplete investigation, you're excusing incompetence, and allowing the possibility that malfeasance can be covered up. Obviously, no one likes to be embarrassed. So what?

[WildCat]

Without a proper investigation,
Good thing there was one, and as it turned out 19 Muslim fundies workig under the umbrella of al Qaeda did it.

[Revolutionary91]

Listen, kid... When you grow up, move out into the real world, get a real job working on real projects... you're going to vocally bitch about how your superiors aren't giving you the resources or time you need. It always feels that way. Trust me.

And in the end you pull it together anyway, regardless of how you feel at the outset, because you're good at what you do. These people were good at what they did.

You'll get there someday.

I'm being called kid by a man who uses leet speak!

[beachnut]

So why would they set up a commission into the biggest terrorist attacks in history and set it up to fail? Regardless of the outcome, does setting it up to fail not bother you?
Lack of reading comprehension, cherry picking and stupidity has missed "enable our success", why are all 9/11 truthers unable to read and comprehend. Instead you poor kids are lost in a world full of lies, believing the liars.

You will not understand this post due to reading comprehension and intelligence and my veiled message. Good luck kids with no real ability to think for yourselves.

[MIKILLINI]

I'm being called kid by a man who uses leet speak!

Nonetheless, Cl's exactly right on that point. Keep in mind the investigation looked into each intel agency as to how each performed up to 9/11. It was the largest investigation of bureau agencies in US history. It's doubtful much more info would have been gained with more time toward the investigation. What investigative Journalists have come up with since then has turned out to be minimal. Unless you think the media is involved in a cover-up. :rolleyes:

[PhantomWolf]

Only a true skeptic could read that and RAD and not see a problem lol

I'd say that only a Truther could possibly read those two articles, both of which say "We have peace now, here's what we need to do to keep it and prevent a new Pearl Habor from ruining it" as "here's how to have a new Pearl Harbor, so let's do it." The I never have found CTs to have the high reading comprehension ability.

[bsw2009]

9/11: Press for Truth (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481&q=9%2F11%3A+Press+for+Truth&total=248&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1)

Excellent video which elaborates on the incompetence of the 9/11 Commission.

[WildCat]

9/11: Press for Truth (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481&q=9%2F11%3A+Press+for+Truth&total=248&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1)

Excellent video which elaborates on the incopetence of the 9/11 Commission.
Priceless.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm being called kid by a man who uses leet speak!


I've had this screen name for 10 years. That's longer than you've been on the Internet.

[PhantomWolf]

I've had this screen name for 10 years. That's longer than you've been on the Internet.

Heck I have been using the nick "Phantom" (PhantomWolf is a little newer) for 20 years. That's longer than Rv has been....

[bsw2009]

Priceless.

No, the price is being paid everyday. Have you even seen the documentary? Are you calling these 9/11 widows liars?

People who cannot acknowledge the blatant conflicts of interest at work even before the commission took its first note..........priceless....Thanks....

[MIKILLINI]

9/11: Press for Truth (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481&q=9%2F11%3A+Press+for+Truth&total=248&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1)

Excellent video which elaborates on the incopetence of the 9/11 Commission.

Priceless indeed! :D
How is that bolded word spelled, bsw? :book:

[bsw2009]

Priceless indeed! :D
How is that bolded word spelled, bsw? :book:

I know, I know....We all fall short....Thanks for the edit. Stundie material??:)

[bsw2009]

Good thing there was one, and as it turned out 19 Muslim fundies workig under the umbrella of al Qaeda did it.

Since we're nitpicking tonight.....:)
[bolding mine]

[defaultdotxbe]

No, the price is being paid everyday. Have you even seen the documentary? Are you calling these 9/11 widows liars?

People who cannot acknowledge the blatant conflicts of interest at work even before the commission took its first note..........priceless....Thanks....
appeal to emotion, just because they lost their husbands doesnt make their opinion of the 9/11 commission any more valid than anyone elses

and while we are talking about conflicts of interest, would the jersey girls have any? would they not have an interest in seeing someones head roll over 9/11?

[Mobyseven]

I'm being called kid by a man who uses leet speak!

7uR|\|5 0u7 463 |-|45 |\|07|-|!|\|6 2 |>0 \/\/!7|-| 5p33|<!|\|6 1337 47 411 !!!20|\/|6111!!!!

P\/\/|\||>!!!

--------------

Sorry bsw2009, typos and spelling mistakes aren't eligible for the Stundies unless they're are really, really, truly, amazingly, supercalifragilistically ironic. Needless to say, not many meet that criteria.

[bsw2009]

appeal to emotion, just because they lost their husbands doesnt make their opinion of the 9/11 commission any more valid than anyone elses

and while we are talking about conflicts of interest, would the jersey girls have any? would they not have an interest in seeing someones head roll over 9/11?


Touche. However, the "deck" was stacked from the beginning. Surely, in the spirit of fairness, a more impartial selection of panalists could have been found.

[bsw2009]

7uR|\|5 0u7 463 |-|45 |\|07|-|!|\|6 2 |>0 \/\/!7|-| 5p33|<!|\|6 1337 47 411 !!!20|\/|6111!!!!

P\/\/|\||>!!!

--------------

Sorry bsw2009, typos and spelling mistakes aren't eligible for the Stundies unless they're are really, really, truly, amazingly, supercalifragilistically ironic. Needless to say, not many meet that criteria.

Damn, my one great opportunity to take the award. Maybe, just maybe, I'll have another chance to take home the gold.:)

[maccy]

Touche. However, the "deck" was stacked from the beginning. Surely, in the spirit of fairness, a more impartial selection of panalists could have been found.

That's an Ad Hominem argument. You have to provide evidence that the report was partial, you can't argue from the background of its authors.

[bsw2009]

That's an Ad Hominem argument. You have to provide evidence that the report was partial, you can't argue from the background of its authors.

The obvious connections to the current administration isn't evidence enough? Or is there no connections? With Zelikow specifically?
Authors? The only author I could cite lives in the big white house on Pennsylvania Ave.

[beachnut]

I know, I know....We all fall short....Thanks for the edit. Stundie material??:)
What? You fell short when you thought that film was of value. It is so full of misinformation and junk about 9/11. It is worthless, entirely worthless. What else do you recommend now that this film is fact less?

[maccy]

The obvious connections to the current administration isn't evidence enough?

No. It is ad hominem to suggest that a report is biased because its authors have some connection to the current administration. If you can first show the bias of the report, it is reasonable to argue that this bias was the result of this connection. Any connection is not, in and of itself, evidence of bias.

So, what's biased about the report?

[bsw2009]

What? You fell short when you thought that film was of value. It is so full of misinformation and junk about 9/11. It is worthless, entirely worthless. What else do you recommend now that this film is fact less?

That's a bold statement. Please enlighten me as to where the film went astray. Thanks.

[beachnut]

That's a bold statement. Please enlighten me as to where the film went astray. Thanks.
Every single conclusion is false information and lies. You got any facts that they left out?


You were right with "incopetence" , but it was you ranking the film as valuable.

[bsw2009]

No. It is ad hominem to suggest that a report is biased because its authors have some connection to the current administration. If you can first show the bias of the report, it is reasonable to argue that this bias was the result of this connection. Any connection is not, in and of itself, evidence of bias.

So, what's biased about the report?

I will have to respectfully disagree with your "ad hominem" tag on this one. From the outset, the current "administration" willfully blocked, and impeded any credible investigation from happening. High ranking members of the current "administration" are on record asking prominent Senators and Congressmen not to investigate thoroughly. The lack of financial resources for the biggest criminal investigation this country has ever seen is incredible. Also, Zelikow, through the White House, filtered every word in that "report." The investigation was quite "supportive" to the wishes of Bush and his staff. Documents weren't released on time, and many weren't seen by the whole commission. Bush and Cheney testified together off the record, literally!!! The bias here is first in the actions of the "administration" prior to the commission and then through the connections with the "chosen" commissioners. Thanks.

[bsw2009]

Every single conclusion is false information and lies. You got any facts that they left out?


You were right with "incopetence" , but it was you ranking the film as valuable.


Sir, most people make a mistake at times, even you I am to assume. So to "hang your hat" on a misspelling and answer a question with a sweeping generalization doesn't bode well for your argument. What fallacy is that? Thanks.

[beachnut]

Sir, most people make a mistake at times, even you I am to assume. So to "hang your hat" on a misspelling and answer a question with a sweeping generalization doesn't bode well for your argument. What fallacy is that? Thanks.
Why would you even worry about appearances? Who cares if you misspell, your true shortcomings run down to the facts. You picked a silly video of misinformation as a source of facts on 9/11 and it is a total junk video. Instead of showing proof it has something you fall for the silly spelling errors distraction. Let me see, you think a movie has something but you can not defend a single conclusion. Sorry, but you have revealed you problem, you can not concentrate and understand. All you really care about is your misspelling error. I misspell and mess up all the time. But the film is still incompetent, not the commission. Not much in the commission report will change 9/11, and not a darn thing in the 9/11 truth movement is true about 9/11.

Support one conclusion in the film or remove your support for it.

[Corsair 115]

By making your rationalization for a poor or incomplete investigation, you're excusing incompetence, and allowing the possibility that malfeasance can be covered up. Obviously, no one likes to be embarrassed. So what?If Watergate couldn't be successfully covered up, what makes you think the government deliberately organizing and conducting attacks which killed 3,000 of its own citizens could be covered up? You are aware there is media outside the United States, right? You don't think they'd be happy to break a major news story like that?

[Corsair 115]

From the outset, the current "administration" willfully blocked, and impeded any credible investigation from happening. High ranking members of the current "administration" are on record asking prominent Senators and Congressmen not to investigate thoroughly.And the current administration will be gone in January of 2009 when a new President and his/her administration is sworn in. Or are you taking the position that the current President is going to suddenly declare himself emperor or something and cancel next year's elections?

[bsw2009]

Why would you even worry about appearances? Who cares if you misspell, your true shortcomings run down to the facts. You picked a silly video of misinformation as a source of facts on 9/11 and it is a total junk video. Instead of showing proof it has something you fall for the silly spelling errors distraction. Let me see, you think a movie has something but you can not defend a single conclusion. Sorry, but you have revealed you problem, you can not concentrate and understand. All you really care about is your misspelling error. I misspell and mess up all the time. But the film is still incompetent, not the commission. Not much in the commission report will change 9/11, and not a darn thing in the 9/11 truth movement is true about 9/11.

Support one conclusion in the film or remove your support for it.

It is you who used the error as the jist of your whole rebuttal, instead of just communicating your views on the linked documentary. So tell me why is it misinformation ( in more than one sentence). Isn't this the "place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking..." That is what I am: skeptical of the Commission report and the events leading up to the creation of the commission. All I have read is silly, juvenile "attack the messenger" posts that do nothing but keep skeptics from posting here.

[bsw2009]

And the current administration will be gone in January of 2009 when a new President and his/her administration is sworn in. Or are you taking the position that the current President is going to suddenly declare himself emperor or something and cancel next year's elections?

Hello Corsair, nice to meet you. No I'm not taking that position. Any more stereotypical, sarcastic questions? Thanks.
:)

[Corsair 115]

Hello Corsair, nice to meet you. No I'm not taking that position. Any more stereotypical, sarcastic questions? Thanks.
:)Sure, lots of 'em. Just give me a starting subject! :D

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Indeed! Why need a 2nd investigation into 9/11?

What would it solve when it was solved in the 1st investigation?

If the 2nd investigation finds that the 1st investigation was right then what?

Ask for a 3rd, then a 4th, a 5th, so on & so forth?

If you can't accept the 1st investigations evidence then you my friend seriously need some re-education!

[PhantomWolf]

Well since the 9/11 Commission wasn't created to figure out who did it (The FBI were investigating that) or how they did it (The FBI and FAA and NTSB did that) or how the towers fell (FEMA was dealing with that at the time and NIST has done further work) but rather to get an over-view and discover what holes in the then current policies of the various departments allowed for such a scheme to slip through un-noticed, of course those in charge were going to hide like startled mice. From the moment flight 175 hit WTC 2 every single bureaucrat in the US from the Head Banana down was in a cover your butt mode to deflect any of the blame for it happening landing on their incompetence. Any investigation into systems failure will elicit the same results, it's natural human behaviour. That doesn't mean they were involved in it, nor does it mean that the Commission resulted in a whitewash, as in a number of cases the Commission was able to clarify and determine the truth even while being told 3 different stories (ironically in at least one of those cases the truth was actually better then what they people involved were claiming.) What it does mean is that a number of people who were asleep at the wheel managed to sneak past by limiting the scope of the inquiry to avoid their incompetencies, but again, that's human nature, not a conspiracy.

[Redtail]

It is you who used the error as the jist of your whole rebuttal, instead of just communicating your views on the linked documentary. So tell me why is it misinformation ( in more than one sentence). Isn't this the "place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking..." That is what I am: skeptical of the Commission report and the events leading up to the creation of the commission. All I have read is silly, juvenile "attack the messenger" posts that do nothing but keep skeptics from posting here.

Ok, If the Commission report is so wrong and the events leading up to the creation of the commission are so suspect then why are you merely posting your skepticism on an internet forum? Why are you just suggesting that people watch a video while providing none of your own ideas?

[beachnut]

It is you who used the error as the jist of your whole rebuttal, instead of just communicating your views on the linked documentary. So tell me why is it misinformation ( in more than one sentence). Isn't this the "place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking..." That is what I am: skeptical of the Commission report and the events leading up to the creation of the commission. All I have read is silly, juvenile "attack the messenger" posts that do nothing but keep skeptics from posting here.
No, it is all BS. Please point to one conclusion that is true. You can not and you will not!

The intercepts of planes was not routine over the land before 9/11, they are talking about intercepts over the ADIZ. Movie is wrong. Payne Stewarts aircraft intercept took over 80 minutes. 9/11 was over in 90 minutes. All the conclusions are wrong. Please tell me which ones you think are correct, or your movies is just junk.

But you are unable to produce a single fact to support any conclusions from the film or 9/11 truth. Go ahead try. You have already failed. Not one fact to support 9/11 truth conclusions will be coming from you.

I am not attacking you, you are fact less on the movie. Sorry you are unable to present some real information from 9/11 truth. 9/11 truth has no information that is true. Support something or go away.

[maccy]

I will have to respectfully disagree with your "ad hominem" tag on this one. From the outset, the current "administration" willfully blocked, and impeded any credible investigation from happening. High ranking members of the current "administration" are on record asking prominent Senators and Congressmen not to investigate thoroughly. The lack of financial resources for the biggest criminal investigation this country has ever seen is incredible. Also, Zelikow, through the White House, filtered every word in that "report." The investigation was quite "supportive" to the wishes of Bush and his staff. Documents weren't released on time, and many weren't seen by the whole commission. Bush and Cheney testified together off the record, literally!!! The bias here is first in the actions of the "administration" prior to the commission and then through the connections with the "chosen" commissioners. Thanks.

You still haven't shown, specifically, how the final report is biased. All this is just innuendo?

Again, what, specifically, is wrong with the report?

[T.A.M.]

Rev:
You are a boy, we don't need to call you one...you're 15!!

Tippit:
Noone is excusing squat or making excuses for incompetence, but nice try. The 9/11 commission did what it was tasked to do. The truth movement can bitch and whine all it wants, in 6 years it hasnt really mattered, and in 6 more it will matter much less. Keep trying for your new investigation though. Based on the list of appointees Les has provided (with the help of high priest DRG) I'd say you're gonna be waiting til Hell Freezes Over, before you get a new commission, especially one that looks like that one...lol

bsw: Stick around, I am sure you or one of the other two fellows listed in my post will "take home the gold".

Oh, and before you ask, in your attempt to be "civil" and "looking for discussion" (what a joke), no I do not have any productive comment of THE VIDEO...

TAM:)

[gumboot]

Frankly I'm tired of ignorant Conspiracy Theorists acting like the 9/11 Commission was the only investigation of 9/11. It wasn't. Not by a long shot. It was nothing more than an effort to appease a bunch of high-strung emotional relatives of victims who wanted a government official to blame for the attacks.

The United States could not stop the 9/11 attacks, except by dumb luck. The United States cannot stop future attacks, except by dumb luck. Get used to it.

You want security? Elect a dictator and burn your constitution. The price of a free and open society is things like 9/11.

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

Hello, bsw2009. Welcome to the forums.

I will have to respectfully disagree with your "ad hominem" tag on this one. From the outset, the current "administration" willfully blocked, and impeded any credible investigation from happening.The criminal investigations began within moments of the first plane hitting. Please present your evidence that they were blocked by the White House.

High ranking members of the current "administration" are on record asking prominent Senators and Congressmen not to investigate thoroughly.Source?

The lack of financial resources for the biggest criminal investigation this country has ever seen is incredible. You know of records of how much was spent on the criminal investigations into the 9/11 attacks? I very much want to see those. Please provide your sources at your earliest convenience.

Also, Zelikow, through the White House, filtered every word in that "report." I assume you're referring to the 9/11 Commission report. There's no need to put it in quotes. It's an actual report. Now, please present your evidence that every word in the report was filtered by the White House and Zelikow.

The investigation was quite "supportive" to the wishes of Bush and his staff.From what I've read, the 9/11 Commissioners and staffers were quite antagonistic to, and antagonized by, the lack of support they received from the White House and some government agencies.

Documents weren't released on time, and many weren't seen by the whole commission. Bush and Cheney testified together off the record, literally!!! The bias here is first in the actions of the "administration" prior to the commission and then through the connections with the "chosen" commissioners. Thanks.Then you won't have any problem demonstrating what's false in the report. Please proceed.

[Revolutionary91]

Gravy is everything in the 911 commission report true?

[Gravy]

Gravy is everything in the 911 commission report true?I don't know. Can you point out anything important that isn't? I've asked this of conspiracists dozens of times. Not a single person has answered. For a report that's a pack of lies, you'd think the conspiracists could point one out, wouldn't you?

Just give me one important thing the Commission report gets wrong, okay? That's a start.

[ref]

Gravy is everything in the 911 commission report true?

Excuse the derail..

Rev, you asked me yesterday to take the WTC 7 challenge. Can I ask you to take a similar challenge?

What do you think of the following quote?:

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more people."

- Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, FDNY (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110154.PDF)

Is he lying, or was WTC7 indeed very damaged and totally on fire and the pull-comment really meant pulling the people away?

[WildCat]

Gravy is everything in the 911 commission report true?
Perhaps you can be the first troofer to show the significant errors in it Rev? Be a hero, list them! :rolleyes:

[Revolutionary91]

I don't know. Can you point out anything important that isn't? I've asked this of conspiracists dozens of times. Not a single person has answered. For a report that's a pack of lies, you'd think the conspiracists could point one out, wouldn't you?

Just give me one important thing the Commission report gets wrong, okay? That's a start.

They didnt follow the money. They seemed to think the funding was of little significance.

[WildCat]

They didnt follow the money. They seemed to think the funding was of little significance.
Can't find an error to list Rev? Come on, it's all a pack of lies! Surely you can find an error, yes? What you're doing is called "moving the goal posts". You said there were errors, and listed none. We all agree that the 9/11 Report wasn't supposed to cover everything and anything. Now, stop beating around the bush and... LIST THE ERRORS!

[Revolutionary91]

Can't find an error to list Rev? Come on, it's all a pack of lies! Surely you can find an error, yes? What you're doing is called "moving the goal posts". You said there were errors, and listed none. We all agree that the 9/11 Report wasn't supposed to cover everything and anything. Now, stop beating around the bush and... LIST THE ERRORS!

Please quote me where I said there were errors.

[WildCat]

Please quote me where I said there were errors.
So you agree that the 9/11 Report is 100% factually correct? Yes or no will do Rev... of course if you say "no" you'll have to back that up with a list of errors.

[Revolutionary91]

So you agree that the 9/11 Report is 100% factually correct? Yes or no will do Rev... of course if you say "no" you'll have to back that up with a list of errors.


This is quite simple:

You said:

You said there were errors

Now please provide proof I said this or admit you lied.

[ref]

Rev,

Would you take my challenge?

[Revolutionary91]

Rev,

Would you take my challenge?

When you take the challenge I issued first.

[ref]

When you take the challenge I issued first.

I already answered you with two long paragraphs. It would take only one sentence for you to reply. You can do that, can't you?

[Revolutionary91]

I already answered you with two long paragraphs. It would take only one sentence for you to reply. You can do that, can't you?


Cheif Nigro isn't lying. Yes that was easy.

[ref]

Cheif Nigro isn't lying. Yes that was easy.

Thank you.

So you agree, that WTC 7 was damaged and heavily on fire. And the "pull it" meant the firefighters had to be pulled from the scene, because it was too dangerous. Could you tell this to other members of Loose Change board as well, they don't seem to believe this.

[Revolutionary91]

It isn't that simple Ref. What time did Nigro issue this order? What time did Silverstein talk to the fire cheif on the phone?

[Mobyseven]

r3\/: |>0 u |\|0 7|-|47 1337-5p33|< |-|45 |\|07|-|!|\| 2 |>0 \/\/17 463 y37???

[ref]

It isn't that simple Ref. What time did Nigro issue this order? What time did Silverstein talk to the fire cheif on the phone?

The order was issued at around 4:00 pm that afternoon. What is your point then? Are you still claiming that there was demolition in spite of all what Nigro said and what he ordered?

[Par]

They didnt follow the money. They seemed to think the funding was of little significance.



False.

[bsw2009]

False.

They followed the money; however, the commission, I mean the administration, chose to omit (filter) many details from the investigation into who paid for 9/11.

Hmmmmmm (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2831577&postcount=132)

[ref]

And Rev went missing. Just as this was getting interesting. Too bad.

[Par]

In what way is that post evidence for the claim that they chose to omit important details from the investigation?

[Revolutionary91]

The order was issued at around 4:00 pm that afternoon. What is your point then? Are you still claiming that there was demolition in spite of all what Nigro said and what he ordered?

Have you got a source for 4pm?

[Gravy]

Please quote me where I said there were errors.

Ho-lee Flying Spaghetti Monster!

You cannot be serious, can you? You say 9/11 was an inside job. You say the official version is false.

So show us one significant thing that's false in the official version, okay? Is that asking too much?

[Revolutionary91]

And Rev went missing. Just as this was getting interesting. Too bad.


You gave me 18 minutes. I apologise for having a life and not being at your service instantly.

[Par]

You gave me 18 minutes. I apologise for having a life and not being at your service instantly.



I know what teenage boys spend eighteen-minutes doing. You mucky pup.

[Revolutionary91]

Ho-lee Flying Spaghetti Monster!

You cannot be serious, can you? You say 9/11 was an inside job. You say the official version is false.

So show us one significant thing that's false in the official version, okay? Is that asking too much?

I didn't say there were errors in the 911 commission report.

[Revolutionary91]

I know what teenage boys spend eighteen-minutes doing. You mucky pup.


What would that be?

[Gravy]

The order was issued at around 4:00 pm that afternoon. What is your point then? Are you still claiming that there was demolition in spite of all what Nigro said and what he ordered?NCSTAR 1-81 p. 111 puts this at about 2:30 (although it took over two hours to actually get everyone away from WTC 7: they didn't want to leave their rescue attempts).

[chillzero]

What would that be?

Stop. Both of you.
Please address the issues in the thread, and do not make personal issues the point of your posts. If you feel someone is baiting you, then report them and do not take the bait.

Please address the points raised, and not the person who raises them.

[Gravy]

I didn't say there were errors in the 911 commission report.Let's examine your logic here.

You claim that the official story is false, and that 9/11 was an inside job.

The 9/11 Commission report is the official story.

Therefore, the 9/11 Commission report is false. Agreed? Or do you think the 9/11 Commission report is accurate? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Now, Rev: specifically which parts of the 9/11 Commission report are false?

[Revolutionary91]

Let's examine your logic here.

You claim that the official story is false, and that it's a "conspiracy."

The 9/11 Commission report is the official story.

Therefore, the 9/11 Commission report is false. Agreed? Or do you think the 9/11 Commission report is accurate? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Now, Rev: specifically which parts of the 9/11 Commission report are false?

It is what they don't investigate that troubles me. I made this very clear earlier when talking about the money trail.

Bin Laden is part of the official story but look at my sig. Do you see the problem?

[Hyperviolet]

r3\/: |>0 u |\|0 7|-|47 1337-5p33|< |-|45 |\|07|-|!|\| 2 |>0 \/\/17 463 y37???

3y3 c/-\/\/7 1|v|@g1|\|3 2 |v|@|\|y 903pl3 |_||\|d3R$700I> 7h@7

3l 0 3l

[Gravy]

It is what they don't investigate that troubles me. I made this very clear earlier when talking about the money trail.

Bin Laden is part of the official story but look at my sig. Do you see the problem?

Rev, you are evading the question just as every truther before you has.

You claim that 9/11 was an inside job. The 9/11 Commission report lays out, in great detail, why the attacks were the work of Islamist terrorists.

If you cannot disprove the official story, then you cannot claim that 9/11 was an inside job.

Can we agree on that?

[RedIbis]

Ho-lee Flying Spaghetti Monster!

You cannot be serious, can you? You say 9/11 was an inside job. You say the official version is false.

So show us one significant thing that's false in the official version, okay? Is that asking too much?

No, that is not too much to ask, and I would hope that any real, freethinking skeptic would ask for a complete, thorough and apolitical investigation.

In Note 1 on pg 541 The CR says that "the exterior walls (of the towers) bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped."

The exterior walls did not bear "most of the weight." The exterior columns were not supporting the weight of the core columns.

The core was not a hollow steel shaft. It was 47 steel columns, which at the base were 14x36", with 4" thick walls.

[RedIbis]

Rev, you are evading the question just as every truther before you has.

You claim that 9/11 was an inside job. The 9/11 Commission report lays out, in great detail, why the attacks were the work of Islamist terrorists.

If you cannot disprove the official story, then you cannot claim that 9/11 was an inside job.

Can we agree on that?

This is merely the construction of a debate on your own terms. The CR dedicates roughly 110 pages to the actual day of 9/11. Most of the book is about the emergence of AQ and then the Commission's recommendations. This book represents a cursory description of events at best, and even still it was compromised by political interests.

Try the reverse of your "logic." If the Commission Report omits significant details and does not investigate in detail, such important events as the collapse, the crash site investigations, or the money trail, then it cannot be accepted as "fullest possible account."

[Gravy]

It's become awfully quiet here. No truthers up for the challenge? You've had a few years to come up with something.

[Revolutionary91]

Rev, you are evading the question just as every truther before you has.

You claim that 9/11 was an inside job. The 9/11 Commission report lays out, in great detail, why the attacks were the work of Islamist terrorists.

If you cannot disprove the official story, then you cannot claim that 9/11 was an inside job.

Can we agree on that?


Islamic terrorists being involved does not rule out an inside job. Why does a commision think that the funding was of little practical significance? I would say it is the most important thing to discover.

[Par]

Why does [the] commision think that the funding was of little practical significance?



What do you mean?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Islamic terrorists being involved does not rule out an inside job. Why does a commision think that the funding was of little practical significance? I would say it is the most important thing to discover.

Rev, either prove that 9/11 was an inside job or just try to disprove what the 9/11 Commission got wrong.

That's all we need right now is someone, like Alex Jones, screaming "9/11 was an Inside Job". Gravy made Alex Jones pee his pants talking about WTC7 & the firemen & when asked for evidence what does Alex Jones do? He turns away from the issues.

Are you just like Alex Jones Rev91?

[Gravy]

Islamic terrorists being involved does not rule out an inside job. Why does a commision think that the funding was of little practical significance? I would say it is the most important thing to discover.No, Rev, this isn't just about the "involvement" of Islamist terrorists.

This is about all of the evidence in the 9/11 Commission report. If you haven't read it, you should. If the 9/11 Commission report is accurate, then the attacks were not an inside job.

If you cannot show any evidence of an inside job, then you cannot claim an inside job. Do you agree? Yes or no?

1) You insist that 9/11 was an inside job.

2) You present no evidence to support that claim.

3) You present no evidence that anything in the 9/11 Commission report is false.

Rev: will you now stop insisting that 9/11 was an inside job?



As you know, the "little practical significance" statement refers to the the practicality of the attacks proceeding if one or more sources of funding was cut off. Your claim that the sources of funding weren't of interest and weren't investigated are 100% false. That was one of the most extensive parts of the 9/11 criminal investigation, involving the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of many countries.

[Revolutionary91]

What do you mean?

To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.


http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch5.htm

[Revolutionary91]

No, Rev, this isn't just about the "involvement" of Islamist terrorists.

This is about all of the evidence in the 9/11 Commission report. If you haven't read it, you should. If the 9/11 Commission report is accurate, then the attacks were not an inside job.

If you cannot show any evidence of an inside job, then you cannot claim an inside job. Do you agree? Yes or no?

1) You insist that 9/11 was an inside job.

2) You present no evidence to support that claim.

3) You present no evidence that anything in the 9/11 Commission report is false.

Rev: will you now stop insisting that 9/11 was an inside job?



As you know, the "little practical significance" statement refers to the the practicality of the attacks proceeding if one or more sources of funding was cut off. Your claim that the sources of funding weren't of interest and weren't investigated are 100% false. That was one of the most extensive parts of the 9/11 criminal investigation, involving the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of many countries.

You have been presented with lots of evidence. That you don't find it compelling does not mean it doesn't exist. Can you explain my sig?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

But yet we got money trails from the Embassy attacks, USS Cole, the 1st WTC attack in 1993 & so on that lead to the Islamic Terrorist.

Who funded them? Who trained them? Had to been someone, not the U.S. Government!

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

You have been presented with lots of evidence. That you don't find it compelling does not mean it doesn't exist. Can you explain my sig?


Gravy has presented enough evidence. You, Rev91, have failed to provide evidence for the "inside job" theory.

[Par]

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch5.htm



I’m perfectly aware of the quote. What practical significance do you attribute to the origin of the money?

[Gravy]

You have been presented with lots of evidence. That you don't find it compelling does not mean it doesn't exist. Can you explain my sig?You continue to evade the question and try to move the goalposts. That's intellectually dishonest. Please stop running and answer this question:

1) You insist that 9/11 was an inside job.

2) You present no evidence to support that claim. Think I'm wrong? Then what can you bring to court? Right now: what's your solid evidence that 9/11 was an inside job? Even Jason Bermas admits he's got nothing.

3) You present no evidence that anything in the 9/11 Commission report is false.

Rev: will you now stop insisting that 9/11 was an inside job?

[Revolutionary91]

Lee Hamilton admits the report had to not point the finger at officials. It is not a complete accounting. 28 pages are redacted. What is on those?

[twinstead]

For all we know it could have been recipes for beef stew.

[Revolutionary91]

You continue to evade the question and try to move the goalposts. That's intellectually dishonest. Please stop running and answer this question:

1) You insist that 9/11 was an inside job.

2) You present no evidence to support that claim.

3) You present no evidence that anything in the 9/11 Commission report is false.

Rev: will you now stop insisting that 9/11 was an inside job?


I think on a preponderance of all the evidence, including motive, that the attacks were aided and abetted by elements within at least American and Pakistani intelligence services.

There is lots of evidence to support that claim. Mjd's thread is a prime example just in terms of motive.

The 911 commission report does not need to be false to be an incomplete account. I will not stop saying that I think 911 was an inside job.

Now explain my sig.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I think on a preponderance of all the evidence, including motive, that the attacks were aided and abetted by elements within at least American and Pakistani intelligence services.

There is lots of evidence to support that claim. Mjd's thread is a prime example just in terms of motive.

The 911 commission report does not need to be false to be an incomplete account. I will not stop saying that I think 911 was an inside job.

Now explain my sig.


You got evidence of such a claim as to involve the American & Pakistani Intelligence Agencies?

You claim to have said evidence but fail to show it. Why? What are the "terms of motive"?

Again, where's your evidence to prove 9/11 was an inside job?

[Gravy]

I think on a preponderance of all the evidence, including motive, that the attacks were aided and abetted by elements within at least American and Pakistani intelligence services.
All the evidence? All what evidence?

You "think?" Uh-uh.You say you KNOW that 9/11 was an inside job. You are an activist for that position. You argue that position every day.

You're trying to change the subject by asking about bin Laden, who no one claims was a major planner of the attacks. I'm asking you for YOUR "hard evidence" for YOUR claim, which you KNOW is true. Got it?

You cannot take the government to task for not having hard evidence against a terrorist who they don't claim was the major player, and at the same time refuse to provide hard evidence for your claim.

Do you understand this?

There is a mountain of hard evidence that says the 9/11 attacks were planned and executed by Islamist terrorists. You say you know they were an inside job. Okay: pretend I'm the prosecutor. Give me the hard evidence. Now. Otherwise you're withholding evidence of a horrible crime perpetrated by the United States government.

ETA: Rev, I'm not asking what you "think." I don't want your opinion. I want to hear how you KNOW 9/11 was an inside job.

[westprog]

I refer you to post #6, which addressed Mr. Hamilton's comment and put it into the proper context.

If the commission was set up to fail, it was set up to avoid revealing the failings of the Bush administration that led to 911. It doesn't mean that they were set up to avoid finding out a hidden conspiracy. That's clear in context.

[Revolutionary91]

All the evidence? All what evidence?

You say you KNOW that 9/11 was an inside job. You are an activist for that position. You argue that position every day.

You're trying to change the subject by asking about bin Laden, who no one claims was a major planner of the attacks. I'm asking you for YOUR "hard evidence" for YOUR claim, which you KNOW is true. Got it?

You cannot take the government to task for not having hard evidence against a terrorist who they don't claim was the major player, and at the same time refuse to provide hard evidence for your claim.

Do you understand this?

There is a mountain of hard evidence that says the 9/11 attacks were planned and executed by Islamist terrorists. You say you know they were an inside job. Okay: pretend I'm the prosecutor. Give me the hard evidence. Now. Otherwise you're withholding evidence of a horrible crime perpetrated by the United States government.

Rev, how do you KNOW 9/11 was an inside job?

Where did I say I knew?

The official story names OBL as a main player.

[Gravy]

Where did I say I knew?

Don't insult me.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046b8811b2858d.jpg

"About me: 9-11 was an INSIDE JOB"

Rev, if you don't KNOW that 9/11 was an inside job, then it is morally and ethically wrong to CLAIM that 9/11 was an inside job.

You have only one logical, ethical choice: to stop claiming that 9/11 was an inside job.

If you see another logical and ethical choice that allows you to accuse the U.S. government and intelligence agencies (and military?) of complicity in mass-murder of its own citizens, I want to hear it now.

This isn't a game. Your claims are incredibly serious. Justify them or retract them.

[twinstead]

Yikes. I certainly wouldn't be accusing people of mass murder outwardly like that unless I was SURE of it, and could PROVE IT beyond a shadow of doubt. Holding a '911 was an inside job' sign? Goodness I certainly wouldn't do that knowing what it implies, unless I was SURE.

Otherwise it just looks like irrational ideology and is rightly ignored. If it were REALLY proved, then we 'debunkers' couldn't ignore it, nor could the world's media and law enforcement agencies.

Don't you want action, Revolutionary?

[Revolutionary91]

Don't insult me.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046b8811b2858d.jpg

"About me: 9-11 was an INSIDE JOB"

Rev, if you don't KNOW that 9/11 was an inside job, then it is morally and ethically wrong to CLAIM that 9/11 was an inside job.

You have only one logical, ethical choice: to stop claiming that 9/11 was an inside job.

If you see another logical and ethical choice that allows you to accuse the U.S. government and intelligence agencies (and military?) of complicity in mass-murder of its own citizens, I want to hear it now.

This isn't a game. Your claims are incredibly serious. Justify them or retract them.

Do you issue these same ultimatums to all the people that say OJ was guilty, despite them watching a trial where he was found innocent? Just curios.

This is still a free country. I can believe what I wish. I will not be told by you what I can and can't state.

"911 was an inside job" is not a libelous or obscene statement.

[ref]

Ok, sorry Rev, I'm back for a short while.

Can you say what your point is? Let's say that the decision was made between 2:30pm and 4:00 pm. I said 4 pm because of this quote from Nigro:

"It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was given, at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely."

So Rev, what was it you were saying?

[Par]

Do you issue these same ultimatums to all the people that say OJ was guilty, despite them watching a trial where he was found innocent? Just curios.

This is still a free country. I can believe what I wish. I will not be told by you what I can and can't state.

"911 was an inside job" is not a libelous or obscene statement.



Right, so evidence has nothing to do with it. It’s merely a matter of “you can’t stop me”. Let’s not let ethics or truth get in the way of a good fantasy. (Incidentally, yes, of course it’s both libellous and obscene.)

[DavidJames]

"911 was an inside job" is not a libelous or obscene statement.You are accusing innocent people of mass murder or complicity in mass murder. You are doing so without due process. You whine about what the U.S. has done post 9/11 and yet here you are, playing judge and jury.

But wait, what are you (and your ilk) doing. You think the 9/11 was an inside job, but what do you do? You post on Internet forums! Are you taking your evidence to lawyers, DA’s, the police, mass media, ANYONE, who could actually do something? No, You post on Internet forums.

That’s how I know your kind are in this for your own ego’s and personal satisfaction and don’t give a crap about the ‘truth”.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Anyone ever notice that the 9/11 Truth Movement is on a slow decline? I mean they're fighting with each other i.e. Tom Foni.

Within 4 more years, hoping & praying, the Truth Movement will die from it's own cause.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
Abraham Lincoln

"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
Abraham Lincoln

[T.A.M.]

Yes I made such a comment recently, I think over at SLC, not sure.

They definitely seem to be on the decline, and if LC:FC does not do well, like they think it will, but we know it likely will not, I think the movement will be out of gas even before the 2008 election.

If Hillary wins in 2008, it is all over for the twoofers.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Don't insult me.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046b8811b2858d.jpg

"About me: 9-11 was an INSIDE JOB"

Rev, if you don't KNOW that 9/11 was an inside job, then it is morally and ethically wrong to CLAIM that 9/11 was an inside job.

You have only one logical, ethical choice: to stop claiming that 9/11 was an inside job.

If you see another logical and ethical choice that allows you to accuse the U.S. government and intelligence agencies (and military?) of complicity in mass-murder of its own citizens, I want to hear it now.

This isn't a game. Your claims are incredibly serious. Justify them or retract them.


yes this is the hypocrisy that gets me angry every time.

the twoofers come in here whining and complaining that we are hampering their "just asking questions" and how all they want is a new investigation to clear things up...


FOR CRYING OUT LOUD MAN!!!!!!ARGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!

You do not claim to be "JUST" asking question, ACCUSING NOONE, and then hold up a "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB" plaquard, or post it on your Myspace.

TAM:mad:

[Gravy]

Rev, it's very important that you save these exchanges so you can refer to them down the road. You're a smart guy who has unfortunately bought into the lies of Alex Jones, Loose Change, et al, despite the fact that they have gotten NO claims about 9/11 right and have presented NO evidence that refutes the official story.

Rev, it's important that you – at some point – see that your position has no logical, evidential, or ethical foundation. Accusing people of horrible crimes based on your opinion or on the opinion of Alex Jones is simply wrong. There's no wiggle room here. Your claims are incredibly serious and have no basis in reality.

When pressed repeatedly to present the hard evidence that citizens of your country are responsible for the 9/11 attacks, your reply is,

"I can believe what I wish."

Yes, you can. But to base a big part of your life on an unsupportable opinion that people have committed horrible crimes, is to live in a very, very dark place. Don't get lost in this fantasy. I'll bet you were raised better than to make accusations you can't back up. I think you're smarter than this.

I hope it's just a phase. Being young is a good thing! And it's a hard thing. I've read lots of comments on this forum from adults who say they wouldn't relive their teenage years for anything. I'm totally sympathetic. There probably isn't a 15-year-old in the world who hasn't felt 100% sure about something really big, only to find out that there was no truth to it. That's called growing up, and it's something to be proud of, not to be ashamed of.

You know who's not sympathetic, Rev? The adults who you rely on for information, and who rely on you to be the future of their twisted fantasies. On your website you promote Alex Jones, Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, 911truth.org, The Pentacon, and Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Rev, you will NEVER, as long as you live, find a more dishonest, incompetent, wrong, and nasty group of adults than that. Never.

I haven't been pressing you today in order to beat up on you. I don't enjoy any of this. It's very important to me that people your age learn to recognize good sources of information from bad, good, clear thinking from bad, and good people from bad. You are in league with some truly awful people who do not have your interests at heart. You've shown signs of taking on some of their worst qualities, as when you approved of violence against me. Please be aware of that.

It's easy to get lost in cyberspace, and to adopt a different personality in cyberspace. Unfortunately, it's also easy to spend days at a time on the internet without ever coming across good information, if that's what you wish to do. You need to get away from your computer! So do I! I wasn't kidding when I kept suggesting that you get out and take a walk. This is one thing I know. I've walked across large parts of Europe five times, I've done a 5,500-mile walk around the U.S., I've bicycled across the U.S. twice. It really does clear your head. In fact, I'm going for a walk around the park right now.

I wish you well.

Mark Roberts

[T.A.M.]

Rev, it's very important that you save these exchanges so you can refer to them down the road. You're a smart guy who has unfortunately bought into the lies of Alex Jones, Loose Change, et al, despite the fact that they have gotten NO claims about 9/11 right and have presented NO evidence that refutes the official story.

Rev, it's important that you – at some point – see that your position has no logical, evidential, or ethical foundation. Accusing people of horrible crimes based on your opinion or on the opinion of Alex Jones is simply wrong. There's no wiggle room here. Your claims are incredibly serious and have no basis in reality.

When pressed repeatedly to present the hard evidence that citizens of your country are responsible for the 9/11 attacks, your reply is,

"I can believe what I wish."

Yes, you can. But to base a big part of your life on an unsupportable opinion that people have committed horrible crimes, is to live in a very, very dark place. Don't get lost in this fantasy. I'll bet you were raised better than to make accusations you can't back up. I think you're smarter than this.

I hope it's just a phase. Being young is a good thing! And it's a hard thing. I've read lots of comments on this forum from adults who say they wouldn't relive their teenage years for anything. I'm totally sympathetic. There probably isn't a 15-year-old in the world who hasn't felt 100% sure about something really big, only to find out that there was no truth to it. That's called growing up, and it's something to be proud of, not to be ashamed of.

You know who's not sympathetic, Rev? The adults who you rely on for information, and who rely on you to be the future of their twisted fantasies. On your website you promote Alex Jones, Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, 911truth.org, The Pentacon, and Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Rev, you will NEVER, as long as you live, find a more dishonest, incompetent, wrong, and nasty group of adults than that. Never.

I haven't been pressing you today in order to beat up on you. I don't enjoy any of this. It's very important to me that people your age learn to recognize good sources of information from bad, good, clear thinking from bad, and good people from bad. You are in league with some truly awful people who do not have your interests at heart. You've shown signs of taking on some of their worst qualities, as when you approved of violence against me. Please be aware of that.

It's easy to get lost in cyberspace, and to adopt a different personality in cyberspace. Unfortunately, it's also easy to spend days at a time on the internet without ever coming across good information, if that's what you wish to do. You need to get away from your computer! So do I! I wasn't kidding when I kept suggesting that you get out and take a walk. This is one thing I know. I've walked across large parts of Europe five times, I've done a 5,500-mile walk around the U.S., I've bicycled across the U.S. twice. It really does clear your head. In fact, I'm going for a walk around the park right now.

I wish you well.

Mark Roberts


QFE...well said Mark.

TAM:)

[Revolutionary91]

Yes the people I have as sources of information are nasty, but your source, the government, is such a benevolent entity. It only lied about the air quality which is killing 1000's of 911 heroes. It only lied about WMD to trick people into a war that has now killed more americans than killed on 911. It only set up the 911 commission to fail while redacting 28 pages of it and concluding the funding of the attacks that killed 3000 Americans was inconsequential. Yes you are right to trust that government. Their information is clean and pure and right. Give me a break chief.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Well said Gravy!

If Rev91 wants a mad American why not come to New York? Why not come to D.C.? Why not come to Shanksville, PA? Why not go to all those places where the 9/11 event happened?

As far as I'm concerned about Flight 93, they didn't shoot it down. I know cause the plane flew over my house that morning. It flew so low that it shook the entire house and shuddered the windows. I didn't see any fighter jets tailing it either. Anyone making a claim about Flt. 93 being shot down needs their heads checked.

Wondering how I know this? Well in the official report Flight 93 was supposed to land at Johnstown Airport. Johnstown is where I live & on 9/11 I was living near the airport where it was supposed to land. It didn't land! After about 20 minutes I heard fire trucks & police cars rolling down RT. 219 towards Shanksville. I turned up the volume on the TV & what do I know, Flight 93 crashed into a field.

If anyone says that people were in on it needs a CAT scan! I'm sorry but I'm just irritated by these Truthers & Conspiracists.

[DavidJames]

Yes the people I have as sources of information are nasty, but your source, the government, is such a benevolent entity. It only lied about the air quality which is killing 1000's of 911 heroes. It only lied about WMD to trick people into a war that has now killed more americans than killed on 911. It only set up the 911 commission to fail while redacting 28 pages of it and concluding the funding of the attacks that killed 3000 Americans was inconsequential. Yes you are right to trust that government. Their information is clean and pure and right. Give me a break chief.
Interesting, after all of Gravy's post, your only response is a logical fallacy.

Interesting, but totally in character.

[Par]

...and concluding the funding of the attacks that killed 3000 Americans was inconsequential.



Please, please remember that this is false.

[T.A.M.]

Well said Gravy!

If Rev91 wants a mad American why not come to New York? Why not come to D.C.? Why not come to Shanksville, PA? Why not go to all those places where the 9/11 event happened?

As far as I'm concerned about Flight 93, they didn't shoot it down. I know cause the plane flew over my house that morning. It flew so low that it shook the entire house and shuddered the windows. I didn't see any fighter jets tailing it either. Anyone making a claim about Flt. 93 being shot down needs their heads checked.

Wondering how I know this? Well in the official report Flight 93 was supposed to land at Johnstown Airport. Johnstown is where I live & on 9/11 I was living near the airport where it was supposed to land. It didn't land! After about 20 minutes I heard fire trucks & police cars rolling down RT. 219 towards Shanksville. I turned up the volume on the TV & what do I know, Flight 93 crashed into a field.

If anyone says that people were in on it needs a CAT scan! I'm sorry but I'm just irritated by these Truthers & Conspiracists.


Please see threads from TC239 (I think that is his username) as he has been arguing insanely, just that, that UA93 was shot down...will make for an interesting read for you...I guarantee.

TAM:)

[Par]

Interesting, after all of Gravy's post, your only response is a logical fallacy.

Interesting, but totally in character.



It’s two, in fact. (Straw man and false dichotomy.)

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Please see threads from TC239 (I think that is his username) as he has been arguing insanely, just that, that UA93 was shot down...will make for an interesting read for you...I guarantee.

TAM:)

Thanks TAM! I just might argue my point about Flt 93. The truth is what I heard & saw that day.

[ref]

Hmh, Rev again failed my challenge. He chose to respond to others, though. Well. I think Rev could actually be a very smart kid. He's just under the influence of very wrong people. Not fully understanding it as of yet. I don't now what I understood at that age. But I didn't blame any governments, that's foe sure.

[ref]

I've walked across large parts of Europe five times


Have you ever been to Finland? Lapland is one of the best places for hiking/walking and the midnight sun is just something to experience. Gotta be prepared to fight some mosquitos, though :rolleyes:

[Belz...]

It is what they don't investigate that troubles me.

So you agree that the 9/11 commission report is correct, right ?

To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.

Indeed, it is. You seem to think that, because we can't trace the money, it HAS to come from the US government. I don't think the terrorists keep too much of a paper trail.

Can you explain my sig?

Yes. They have no hard, final evidence to convict Bin Laden.

There is lots of evidence to support that claim. Mjd's thread is a prime example just in terms of motive.

No, Mjd's thread is a prime example of how little you guys understand what you read.

This is still a free country. I can believe what I wish. I will not be told by you what I can and can't state.

That you are free to have your opinion does not mean you can slander other people. That you are free to have your opinion does not mean you can state it as fact and expect no one to call you on it.

"911 was an inside job" is not a libelous or obscene statement.

Of course it is. Because you are accusing the government of murdering 3000 people.

Yes the people I have as sources of information are nasty, but your source, the government, is such a benevolent entity.

Would you PLEASE stop using that strawman ?

[Belz...]

No, that is not too much to ask, and I would hope that any real, freethinking skeptic would ask for a complete, thorough and apolitical investigation.

And how would that mythological creature come to be ?

If the Commission Report omits significant details and does not investigate in detail

Which details ?

[twinstead]

Show of hands: Who is sick and tired of conspiracy theorists claiming we all, even those who aren't American, love the US government and think it can do no wrong just because we don't agree it murdered 3000 innocent people?

Sheesh!

[ref]

Show of hands: Who is sick and tired of conspiracy theorists claiming we all, even those who aren't American, love the US government and think it can do no wrong just because we don't agree it murdered 3000 innocent people?

Sheesh!

I have no idea why I, a Finn, would love the US government. I don't know what they think my motive is.

[DavidJames]

Show of hands: Who is sick and tired of conspiracy theorists claiming we all, even those who aren't American, love the US government and think it can do no wrong just because we don't agree it murdered 3000 innocent people?

Sheesh!:raises hand:

Such false dichotomy’s are one of the keystones of the CTists lack of critical thinking skills.

[Corsair 115]

I have no idea why I, a Finn, would love the US government. I don't know what they think my motive is.Heck, I'd wager some in that U.S. government couldn't even locate Finland on a map!

[twinstead]

Heck, I'd wager some in that U.S. government couldn't even locate Finland on a map!

It's right next to Madagascar, right? ;)

[Civilized Worm]

Here's a much easier question Rev, why does your myspace list your age as 17?

[HyJinX]

Here's a much easier question Rev, why does your myspace list your age as 17?

I noticed that too. You wouldn't be lying in order to get the ladies now would you, Rev?

[mjd1982]

Whew! What a traumatic few pages that was. Excuse my absence.

Just to clear up some of the garbage that was being sent Rev's way, it is irrelevant if there are no factual errors in the 911 Com report (regardless of whether there are or there arent). Lets take an example. It states in the report that :


Because the amount of reporting is so voluminous,only a select fraction can
be chosen for briefing the president and senior officials. During 2001, Direc=
tor of Central Intelligence GeorgeTenet was briefed regularly regarding threats
and other operational information relating to Usama Bin Ladin.1 He in turn
met daily with President Bush, who was briefed by the CIA through what is
known as the President’s Daily Brief (PDB). Each PDB consists of a series of
six to eight relatively short articles or briefs covering a broad array of topics;
CIA staff decides which subjects are the most important on any given day.
There were more than 40 intelligence articles in the PDBs from January 20
to September 10, 2001, that related to Bin Ladin.


we then go on to read:

We have found no indication of any further discussion before September
11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an
al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in
Crawford,Texas, on August 17 and participated in PDB briefings of the Pres=
ident between August 31 (after the President had returned toWashington) and
September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of
the domestic threat during this period...domestic agencies did
not know what to do, and no one gave them direction...The borders
were not hardened.Transportation systems were not fortified. Electronic sur=
veillance was not targeted against a domestic threat.State and local law
enforcement were not marshaled to augment the FBI’s efforts.The public was
not warned...



Now, no factual disinformation there, necessarily. But the obvious question would be, why, following 40 PDB's on OBL (which we can safely presume related to the threat he was posing to the US/US interests), did Bush, 40 times, do nothing. Why did he not warn all those people? Why did he not even discuss this threat b4 9/4? This is not answered. Yet an answer would be quite revealing, since only weeks before he started getting these PDB's, PNAC put out a doc stating the propitiousness of a new PH to policy, another essential point that is left out of the investigation. This is an example of something that is not necessarily factually inaccurate, but in terms of an investigation, is highly deficient, since it omits valuable questions/valuable answers. This does, incidentally, tie in perfectly with what Hamilton states about the problems they had with access, since people like Bush did not want fingers pointed at them.

Incidentally, the issue of negligence, criminal negligence, though something that has been brushed off here, as in "they didnt want their negligence to be shown up"- this is precisely the issue at hand. Given the PNAC doc, which all sensible people will realise states the propitiousness of a carastrophic event to policy, that combined with criminal negligence on the parts of those who were part of the report leads inexorably to the need for a new investigation. Hence the likes of Mark Roberts, who (correct me if i'm wrong) believe the US gov was criminally negligent in failing to prevent 911...well my friend, you are walking a very high tight rope there, since you cannot rationally claim criminal negligence, and no need for a new investigation, when there is a doc out there stating how useful such an event which its authors negligence failed to prevent, would be. It would be a painful fall.

********

But moving back to the issue at hand. As has happened oh too many times now, when the kook brigade see something they dont wanna respond to, they just pretend it didnt happen. So, as on the CF thread, I will repeat again:

You have a project, evaluated by one of the main participants as a "national scandal", stating taht if he stayed on the panel he would not be able to "cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access". It is described by the vice chairman as "not the definitive account of 911". And it is dismissed by the people who initiated it as "hollow", "a cover up" and an "insult". Over and over again.

(To say that this means that everything is okay because Lee Hamilton says in another interview (unsourced) that he deemed it a success, is myopic in the extreme. It is in his interests to say something like that. So when he, and others are damning of the report, it is of all the more worth)

So, my question is, are you (as americans?) happy with a report into the death of 3000 of your fellow countrymen that is vehemently dismissed by many of its progenitors? Are you happy with this?

[T.A.M.]

:teacher:

TAM:)

[DGM]

Yes

[twinstead]

Unfortunately, arrogant 'have it all figured out' people like you mjd make honest, rational questioning of the report difficult.

Of course you are going to bring to the forefront ANYBODY who thinks the report could have done better or wasn't perfect, even if their objections don't support your 911 inside job theory. Because, quite frankly, the report ISN'T perfect. How CAN it be?

What about 'progenitors' of the report who stand by it? Ya think there might be a couple of those, too?

Frankly I'm sick and tired of folks like you trying to shove this whole 911 conspiracy crap down our throats. You have an ulterior motive. You are too biased for me to take seriously, and for me to accept ANY of your 'findings' at face value.

I'll just figure it out on my own and come to my own conclusions, thank you very much. I have no time for hopeless, irrational ideologues on either side of the aisle, thank you very much.

[Corsair 115]

It's right next to Madagascar, right? ;)I don't know — where's Madagascar?

:D

[funk de fino]

Because the amount of reporting is so voluminous,only a select fraction can
be chosen for briefing the president and senior officials. During 2001, Direc=
tor of Central Intelligence GeorgeTenet was briefed regularly regarding threats
and other operational information relating to Usama Bin Ladin.1 He in turn
met daily with President Bush, who was briefed by the CIA through what is
known as the President’s Daily Brief (PDB). Each PDB consists of a series of
six to eight relatively short articles or briefs covering a broad array of topics;
CIA staff decides which subjects are the most important on any given day.
There were more than 40 intelligence articles in the PDBs from January 20
to September 10, 2001, that related to Bin Ladin. we then go on to read:

We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11
among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat
of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in
Crawford,Texas, on August 17 and participated in PDB briefings of the Pres=
ident between August 31 (after the President had returned toWashington and
September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the
President of the domestic threat during this period...domestic agencies did
not know what to do, and no one gave them direction...The borders
were not hardened.Transportation systems were not fortified. Electronic sur=
veillance was not targeted against a domestic threat.State and local law
enforcement were not marshaled to augment the FBI’s efforts.The public was
not warned...

forgive me if i am wrong here but the bolded words make a huge difference IMO?

the first statement mentions nothing about domestic threat or attacks in the USA? he may have discussed threats but not any specific domestic threats therefore he may not be mistaken or being misleading, it is MJD who is "safely presuming" again

you cannot use presumption in this case, then again it is all you have in any of the threads you post in

[WildCat]

Do you issue these same ultimatums to all the people that say OJ was guilty, despite them watching a trial where he was found innocent?
Defendants are found "guilty" or "not guilty' in a trial. They are not found "innocent". And btw, OJ was found liable for the deaths in a civil trial, wasn't he?

[defaultdotxbe]

I don't know — where's Madagascar?

:D
right next to finland, duh

[Sabrina]

Of the so-called "forty or more warnings" that the administration received that I personally have seen (someone had a website that listed them, but I've forgotten where I saw it), about.... two of them specifically mentioned attacks within the US. Two. Out of more than forty. The rest typically talked about attacks overseas on US interests or didn't mention attacks at all.

Just thought I'd share that.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

They didnt follow the money. They seemed to think the funding was of little significance.


And how would knowing the source of the money improve our understanding of the events of 9/11?

[Gravy]

Just to clear up some of the garbage that was being sent Rev's way, it is irrelevant if there are no factual errors in the 911 Com report

:dl:

Stundielicious! Stundielightful! Stundielovely! Stundielectable!

[Revolutionary91]

Defendants are found "guilty" or "not guilty' in a trial. They are not found "innocent". And btw, OJ was found liable for the deaths in a civil trial, wasn't he?

Oh well if thats the way you want to play it, Lawrence King was found liable in a civil trial and a civil trial found MLK had been killed in a conspiracy. Are you saying you believe in the MLK and child abuse CTs now?

PS - I'm still waiting for the quote where I said there were errors in the report.

[Gravy]

Given the PNAC doc, which all sensible people will realise states the propitiousness of a carastrophic event to policy, that combined with criminal negligence on the parts of those who were part of the report leads inexorably to the need for a new investigation.

:dl:

Stop it! Yer killin' me over here!

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Hey Mark,

I'm debating with our good old friend Dylan Avery off of MySpace. I got a message from him earlier and you might want to read it:

"dylan avery

http://www.myspace.com/loosechange911

Date: Aug 7, 2007 3:11 PM Flag as Spam or Report Abuse [ ? ]
Subject: RE: Where'd the almost $900,000 go to?

Body: What $900,000? I hate to break reality to you, but not everything Mark Roberts and his groupies say are true. I tried reasoning with you, and you just fired back with more nonsense, personal attacks, and insinuations about my character and motives backed up with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Wil
Date: Aug 7, 2007 6:04 PM


Dylan,

Where'd the almost $900,000 go to? I'd like to know where it's going cause frankly I think you're stiffing the 9/11 Families out of that money.

Sincerely,
Wil
The jack--- who won't go away!"

He's an ignorant little boy isn't he?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

PS - I'm still waiting for the quote where I said there were errors in the report.


Oh, it's coming...

Gravy is everything in the 911 commission report true?


I'm not Gravy, but... yes.

Your turn. Am I wrong? If so, in what way am I wrong?

[Gravy]

Sorry, ThereIs, I don't know what that's about.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Sorry, ThereIs, I don't know what that's about.

It's ok Gravy, I was just arguing with Dylan & he just brought up your name. Just wanted ya to know what he was sayin'. :cool:

[Gravy]

Ah. Okay.

[PhantomWolf]

Explain my sig

“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” -Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI-Rex Tomb- June 5,2006

I'll expain it right after you explain why Al Capone was never arrested, charged, indited or convicted for the Saint Valentine Day massacre. Especially when a) everyone knew he'd ordered it, b) he admited to people that he ordered it, and c) he was in police custody and even jail at times after the murders so there was no way that the authorities could claim they didn't know where he was.

Note well that in order for a charge to appear on a wanted poster, the person MUST have been indited for that crime.

Can you explain why Al Capone got away with Murder yet? How about why OBL doesn't have 9/11 on his wanted poster yet. I'll give you a huge clue, the reasons are near enough to identical.

[twinstead]

The fact that OBL hasn't been formally charged, IMO, is evidence that it wasn't an inside job.

Wouldn't 'They' make damn sure he was charged if this was all a setup?

[Gravy]

The fact that OBL hasn't been formally charged, IMO, is evidence that it wasn't an inside job.

Wouldn't 'They' make damn sure he was charged if this was all a setup?Of course. The evil gubmint can pull off this amazing deceit (detectable only by loners in basements), but they can't create a measly paper trail that incriminates bin Laden? I'd love to see one 9/11 denier – just one – provide a rational explanation for, as Pomeroo calls it, "The Osama conondrum."

[Gravy]

I have no idea why I, a Finn, would love the US government. I don't know what they think my motive is.Because you want our superior javelins?

[DGM]

Of course. The evil gubmint can pull off this amazing deceit (detectable only by loners in basements), but they can't create a measly paper trail that incriminates bin Laden? I'd love to see one 9/11 denier – just one – provide a rational explanation for, as Pomeroo calls it, "The Osama conondrum."
Then forget to park a trailer truck with WMDs somewhere in the Iraqi dessert.:boggled:

[PhantomWolf]

I have no idea why I, a Finn, would love the US government. I don't know what they think my motive is.

Heh. I once got called a CIA agent, and when I pointed out that I am a Kiwi, I was born in and have lived all my life in NZ, I got told that this didn't matter as the CIA had people all over the world working for them.

[twinstead]

Then forget to park a trailer truck with WMDs somewhere in the Iraqi dessert.:boggled:

Yup, somebody lost his corner office at NWO headquarters for that one, for sure

[Mobyseven]

It’s two, in fact. (Straw man and false dichotomy.)

Four, actually. Strawman, false dichotomy, ad hominem and tu quoque. (Ad hominem and tu quoque are closely linked, but possible to differentiate between.)

[Belz...]

I'm still waiting for the quote where I said there were errors in the report.

Does the word "implication" ring a bell ?

[mjd1982]

Of the so-called "forty or more warnings" that the administration received that I personally have seen (someone had a website that listed them, but I've forgotten where I saw it), about.... two of them specifically mentioned attacks within the US. Two. Out of more than forty. The rest typically talked about attacks overseas on US interests or didn't mention attacks at all.

Just thought I'd share that.
No, thats Paul Thompsons 911 Timeline, itself an invaluable resource.

I dont believe that the 40 PDBs have all been declassified.

[mjd1982]

we then go on to read:



forgive me if i am wrong here but the bolded words make a huge difference IMO?

the first statement mentions nothing about domestic threat or attacks in the USA? he may have discussed threats but not any specific domestic threats therefore he may not be mistaken or being misleading, it is MJD who is "safely presuming" again

you cannot use presumption in this case, then again it is all you have in any of the threads you post in
No, since your post assumes that the president has no duty to protect US interests (embassies etc) abroad.

[mjd1982]

:dl:

Stop it! Yer killin' me over here!
Once again, we have the sad, but all too predictable pattern of when the kookers dont like something, they pretend it didnt happen. All too common. So I'll post again, for a 3rd time:


But moving back to the issue at hand. As has happened oh too many times now, when the kook brigade see something they dont wanna respond to, they just pretend it didnt happen. So, as on the CF thread, I will repeat again:

You have a project, evaluated by one of the main participants as a "national scandal", stating taht if he stayed on the panel he would not be able to "cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access". It is described by the vice chairman as "not the definitive account of 911". And it is dismissed by the people who initiated it as "hollow", "a cover up" and an "insult". Over and over again.

(To say that this means that everything is okay because Lee Hamilton says in another interview (unsourced) that he deemed it a success, is myopic in the extreme. It is in his interests to say something like that. So when he, and others are damning of the report, it is of all the more worth)

So, my question is, are you (as americans?) happy with a report into the death of 3000 of your fellow countrymen that is vehemently dismissed by many of its progenitors? Are you happy with this?

[HyJinX]

MJD - Are you happy with this?

[mjd1982]

Of course. The evil gubmint can pull off this amazing deceit (detectable only by loners in basements), but they can't create a measly paper trail that incriminates bin Laden? I'd love to see one 9/11 denier – just one – provide a rational explanation for, as Pomeroo calls it, "The Osama conondrum."
Its very simple, and would be to Pomeroo too, were he not as deluded as you.

This administration is completely incompetent. The 911 inside job was as bungled and as blatant an inside job as could be imagined. It has only succeeded in fooling simpletons and delusionals. Most people who get their hands on the correct information come to the correct conclusions. So please forget this idea that this is the most brilliantly conceived and executed masterplan in history, one that could have only have been performed by mega-brains- no. From the PH comment, to the sacking of Dick Clarke, to Mohabbat's testimony, to the 40 PDB's, to WTC7, and on and on, this job has the incompetence of the Bush admin stamped all over it. As I stated, they do know that most people, like you and Pomeroo, have grave difficulty in swallowing unpalatable truths, and this is what they are playing and profiting off

[Alt+F4]

The fact that OBL hasn't been formally charged, IMO, is evidence that it wasn't an inside job.

Wouldn't 'They' make damn sure he was charged if this was all a setup?

This is how the "truthers" think:
1. Evil government always lies.
2. Evil government says OBL not behind 9/11.
3. Since evil government always lies (see point 1) OBL is behind 9/11.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The 9/11 Truthers & CTists have not proven one single claim about 9/11. All of their claims are untrue & unproven. They need evidence to prove something true. So far there's no evidence on their behalf & their claims are untrue & unproven.

Bombs planted in WTC7 - UNTRUE & UNPROVEN :mad:
Controlled Demolition of WTC 1, 2, & 7 - UNTRUE & UNPROVEN :eek:
Molten Steel Found- UNTRUE & UNPROVEN :jaw-dropp
"No Planes" - UNTRUE & UNPROVEN :rolleyes:
Flt 93 lands in Ohio - UNTRUE & UNPROVEN :confused:
Flt 77 never hit Pentagon - UNTRUE & UNPROVEN :confused:
Missile hit Pentagon - UNTRUE & UNPROVEN :boxedin:
Government behind 9/11 attacks - UNTRUE & UNPROVEN :boggled:
9/11 Inside Job - UNTRUE & UNPROVEN :catfight:

[funk de fino]

No, since your post assumes that the president has no duty to protect US interests (embassies etc) abroad.


no it does not, read the quotes you posted again

They may very well have discussed threats to US assets abroad, who is disputing this? And how do you know nothing was done about the threats abroad?

second post says no indication of attack in the US and Tenet cannot recall discussing domestic threats

It does not claim this about overseas attacks or threats

So if they did not discuss the domestic threat or attack in the US how can he be accused of ignoring them?

Now you may find other evidence that he did but what you posted does not support your claim, especially when you use the "safely assume" get out of jail free card

You need to show that out of those 40 briefings he did discuss attacks in the US and that he discussed the domestic threat and blatantly ignored them

[funk de fino]

This administration is completely incompetent. The 911 inside job was as bungled and as blatant an inside job as could be imagined. It has only succeeded in fooling simpletons and delusionals. Most people who get their hands on the correct information come to the correct conclusions. So please forget this idea that this is the most brilliantly conceived and executed masterplan in history, one that could have only have been performed by mega-brains- no. From the PH comment, to the sacking of Dick Clarke, to Mohabbat's testimony, to the 40 PDB's, to WTC7, and on and on, this job has the incompetence of the Bush admin stamped all over it. As I stated, they do know that most people, like you and Pomeroo, have grave difficulty in swallowing unpalatable truths, and this is what they are playing and profiting off

Then why has nothing been done and why are all you pathetic people still posting on message boards about it instead of actually having the balls to do something real

6 years and no real proof in the most incompetent and bungled inside job ever, and no whistle blowers or real hard evidence

6 years?

what about the people on here, and there are many of them who detest bush and would gladly see him battered senseless for his foreign policies and quite shocking management of the economy, who would love to see bush hoist on his own petard?

what about all the non US citizens who like him probably even less

why do they not travel down your road with you?

only one reason mate, you have nothing, no proof, only your movements lies and speculations

cold hard facts are what it is going to take to convince rational people that your fairy story is true, and you have none

you will still be here discussing your interpretation of the PNAC document in another 6 years and nothing will have changed (except the POTUS)

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

9/11 Truthers & Conspiracists are going to drag this on just like their counterparts did with the JFK Assassination.

I wonder how many more years we'll have to endore with their lunacy? :eye-poppi

[Belz...]

This administration is completely incompetent. The 911 inside job was as bungled and as blatant an inside job as could be imagined. It has only succeeded in fooling simpletons and delusionals.

Mjd. Please listen: it is obvious from the information I've gathered that most people don't subscribe to your theory, so you're either calling most people delusional or simpleteons, or you're wrong about your numbers.

I'm going to ask you a very serious question: have you EVER considered that your interpretation of this event might be wrong ?

[MIKILLINI]

Mjd. Please listen: it is obvious from the information I've gathered that most people don't subscribe to your theory, so you're either calling most people delusional or simpleteons, or you're wrong about your numbers.

I'm going to ask you a very serious question: have you EVER considered that your interpretation of this event might be wrong ?

Good question Belz, and if it had been a really screwed up job, as Mjd has claimed, then someone should be having a "field" day with this information.
Most significantly, this info would have played out the most during the 2006 Congressional elections.

[mjd1982]

Good question Belz, and if it had been a really screwed up job, as Mjd has claimed, then someone should be having a "field" day with this information.
Most significantly, this info would have played out the most during the 2006 Congressional elections.
While I takea break from laughing at the predicted evasions (you guys really do run like clockwork!), I do want to say that this is a very important point to understanding 911, i.e. the reaction to the CT in public discourse. I will post a thread on it in a while; for the moment, I suggest you read/watch the following (I have posted this 4/5 times in the past

Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/pbpnn10.txt)

Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky/Herman (http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html]Propaganda by Edward Bernays[/url]

[url="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730&q=manufacturing+consent&total=83&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

BBC Political Editor interviews Chomsky re the Propaganda Model (http://youtube.com/watch?v=pkKsaRXrvSo)

Orwell's intro to Animal Farm (Unpublished)- "The Freedom of the Press" (http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/Orwell.html)

It took me a bit of time to get those links up, so please read at least one, as to avoid me having to do this a 5th time.

[funk de fino]

It took me a bit of time to get those links up, so please read at least one, as to avoid me having to do this a 5th time.

if you look at post # 202 and respond in a sensible manner

[Mobyseven]

Its very simple, and would be to Pomeroo too, were he not as deluded as you.

This administration is completely incompetent. The 911 inside job was as bungled and as blatant an inside job as could be imagined. It has only succeeded in fooling simpletons and delusionals. Most people who get their hands on the correct information come to the correct conclusions. So please forget this idea that this is the most brilliantly conceived and executed masterplan in history, one that could have only have been performed by mega-brains- no. From the PH comment, to the sacking of Dick Clarke, to Mohabbat's testimony, to the 40 PDB's, to WTC7, and on and on, this job has the incompetence of the Bush admin stamped all over it. As I stated, they do know that most people, like you and Pomeroo, have grave difficulty in swallowing unpalatable truths, and this is what they are playing and profiting off

If it has only simpletons and delusionals who have been fooled by the government, how come so many higher qualified structural engineers have been fooled? And why do the smartest people in the world appear to be college rejects and fifteen year olds?

[mjd1982]

If it has only simpletons and delusionals who have been fooled by the government, how come so many higher qualified structural engineers have been fooled? And why do the smartest people in the world appear to be college rejects and fifteen year olds?
Riiight... and why is the 911 inside job something that only engineers should be able to decipher?

[mjd1982]

no it does not, read the quotes you posted again

They may very well have discussed threats to US assets abroad, who is disputing this? And how do you know nothing was done about the threats abroad?

second post says no indication of attack in the US and Tenet cannot recall discussing domestic threats

It does not claim this about overseas attacks or threats

So if they did not discuss the domestic threat or attack in the US how can he be accused of ignoring them?

Now you may find other evidence that he did but what you posted does not support your claim, especially when you use the "safely assume" get out of jail free card

You need to show that out of those 40 briefings he did discuss attacks in the US and that he discussed the domestic threat and blatantly ignored them
I have addressed this already. Your readng comprehension skills are horrendous.

But this is a thread about the 911 Commission, and I dont wanna give the herd any more reason to evade.

We are about to discuss your point on the CF thread tomorrow. You can post it tomorrow, and I will respond for you there, because I am patient with slow people.

[defaultdotxbe]

Riiight... and why is the 911 inside job something that only engineers should be able to decipher?
no one said only engineers could decipher it, but if they have been fooled why does joe schmoe on the internet see right through it so easily?

[Par]

Its very simple, and would be to Pomeroo too, were he not as deluded as you.

This administration is completely incompetent. The 911 inside job was as bungled and as blatant an inside job as could be imagined. It has only succeeded in fooling simpletons and delusionals. Most people who get their hands on the correct information come to the correct conclusions. So please forget this idea that this is the most brilliantly conceived and executed masterplan in history, one that could have only have been performed by mega-brains- no. From the PH comment, to the sacking of Dick Clarke, to Mohabbat's testimony, to the 40 PDB's, to WTC7, and on and on, this job has the incompetence of the Bush admin stamped all over it. As I stated, they do know that most people, like you and Pomeroo, have grave difficulty in swallowing unpalatable truths, and this is what they are playing and profiting off



Word. Prejudicial Language Fallacy (http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/pl.htm).

[PhantomWolf]

Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky/Herman

BBC Political Editor interviews Chomsky re the Propaganda Model


And yet Chomsky himself thinks that 9/11 CTs are a bunch of kooky fruit loops. I guess he's on the Government paylist too. Oh dear, that means the above links are disinfo. Quick, run for your life before the MIB's in their black helicopters come to abduce you and plant a microchip in your brain to make you a sheeple.

[MIKILLINI]

And yet Chomsky himself thinks that 9/11 CTs are a bunch of kooky fruit loops. I guess he's on the Government paylist too. Oh dear, that means the above links are disinfo. Quick, run for your life before the MIB's in their black helicopters come to abduce you and plant a microchip in your brain to make you a sheeple.

:roll:
It's the end of the world as We know it. Imagine the impossibilities. :rolleyes:

[funk de fino]

I have addressed this already. Your readng comprehension skills are horrendous.

But this is a thread about the 911 Commission, and I dont wanna give the herd any more reason to evade.

We are about to discuss your point on the CF thread tomorrow. You can post it tomorrow, and I will respond for you there, because I am patient with slow people.

another avoidance Edited for civility

you have completely made an arse of it again, like the iraqi oil posts

you have once again accused me of stating or inferring or assuming something that i clearly did not

it is your quotes and you have misread them, not me, so get off your readings skills high horse, sunshine

and again snideness and rudeness

Edited for civility

[mjd1982]

And yet Chomsky himself thinks that 9/11 CTs are a bunch of kooky fruit loops. I guess he's on the Government paylist too. Oh dear, that means the above links are disinfo. Quick, run for your life before the MIB's in their black helicopters come to abduce you and plant a microchip in your brain to make you a sheeple.
What an odd chap you are.

I am not concerned over his beliefs re: 911 (about which I have corresponded with him many times), rather his Propaganda Model, a formulation which exists independent of him.

This should have been very easy to understand.

[gumboot]

Of the so-called "forty or more warnings" that the administration received that I personally have seen (someone had a website that listed them, but I've forgotten where I saw it), about.... two of them specifically mentioned attacks within the US. Two. Out of more than forty. The rest typically talked about attacks overseas on US interests or didn't mention attacks at all.

Just thought I'd share that.



It's also worth pointing out that a warning doesn't necessarily mean anything significant. The often-cited August 6 "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In USA" PDB basically said "Bin Laden wanted to attack us 3 years ago, we think he still probably does, and there's lots of FBI teams around the country investigating terrorism leads".

Hardly the "warning" that CTers claim it is.

I once believed that the 9/11 attacks were probably anticipated (in a general sense) and could have been stopped, but US arrogance and intelligence community incompetence ensured it happened.

I now, rather, believe that the attacks caught the US government (all branches) completely by surprise, and that it would have been impossible for the government to prevent the attacks without initiating measures that would have been unacceptable to the American public.

Indeed, even in the wake of 9/11, the American population complain loudly and often about increased security measures. Imagine such measures being implemented in 2000 or 2001 during a long period of relative peace?

Simply would not have happened.

-Gumboot

[mjd1982]

I will do as I have done on that other thread, and repost the question that none of you herd wish to answer- Given the comments of the Comm authors and initiators, lambasting it, do you feel that 911 deserves an adequately complete and effective report?

Get ready for silence...

[gumboot]

I will do as I have done on that other thread, and repost the question that none of you herd wish to answer- Given the comments of the Comm authors and initiators, lambasting it, do you feel that 911 deserves an adequately complete and effective report?

Get ready for silence...



The 9/11 attacks have been more thoroughly investigated and reported on than any other single event in the history of ever.

It's about time you people just let it go. Wounds don't heal if you keep picking at them.

-Gumboot

[stateofgrace]

I will do as I have done on that other thread, and repost the question that none of you herd wish to answer- Given the comments of the Comm authors and initiators, lambasting it, do you feel that 911 deserves an adequately complete and effective report?

Get ready for silence...

So why do these guys not agree with you?

http://www.interpol.int/Public/News/2006/RonaldNoble20060908.asp

Get ready for silence....

[Belz...]

Please answer my question, Mjd. It's actually very important: have you EVER considered that your interpretation of this event might be wrong ?

[Belz...]

Get ready for silence...

Funny how, every time you say this, a whole bunch of people answer.

[DGM]

Funny how, every time you say this, a whole bunch of people answer.
But he won't admit this unless he deems them sensible.

[MIKILLINI]

But he won't admit this unless he deems them sensible.

or propitious to his policy of stubborness. :rolleyes:

[Mobyseven]

Riiight... and why is the 911 inside job something that only engineers should be able to decipher?

I never said that only engineers should be able to 'decipher' that 9/11 was an inside job. But structural engineers would certainly be the people you would go to if you wanted to know what caused the buildings to fall down - and currently there is mass consensus that the planes and subsequent fires were what caused the collapses. That right there puts paid to any CD, DEW or therm*te conspiracy theories, and that's just for a start...

[mjd1982]

The 9/11 attacks have been more thoroughly investigated and reported on than any other single event in the history of ever.

It's about time you people just let it go. Wounds don't heal if you keep picking at them.

-Gumboot
Riiight... And your basis for saying this is...?

I dont think even Lee Hamilton agrees with you on this one.

[mjd1982]

So why do these guys not agree with you?

http://www.interpol.int/Public/News/2006/RonaldNoble20060908.asp

Get ready for silence....
What the hell does that link have to do with anything?

[mjd1982]

Please answer my question, Mjd. It's actually very important: have you EVER considered that your interpretation of this event might be wrong ?
So I will try again (losing count now).

Given that the report has been lambasted by many of its progenitors, do you feel that 911 deserves a report into it? One that is adequately effective and complete.

And if you feel it is already such, say so with reference to the comments of Cleland, Hamilton, the Jersey Girls et al.

6 pages; not one response to this question.

Here sheepy sheepy!

[Belz...]

So I will try again (losing count now).

Losing count ? Of what ? The number of answers you've gotten ?

Given that the report has been lambasted by many of its progenitors, do you feel that 911 deserves a report into it? One that is adequately effective and complete.

I feel that we have adequate knowledge of what happened. Why spend more tax dollars to discover something we already know ? Is the report perfect ? Probably not. Is ANY report perfect ?

Is that considered an answer ? Or do only the answers that agree with you qualify ?

Here sheepy sheepy!

There, wolfy wolfy!

[Belz...]

MJD, Please answer my question, now that I've answered yours. It's actually very important: have you EVER considered that your interpretation of this event might be wrong ?

I'm sure a simple yes or no will be easy for you.

[stateofgrace]

What the hell does that link have to do with anything?

So I will try again (losing count now).

Given that the report has been lambasted by many of its progenitors, do you feel that 911 deserves a report into it? One that is adequately effective and complete.

And if you feel it is already such, say so with reference to the comments of Cleland, Hamilton, the Jersey Girls et al.

6 pages; not one response to this question.

Here sheepy sheepy!

So why do these guys not agree with you?

http://www.interpol.int/Public/News/2006/RonaldNoble20060908.asp

Get ready for silence....

So Interpol are sheep, correct?

Oh the silence is deafening, please try again, try being civil, I find your desperate attempts to avoid anything that destroys your silly arguments amusing.

Oh by the way did you know Spain had indicted Bin laden for 911?

http://media.www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2003/09/18/News/Spain.Indicts.Bin.Laden.For.Attacks-1418654.shtml

More sheep , eh?

Gets ready for more deafening silence....

[mjd1982]

So Interpol are sheep, correct?

Oh the silence is deafening, please try again, try being civil, I find your desperate attempts to avoid anything that destroys your silly arguments amusing.

Oh by the way did you know Spain had indicted Bin laden for 911?

http://media.www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2003/09/18/News/Spain.Indicts.Bin.Laden.For.Attacks-1418654.shtml

More sheep , eh?

Gets ready for more deafening silence....
The Interpol post has nothing to do with 911.

The spanish obl business has nothign to do with anything I have ever said.

End.

***

Now, I will ask again. Given the overwhelming lampooning of the 911 Commission Report by its progenitors and authors, do you believe 911 needs a new investigation?

[stateofgrace]

The Interpol post has nothing to do with 911.

The spanish obl business has nothign to do with anything I have ever said.

End.

***

Now, I will ask again. Given the overwhelming lampooning of the 911 Commission Report by its progenitors and authors, do you believe 911 needs a new investigation?

Incorrect, the fact that you choose to dismiss it does not mean it has nothing to do with what you say. You have said repeatedly that people are sheep; you have posted mocking comments about sheep.

NOW answer the questions or be dismissed as a fool.

Are Interpol sheep?

Are the Spanish authorities who have not only indicted Bin Laden but actually charged and jailed 911 terror suspects sheep?

Are the German authorities who have charged and jailed 911 terror suspects’ sheep?

Silence and avoidance is no longer an option. You are saying 911 as not been investigated properly, not me, so stop avoiding genuine questions that will be asked of anybody who makes this charge.

Stop mocking, stop dismissing, either put up or shut up. * End*

[ZENSMACK89]

How is the 9-11 investigation good enough for anyone when it's not even good enough for the commissin themselves?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A03

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true."

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation,

[Par]

How is the 9-11 investigation good enough for anyone when it's not even good enough for the commissin themselves?


Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html

Eventually they told us we had the story right, they had it wrong, it took a while to get to that point, but we eventually got here. Did they lie to us or was it inadvertent? We are not a law enforcement agency, we did not have that kind of authority, going back to the mandate again. All of us had our suspicions here, but we simply did not have the staff and we were right up against the deadline when this came out, that we didn't have the time to say that these officials had willfully and intentionally lied.

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html



So, this was not a question of what actually happened concerning the attacks. It was a question of whether, during the investigation, NORAD gave the 9/11 Commission false information intentionally (to cover their mistakes) or inadvertently.

[Gravy]

MJD needs to look up "overwhelming" and "lampooning." I'm quite sure those words don't mean what he thinks they do.

[Gravy]

So, this was not a question of what actually happened concerning the attacks. It was a question of whether, during the investigation, NORAD gave the 9/11 Commission false information intentionally (to cover their mistakes) or inadvertently.Yes. NORAD screwed up in their testimony. That was dumb. But the reality was that they had no chance to intercept any of the planes on 9/11. Reality was better for their story than the timeline they initially gave.

[RedIbis]

Yes. NORAD screwed up in their testimony. That was dumb. But the reality was that they had no chance to intercept any of the planes on 9/11. Reality was better for their story than the timeline they initially gave.

I'm sticking my neck out on a limb here (now that's a mixed metaphor!) and guess that your opinion is based entirely on Bronner's Vanity Fair article.

[mjd1982]

MJD needs to look up "overwhelming" and "lampooning." I'm quite sure those words don't mean what he thinks they do.
"a national scandal"..."an utterly hollow report."..."a pathetic excuse of a report"..."a political cover-up"

Overwhelming. Lampooning.

Now, let's start addressing the points. Anyone?

[Par]

Given the overwhelming lampooning of the 911 Commission Report by its progenitors and authors, do you believe 911 needs a new investigation?



Do you have an example of this overwhelming lampooning by the authors? Who overwhelmingly lampooned and in which publication did this overwhelming lampooning take place?

[mjd1982]

Do you have an example of this overwhelming lampooning by the authors? Who overwhelmingly lampooned and in which publication did this overwhelming lampooning take place?
Reading the 1st post of this thread may be a good idea for you.

[stateofgrace]

Reading the 1st post of this thread may be a good idea for you.

Reading and answering questions maybe a good idea for you, you know the ones, I'm still waiting.

[ZENSMACK89]

http://www.nswbc.org/Press%20Releases/NSWBC-911Comm.htm

National Security Whistleblowers Coalition

The following Veteran National Security experts were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 Commission, even though they had direct and relevant information related to the Commission’s investigation

John M. Cole, Former Veteran Intelligence Operations Specialist; FBI
John Vincent, Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI
Robert Wright, Veteran Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI
Sibel Edmonds, Former Language Specialist; FBI
Behrooz Sarshar, Former Language Specialist; FBI
Mike German, Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI
Gilbert Graham, Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence; FBI
Coleen Rowley, Retired Division Counsel; FBI
Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer, DIA
Dick Stoltz, Retired Special Agent; ATF
Bogdan Dzakovic, Former Red Team Leader; FAA
Linda Lewis, Retired Emergency Programs Specialist; USDA
Mark Burton, Senior Analyst; NSA

[ZENSMACK89]

Senators question 'Phoenix memo' author
CNN
May 21, 2002

Coleen Rowley's Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller
TIME
Saturday, May. 25, 2002

Clarke: 9/11 might have been prevented
Intelligence coordination could have been crucial, ex-aide says
MSNBC
March 31, 2004

Ex-FBI Worker Challenges 9/11 'Lie'
Claims U.S. had warnings of airplane attacks
White House adviser's statements `not accurate'
by Tim Harper
April 5, 2004
Toronto Star

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006

Report Urges F.A.A. to Act Regarding False 9/11 Testimony
By PHILIP SHENON
NYT
September 2, 2006

Senators want CIA to release 9/11 report
"It's amazing the efforts the administration is going to stonewall this," Wyden said.
From the AP:
Thursday, May 17, 2007

[Par]

Reading the 1st post of this thread may be a good idea for you.



Reading the sixth may prove far more enlightening for you.

[Par]

The following Veteran National Security experts were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 Commission...



Is there any word on why?

[MIKILLINI]

Senators question 'Phoenix memo' author
CNN
May 21, 2002

Coleen Rowley's Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller
TIME
Saturday, May. 25, 2002[/B]

Are you a bit late to this game? I ask this question in the manner of how about you get more info on Coleen Rowley more recent than 5 years ago.

Clarke: 9/11 might have been prevented
Intelligence coordination could have been crucial, ex-aide says
MSNBC
March 31, 2004

How does that headline read? "Might have been prevented"? As opposed to could have been prevented.

Ex-FBI Worker Challenges 9/11 'Lie'
Claims U.S. had warnings of airplane attacks
White House adviser's statements `not accurate'
by Tim Harper
April 5, 2004
Toronto Star

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006

Report Urges F.A.A. to Act Regarding False 9/11 Testimony
By PHILIP SHENON
NYT
September 2, 2006

Senators want CIA to release 9/11 report
"It's amazing the efforts the administration is going to stonewall this," Wyden said.
From the AP:
Thursday, May 17, 2007

If you look past the usual politics being played out in the last statement, and understand the U.S. Constitution, then the statement above is disingenuous. If Congress (this Senator, especially) really wanted the CIA to release a report, they are the most qualified and empowered entity of government to make that happen.

[mjd1982]

Reading and answering questions maybe a good idea for you, you know the ones, I'm still waiting.
I have answered your point twice now (you have not answered mine)

What more do you want me to do?

[mjd1982]

Reading the sixth may prove far more enlightening for you.
You have qualified a comment from one of the people who was quoted. He states "our success". He does not, in your quote, state what this success was. Success in this regard could be getting the report finished. Or getting a semi-decent, in his eyes, report finished. Nonetheless, he states very clearly that this is "not the definitive account of 911". For him to state this means that there are a considerable number of questions left unanswered, by his implication, with regard to the actions of Bush and others. You are, apparently, contentm with the rest of your ilk, to let these questions slide. This is completely irresponsible.

More to the point, you have, along with your colleagues, ignored, wilfully, the rest of the quotes. So Max Cleland, who declared elements of the Commission "a national scandal". The views of the people who set the Comm up, who declared it a "cover up". These are the authoratative evaluations of the report. And to repeat the point I have been asking for 7 pages now,given the damning nature of these evaluations, and the importance of a complete report into the murder of 3000 people, why do you not support a new investigation into 911?

[gumboot]

More to the point, you have, along with your colleagues, ignored, wilfully, the rest of the quotes. So Max Cleland, who declared elements of the Commission "a national scandal". The views of the people who set the Comm up, who declared it a "cover up". These are the authoratative evaluations of the report. And to repeat the point I have been asking for 7 pages now,given the damning nature of these evaluations, and the importance of a complete report into the murder of 3000 people, why do you not support a new investigation into 911?



Quick question. What was the purpose of the 9/11 Commission?

-Gumboot