RedIbis on Significant 9/11 Commission Report Errors [Archive]

View Full Version : RedIbis on Significant 9/11 Commission Report Errors

Gravy

15th September 2007, 02:10 PM

This came up in my William Rodriguez thread.

Originally Posted by RedIbis http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2966046#post2966046)
Please. When did I say I couldn't point something that the Commission Report gets wrong? Clearly, you must be thinking of someone you don't have on ignore.

Have at it.

ZENSMACK89

15th September 2007, 04:49 PM

Hamilton:" I don’t believe for a minute that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history. We wrote it under a lot of time pressure, and we sorted through the evidence as best we could."

Civilized Worm

15th September 2007, 04:53 PM

Enough with the quotes, give some specific examples.

ZENSMACK89

15th September 2007, 04:57 PM

Enough with the quotes, give some specific examples.
I don't need anything but straight from the horses mouth.

Except for lip what do you have?

Civilized Worm

15th September 2007, 05:00 PM

If you can't think of anything they got wrong just say so.

gumboot

15th September 2007, 05:00 PM

I don't see how Hamilton not believing they got everything right is evidence of the Commission Report actually having errors in it.

-Gumboot

ZENSMACK89

15th September 2007, 05:03 PM

I don't see how Hamilton not believing they got everything right is evidence of the Commission Report actually having errors in it.

-Gumboot
Come again?

ZENSMACK89

15th September 2007, 05:04 PM

If you can't think of anything they got wrong just say so.
Next.

Drudgewire

15th September 2007, 05:05 PM

RedIbis has a lot of sock accounts apparently. :p

gumboot

15th September 2007, 05:06 PM

Come again?

Gravy is calling for things in the 9/11 Commission Report that are wrong.

You quoted Hamilton saying he didn't believe they got everything right. That's interesting, but it doesn't actually provide any evidence that anything in the Report is wrong, just that someone involved in it believes there might be things wrong.

If there's something wrong in the report, just name it. Surely that isn't hard. You have read it?

-Gumboot

twinstead

15th September 2007, 05:21 PM

Perhaps Hamilton could specify something he thinks the report got wrong, but since it appears he didn't mention any, and he's not here to clarify his statement, the onus is still on RedIbis, or the Master Investigator Zen of course, to present his own.

Bonus points for presenting something they got wrong that would make a reasonable person suspicious that the final conclusions of the report are bogus, but it's not mandatory.

T.A.M.

15th September 2007, 05:39 PM

ZENSMACK89

15th September 2007, 05:48 PM

Zen:

Hamilton was likely referring to how the commission report will be looked on, perhaps 50 years from now. Like any first draft or investigation of something, there is the higher likelihood of factual mistakes or incorrect extrapolations. Right now at present time, he certainly didn't reveal anything in particular he felt they got wrong, so why don't you do us all a favor and point out something in the report that is incorrect.

TAM:)
It's incomplete.

Hamilton: "I don’t believe for a minute that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history.
We wrote it under a lot of time pressure, and we sorted through the evidence as best we could.

Now, it would be really rather remarkable if we got everything right. So far, of the things that have been brought up challenging the report, to my knowledge, we have more credibility than the challenger. But I would not for a moment want to suggest that that’s always true, either in the past or in the future. People will be investigating 9/11 for the next hundred years in this country, and they’re going to find out some things that we missed here.

So I don’t automatically reject all the evidence you cite. It may be we missed it, it may be we ignored it when we shouldn’t have - I don’t think we did, but it's possible."

Incomplete is wrong.

ZENSMACK89

15th September 2007, 05:50 PM

Gravy is calling for things in the 9/11 Commission Report that are wrong.

You quoted Hamilton saying he didn't believe they got everything right. That's interesting, but it doesn't actually provide any evidence that anything in the Report is wrong, just that someone involved in it believes there might be things wrong.

If there's something wrong in the report, just name it. Surely that isn't hard. You have read it?

-Gumboot
Yes I have. It's incomplete and has earned the moniker "9/11 omission Report"

Incomplete is not accurate or correct. It's short of being correct.

Bell

15th September 2007, 05:52 PM

Yes I have. It's incomplete and has earned the moniker "9/11 omission Report"

Incomplete is not accurate or correct. It's short of being correct.

Awesome! Now, tell us what the aactual errors are in the 9/11 omission *giggle* report?

T.A.M.

15th September 2007, 05:53 PM

It's incomplete.

Hamilton: "I don’t believe for a minute that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history.
We wrote it under a lot of time pressure, and we sorted through the evidence as best we could.

Now, it would be really rather remarkable if we got everything right. So far, of the things that have been brought up challenging the report, to my knowledge, we have more credibility than the challenger. But I would not for a moment want to suggest that that’s always true, either in the past or in the future. People will be investigating 9/11 for the next hundred years in this country, and they’re going to find out some things that we missed here.

So I don’t automatically reject all the evidence you cite. It may be we missed it, it may be we ignored it when we shouldn’t have - I don’t think we did, but it's possible."

Incomplete is wrong.

Then all of history is wrong, as all of history is incomplete. The field of almost any science is incomplete, so are they all wrong as well?? Come on now...Incomplete does not equal WRONG.

Besides, the people here are not asking you or RedIbis to point out areas that are labeled by you or others to be "Incomplete", they are asking you to point our factual errors in the account given in the commission report.

TAM:)

T.A.M.

15th September 2007, 05:54 PM

Yes I have. It's incomplete and has earned the moniker "9/11 omission Report"

Incomplete is not accurate or correct. It's short of being correct.

Only in the paranoid delusional world of the 9/11 CTists has the report earned such a mistitle.

I do not see anyone outside the movement labelling it so.

TAM:)

Par

15th September 2007, 05:57 PM

It's incomplete.
Hamilton: "I don’t believe for a minute that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history.
We wrote it under a lot of time pressure, and we sorted through the evidence as best we could.
Now, it would be really rather remarkable if we got everything right. So far, of the things that have been brought up challenging the report, to my knowledge, we have more credibility than the challenger. But I would not for a moment want to suggest that that’s always true, either in the past or in the future. People will be investigating 9/11 for the next hundred years in this country, and they’re going to find out some things that we missed here.
So I don’t automatically reject all the evidence you cite. It may be we missed it, it may be we ignored it when we shouldn’t have - I don’t think we did, but it's possible."Incomplete is wrong.

This bit of equivocation is, of course, a fairly transparent attempt at a high-redefinition fallacy. In any event, by that measure there simply doesn’t exist (nor could there exist) an adequate investigation into a complex historical event.

ZENSMACK89

15th September 2007, 06:09 PM

gumboot

15th September 2007, 06:11 PM

Yes I have. It's incomplete and has earned the moniker "9/11 omission Report"

Incomplete is not accurate or correct. It's short of being correct.

Um... maybe in your world but not everyone else's.

What exactly was the 9/11 Commission Report incomplete regarding?

And please don't cite David Ray Griffen's Omissions and Distortions.

-Gumboot

Bell

15th September 2007, 06:15 PM

twinstead

15th September 2007, 06:17 PM

Really? Did 19 hijackers pull this off all on their own? Where's the money trail? Where's the hard evidence against UBL for an indictment? Is the 9/11 commission report a version of events or a whitewash of accountability? Who's been held accountable?

Accountable for training, planning, and financing.

Accountable for not stopping them.

Accountable for not protecting America on 9/11.

Accountable for stopping these questions from being answered.

19 ghosts? No one else?

It appears your problem with the report isn't any factual errors (you can't find any) but it's because you think it simply ignored all these 'connect the dots' things that CTs are so fond of.

Well that presents a problem for you. Now instead of calling the report bogus, you kind of have to prove these 'dots' are legitimate and constitute an omission.

See, IMHO this is where your movement gets bogged down. None of you appear to know how REAL investigations work. It's all about 'arguing by anomaly' and not actually describing ANY coherent alternate theory, much less presenting real, compelling evidence of one .

gumboot

15th September 2007, 06:20 PM

Really? Did 19 hijackers pull this off all on their own?

No. Al Qaeda pulled it off. The nineteen hijackers were just the pointy end of the stick, as it were.

Where's the money trail?

Al Qaeda has a myriad of threads for funding. The 9/11 attacks were pretty inexpensive, in comparison with Al Qaeda's estimated yearly operating budget.

Where's the hard evidence against UBL for an indictment?

The conditions for admitting evidence into a US court for indictment are very rigorous, including requiring chain of custody. Things like the video tapes released by Osama Bin Laden lack chain of custody.

Given that Osama Bin Laden is already indicted and wanted for other terrorist acts, indicting him for 9/11 is not really vital. He's already wanted.

I'm also of another view. The conflict between Radical Islam and the west is not criminal in nature. It cannot be solved by a court. The conflict is military in some places, but primarily ideological.

Focusing on convicting "criminals" for terrorist acts would, IMHO, be a poor use of resources.

Is the 9/11 commission report a version of events or a whitewash of accountability? Who's been held accountable?

Al Qaeda have been held accountable.

Accountable for training, planning, and financing.

Al Qaeda.

Accountable for not stopping them.

Except by random dumb luck, the attacks could not be stopped.

Accountable for not protecting America on 9/11.

As per above, the USA could not be protected on 9/11.

Accountable for stopping these questions from being answered.

All of these questions and more have been answered. If you don't like the answers, that's your problem.

19 ghosts? No one else?

Nineteen radical islamic militants, and a large support network of radical islamic militants, based in a radical islamic state. I don't believe in ghosts.

-Gumboot

Drudgewire

15th September 2007, 06:21 PM

See, IMHO this is where your movement gets bogged down. None of you appear to know how REAL investigations work. It's all about 'arguing by anomaly' and not actually describing ANY coherent alternate theory, much less presenting real, compelling evidence of one .

Oh I'm sure some know how real investigations work. They also know they don't have ANYTHING that would be given a second look in a real investigation so it's best not to go there.

twinstead

15th September 2007, 06:26 PM

Oh I'm sure some know how real investigations work. They also know they don't have ANYTHING that would be given a second look in a real investigation so it's best not to go there.

True. I suppose that's why they are here instead of knocking on the door of their local law enforcement agency, media outlet, or senator.

ZENSMACK89

15th September 2007, 06:31 PM

gumboot

15th September 2007, 06:32 PM

Incomplete is wrong period. Now I stated some things that were missing but there would also be the unknown missing things that could only be uncovered by a complete fully funded unimpeded unbiased investigation.

If you take test in school and you don't answer certain questions the questions will be marked wrong. An unanswered question is a wrong answer.

LOL

Sorry. I don't know what else to say. Conspiracy Theorists are funny.

-Gumboot

Civilized Worm

15th September 2007, 06:33 PM

The fossil record is incomplete! That means evolution didn't happen either!

yodaluver28

15th September 2007, 06:38 PM

The fossil record is incomplete! That means evolution didn't happen either!

If you ask a creationist, this is exactly the answer you'll get.

Drudgewire

15th September 2007, 06:41 PM

The fossil record is incomplete! That means evolution didn't happen either!
Also, neocons killed the dinosaurs with thermite.

Bell

15th September 2007, 06:43 PM

Incomplete is wrong period. Now I stated some things that were missing but there would also be the unknown missing things that could only be uncovered by a complete fully funded unimpeded unbiased investigation.

If you take test in school and you don't answer certain questions the questions will be marked wrong. An unanswered question is a wrong answer.

So, all you have is the fact that certains questions were not answered? What questions? Next you tell me these questions were never asked (ooh teh conspiraxy).

lol btw on your definition of a wrong answer.

Arus808

15th September 2007, 06:47 PM

I thought this was for Red Ibus....why is zen answering for red?

ZENSMACK89

15th September 2007, 06:50 PM

No. Al Qaeda pulled it off. The nineteen hijackers were just the pointy end of the stick, as it were.

Al qaeda is just another ghost without a tangible identity offered up for lack of real answers. Lack of an answer is a wrong answer.

Al Qaeda has a myriad of threads for funding. The 9/11 attacks were pretty inexpensive, in comparison with Al Qaeda's estimated yearly operating budget.

How do you know there is a large quantity of threads for funding if you can't even follow one of them? Not an answer just an excuse.

The conditions for admitting evidence into a US court for indictment are very rigorous, including requiring chain of custody. Things like the video tapes released by Osama Bin Laden lack chain of custody.

Why do those conditions exist? Is there hard evidence or not? So nothing has been answered in that regard.

Given that Osama Bin Laden is already indicted and wanted for other terrorist acts, indicting him for 9/11 is not really vital. He's already wanted.

We are not talking about other attacks in other countries during another administration. We're taking about what the 9/11 commission report set up by the present administration got right or wrong about 9/11. Still no answer. So still wrong.

I'm also of another view. The conflict between Radical Islam and the west is not criminal in nature. It cannot be solved by a court. The conflict is military in some places, but primarily ideological.

People have been held accountable for specific actions in past military conflicts. Still no answer there.

Focusing on convicting "criminals" for terrorist acts would, IMHO, be a poor use of resources.

Focusing on what exactly happened so that it doesn't happen again or worse should be the primary focus. This was not answered sufficiently but could be given a real investigation. Insufficient answers are wrong answers.

Drudgewire

15th September 2007, 06:54 PM

I thought this was for Red Ibus....why is zen answering for red?
In fairness to Zen, he was led here.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2966743&postcount=74

rwguinn

15th September 2007, 06:58 PM

Incomplete is wrong period. Now I stated some things that were missing but there would also be the unknown missing things that could only be uncovered by a complete fully funded unimpeded unbiased investigation.

If you take test in school and you don't answer certain questions the questions will be marked wrong. An unanswered question is a wrong answer.
:dl: :dl: :dl:
Physics --Newtonian and Relativistic--are both wrong. Chemistry--wrong. Mathematics--all wrong.
We might as well give up, and leave alkl the work to Ed.

Civilized Worm

15th September 2007, 07:09 PM

If you ask a creationist, this is exactly the answer you'll get.

I know, all these nutters think alike.

gumboot

15th September 2007, 07:12 PM

Al qaeda is just another ghost without a tangible identity offered up for lack of real answers. Lack of an answer is a wrong answer.

Al Qaeda is a militant islamic terrorist organisation originally based in Afghanistan, which developed after Osama Bin Laden seized control of, and renamed Maktab al-Khidamat, an organisation started by Bin Laden and Dr. Abdullah Azzam to channel funds and fighters into the Soviet-Afghan war. Bin Laden follows the teachings of the Muslim Brotherhood, who wish to reestablish an Islamic Caliphate from Spain to Indonesia.

Al Qaeda have enjoyed good relations with both Pakistan and the Taliban, and thanks to the funding network established by Maktab al-Khidamat and the personal fortune of Osama Bin Laden, have ample funds to execute terrorist acts, of which theirs tend to be the most spectacular, and primarily aimed at the United States.

After the 9/11 Attacks it has become common for semi-independent islamic terrorists to claim they are part of Al Qaeda, regardless of whether they have actually been through any of Al Qaeda's training camps or not.

Prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda recruited primarily young muslims and brought them to their training camp near Kandahar in Afghanistan. After training, Al Qaeda members would then depart to take part in various conflicts involving Muslims. These included Somalia, Bosnia, and Chechnya, to name a few.

In addition select members were tasked with carrying out attacks against the USA.

The fate of Al Qaeda at present is largely unknown. The initial military action in Afghanistan appears to have severely damaged their organisation, however after retreating to safety in Pakistan (where the US cannot follow them, and local support keeps them safe from Pakistan's half-hearted attempts to track them down) it appears they have reestablished themselves and are more than likely recovering.

How do you know there is a large quantity of threads for funding if you can't even follow one of them? Not an answer just an excuse.

Who said they cannot be followed? Many organisations have been closed down for funding islamic terrorism, including Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has the funding networked created by Maktab al-Khidamat, as well as considerable finances from individual members such as Osama Bin Laden. It's also more than likely that wealthy individuals and mosques across the Muslim world would be offering support to such an organisation. The 9/11 attacks cost a small fraction of the total amount estimated to be spent by Al Qaeda in a single year.

What cannot be traced is "who paid for the 9/11 attacks". That's like trying to work out which rate payer funded the resealing of your street. Hundreds, if not thousands of people and organisations fund Al Qaeda. They do not fund specific attacks. They fund the organisation. Al Qaeda then spends that money as they see fit. I dear say the 9/11 attacks probably lost them some funding, as many muslims would be willing to fund Jihad fighters in Chechnya or Bosnia, but not the killing of thousands of American civilians.

Why do those conditions exist?

To ensure that legal procedure always favours the defendant.

Is there hard evidence or not?

That really depends how you define "hard evidence". Is there sufficient evidence to prove to most sensible minded people that Al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks? Yes. Is there sufficient evidence to indict Osama Bin Laden for the attacks? No.

We are not talking about other attacks in other countries during another administration. We're taking about what the 9/11 commission report set up by the present administration got right or wrong about 9/11. Still no answer. So still wrong.

I'm not sure what the 9/11 Commission has to do with indicting Osama Bin Laden for 9/11. Surely you realise only a US high court can indict him yes? And you realise the 9/11 Commission is not a court, I assume?

People have been held accountable for specific actions in past military conflicts.

Al Qaeda have been held accountable. You must have missed that.

Focusing on what exactly happened so that it doesn't happen again or worse should be the primary focus. This was not answered sufficiently but could be given a real investigation. Insufficient answers are wrong answers.

Again with your nonsense. We know exactly what happened. We know how it happened. We know how to prevent it. Will it be prevented next time? I don't know. There's always holes. The American people are not overly keen on the measures needed to plug all of those holes.

I predict that over time, as the spectre of terrorism fades, more and more of those plugs will be removed, and more holes will appear, until they strike again. Above all else, Americans enjoy their freedom. Freedom leaves you open to attack. It's just the way it is.

Personally, although I am not an American, I would suggest that enjoying those freedoms is worth suffering the odd attack.

-Gumboot

WildCat

15th September 2007, 07:37 PM

RedIbis seems to have this thread on ignore... [gomer]Surprise! Surprise! Surprise![/pyle]

And his buddy Zensmack can't seem to find an error either, funny that!

ZENSMACK89

15th September 2007, 07:40 PM

Al Qaeda is a militant islamic terrorist organisation originally based in Afghanistan, which developed after Osama Bin Laden seized control of, and renamed Maktab al-Khidamat, an organisation started by Bin Laden and Dr. Abdullah Azzam to channel funds and fighters into the Soviet-Afghan war. Bin Laden follows the teachings of the Muslim Brotherhood, who wish to reestablish an Islamic Caliphate from Spain to Indonesia.

Al Qaeda have enjoyed good relations with both Pakistan and the Taliban, and thanks to the funding network established by Maktab al-Khidamat and the personal fortune of Osama Bin Laden, have ample funds to execute terrorist acts, of which theirs tend to be the most spectacular, and primarily aimed at the United States.

After the 9/11 Attacks it has become common for semi-independent islamic terrorists to claim they are part of Al Qaeda, regardless of whether they have actually been through any of Al Qaeda's training camps or not.

Prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda recruited primarily young muslims and brought them to their training camp near Kandahar in Afghanistan. After training, Al Qaeda members would then depart to take part in various conflicts involving Muslims. These included Somalia, Bosnia, and Chechnya, to name a few.

In addition select members were tasked with carrying out attacks against the USA.

The fate of Al Qaeda at present is largely unknown. The initial military action in Afghanistan appears to have severely damaged their organisation, however after retreating to safety in Pakistan (where the US cannot follow them, and local support keeps them safe from Pakistan's half-hearted attempts to track them down) it appears they have reestablished themselves and are more than likely recovering.

Really? So does Chertoff just have an upset stomach? I know it's unknown. That's because it's a ghost. BTW I noticed no mention of the CIA in your little revisionism there. But I guess that’s for another thread and another day.

Who said they cannot be followed?

You that's who. Keep reading your own answer. Did the 9/11 commission get the financing question correct?

Many organizations have been closed down for funding islamic terrorism, including Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has the funding networked created by Maktab al-Khidamat, as well as considerable finances from individual members such as Osama Bin Laden. It's also more than likely that wealthy individuals and mosques across the Muslim world would be offering support to such an organisation. The 9/11 attacks cost a small fraction of the total amount estimated to be spent by Al Qaeda in a single year.

What cannot be traced is "who paid for the 9/11 attacks". That's like trying to work out which rate payer funded the resealing of your street. Hundreds, if not thousands of people and organisations fund Al Qaeda. They do not fund specific attacks. They fund the organisation. Al Qaeda then spends that money as they see fit. I dear say the 9/11 attacks probably lost them some funding, as many muslims would be willing to fund Jihad fighters in Chechnya or Bosnia, but not the killing of thousands of American civilians.

To ensure that legal procedure always favours the defendant.

That's right. The evidence has to be proven valid. There is none for UBL that can be considered this in regards to 9/11. Thus no indictment. Did the 9/11 commission come up with any?

That really depends how you define "hard evidence". Is there sufficient evidence to prove to most sensible minded people that Al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks? Yes. Is there sufficient evidence to indict Osama Bin Laden for the attacks? No.

The FBI would define it as something that could secure an indictment. They don't have any for UBL in regards to 9/11 and the commission didn't find any.

I'm not sure what the 9/11 Commission has to do with indicting Osama Bin Laden for 9/11. Surely you realise only a US high court can indict him yes? And you realise the 9/11 Commission is not a court, I assume?

The 9/11 commission could have uncovered evidence for the FBI to secure an indictment. But nope.

Al Qaeda have been held accountable. You must have missed that.

Yeah I missed where they all went to jail.

Again with your nonsense. We know exactly what happened. We know how it happened. We know how to prevent it. Will it be prevented next time? I don't know. There's always holes. The American people are not overly keen on the measures needed to plug all of those holes.

We know we were attacked. We don't know exactly how it went down so we can't be sure it or something worse won't happen in the future. Thus the investigation a failure.

ZENSMACK89

15th September 2007, 07:49 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report

Alleged omissions

* Friday Times, a Pakistani weekly paper, wrote in March of 2006 that the Pakistan foreign office spent "tens of thousands of dollars" lobbying to get anti-Pakistan findings omitted from the final version of the Commission Report. The Pakistani newspaper also wrote, "Insiders . . . say the US Congress does not know about the fact that money was paid to the inquiry commission to silence it."

* In a 2004 interview, Bernard Gwertzman, of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated of the Report: "Again, one of the great problems in the commission report is that it looked at exactly one issue— counterterrorism— and none of the others. But [U.S.] intelligence users consist of more than 1 million people, many of them in uniform, and when you talk about budgeting and programming authority, you have to consider that. . . Many of these conclusions are probably very valuable. But this is a 13-chapter report. Eleven chapters are a masterful description of what happened and what went wrong that led to the 9/11 attack. There is no chapter that explains what people did after 9/11. There is no chapter that qualifies that this is only one of many problems in intelligence and intelligence reform."[6]

* The report did not include testimony by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta which describes the situation in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center with Vice President Cheney as American Airlines Flight 77 approached the Pentagon on 9/11/01: "There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And--" Yet despite such a detailed description of the events that day, the only mention of Mineta in the Commission Report is on p. 326, that Mineta was part of a group that met with Bush at the end of September 11 to review the events of the day.[7]

* The report did not include the testimony of FAA counter-terrorism expert Bogdan Dzakovic, who stated to the Commission: "We breached security up to 90 percent of the time. The FAA suppressed these warnings. Instead, we were ordered not to write up our reports and not to retest airports where we found particularly egregious vulnerabilities, to see if the problems had been fixed. Finally, the agency started providing advance notification of when we would be conducting our 'undercover' tests and what we would be 'checking.' . . . What happened on 9/11 was not a failure in the system. Our airports are not safer now than before 9/11. The main difference between then and now is that life is now more miserable for passengers." He also described later, in an interview, the same situation which occurred for virtually all government officials following the 9/11 attacks: "Many of the FAA bureaucrats that actively thwarted improvements in security prior to 9/11 have been promoted by FAA or the Transportation Security Administration." [8]

* The report did not include the testimony of Former CIA director George Tenet to the Commission in January of 2004 in which he said that in a July, 2001 meeting with Condoleezza Rice, he had warned of an imminent threat from al-Qaeda. Commission members Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton stated that they had not been told about the meeting. But the Boston Globe reported that "it turns out that the panel was, in fact, told about the meeting, according to the interview transcript and Democratic Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste, who sat in on the interview with Tenet."[9], [10]

* The report did not include the testimony of World Trade Center janitor William Rodriguez, who reported explosions in the basement of the North Tower, moments before the first plane hit.[11]

Alleged inaccuracies

* The report states: "The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States -- and using them as guided missiles -- was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11." (The Report repeats the assertion three times.) Yet a USA Today article, "NORAD had drills of jets as weapons" describes a pre-9/11 NORAD drill involving hijacked jetliners from airports in Utah and Washington state. [12] (As an aside, the Report does mention briefly on page 537 the case of Samuel Byck who attempted to hijack a jetliner to crash into the White House in 1974, resulting in the deaths of an airport police officer and a pilot as well as his own suicide.)

* The report states[13]: "The protocols did not contemplate an intercept. They assumed the fighter escort would be discreet, 'vectored to a position five miles directly behind the hijacked aircraft,' where it could perform its mission to monitor the aircraft's flight path." Yet the FAA order referenced by the footnote for this statement (Order 7610.4J: Special Military Operations), states[14]:

7-2-1. FACILITY NOTIFICATION

The FAA hijack coordinator will advise the appropriate center/control tower of the identification of the military unit and location tasked to provide the hijack escort. The center/control tower shall coordinate with the designated NORAD SOCC/ROCC/military unit advising of the hijack aircraft's location, direction of flight, altitude, type aircraft and recommended flight plan to intercept the hijack aircraft. The center/control tower shall file the coordinated flight plan.

Now here's something it seemed to get right...

Literary criticism

Although government reports are not known for their prose, the Report garnered much praise for its literary qualities. Richard Posner, writing for the New York Times, praised it as "uncommonly lucid, even riveting" and called it "an improbable literary triumph". The Report rose to the top of several bestseller lists and was praised by reviewers for its readability and narrative strength. In a surprising move, the National Book Foundation named the Report a finalist in its 2004 National Book Awards's non-fiction category.

Wow. You think the movie will deviate from the book? They always do.

firecoins

15th September 2007, 08:01 PM

We are not talking about other attacks in other countries during another administration. We're taking about what the 9/11 commission report set up by the present administration got right or wrong about 9/11. Still no answer. So still wrong.
Your bias is showing. The Bush administration and the Republican Congress oppossed the 9/11 commission. The commission was set up at the urging of the families of victims of 9/11.

Of course an independant investigation would consist of what exactly? If this independant investigation comes back with an Al Qeida plot beyond any doubt, would accept its conclusions or call for yet another investigation?

twinstead

15th September 2007, 08:02 PM

ZENSMACK89

15th September 2007, 09:37 PM

Your bias is showing. The Bush administration and the Republican Congress oppossed the 9/11 commission. The commission was set up at the urging of the families of victims of 9/11.

Of course an independant investigation would consist of what exactly? If this independant investigation comes back with an Al Qeida plot beyond any doubt, would accept its conclusions or call for yet another investigation?
I didn't come up with the thread. That's what the thread is about.

Al Qeida plot beyond any doubt?

I would accept.

Good Lt

15th September 2007, 09:41 PM

Alleged omissions

Alleged inaccuracies

Why is that word "alleged" in there? Doesn't that mean that the accusations haven't been proven true? Hence, they're allegations?

Good Lt

15th September 2007, 09:42 PM

Yes, that's what alleged means. I'm not going to wait for Zen to answer.

Corsair 115

15th September 2007, 09:42 PM

IAl Qeida plot beyond any doubt?

I would accept.You'd make for an interesting jury member at a trial. You'd never vote to convict the defendant regardless of the evidence presented since your standard of proof is not the legal "beyond a reasonable doubt" but instead is, apparently, "beyond any doubt."

Acquittals for everyone!

ZENSMACK89

15th September 2007, 09:52 PM

Zen it appears you fault the commission for not investigating things that you or your sources consider anomalies.

Shouldn't you make a case for these things to even be considered for investigation before you accuse the commission of omitting them on purpose?

No. Considering the record of some people at this point in time they should be the ones to have to prove 9/11 in the one thing they did get right. As it stands it falls way short.

ZENSMACK89

15th September 2007, 09:53 PM

PhantomWolf

15th September 2007, 10:05 PM

Well since Zen doesn't seem to be able to come up with any actual errors that are in the report, instead goes on about things he thinks it should have had and doesn't, I'll put one out there.

The Report makes the erronous claim that the Buildings collapsed in Ten Seconds.

Alareth

15th September 2007, 10:30 PM

I didn't come up with the thread. That's what the thread is about.

No. This thread is about identifying errors in the report that RedIbis makes reference to but never identifies.

You are the one that grabbed the ball and started running to the wrong endzone.

An error and an omission are different things.

ZENSMACK89

15th September 2007, 10:33 PM

The omissions are the biggest thing wrong with the report. If you want more look at post #40.... the whole thing.

As for the Ten Seconds I'm sure someone will claim it's not significant which will be the default answer for anything found inaccurate in the report.

ZENSMACK89

15th September 2007, 10:35 PM

No. This thread is about identifying errors in the report that RedIbis makes reference to but never identifies.

You are the one that grabbed the ball and started running to the wrong endzone.

An error and an omission are different things.
I didn't grab anything. It was handed off to me. As for me running with it I'm sorry you can't keep up just don't miss my end zone dance.

ZENSMACK89

15th September 2007, 10:37 PM

Yes, that's what alleged means. I'm not going to wait for Zen to answer.
It means they're alledged inaccurate until someone answers for them. I don't see anyone stepping up to the plate.

pomeroo

15th September 2007, 10:42 PM

No. Al Qaeda pulled it off. The nineteen hijackers were just the pointy end of the stick, as it were.

Al Qaeda has a myriad of threads for funding. The 9/11 attacks were pretty inexpensive, in comparison with Al Qaeda's estimated yearly operating budget.

The conditions for admitting evidence into a US court for indictment are very rigorous, including requiring chain of custody. Things like the video tapes released by Osama Bin Laden lack chain of custody.

Given that Osama Bin Laden is already indicted and wanted for other terrorist acts, indicting him for 9/11 is not really vital. He's already wanted.

I'm also of another view. The conflict between Radical Islam and the west is not criminal in nature. It cannot be solved by a court. The conflict is military in some places, but primarily ideological.

Focusing on convicting "criminals" for terrorist acts would, IMHO, be a poor use of resources.

Al Qaeda have been held accountable.

Al Qaeda.

Except by random dumb luck, the attacks could not be stopped.

As per above, the USA could not be protected on 9/11.

All of these questions and more have been answered. If you don't like the answers, that's your problem.

Nineteen radical islamic militants, and a large support network of radical islamic militants, based in a radical islamic state. I don't believe in ghosts.

-Gumboot

Bravo, Gumboot. You've exposed another charlatan.

pomeroo

15th September 2007, 10:45 PM

Really? So does Chertoff just have an upset stomach? I know it's unknown. That's because it's a ghost. BTW I noticed no mention of the CIA in your little revisionism there. But I guess that’s for another thread and another day.

You that's who. Keep reading your own answer. Did the 9/11 commission get the financing question correct?

That's right. The evidence has to be proven valid. There is none for UBL that can be considered this in regards to 9/11. Thus no indictment. Did the 9/11 commission come up with any?

The FBI would define it as something that could secure an indictment. They don't have any for UBL in regards to 9/11 and the commission didn't find any.

The 9/11 commission could have uncovered evidence for the FBI to secure an indictment. But nope.

Yeah I missed where they all went to jail.

We know we were attacked. We don't know exactly how it went down so we can't be sure it or something worse won't happen in the future. Thus the investigation a failure.

Quite a disgraceful performance, even for a fantasist. Your evil movement is nearly dead. Why prolong the agony?

ZENSMACK89

15th September 2007, 10:46 PM

Bravo, Gumboot. You've exposed another charlatan.
Way to come with the one-sided revisionism of a post and reply. Explains a lot.

pomeroo

15th September 2007, 10:51 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report

Alleged omissions

* The report did not include testimony by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta which describes the situation in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center with Vice President Cheney as American Airlines Flight 77 approached the Pentagon on 9/11/01: "There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And--" Yet despite such a detailed description of the events that day, the only mention of Mineta in the Commission Report is on p. 326, that Mineta was part of a group that met with Bush at the end of September 11 to review the events of the day.[7]

Stop lying. Mineta's testimony was purposely omitted because his timeline had been discredited by other witnesses and phone logs. The plane in the conversation between Cheney and the military aide did not exist. No plane was approaching Washington, D.C. They were looking at a flight path for Flight 93, which had already crashed.

* The report did not include the testimony of Former CIA director George Tenet to the Commission in January of 2004 in which he said that in a July, 2001 meeting with Condoleezza Rice, he had warned of an imminent threat from al-Qaeda. Commission members Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton stated that they had not been told about the meeting. But the Boston Globe reported that "it turns out that the panel was, in fact, told about the meeting, according to the interview transcript and Democratic Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste, who sat in on the interview with Tenet."[9], [10]

Tell us why Tenet rejects your fantasies about an imaginary conspiracy.

* The report did not include the testimony of World Trade Center janitor William Rodriguez, who reported explosions in the basement of the North Tower, moments before the first plane hit.[11]

You may have heard that Willie has changed his story a bit.

pomeroo

15th September 2007, 10:53 PM

Way to come with the one-sided revisionism of a post and reply. Explains a lot.

Show us ONE piece of real evidence that supports your fantasies.

Show us ONE specific error in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Alareth

15th September 2007, 10:54 PM

Way to come with the one-sided revisionism of a post and reply. Explains a lot.

Actually, Ron is just somewhat quote impaired. We're working on it though. Baby steps.

pomeroo

15th September 2007, 10:56 PM

Actually, Ron is just somewhat quote impaired. We're working on it though. Baby steps.

Huh? I simply cut irrelevant material. We're asking them to show errors in the report. We haven't seen any yet.

WildCat

15th September 2007, 11:57 PM

The omissions are the biggest thing wrong with the report.
So now your conspiracy theory rests not on evidence, no matter how slim, but on the fact that the 9/11 Commission didn't address every single halfass allegation that could be pulled from some truthers rectum?

Sorry Zenster, it's up to you and the factually challenged truth movement to provide evidence for whatever ridiculous theory you have. So what is your theory, and what evidence do you have to support it?

RedIbis

16th September 2007, 08:46 AM

This came up in my William Rodriguez thread.

Have at it.

Wow, so this is what happens when I actually go out on a Saturday night.

I had to get out early yesterday because I had the foolish notion that I would build my own PC from scratch. I started Friday morning, by Saturday morning I had finally realized that the processor was not compatible with the motherboard, and spent rest of the day trying to get it to work. I was going to lose my girl if I didn't spend some time with her last night.

But enough of my drama.

Mark, you don't get to frame the debate. I told you from day one that I was not impressed with your strategy nor your bullying tactics on here.

Your claim was that I said that I couldn't find anything wrong in the Commission Report.

Instead of actually quoting me saying that, you decided to set up thread challenging me to provide info that you would inevitably pick apart.

Honest, fair debate doesn't work like that.

If you want to debate the merits of, omissions, distortions, deceptions and outright falsities of the Report, that's one thing, but I'm not very much impressed by your transparent attempts at shutting me up.

Obviously, if you want to debate you'd have to begin by taking me off ignore and admitting that I'm an opponent worthy of respect. Otherwise, no go.

But to prove that I have no problem criticizing the Report and can discuss its flaws in detail, I would start with the Preface of that dramatic text where they promise to provide "the fullest possible account."

Knowing that they did not discuss the money trail, WTC 7, and General Mahmood Ahmed, they did not provide the "fullest possible account" and their charge, is therefore wrong.

Gravy

16th September 2007, 08:54 AM

Thanks for your reply, RedIbis. Your ignorance of the subject and inability to back your tough talk with facts are noted. Back to ignore you go.

Par

16th September 2007, 09:16 AM

Your claim was that I said that I couldn't find anything wrong in the Commission Report... If you want to debate the merits of, omissions, distortions, deceptions and outright falsities of the Report, that's one thing, but I'm not very much impressed by your transparent attempts at shutting me up... But to prove that I have no problem criticizing the Report and can discuss its flaws in detail, I would start with the Preface of that dramatic text where they promise to provide "the fullest possible account." Knowing that they did not discuss the money trail, WTC 7, and General Mahmood Ahmed, they did not provide the "fullest possible account" and their charge, is therefore wrong.

The claim was that you are unable to highlight significant errors in the report. Even if your criticisms were accurate, the fact that the report describes itself as the “fullest account possible” and yet you do not agree does not constitute a significant error. You allude to “outright falsities” etc. If these are significant, then they will qualify.

(Incidentally, the report indeed did discuss the money trail. It spent a sub-section on it. You would know this if you had read it. The commission also released a monograph solely devoted to the issue. Further, the report didn’t spend much time on World Trade Center 7 because it’s not an engineering report. Investigations into building collapses are the responsibility of NIST.)

ETA: Here is what the report actually says regarding "the fullest possible account":

Our aim has not been to assign individual blame. Our aim has been to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11 and to identify lessons learned.

Corsair 115

16th September 2007, 09:22 AM

Those aren't my words just what was asked of me. Yes, and you said, "beyond any doubt." Hence my reply. You are requiring a level of certainty that does not exist in the world.

uk_dave

16th September 2007, 09:27 AM

I had to get out early yesterday because I had the foolish notion that I would build my own PC from scratch. I started Friday morning, by Saturday morning I had finally realized that the processor was not compatible with the motherboard, and spent rest of the day trying to get it to work. I was going to lose my girl if I didn't spend some time with her last night.

Ahhhhhh always pays to get a motherboard/cpu bundle.

Less chance of breaking the bloody thing when trying to secure the heatsink too :wink8:

RedIbis

16th September 2007, 09:34 AM

Ahhhhhh always pays to get a motherboard/cpu bundle.

Less chance of breaking the bloody thing when trying to secure the heatsink too :wink8:

It was pure stubornness that made me think I could do it, but alas, I did.

Anyone need a perfectly good motherboard?

I might sand down the circuits and make it into a pizza dish.

RedIbis

16th September 2007, 09:40 AM

Thanks for your reply, RedIbis. Your ignorance of the subject and inability to back your tough talk with facts are noted. Back to ignore you go.

That's fine. On several occassions I've pointed out your hyperbole, and if ignorance is the act of ignoring, I've pointed out where you have cherrypicked your first responder quotes while ignoring quotes that contradict your account.

You can call me what you want, but few people on this board are going to agree that I'm ignorant of the official story.

You're a valuable member of this forum, but you do no one any service with a condescending attitude and exaggeration.

You'd have more credibility if you just did what you said and left me on ignore, but this selective ignoring and then bouncing back and forth, smacks of desperation and defeat. Good luck trying to ignore this.

Civilized Worm

16th September 2007, 10:33 AM

You may have heard that Willie has changed his story a bit.

Indeed, Rodriguez was still describing a fire ball at that point.

JamesB

16th September 2007, 10:34 AM

Trying to argue that if Hamilton thinks the report is incomplete, that this somehow supports the truther view is hilarious. Does anyone picture Hamiltion thinking "Damn, I forgot to mention that the US government carried out the attack! I should have put that in the footnotes somewhere."

An aside from just being ignorant, arguing that Al Qaeda does not exist is insulting. I have had friends killed by them. Do you think they just shot themselves?

Miss Anthrope

16th September 2007, 10:54 AM

Some of the personal bickering has been split to AAH. Remember rule 12...stop making it personal and address the argument, not the arguer.

ZENSMACK89

16th September 2007, 11:04 AM

Yes, and you said, "beyond any doubt." Hence my reply. You are requiring a level of certainty that does not exist in the world.

I was answering the question exactly as it was put to me.

One more time…

"If this independant investigation comes back with an Al Qeida plot beyond any doubt, would accept its conclusions or call for yet another investigation?"

Yes I would.

Now if that’s not a sufficient answer then maybe it’s because the question is lacking to begin with.

T.A.M.

16th September 2007, 11:08 AM

RedIbis

16th September 2007, 11:39 AM

Corsair 115

16th September 2007, 11:54 AM

I was answering the question exactly as it was put to me. And the natural follow-up is to ask just how much and in what other areas do you require the "beyond any doubt" level of proof? Do you require that standard in criminal cases? Do you require that level of proof for scientific theories?

If the answer is no, then why do you require one level of proof for the 9/11 Commission Report and a different level of proof in other areas such as science or legal cases?

How exactly does one achieve the "beyond any doubt" level of proof anyway? Is it even possible?

All of the above are entirely legitimate questions which your own words raise.

ZENSMACK89

16th September 2007, 11:54 AM

doubt is subjective, therefore, I suspect, for you Zen, there will always be doubt, so "yes" was an easy answer for you, wasnt it?

In your mind, omission is "wrong". That does not mean that the report itself is factually incorrect, it merely means that you feel they were "wrong" to omit aspect YOU feel should have been addressed.

So unless you can provide an example of Factual Error, or RedIbis do the same, then you must admit that from a factual perspective, the commission report contains no errors, as we presently know.

TAM:)

The omission of facts and testimony is to be factually inaccurate period. Now that being said I've also pointed to where others have alleged the report to also be inaccurate on specific topics. Go back and read. Here's some more if it makes you happy...

The 9/11 Commission Report asserts that only three of the alleged hijackers were known to U.S. intelligence agencies prior to 9/11; Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi, and Khalid al-Mihdar. There is no mention in the Report that the names and photographs of alleged hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi and alleged ring-leader Mohamed Atta had been identified by the Department of Defense antiterrorist program known as Able Danger more than a year prior to 9/11 and that they were known to be affiliates of al-Qaida. Able Danger also identified Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdar. - http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Here's some more...

Fox News Article 8/23/05: "I will not discuss this outside of my chain of command. I have briefed the Department of the Army, the Special Operations Command and the office of (Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence) Dr. Cambone as well as the 9/11 Commission. My story has remained consistent. Atta was identified by Able Danger in January/February 2000." - Capt. Scott J. Phillpott, U.S. Navy – Commanding Officer of the guided-missile cruiser USS Leyte Gulf. Former head of the Able Danger data mining program that targeted Al Qaeda’s global structure.

Here's some more...

"I find your report seriously flawed in its failure to address serious intelligence issues that I am aware of, which have been confirmed, and which as a witness to the commission, I made you aware of. Thus, I must assume that other serious issues that I am not aware of were in the same manner omitted from your report. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations." - Sibel D. Edmonds – Witness before the 9/11 Commission

And some more...

"[W]e the undersigned wish to bring to the attention of the Congress and the people of the United States what we believe are serious shortcomings in the report and its recommendations. …

Omission is one of the major flaws in the Commission’s report. We are aware of significant issues and cases that were duly reported to the commission by those of us with direct knowledge, but somehow escaped attention. …

The omission of such serious and applicable issues and information by itself renders the report flawed, and casts doubt on the validity of many of its recommendations. ...

The Commission, with its incomplete report of "facts and circumstances", intentional avoidance of assigning accountability, and disregard for the knowledge, expertise and experience of those who actually do the job, has now set about pressuring our Congress and our nation to hastily implement all its recommendations. ...

We the undersigned, who have worked within various government agencies (FBI, CIA, FAA, DIA, Customs) responsible for national security and public safety, call upon you in Congress to include the voices of those with first-hand knowledge and expertise in the important issues at hand. We stand ready to do our part."

Edward J. Costello, Jr., John M. Cole, Mark Conrad, JD, Rosemary N. Dew, Bogdan Dzakovic, Sibel D. Edmonds, Steve Elson, David Forbes, Melvin A. Goodman, Mark Graf, Gilbert M. Graham, Diane Kleiman, Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, Lynne A. Larkin, David MacMichael, PhD, Raymond L. McGovern, Theodore J. Pahle, Behrooz Sarshar, Brian F. Sullivan, Commander Larry J. Tortorich, Jane A. Turner, John B. Vincent, Fred Whitehurst, JD, PhD, Col. Ann Wright, Matthew J. Zipoli,

ZENSMACK89

16th September 2007, 11:55 AM

And the natural follow-up is to ask just how much and in what other areas do you require the "beyond any doubt" level of proof? Do you require that standard in criminal cases? Do you require that level of proof for scientific theories?

If the answer is no, then why do you require one level of proof for the 9/11 Commission Report and a different level of proof in other areas such as science or legal cases?

How exactly does one achieve the "beyond any doubt" level of proof anyway? Is it even possible?

All of the above are entirely legitimate questions which your own words raise.
Follow up to me or follow up to the one who posed the question?

Corsair 115

16th September 2007, 12:01 PM

Follow up to me or follow up to the one who posed the question?They're simple questions for you raised by your own words. You're the one who raised the "beyond any doubt" level of proof — so explain it, justify it, and make it clear when, how, and why it applies.

ZENSMACK89

16th September 2007, 02:51 PM

They're simple questions for you raised by your own words. You're the one who raised the "beyond any doubt" level of proof — so explain it, justify it, and make it clear when, how, and why it applies.
No. I did not raise "beyond any doubt "level of proof. That was raised to me. Your asking the wrong person.

ktesibios

16th September 2007, 03:32 PM

You'd make for an interesting jury member at a trial. You'd never vote to convict the defendant regardless of the evidence presented since your standard of proof is not the legal "beyond a reasonable doubt" but instead is, apparently, "beyond any doubt."

Acquittals for everyone!

Except that troofers seem generally ready to assume that accusation=guilt if the accused is someone they don't like. Drift into that territory and you find attitudes that are sufficiently authoritarian to make a John Yoo feel all warm and fuzzy.

A jury made up of paranoid conspiracy theorists wouldn't need to deal with evidence or the notion of standards of proof. Their verdict would be entirely determined by who the accused is and what group identity could be assigned to him.

T.A.M.

16th September 2007, 03:57 PM

In the interest of honest discussion the exchange went like this:

Gravy claims that I said I couldn't find any factual errors in the CR, even admitting he might have me mistaken with someone else.

I asked him where I ever said that.

Instead of inserting a quote, he starts a thread framing a very narrow "debate."

Now you are supporting his transparent attempt at creating a line of inquiry suitable only to your parameters.

So again to avoid the fallacious claim that I can't provide specific instances of what the Report got wrong, I submit their erroneous claim that the decision to fly the Bin Ladens out of the US went no higher than Richard Clarke, when Richard Clarke himself said that he was carrying out a higher order. (pg 329 CR)

1. I am not supporting, nor am I discouraging his "attempt", I am merely saying that in order to fulfill the request in the OP, you must provide proof of Factual Error.

2. The last part of your reply indicated the blocked information on page 329 of the commission report. In it, the commission says they "found no proof" of the approval to allow Saudi Nationals out of the US, went any higher than Richard Clarke. It then also goes on to indicate that Clarke himself did not recall discussing it with anyone at the white house, and finally indicates that neither the president or vice president recall a discussion about it. What YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED here, yet, is proof that this was factually WRONG.

The omission of facts and testimony is to be factually inaccurate period.

You are playing a somantics game here, so I will have to disagree. FACTUALLY INACCURATE is not the same as FACTUAL ERROR.

eg. Saying the flight that went down in Shanksville was United 97 is a FACTUAL ERROR.

eg. Saying that flight UA93 crashed on September 11th, and saying nothing more about it is heavily omitting facts, to the point of being FACTUALLY INACCURATE through OMISSION OF FACTS.

Now that being said I've also pointed to where others have alleged the report to also be inaccurate on specific topics. Go back and read. Here's some more if it makes you happy...

The 9/11 Commission Report asserts that only three of the alleged hijackers were known to U.S. intelligence agencies prior to 9/11; Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi, and Khalid al-Mihdar. There is no mention in the Report that the names and photographs of alleged hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi and alleged ring-leader Mohamed Atta had been identified by the Department of Defense antiterrorist program known as Able Danger more than a year prior to 9/11 and that they were known to be affiliates of al-Qaida. Able Danger also identified Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdar. - http://patriotsquestion911.com/

"able Danger" says it all...crap.

Here's some more...

Fox News Article 8/23/05: "I will not discuss this outside of my chain of command. I have briefed the Department of the Army, the Special Operations Command and the office of (Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence) Dr. Cambone as well as the 9/11 Commission. My story has remained consistent. Atta was identified by Able Danger in January/February 2000." - Capt. Scott J. Phillpott, U.S. Navy – Commanding Officer of the guided-missile cruiser USS Leyte Gulf. Former head of the Able Danger data mining program that targeted Al Qaeda’s global structure.

Able Danger again....yawn

Here's some more...

"I find your report seriously flawed in its failure to address serious intelligence issues that I am aware of, which have been confirmed, and which as a witness to the commission, I made you aware of. Thus, I must assume that other serious issues that I am not aware of were in the same manner omitted from your report. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations." - Sibel D. Edmonds – Witness before the 9/11 Commission

Sibel Edmonds again....yawn

And some more...

"[W]e the undersigned wish to bring to the attention of the Congress and the people of the United States what we believe are serious shortcomings in the report and its recommendations. …

Omission is one of the major flaws in the Commission’s report. We are aware of significant issues and cases that were duly reported to the commission by those of us with direct knowledge, but somehow escaped attention. …

The omission of such serious and applicable issues and information by itself renders the report flawed, and casts doubt on the validity of many of its recommendations. ...

The Commission, with its incomplete report of "facts and circumstances", intentional avoidance of assigning accountability, and disregard for the knowledge, expertise and experience of those who actually do the job, has now set about pressuring our Congress and our nation to hastily implement all its recommendations. ...

We the undersigned, who have worked within various government agencies (FBI, CIA, FAA, DIA, Customs) responsible for national security and public safety, call upon you in Congress to include the voices of those with first-hand knowledge and expertise in the important issues at hand. We stand ready to do our part."

Edward J. Costello, Jr., John M. Cole, Mark Conrad, JD, Rosemary N. Dew, Bogdan Dzakovic, Sibel D. Edmonds, Steve Elson, David Forbes, Melvin A. Goodman, Mark Graf, Gilbert M. Graham, Diane Kleiman, Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, Lynne A. Larkin, David MacMichael, PhD, Raymond L. McGovern, Theodore J. Pahle, Behrooz Sarshar, Brian F. Sullivan, Commander Larry J. Tortorich, Jane A. Turner, John B. Vincent, Fred Whitehurst, JD, PhD, Col. Ann Wright, Matthew J. Zipoli,

Is that all....

still not one factual error...alot of well discuss rubbish and nothing more.

TAM

WildCat

17th September 2007, 05:57 AM

I see RedIbis has replied to this thread, and managed to reply without addressing the OP at all. I take it this is because RedIbis cannot find a single factual error in the 9/11 Commission Report?

ZENSMACK89

17th September 2007, 07:36 AM

1. I am not supporting, nor am I discouraging his "attempt", I am merely saying that in order to fulfill the request in the OP, you must provide proof of Factual Error.

2. The last part of your reply indicated the blocked information on page 329 of the commission report. In it, the commission says they "found no proof" of the approval to allow Saudi Nationals out of the US, went any higher than Richard Clarke. It then also goes on to indicate that Clarke himself did not recall discussing it with anyone at the white house, and finally indicates that neither the president or vice president recall a discussion about it. What YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED here, yet, is proof that this was factually WRONG.

You are playing a somantics game here, so I will have to disagree. FACTUALLY INACCURATE is not the same as FACTUAL ERROR.

eg. Saying the flight that went down in Shanksville was United 97 is a FACTUAL ERROR.

eg. Saying that flight UA93 crashed on September 11th, and saying nothing more about it is heavily omitting facts, to the point of being FACTUALLY INACCURATE through OMISSION OF FACTS.

"able Danger" says it all...crap.

Able Danger again....yawn

Sibel Edmonds again....yawn

Is that all....

still not one factual error...alot of well discuss rubbish and nothing more.

TAM
Is that all? What’s the quota that needs to be meet? I thought there weren't any errors?

ZENSMACK89

17th September 2007, 07:38 AM

I see RedIbis has replied to this thread, and managed to reply without addressing the OP at all. I take it this is because RedIbis cannot find a single factual error in the 9/11 Commission Report?
No, RedIbis most certainly did. Go back and read. Slowly and completely. Maybe you should read out loud and sound out the words so that you don’t miss it this time.

T.A.M.

17th September 2007, 07:52 AM

Is that all? What’s the quota that needs to be meet? I thought there weren't any errors?

Your sources are unreilable at best. If I provide you with a source on UFO visits to planet earth written by a well known UFOologist (is that a word), it would be considered weak at best. "Able Danger" has been shown to be highly contested in terms of validity, as has Sibel Edmonds.

What I am saying, is the proof of factual error will have to be better than that.

TAM:)

T.A.M.

17th September 2007, 07:53 AM

No, RedIbis most certainly did. Go back and read. Slowly and completely. Maybe you should read out loud and sound out the words so that you don’t miss it this time.

Be nice...you catch more debunkers with honey than vinegar.;)

TAM:)

Corsair 115

17th September 2007, 08:47 AM

No. I did not raise "beyond any doubt "level of proof. That was raised to me. Your asking the wrong person. Yes, I suppose if one wants to be technical, you didn't suggest it first. But you definitely agreed with it, so I can rephrase my questions to ask why you agree that level of proof is needed in the case of 9/11, and does that level of proof apply to other situations.

Post #43 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2967689&postcount=43):

I didn't come up with the thread. That's what the thread is about.

Al Qeida plot beyond any doubt?

I would accept.

SDC

17th September 2007, 10:02 AM

No, RedIbis most certainly did. Go back and read. Slowly and completely. Maybe you should read out loud and sound out the words so that you don’t miss it this time.

May I ask that snideness be avoided? It doesn't help. You may respond, "Others are being snide and I'm only replying in kind." Which may be true, but as any parent will say, it sounds like "Daddy/ Mommy, so-and-so started it." To which said daddy or mommy will, I hope, reply: "Rise above it. We are trying to raise you better than that."

Thanks.

I should add that reading slowly and sounding out words are not, in fact, usually aids to comprehension.

ZENSMACK89

17th September 2007, 10:22 AM

Yes, I suppose if one wants to be technical, you didn't suggest it first. But you definitely agreed with it, so I can rephrase my questions to ask why you agree that level of proof is needed in the case of 9/11, and does that level of proof apply to other situations.

Post #43 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2967689&postcount=43):
When I agreed with "Beyond any doubt" that's all I was doing. I didn't claim that's what is needed I was asked if I would accept that.

So of course who could dispute "Beyond any doubt"?

ZENSMACK89

17th September 2007, 10:28 AM

Your sources are unreilable at best. If I provide you with a source on UFO visits to planet earth written by a well known UFOologist (is that a word), it would be considered weak at best. "Able Danger" has been shown to be highly contested in terms of validity, as has Sibel Edmonds.

What I am saying, is the proof of factual error will have to be better than that.

TAM:)
Which source is unreliable and Able Danger and Sibel Edmonds contested by who and where?

Contested by who?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/17/sept.11.hijackers/index.html

Kean and Hamilton said the official memorandum from that meeting does not mention that Atta's name or any of the other hijackers' names were brought up during the conversation.

"What I know is that their statement on the 12th of August is wrong," said Shafer, who said he was at the Bagram meeting.

He said commission members called back requesting more information, but when he tried to set up a meeting in January 2004, "they changed their mind about talking to me."

ZENSMACK89

17th September 2007, 10:29 AM

May I ask that snideness be avoided? It doesn't help. You may respond, "Others are being snide and I'm only replying in kind." Which may be true, but as any parent will say, it sounds like "Daddy/ Mommy, so-and-so started it." To which said daddy or mommy will, I hope, reply: "Rise above it. We are trying to raise you better than that."

Thanks.

I should add that reading slowly and sounding out words are not, in fact, usually aids to comprehension.
Just trying to help.

T.A.M.

17th September 2007, 10:57 AM

Able Danger:

from an latimes.com article, now for some reason no longer available (anyone got a cache of it??) as seen on this Blog...

The Senate Intelligence Committee has rejected as untrue one of the most disturbing claims about the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes — a congressman's contention that a team of military analysts identified Mohamed Atta or other hijackers before the attacks — according to a summary of the panel's investigation obtained by The Times.

The conclusion contradicts assertions by Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) and a few military officers that U.S. national security officials ignored startling intelligence available in early 2001 that might have helped to prevent the attacks.

http://electionnightspecial.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html

TAM:)

ZENSMACK89

17th September 2007, 12:34 PM

Able Danger:

from an latimes.com article, now for some reason no longer available (anyone got a cache of it??) as seen on this Blog...

http://electionnightspecial.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html

TAM:)

Oh yeah nothing questionable about the senate report huh? And your sources.... so reliable? Try some of these...

http://www.wanttoknow.info/051110pentagon911abledanger

Pentagon Revokes 9/11 Officer's Clearance
September 30, 2005, ABC/Associated Press
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1173334

An officer who has claimed that a classified military unit identified four Sept. 11 hijackers before the 2001 attacks is facing Pentagon accusations of breaking numerous rules, charges his lawyer suggests are aimed at undermining his credibility. The alleged infractions by Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, 42, include obtaining a service medal under false pretenses, improperly flashing military identification while drunk and stealing pens, according to military paperwork shown by his attorney to The Associated Press. Shaffer was one of the first to publicly link Sept. 11 leader Mohamed Atta to the unit code-named Able Danger. Shaffer was one of five witnesses the Pentagon ordered not to appear Sept. 21 before the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss the unit's findings. The military revoked Shaffer's top security clearance this month, a day before he was supposed to testify to a congressional committee.

Republicans See Signs That Pentagon Is Evading Oversight
September 29, 2005, New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/politics/29intel.html

Republican members of Congress say there are signs that the Defense Department may be carrying out new intelligence activities through programs intended to escape oversight from Congress and the new director of national intelligence. The warnings are an unusually public signal of some Republican lawmakers' concern about overreaching by the Pentagon, where top officials have been jockeying with the new intelligence chief, John D. Negroponte, for primacy in intelligence operations. The lawmakers said they believed that some intelligence activities, involving possible propaganda efforts and highly technological initiatives, might be masked as so-called special access programs, the details of which are highly classified.

Note: To see an ABC News report and released government documents on the Pentagon's past top-secret plans to foment terrorism and kill innocent Americans in the US: http://www.WantToKnow.info/010501operationnorthwoods

Atta known to Pentagon before 9/11
September 28, 2005, Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0509280150sep28,1,3686073.story (Page 1 of 4)
http://mediachannel.org/blog/node/1193 (All four pages)

Evidence is accumulating that a super-secret Pentagon intelligence unit identified the organizer of the Sept. 11 hijackings, Mohamed Atta, as an Al Qaeda operative months before he entered the U.S. Had the FBI been alerted to what the Pentagon purportedly knew in early 2000, Atta's name could have been put on a list that would have tagged him as someone to be watched the moment he stepped off a plane in Newark, N.J., in June of that year. Physical and electronic surveillance of Atta, who lived openly in Florida for more than a year, and who acquired a driver's license and even an FAA pilot's license in his true name, might well have made it possible for the FBI to expose the Sept. 11 plot before the fact. Anthony Shaffer...says he was asked in the summer of 2000 by a Navy captain, Scott Phillpott, to arrange a meeting between the FBI and representatives of the Pentagon intelligence program, code-named Able Danger. But he said the meeting was canceled after Pentagon lawyers concluded that information on suspected Al Qaeda operatives with ties to the U.S. might violate Pentagon prohibitions on retaining information on "U.S. persons," a term that includes U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens. Asked by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, at a hearing last week whether Atta...was a "U.S. person," a senior Pentagon official answered, "No, he was not."

Pentagon, Senate committee bicker over 9/11 probe
September 23, 2005, ABC/Reuters
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1154206

The Pentagon and the Senate Judiciary Committee squabbled publicly on Friday about whether lawmakers could question five key witnesses in public about their claims the U.S. military identified four September 11 hijackers long before the 20001 attacks. The panel's chairman, Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said at Wednesday's hearing the Pentagon could be guilty of obstructing congressional proceedings. Other lawmakers accused the Defense Department of orchestrating a cover-up. On Friday, the Senate committee announced the Pentagon had reversed its position and would allow the five witnesses to testify at a new public hearing scheduled for October 5. The five witnesses in question were all involved with Able Danger and contend the team identified September 11 ringleader Mohamed Atta and three other hijackers as members of an al Qaeda cell in early 2000. One prospective witness, Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, has said publicly that Able Danger members tried to pass the information about Atta along to the FBI three times in September 2000 but were forced by Pentagon lawyers to cancel the meetings. Much of the information related to Able Danger was destroyed in 2000.

Note: The public hearing scheduled for October 5th never happened. Any ideas why?

Military Bars 9/11 Intel Testimony
September 21, 2005, CBS/Associated Press
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/21/terror/main871800.shtml

The Department of Defense forbade a military intelligence officer to testify Wednesday about a secret military unit that the officer says identified four Sept. 11 hijackers as terrorists more than a year before the attacks. In testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, attorney Mark Zaid, who represents Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, said the Pentagon also refused to permit testimony there by a defense contractor that he also represents. The Judiciary Committee was hearing testimony about the work of a classified unit code named "Able Danger." Zaid, appearing on behalf of Shaffer and contractor John Smith [stated] that Able Danger, using data mining techniques, identified four of the terrorists who struck on Sept. 11, 2001 - including mastermind Mohamed Atta. "At least one chart, and possibly more, featured a photograph of Mohamed Atta," Zaid said. Maj. Paul Swiergosz, a Defense Department spokesman, said Wednesday that open testimony would not be appropriate. "There's nothing more to say than that," Swiergosz said. "It's not possible to discuss the Able Danger program because there are security concerns." Zaid also charged that records associated with the unit were destroyed during 2000 and March 2001, and copies were destroyed in spring 2004.

Panel rejects assertion US knew of Atta before Sept. 11
September 15, 2005, Boston Globe/Associated Press
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/09/15/panel_rejects_assertion_us_knew_of_atta_before_sep t_11/

Former members of the Sept. 11 commission on Wednesday dismissed assertions that a Pentagon intelligence unit identified lead hijacker Mohamed Atta as an member of al-Qaida long before the 2001 attacks. Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., had accused the commission of ignoring intelligence about Atta while it investigated the attacks. The commission’s former chairman, Thomas Kean, said there was no evidence anyone in the government knew about Atta before Sept. 11, 2001. Kean said the recollections of the intelligence officers cannot be verified by any document. “Bluntly, it just didn’t happen and that’s the conclusion of all 10 of us,” said a former commissioner, ex-Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash. Weldon’s spokesman, John Tomaszewski, said no commissioners have met with anyone from Able Danger “yet they choose to speak with some form of certainty without firsthand knowledge.”

Note: If you read the New York Times article from Aug. 11th, commission officials clearly stated that they were warned by a uniformed military officer 10 days before issuing the commission's final report that the account would be incomplete without reference Able Danger and Atta, as confirmed by the commission's own chief spokesperson. Is this more recent article a rewriting of the facts?

Congressman Says Pentagon Employee Was Ordered to Destroy Data Identifying Atta As a Terrorist
September 15, 2005, ABC/Associated Press
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1131137

A Pentagon employee was ordered to destroy documents that identified Mohamed Atta as a terrorist two years before the 2001 attacks, a congressman said Thursday. The employee is prepared to testify next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee and was expected to identify the person who ordered him to destroy the large volume of documents, said Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa. Weldon declined to identify the employee, citing confidentiality matters. Weldon described the documents as "2.5 terabytes" as much as one-fourth of all the printed materials in the Library of Congress, he added.

Weldon doubts DoD on Able Danger
September 8, 2005, UPI
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20050908-122856-3635r

The congressman who first made public claims that a secret Pentagon data mining project linked the Sept. 11 attacks ringleader to al-Qaida more than a year before the attacks took place says he does not believe the military's account of how the results of the project's work came to be destroyed. "I seriously have my doubts that it was routine," Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Penn., told United Press International. Weldon said he had asked the Pentagon for the certificates of destruction that military officials must complete when classified data is destroyed. He said that there had been "a second elimination of data in 2003," in addition to the destruction acknowledged last week. "For some reason, the bureaucracy in the Pentagon...didn't want this to get out," he said.

More remember Atta ID’d as terrorist pre-9/11
September 1, 2005, MSNBC/Associated Press
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9163145/

Pentagon officials said Thursday they have found three more people who recall an intelligence chart that identified Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta as a terrorist one year before the attacks on New York and Washington. But they have been unable to find the chart or other evidence that it existed. On Thursday, four intelligence officials provided the first extensive briefing for reporters on the outcome of their interviews with people associated with Able Danger and their review of documents. They said they interviewed at least 80 people over a three-week period and found three, besides Philpott and Shaffer, who said they remember seeing a chart that either mentioned Atta by name as an al-Qaida operative or showed his photograph. Four of the five recalled a chart with a pre-9/11 photo of Atta; the other person recalled only a reference to his name. The intelligence officials said they consider the five people to be credible but their recollections are still unverified.

Naval officer says Atta's identity known pre-9/11
August 23, 2005, New York Times/San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/08/23/MNG66EBPJ71.DTL

An active-duty Navy captain has become the second military officer to come forward publicly to say that a secret defense intelligence program tagged the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks as a possible terrorist more than a year before the attacks. The officer, Capt. Scott Phillpott, said in a statement Monday that he could not discuss details of the military program, which was called Able Danger, but confirmed that its analysts had identified the Sept. 11 ringleader, Mohamed Atta, by name by early 2000. Shaffer went public with his assertions last week, saying that analysts in the intelligence project had been overruled by military lawyers when they tried to share the program's findings with the FBI in 2000 in hopes of tracking down terrorist suspects tied to al Qaeda.

9/11 Commission's Staff Rejected Report on Early Identification of Chief Hijacker
August 11, 2005, New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/11/politics/11intel.html

The Sept. 11 commission was warned by a uniformed military officer 10 days before issuing its final report that the account would be incomplete without reference to what he described as a secret military operation that by the summer of 2000 had identified as a potential threat the member of Al Qaeda who would lead the attacks more than a year later. The officials said that the information had not been included in the report because aspects of the officer's account had sounded inconsistent with what the commission knew about that Qaeda member, Mohammed Atta, the plot's leader. [Republican congressman Curt] Weldon has accused the commission of ignoring information that would have forced a rewriting of the history of the Sept. 11 attacks. He has asserted that the Able Danger unit...sought to call their superiors' attention to Mr. Atta and three other future hijackers in the summer of 2000. In a letter sent Wednesday to members of the commission, Mr. Weldon criticized the panel in scathing terms, saying that its "refusal to investigate Able Danger after being notified of its existence, and its recent efforts to feign ignorance of the project...brings shame on the commissioners." Al Felzenberg, who served as the commission's chief spokesman, said earlier this week that staff members who were briefed about Able Danger at a first meeting, in October 2003, did not remember hearing anything about Mr. Atta or an American terrorist cell. On Wednesday, however, Mr. Felzenberg said the uniformed officer who briefed two staff members in July 2004 had indeed mentioned Mr. Atta.

Congressman Curt Weldon's Speech to Congress
October 19, 2005, Official Website of Congressman Weldon (R-Pa)
http://curtweldon.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=35792

"I have been in this institution 19 years. I am the vice chairman of [the Committee on Armed Services] and chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the purchase of our weapons systems. I am a strong supporter of our military. I am a strong supporter of President Bush. I campaigned for him. I am a strong supporter of Secretary Rumsfeld. I say all of that, Mr. Speaker, because...there is something desperately wrong here. There is a bureaucracy in the Defense Intelligence Agency that is out of control. They want to destroy the reputation of a 23-year military officer, Bronze Star recipient, hero of our country, with two kids because people in defense intelligence are embarrassed at what is going to come out. I have met with at least 10 people who fully corroborate what Tony Shaffer says. This is not [about] Republicans or Democrats. It is about what is fundamental to this country. I would ask our constituents across America [who] we represent to join us, to express their outrage, to e-mail, make phone calls, write letters to the Secretary of Defense, the President of the United States, to Members of Congress to...let the Able Danger story finally come out to the American people. Let them understand what really happened. Let Scott Philpott talk. Let Tony Shaffer talk. Let the others who have been silenced have a chance to tell their story to Congress and openly to the American people. In the end, the country will be stronger.

Viper Daimao

17th September 2007, 01:17 PM

ZENSMACK89

17th September 2007, 01:47 PM

Notice anything about the dates of all your stories and the date of this one:
Senators Nix Pre-9/11 Hijacker ID Theory (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600624.html)?

So it appears you got your wish on this one. There was a question, and it was investigated and the truth uncovered.

Uncovered? What was uncovered?

Did they retrieve the deleted data?

And just another case of mistaken identitiy huh? The picture just looked like Atta. A bunch of politicians deciding that people who's job it was don't know what they are talking about. Sounds a lot like another report of excuses to me.

Hijackers Were Not Identified Before 9/11, Investigation Says
September 22, 2006, Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/21/AR2006092101831.html

The Defense Department's inspector general has concluded that a top secret intelligence-gathering program did not identify Mohamed Atta or any other hijacker before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, determining that there is no evidence to substantiate claims that Atta's name and photograph were on charts collected by military officials before the strikes. Pentagon officials said that the recollections of several officials involved in the "Able Danger" data-mining operation "were not accurate" and that a chart they said included a blurry image of Atta and his name never existed. The report concluded that there were no efforts to prevent contact between the Pentagon group and the FBI. The investigation began after members of Congress raised concerns over reports that Navy Capt. Scott Philpott and Army Reserve Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer remembered seeing Atta's photograph on documents collected by the intelligence program, and that the commission investigating the attacks had ignored their assertions. The assertions gained considerable steam when Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said...that, two weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, he presented White House officials with a chart that depicted people affiliated with al-Qaeda, including lead hijacker Atta. "I am appalled that the DoD IG would expect the American people to actually consider this a full and thorough investigation," Weldon said. "I question their motives and the content of the report, and I reject the conclusions they have drawn." Shaffer has consistently maintained that he believes he saw Atta's image.

Note: This article is a prime example of how the media at times is seriously biased to support the official story of 9/11. I invite you to read the article and then read the many articles below. When a prominent Republican congressman and several military officers have clearly stated the opposite, is it really possible to conclude that "there is no evidence to substantiate claims that Atta's name and photograph were on charts collected by military officials before the strikes." Were these military and government representatives all lying, and if so, why?

SDC

17th September 2007, 02:01 PM

Note: This article is a prime example of how the media at times is seriously biased to support the official story of 9/11. I invite you to read the article and then read the many articles below. When a prominent Republican congressman and several military officers have clearly stated the opposite, is it really possible to conclude that "there is no evidence to substantiate claims that Atta's name and photograph were on charts collected by military officials before the strikes." Were these military and government representatives all lying, and if so, why?

So now the government and the military are to be believed? I thought you had scorned that option. I am confused.

DGM

17th September 2007, 02:07 PM

Were these military and government representatives all lying, and if so, why?

Think about it Zen, we could ask you the same question.

ZENSMACK89

17th September 2007, 02:10 PM

So now the government and the military are to be believed? I thought you had scorned that option. I am confused.
Do they all have the same story?

Viper Daimao

17th September 2007, 02:15 PM

so it's not that you want another/more investigation, it's that you're not happy with the answers those investigations return?

SDC

17th September 2007, 02:20 PM

Do they all have the same story?

If they were going to operate as a halfway effective conspiracy, they should at least have gotten their song sheets sorted out. (E.g., "singing from the same sheet," which is an old fashioned wisecrack. I am not trying to be obscure. I just enjoy the phrase.)

And also, if everyone had the same story, that's when I would be suspicious.

More seriously, please remember that individual anomalies in evaluating larger historical narratives don't count for much. When stories differ, or more generally when the evidence can be used to interpret the events in more than one way -- which is what usually happens in life -- it's time to evaluate the reliability of the evidence on many levels. To me, the contradictions you refer to are covered by continued investigations, as well as by the fact that, well, sometimes you just end up with questions. And not all questions will be answered. Such is the human condition.

dudalb

17th September 2007, 02:33 PM

so it's not that you want another/more investigation, it's that you're not happy with the answers those investigations return?

ZenSmack and the Truthers will not be happy with any Investigation that does not end up saying "9/11 Was a Inside Job".

Regnad Kcin

17th September 2007, 04:23 PM

Incomplete is wrong period...Oh? So the "truth" movement, not being able to provide a comprehensive and fact-based narrative of its central premise, is "wrong [sic] period?" Now you're getting somewhere!

T.A.M.

17th September 2007, 04:42 PM

Zen:

one topic at a time. I was responding to you. You said Able Danger, i said unreliable, you said how, I showed you an article.

Where did "my sources" as you have labeled them (how they are my sources I am not sure) come into this??

TAM:)

ZENSMACK89

17th September 2007, 07:07 PM

What and who is http://electionnightspecial.blogspot...1_archive.html?

T.A.M.

17th September 2007, 07:32 PM

That is merely where I read the quote from the latimes.com article.

What of it?

TAM:)

T.A.M.

17th September 2007, 07:34 PM

Here, since the latimes.com article is missing, try this one...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/21/AR2006092101831.html

TAM:)

T.A.M.

17th September 2007, 07:37 PM

and before you go off on a tangent, remember, the line of our convo has been "Able Danger" as a source, I questioned its reliability, you asked how, and now I am providing source that put it into question.

When we agree on this, then perhaps we might move on.

TAM:)