LastChild lists the significant lies/errors in the 9/11 Commission Report

[Par]

This thread is for LastChild to make good on the following:

If I start a new thread for you, will you be willing to point out the significant lies and/or errors in the 9/11 Commission Report?
If you want to start another thread go ahead.
With respect, this doesn’t quite answer my question. If I start such a thread, will you be willing to point out the significant lies and/or errors in the 9/11 Commission Report?
Are the problems I have with the report mine or someone else’s on this forum alone?
So, if I start a new thread for you, will you be willing to use it to point out the significant lies and/or errors in the 9/11 Commission Report?
I already told you start another thread if you like.

[DavidJames]

I hope that LastChild doesn't simply post cherry picked quotes from former commission members.

[chillzero]

Please stop with the sock puppet accusations. They acheive nothing other than potential derail into bickering. Report suspected sock puppets to the mods for review, and then leave it.
Thanks.

[Par]

Chillzero... wins.

[Unsecured Coins]

Fatality

[dudalb]

Same Old Truther Nonsense.
Move Along Now,Show's Over,Nothing Left To See.

[LastChild]

“…we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization.”

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=1668
For example, one Saudi public relations blitz came on the heels of Riyadh's refusal to cooperate with German authorities investigating links between a Saudi diplomat in Berlin and Mounir Motassadeq, who is charged with more than 3,000 counts of accessory to murder in the September 11 plot.


“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.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.


“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.”

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/chp7.html

Order 7610.4J: Special Military Operations
Effective Date: November 3, 1998
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.

[rwguinn]

“…we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization.”

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=1668
For example, one Saudi public relations blitz came on the heels of Riyadh's refusal to cooperate with German authorities investigating links between a Saudi diplomat in Berlin and Mounir Motassadeq, who is charged with more than 3,000 counts of accessory to murder in the September 11 plot.


“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.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.


“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.”

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/chp7.html

Order 7610.4J: Special Military Operations
Effective Date: November 3, 1998
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.

Please give page and paragraph from the Commission reportwhen you quote it, so we'll know what/where you're talking from?
Hokay?

[Arus808]

I dont see quotes from the 911 comission report. Those are links to media reports. LastChild, are you unable to grasp the concept that this is a THREAD to critique the 911 Comission report, of which you claim there are errors in.

Pick the paragraph or section from the report, then you follow that up with your thoughts on why its in error, and then you back it up with your source (this is when you can use your links to the media)

[LastChild]

Please give page and paragraph from the Commission reportwhen you quote it, so we'll know what/where you're talking from?
Hokay?



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

5.4

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

1.2

[T.A.M.]

Regarding #2:

The USA today article does seem to check out...

A few things though:

1. Did this info come to light after the Commission Report was published?
2. Did this info come to light after the Commission had obtained statements from NORAD to the contrary?
3. Did NORAD withhold this info, or did the commission ignore it or refuse to publish it?
4. These were REGIONAL Drills, not nationwide NORAD drills. Could this account for the information being not passed on.
5. In the article it states that the White House was unaware of these drills prior to 9/11.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Thanks for the Reference LastChild.

In Chapter 1.2, and I quote:


NORAD perceived the dominant threat to be from cruise missiles. Other threats were identified during the late 1990s, including terrorists' use of aircraft as weapons. Exercises were conducted to counter this threat, but they were not based on actual intelligence. In most instances, the main concern was the use of such aircraft to deliver weapons of mass destruction.

Prior to 9/11, it was understood that an order to shoot down a commercial aircraft would have to be issued by the National Command Authority (a phrase used to describe the president and secretary of defense). Exercise planners also assumed that the aircraft would originate from outside the United States, allowing time to identify the target and scramble interceptors. The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States-and using them as guided missiles-was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11.98

Notwithstanding the identification of these emerging threats, by 9/11 there were only seven alert sites left in the United States, each with two fighter aircraft on alert. This led some NORAD commanders to worry that NORAD was not postured adequately to protect the United States.99
TAM:)

[Arus808]

Okay, those two sections show that again, we were ill prepared for the threat. however, again its at threat. Why the govt ignored these threats? Maybe because they weren't specific enough? lots of reasons.

Now that we've covered those two minor errors, how does this negate the entire report? remember, the 911 Commission Report was published on 8/31/2004 . anything that was released after this date, probably was not available to the Commission.

[Par]

Incidentally, see the Wikipedia 9/11 Commission Report Criticism section for where these are coming from.

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

[SDC]

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

5.4

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

1.2

LC, this is really not organized commentary or refutation. It only leads to confusion. Please go section by section, systematically. Jumping around doesn't work. Thanks.

[rwguinn]

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

5.4

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

1.2
Thank you.
Why didn't you use the whole quote there? see bolded part...
Saudi Arabia has long been considered the primary source of al Qaeda funding, but we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization. (This conclusion does not exclude the likelihood that charities with significant Saudi government sponsorship diverted funds to al Qaeda.)122

[T.A.M.]

please see in my above quote from the report, the section in question, in context, where they say that drills were performed, regional ones, that simply did not involve the scenario of USA BASED PLANES.

TAM:)

[Par]

“…we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization.”

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=1668
For example, one Saudi public relations blitz came on the heels of Riyadh's refusal to cooperate with German authorities investigating links between a Saudi diplomat in Berlin and Mounir Motassadeq, who is charged with more than 3,000 counts of accessory to murder in the September 11 plot.


The quotation from the Washington Institute article does not appear to show the Commission Report to be in error in this regard.

Full paragraph:

It does not appear that any government other than the Taliban financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11, although some governments may have contained al Qaeda sympathizers who turned a blind eye to al Qaeda's fundraising activities. Saudi Arabia has long been considered the primary source of al Qaeda funding, but we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization. (This conclusion does not exclude the likelihood that charities with significant Saudi government sponsorship diverted funds to al Qaeda.)

[LastChild]

Regarding #2:

The USA today article does seem to check out...

A few things though:

1. Did this info come to light after the Commission Report was published?
2. Did this info come to light after the Commission had obtained statements from NORAD to the contrary?
3. Did NORAD withhold this info, or did the commission ignore it or refuse to publish it?
4. These were REGIONAL Drills, not nationwide NORAD drills. Could this account for the information being not passed on.
5. In the article it states that the White House was unaware of these drills prior to 9/11.

TAM:)

I don't know but I don't see why that matters. It was the commissions job to investigate.

Maybe it was one of the things Kean was refering to when he claims they were told things that were simply far from the truth. I wasn't asked how things got in the report that are wrong I was asked what in it is wrong.

[Slayhamlet]

please see in my above quote from the report, the section in question, in context, where they say that drills were performed, regional ones, that simply did not involve the scenario of USA BASED PLANES.

TAM:)

The USA Today article itself says as much:

The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country.

Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries.

It also says there were exceptions in early drills, but it doesn't indicate that any of the hijacking simulations used in those actually involved the planes being used as guided weapons.

[LastChild]

Thanks for the Reference LastChild.

In Chapter 1.2, and I quote:


TAM:)

Is the assertion about no intercept in the 9/11 commission report right or wrong?

[LastChild]

Is this claim correct? Yes or no?

“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.”

[Par]

LastChild:

Please criticise quotations in their original context, where they belong.

[Z]

Is this claim correct? Yes or no?

“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.”

(bolding mine)

Yes, it is correct. You CAN read what people are posting, can you not?

What WAS recognized was the threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners outside the U.S. and using them as guided missiles.

Even I can understand that much.

[LastChild]

(bolding mine)

Yes, it is correct. You CAN read what people are posting, can you not?

What WAS recognized was the threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners outside the U.S. and using them as guided missiles.

Even I can understand that much.

Did you read the entire article or just the parts you like?


But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska.

[Par]

I don't know but I don't see why that matters. It was the commissions job to investigate. Maybe it was one of the things Kean was refering to when he claims they were told things that were simply far from the truth...


The testimony described as “so far from the truth” was not actually in the 9/11 Commission Report.

This is the fifth time you have tried to deceive people with this same quotation. You were last refuted on this same issue only a few hours ago:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3153842&postcount=181

[LastChild]

The testimony described as “so far from the truth” was not actually in the 9/11 Commission Report.

This is the fifth time you have tried to deceive people with this same quotation. You were last refuted on this same issue only a few hours ago:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3153842&postcount=181


I didn't say it was. I just said maybe that's what he was talking about. Now do you have anything real or not?

[LastChild]

The quotation from the Washington Institute article does not appear to show the Commission Report to be in error in this regard.

Full paragraph:

I'm not sure what it is you're disputing. What you are quoting there is a contradiction in the least. Anyway here's some more...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20030803/ai_n16763942

[Jonnyclueless]

I think part of the problem stems from people such as Lastchild not understanding what the 9/11 commission was for, and also wanting to badly to believe in an inside job that they cannot even realize how dishonest they are being by trying to mislead people by cherry picking quotes and taking them out o context, and trying to falsely imply their own interpretation into it.

[Par]

I didn't say it was. I just said maybe that's what he was talking about. Now do you have anything real or not?


Given that the testimony described as “so far from the truth” was not actually in the 9/11 Commission Report, it can’t very well be what he was talking about.

[T.A.M.]

LAstChild:

The Commission says there were drills involving planes as weapons prior to 9/11 by NORAD. It states they were based on outside the USA Aircraft, not USA based. This would then infer that the Commission has stated that there was no evidence of drills involving USA BASED AIRCRAFT being used as weapons.

Please show me where your proof to the contrary, the USA Today article, disagrees with this?

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

As a matter of fact, the article you used as evidence says as much,


The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Is this claim correct? Yes or no?

“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.”

This claim, as stated above IS CORRECT. The exercises that ran, involved planes from OUTSIDE THE USA. They should have perhaps used the words "from within" here, instead of just "within", but if you have a brain, and read the paragraph above it within the report, you would understand that is what was meant.

See my original, IN CONTEXT, quote.

TAM:)

[LastChild]

This claim, as stated above IS CORRECT. The exercises that ran, involved planes from OUTSIDE THE USA. They should have perhaps used the words "from within" here, instead of just "within", but if you have a brain, and read the paragraph above it within the report, you would understand that is what was meant.

See my original, IN CONTEXT, quote.

TAM:)

I’m not talking about what exercises they ran or didn’t run and neither is the quote in the 9/11 commission report.

“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.”

But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska.

Is planning exercises of domestically hijacked planes in July of 2001 not recognizing the threat?

[T.A.M.]

Did the exercise use planes from these locations, but run the drill "As if" the planes had come from overseas? Or did the drill state that the hijacking were domestic? As well, in the case of the Utah/Washington hijack drills, did this drill involve the use of the planes as weapons?

As for the rest...here is the quote from the commission...


NORAD perceived the dominant threat to be from cruise missiles. Other threats were identified during the late 1990s, including terrorists' use of aircraft as weapons. Exercises were conducted to counter this threat, but they were not based on actual intelligence. In most instances, the main concern was the use of such aircraft to deliver weapons of mass destruction.

Prior to 9/11, it was understood that an order to shoot down a commercial aircraft would have to be issued by the National Command Authority (a phrase used to describe the president and secretary of defense). Exercise planners also assumed that the aircraft would originate from outside the United States, allowing time to identify the target and scramble interceptors. The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States-and using them as guided missiles-was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11.98

Notwithstanding the identification of these emerging threats, by 9/11 there were only seven alert sites left in the United States, each with two fighter aircraft on alert. This led some NORAD commanders to worry that NORAD was not postured adequately to protect the United States.99

See the bolded areas. THE COMMISSION HAS STATED DRILLS WERE RUN. Isnt that admitting to a percieved threat, of planes as weapons from OUTSIDE THE USA. What the commission has stated is that NORAD did not recognize a percieved threat of domestically hijacked aircraft being used as weapons.

TAM:)

[LastChild]

Did the exercise use planes from these locations, but run the drill "As if" the planes had come from overseas? Or did the drill state that the hijacking were domestic? As well, in the case of the Utah/Washington hijack drills, did this drill involve the use of the planes as weapons?

As for the rest...here is the quote from the commission...

See the bolded areas. THE COMMISSION HAS STATED DRILLS WERE RUN. Isnt that admitting to a percieved threat, of planes as weapons from OUTSIDE THE USA. What the commission has stated is that NORAD did not recognize a percieved threat of domestically hijacked aircraft being used as weapons.

TAM:)

It's just another contradiction...

"But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska."

It's also a contradiction that they noted this ...

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.pdf
pg 113 of 119


21.As part of his 34-page analysis, the attorney explained why he thought that a fueled Boeing 747, used as a weapon,“must be considered capable of destroying virtually any building located anywhere in the world.” DOJ
memo, Robert D. to Cathleen C.,“Aerial Intercepts and Shoot- downs:Ambiguities of Law and Practical Considerations,” Mar. 30, 2000, p. 10. Also, in February 1974, a man named Samuel Byck attempted to commandeer a plane at Baltimore Washington International Airport with the intention of forcing the pilots to fly into Washington and crash into the White House to kill the president.The man was shot by police and then killed himself on the aircraft while it was still on the ground at the airport.

[lapman]

It's just another contradiction...

"But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska."

You are missing the key phrase: "used as weapons." The exercise you mention does NOT involve hijacked planes being used as weapons.

[Slayhamlet]

I’m not talking about what exercises they ran or didn’t run and neither is the quote in the 9/11 commission report.

“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.”

But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska.

Is planning exercises of domestically hijacked planes in July of 2001 not recognizing the threat?

No, not really, since all the scenarios involving hijacked planes from within North American airspace did not come from any actual intelligence, but were rather dreamed up as creative contingency drills. It doesn't look like that particular drill was even run before 9/11, or involved a shoot-down type operation at all; the article only mentions escorting the planes to airbases. Besides, if NORAD had recognized the threat don't you think they'd have done more drills of that type? None of these match the specifics of 9/11 very well, and none of them were in the least bit routine.

[LastChild]

No, not really, since all the scenarios involving hijacked planes from within North American airspace did not come from any actual intelligence, but were rather dreamed up as creative contingency drills. It doesn't look like that particular drill was even run before 9/11, or involved a shoot-down type operation at all; the article only mentions escorting the planes to airbases. Besides, if NORAD had recognized the threat don't you think they'd have done more drills of that type? None of these match the specifics of 9/11 very well, and none of them were in the least bit routine.

I didn't say they ran a domestic drill before 9/11. The article says they planned a domestic exercise in July 2001 which means they recognized a domestic threat. To imply that NORAD only concerned itself with foreign planes before 9/11 is incorrect.

[Unsecured Coins]

do you have any idea what domestic exercise means?

why do I have a feeling this is going to turn into another propitious to policy marathon?

[LastChild]

You are missing the key phrase: "used as weapons." The exercise you mention does NOT involve hijacked planes being used as weapons.


What would they done in the execise? Intercept?

[Jonnyclueless]

Can you please explain how jets being used as missiles get escorted to a certain place? Call me crazy, but I I am going to crash a plane to make a statement, why would I follow an escort?

Someone is not being very honest here.

[LastChild]

Can you please explain how jets being used as missiles get escorted to a certain place? Call me crazy, but I I am going to crash a plane to make a statement, why would I follow an escort?

Someone is not being very honest here.


I'm asking if not shootdown then what?

[Jonnyclueless]

Well, if you are escorting a plane somewhere, then you aren't exact;y shooting it down are you? It was common to have drills that involved plane hijackings where planes would be escorted to another country and landed so that negotiations could begin. If a plane is being used as a missile, then there is no point in escorting it someplace since it's not gonna follow. And they made it very obvious from your quote that they were escorting it, not shooting down.

[LastChild]

Well, if you are escorting a plane somewhere, then you aren't exact;y shooting it down are you? It was common to have drills that involved plane hijackings where planes would be escorted to another country and landed so that negotiations could begin. If a plane is being used as a missile, then there is no point in escorting it someplace since it's not gonna follow. And they made it very obvious from your quote that they were escorting it, not shooting down.

Did you read my first post in this thread? This is also a commission claim...

“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.”

Now how would they be escorting it to another country from five miles back?

[DGM]

Did you read my first post in this thread? This is also a commission claim...

“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.”

Now how would they be escorting it to another country from five miles back?
The protocols have what to do with the exercises? This all seems fairly well laid out in the report. Is there something drastically wrong here that negates the report?

[Slayhamlet]

I didn't say they ran a domestic drill before 9/11. The article says they planned a domestic exercise in July 2001 which means they recognized a domestic threat. To imply that NORAD only concerned itself with foreign planes before 9/11 is incorrect.

Non sequitur much? None of what you just said addressed a single thing I said in my post.

[Slayhamlet]

Did you read my first post in this thread? This is also a commission claim...

“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.”

Now how would they be escorting it to another country from five miles back?

Wow. Now you're inexplicably conflating the emergency protocols and the drills. This is hopeless. Bye.

[WildCat]

Is the assertion about no intercept in the 9/11 commission report right or wrong?
Intercept does not mean "shoot down", you do know that don't you?

[T.A.M.]

Some drills were based on aircraft from overseas being used as weapons on USA based buildings.

Other drills involved USA based aircraft for hijackings, but not used as weapons.

The Commission does not contradict either of the above statements in what it says.

You are being either purposely ignorant, or deceptive...take your pick Lastchild, or admit you are wrong and move on.

TAM:)

[Jonnyclueless]

Did you read my first post in this thread? This is also a commission claim...

“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.”

Now how would they be escorting it to another country from five miles back?

Could you higlight the shootdown part? Thanks.

[Sabrina]

LastChild, you are missing a very important point here.

Prior to 9/11, the vast majority (say, as an offhand guess, 98.999%) of hijackings, foreign or domestic, were done with one of two goals in mind: financial or political gain on the part of the hijackers. Yep, that's right; they either wanted money, or they wanted the release of a political prisoner or for some bill to be passed or halted or some other political maneuver to be completed, and they used the passengers of the hijacked flights as hostages. In other words, they had to keep them ALIVE for the most part in order to get what they wanted. There were very very few hijackings that were done with the INTENTION of killing the passengers, except for perhaps one at a time as an incentive to get what they wanted. Given that history, is it THAT hard to understand that the idea of hijackings with the intent of flying the planes, still passenger-laden, into buildings was extremely difficult to conceive of? THAT was the fundamental, now well-acknowledged flaw in our thinking; we assumed they would have a goal of LIVING to enjoy whatever they were after. They, on the other hand, due to their religious leanings, had no problem whatsoever with dying for a cause, and decided to exploit that fact.

No one is denying that NORAD practiced for domestic hijackings. But you're conflating "hijacking" with "suicide hijacking", which are now and will forever be two VERY different scenarios. Once you acknowledge that fact, it'll be easier to deal with the fact that NORAD, and indeed the vast majority of the United States population, could hardly conceive of the idea that planes could be used essentially as guided missiles to cause such severe death and destruction. Hope that helps.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

do you have any idea what domestic exercise means?

why do I have a feeling this is going to turn into another propitious to policy marathon?
You're not the only one.

[LastChild]

Sigh...

Are you people kidding me? One more time and I guess I have to repeat myself. Do you remember one of my other problems with the 9/11 commission claims? I mean it was only a few posts ago. Now if you want to try and dodge by claiming NORD didn’t practice a domestic shootdown which I never claimed in the first place then tell me what they did domestically train for.

“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.”

Now Jonnyclueless tells me they would escort the plane to another country. How do you escort a hijacked plane from 5 miles back to another country?

BTW while we are at it. Is it correct for the 9/11 commission to claim The Protocols did not contemplate an intercept?

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/chp7.html

Order 7610.4J: Special Military Operations
Effective Date: November 3, 1998
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.

[Sabrina]

I think perhaps a better question might be, what are YOU defining "intercept" as, LastChild?

Intercept can have several meanings in military terminology, one of which includes "get visual/radar contact of the target and observe while waiting for further instructions." So yes, it is entirely possible for a plane to be "intercepted" from five miles away, assuming the plane doing the intercepting has radar and can observe from a distance to ensure that the plane is not going through crazy and wild maneuvers that would be a danger to air traffic moving in closer. They'd wait for further instructions at that point, which might include "move in closer and "escort" (i.e. shadow) the plane to this location".

[LastChild]

I think perhaps a better question might be, what are YOU defining "intercept" as, LastChild?

Intercept can have several meanings in military terminology, one of which includes "get visual/radar contact of the target and observe while waiting for further instructions." So yes, it is entirely possible for a plane to be "intercepted" from five miles away, assuming the plane doing the intercepting has radar and can observe from a distance to ensure that the plane is not going through crazy and wild maneuvers that would be a danger to air traffic moving in closer. They'd wait for further instructions at that point, which might include "move in closer and "escort" (i.e. shadow) the plane to this location".

Ok Sabrina if there are multiple meanings of the intercept then is it correct for the 9/11 commission to make the claim...

“The protocols did not contemplate an intercept. "

And tell me what good is observing a hijacked plane from 5 miles away. That's not escorting that's observing. Now if they are observing from 5 miles away and the plane does make crazy and wild maneuvers what are their options? And would they write up training drill a script before 9/11 to observe a hijacked plane from 5 miles away? Is that the entire training senario? Follow the plane from 5 miles away?

[TheGrunion]

And tell me what good is observing a hijacked plane from 5 miles away. That's not escorting that's observing. Now if they are observing from 5 miles away and the plane does make crazy and wild maneuvers what are their options? And would they write up training drill a script before 9/11 to observe a hijacked plane from 5 miles away? Is that the entire training senario? Follow the plane from 5 miles away?

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity

What do you believe the appropriate distance should be and why? Do you think that it should be like Top Gun and they fly upside down and directly over the plane?

[Z]

Did you read the entire article or just the parts you like?


But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska.

I read it - you, on the other hand, seem to have some considerable reading comprehension issues.

Those domestic flights were to practice standard hijacking response techniques, LC - as you can see, there's no mention of domestic flights being used as weapons.

As for your questions about 'five miles away' - do you realize what a small distance this is for a plane that can travel two or three times the speed of sound?

Just off the top of my head, using very rough estimates - let's say a fighter jet can do 1400 mph. That's about 23 miles per minute - or approx. 13 seconds to cover five miles.

That's all.

It's a puny distance. And some of our craft can reach 2100 mph or more. With missiles that can shoot targets miles away, the fighter doesn't need to be any closer than that.

But I'm sure you're going to keep playing silly semantic games at me...

[Jonnyclueless]

Lastchild, the question is, are you kidding US? Seriously.

[LastChild]

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity

What do you believe the appropriate distance should be and why? Do you think that it should be like Top Gun and they fly upside down and directly over the plane?

No I want someone here to explain to me how they escort a HIJACKED plane to another country from 5 miles away. Show me the procedure. Do they just radio them and ask them nicely?

Btw it's claimed that they only trained for planes as weapons from other countries. Tell me what difference that makes if the plane is targeting a building inside the states. Wouldn't it have to be inside the country to hit a building inside the country?

[LastChild]

Stop dodging. Is this claim in the 9/11 commission report accurate?

“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.”

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/chp7.html

Order 7610.4J: Special Military Operations
Effective Date: November 3, 1998
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.

I also haven’t seen any of you address this…

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report...port_Notes.pdf
pg 113 of 119

21.As part of his 34-page analysis, the attorney explained why he thought that a fueled Boeing 747, used as a weapon,“must be considered capable of destroying virtually any building located anywhere in the world.” DOJ
memo, Robert D. to Cathleen C.,“Aerial Intercepts and Shoot- downs: Ambiguities of Law and Practical Considerations,” Mar. 30, 2000, p. 10. Also, in February 1974, a man named Samuel Byck attempted to commandeer a plane at Baltimore Washington International Airport with the intention of forcing the pilots to fly into Washington and crash into the White House to kill the president.The man was shot by police and then killed himself on the aircraft while it was still on the ground at the airport.

[Dave Rogers]

No I want someone here to explain to me how they escort a HIJACKED plane to another country from 5 miles away. Show me the procedure. Do they just radio them and ask them nicely?

No, in a conventional hijack situation the hijackers tell the pilot where they want him to go and the fighter plane follows. There's no way a fighter can force an airliner to go where it doesn't want to, the only thing it can do is shoot it down. In a conventional hijack situation that's not exactly a good idea.

Btw it's claimed that they only trained for planes as weapons from other countries. Tell me what difference that makes if the plane is targeting a building inside the states. Wouldn't it have to be inside the country to hit a building inside the country?

Nice try at playing dumb. If it's coming from outside the country there's more time to figure out something's wrong and get fighters up to intercept, because it would be expected to be hijacked while outside the country. If it's hijacked inside the country, there's a lot less time to do anything. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda realised that before 9-11 and the US didn't.

As for the claim in the 9-11 Commission report, it's clear that they're just using a slightly different definition of the word "intercept" than the Special Military Operations order. The 9-11 Commission report makes it clear that the protocol calls for a fighter aircraft to be placed in a specific position relative to the hijacked airplane, which is the definition used by the military of the word "intercept". So all you've identified is a minor misuse of language by the Commission, the type of error that everybody makes, every day.

OK, congratulations, you've identified a linguistic error in the 9-11 Commission report. It's utterly trivial and it doesn't change the meaning of the report in any sense whatsoever, but it's an error. Well done. Doesn't cut it for me, though; if you're trying to prove an inside job, it'll take a misused apostrophe at the very least.

Dave

[LastChild]

No, in a conventional hijack situation the hijackers tell the pilot where they want him to go and the fighter plane follows. There's no way a fighter can force an airliner to go where it doesn't want to, the only thing it can do is shoot it down. In a conventional hijack situation that's not exactly a good idea.

It's ridiculous to claim they trained for planes being used as weapons and domestically hijacked planes but never put two and two together. Then follow it all up with...

“The protocols did not contemplate an intercept."

There is nothing accurate about any of it.

Nice try at playing dumb. If it's coming from outside the country there's more time to figure out something's wrong and get fighters up to intercept, because it would be expected to be hijacked while outside the country. If it's hijacked inside the country, there's a lot less time to do anything. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda realised that before 9-11 and the US didn't.

Who is playing dumb? To claim that NORAD only trained for shooting ducks in a barrel is what's dumb. We have planes coming in from out of the country everyday. The 9/11 planes were hijacked in mid-flight. What's to stop a hijacker on a plane from another country to wait until the plane is in or near the states to take it over? Canada is on our border and Cuba is only 90 miles away. It makes no difference.

So what we have is NORAD admitting they trained for planes as weapons but only from other countries. They also trained for planes to be hijacked inside the country. But their excuse for 9/11 is that they never put two and two together even though as far back as 1974 they knew of plots to domestically hijack planes and crash then into buildings. The White house no less.

As for the claim in the 9-11 Commission report, it's clear that they're just using a slightly different definition of the word "intercept" than the Special Military Operations order. The 9-11 Commission report makes it clear that the protocol calls for a fighter aircraft to be placed in a specific position relative to the hijacked airplane, which is the definition used by the military of the word "intercept". So all you've identified is a minor misuse of language by the Commission, the type of error that everybody makes, every day.

OK, congratulations, you've identified a linguistic error in the 9-11 Commission report. It's utterly trivial and it doesn't change the meaning of the report in any sense whatsoever, but it's an error. Well done. Doesn't cut it for me, though; if you're trying to prove an inside job, it'll take a misused apostrophe at the very least.

Dave

Thank you for the congratulations but I think I pointed out a little more then just that. What you have there is the report talking out of both sides of it mouth to pretend they covered all the bases and an attempt to keep up their own plausible deniability. There is no real explanation there just an inaccurate statement and lame excuses.

[Jonnyclueless]

It only seems unreasonable when you pick separate things apart and try to pretend they are one continuous entity. That's the problem with intellectual dishonesty. It doesn't work as well if everyone else isn't playing along.

[Par]

What you have there is the report talking out of both sides of it mouth to pretend they covered all the bases and an attempt to keep up their own plausible deniability.


Why should we prefer this conspiratorial explanation to the rather more parsimonious “linguistic error” one?

[T.A.M.]

Btw it's claimed that they only trained for planes as weapons from other countries. Tell me what difference that makes if the plane is targeting a building inside the states. Wouldn't it have to be inside the country to hit a building inside the country?

You may be correct, but that is not what was being discussed. The issue was errors in the commission report, and this was not an error. The Commission made the point that DOMESTIC HIJACKS used as WEAPONS were not accounted for by NORAD prior to 9/11. You have not provided any evidence that proves this false.

TAM:)

[Par]

You may be correct, but that is not what was being discussed. The issue was errors in the commission report, and this was not an error. The Commission made the point that DOMESTIC HIJACKS used as WEAPONS were not accounted for by NORAD prior to 9/11. You have not provided any evidence that proves this false.


To be precise, the issue was significant errors in the Commission Report.

:)

[Dave Rogers]

It's ridiculous to claim they trained for planes being used as weapons and domestically hijacked planes but never put two and two together. Then follow it all up with...

“The protocols did not contemplate an intercept."

There is nothing accurate about any of it.

To summarise: you don't believe it, so it's an error. Definition of an argument from incredulity.

So what we have is NORAD admitting they trained for planes as weapons but only from other countries. They also trained for planes to be hijacked inside the country. But their excuse for 9/11 is that they never put two and two together even though as far back as 1974 they knew of plots to domestically hijack planes and crash then into buildings. The White house no less.

Yes, that's exactly what NORAD were eventually forced to admit. With 20/20 hindsight, it looks embarrassing, and I'm not entirely surprised they tries to cover their arses. However, all you've pointed out here is that NORAD failed to anticipate the 9-11 attacks, and you're using this as evidence that the claim that NORAD never anticipated the 9-11 attacks was false. This is a mobius argument, never mind circular.

Dave

[twinstead]

I'm afraid you all set yourselves up by asking LC to find 'a single error'. It's like asking them to find 'one demolitions expert who thinks the WTC was a CD' only to have Jowenko trotted out again, or asking for a 'single expert who thinks the official story is impossible' and having the idiotic scholars for truth trotted out.

You should know better. God of the gaps is strong debate mojo...

[tsig]

No I want someone here to explain to me how they escort a HIJACKED plane to another country from 5 miles away. Show me the procedure. Do they just radio them and ask them nicely?

Btw it's claimed that they only trained for planes as weapons from other countries. Tell me what difference that makes if the plane is targeting a building inside the states. Wouldn't it have to be inside the country to hit a building inside the country?

Your wants aren't our demands. If you want to learn use the search function. Why should anyone here spoon feed you?

[tsig]

snip.



Who is playing dumb? snip

I don't think you're playing. Seems real to me.

[LastChild]

Shall we start again because the only thing I see as non- significant are any of the replies to my posts.

This is an error…

“…we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization.”

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=1668
For example, one Saudi public relations blitz came on the heels of Riyadh's refusal to cooperate with German authorities investigating links between a Saudi diplomat in Berlin and Mounir Motassadeq, who is charged with more than 3,000 counts of accessory to murder in the September 11 plot.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...3/ai_n16763942


This is an error…

“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.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

This is an error…

“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.”

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/chp7.html

Order 7610.4J: Special Military Operations
Effective Date: November 3, 1998
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.

Hand waving and excuses doesn’t make them any less errors. And being that this calls into question the credibility of a report on the deaths of almost 3000 Americans they are all significant.

The best you can hope for is to call them errors. I’m just being polite when I refer to them as mere errors.

[Par]

I'm afraid you all set yourselves up by asking LC to find 'a single error'. It's like asking them to find 'one demolitions expert who thinks the WTC was a CD' only to have Jowenko trotted out again, or asking for a 'single expert who thinks the official story is impossible' and having the idiotic scholars for truth trotted out. You should know better. God of the gaps is strong debate mojo...



In fairness, I don’t think anyone has asked him to highlight “a single error”, but rather to list “the significant lies/errors”.

[DGM]

Shall we start again because the only thing I see as non- significant are any of the replies to my posts.

This is an error…



This is an error…



This is an error…



Hand waving and excuses doesn’t make them any less errors. And being that this calls into question the credibility of a report on the deaths of almost 3000 Americans they are all significant.

The best you can hope for is to call them errors. I’m just being polite when I refer to them as mere errors.
Last Child:
I'll give you these errors. Now please present the better explanation for what happened that day so we can scrutinize it. Fair enough?

I personally have not heard a single theory that would bring the commission's report into doubt. Do you have one?

[mortimer]

“…we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization.”

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=1668
For example, one Saudi public relations blitz came on the heels of Riyadh's refusal to cooperate with German authorities investigating links between a Saudi diplomat in Berlin and Mounir Motassadeq, who is charged with more than 3,000 counts of accessory to murder in the September 11 plot.

You have not yet shown how a German investigation into links between a Saudi diplomat and a hijacker constitutes evidence of Saudi government or senior Saudi officials funding Al Qaeda. Please do so, or retract the claim.

[Dave Rogers]

Shall we start again because the only thing I see as non- significant are any of the replies to my posts.

This is an error…

“…we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization.”

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/t...5.php?CID=1668 (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=1668)
For example, one Saudi public relations blitz came on the heels of Riyadh's refusal to cooperate with German authorities investigating links between a Saudi diplomat in Berlin and Mounir Motassadeq, who is charged with more than 3,000 counts of accessory to murder in the September 11 plot.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...3/ai_n16763942 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...3/ai_n16763942)



This says nothing about funding, nor is the Saudi diplomat identified as a "senior Saudi official". No evidence of funding, therefore your assertion is rejected.

This is an error…

“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.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...18-norad_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm)

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.



Already explained, but let me spell it out. There are three characteristics to the specific threat under discussion: hijacking commercial airliners (A), within the United States (B), and using them as guided missiles (C). NORAD considered (A)+(B), and considered (A)+(C), but never considered (A)+(B)+(C). However much you choose not to believe this, it isn't an error. Rejected.


This is an error…


“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.”

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/chp7.html (http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/chp7.html)

Order 7610.4J: Special Military Operations
Effective Date: November 3, 1998
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.




Already explained. The military definition of an intercept is that a fighter aircraft is vectored to a specific position relative to the hijacked airliner. The 9-11 Commission Report states that policy is to vector a fighter aircraft to a specific position relative to the hijacked airliner. The error is that they do not recognise that this falls within the military definition of the word "interception", and is therefore linguistic. An error, but not a significant error. Rejected on the terms of the thread title.

I suggest you try something else.

Dave

[LastChild]

Last Child:
I'll give you these errors. Now please present the better explanation for what happened that day so we can scrutinize it. Fair enough?

I personally have not heard a single theory that would bring the commission's report into doubt. Do you have one?

I don't subscribe to any particuliar theory as the proven truth. They are all just conspiracy theories to me NIST and the 9/11 commission report included.

[Unsecured Coins]

This is my son, Jayson Gage.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_15107473c7b421be1a.jpg
He's 4. When I come home from work every day, I get a hug, a kiss, and a demand to watch "Traybonjers" because he's absolutely nuts about that film. Loves it. He loves it to a fault to where every semi we pass on the road is Optimus Prime, and every yellow car with black stripes is Bumblebee. Since he first saw the movie, he firmly believes that every car is really a robot, because he is a child, and along with all his fingers and toes he also has an imagination. That is innocence when he says Megatron doesn't come into his room at night because the Bumblebee statuette on his windowsill protects him. It is innocence talking when he says that he thinks my truck is really Ironhide. It is innocence talking when he thinks planes in the sky are Starscream.

He is a child, and that's what he believes in.

Many years from now, when he's older and can comprehend things and events better, he'll understand what I'm saying when I show him how they were able to make a car turn into a robot and make it walk around. After I explain this to him, 2 things are going to happen. He's either going to nod his head and say "ok" and go on about his life, content with everything but slightly disappointed in the reality of not having an alien Camaro for a guardian and friend, or he'll refuse to believe what I have told him and go on thinking that my Les Paul will suddenly change form and go on a rampage. That, my friend, is ignorance. Not being able to fully take in what you see is what thing, writing it off simply because it goes against what you want to think rather than what really exists is another.

[Par]

And being that this calls into question the credibility of a report on the deaths of almost 3000 Americans they are all significant.


This is an example of the circular reasoning fallacy. The premise is essentially a differently worded version of the conclusion.

[lapman]

Shall we start again because the only thing I see as non- significant are any of the replies to my posts.

This is an error…


Quote:
“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.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...18-norad_x.htm

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.
.Again, you're missing the key phrase:
within the United States-and using them as guided missiles
Please tell us you know the difference between "within the United States" and "outside the United States - flying them into the United States - and using them as guided missiles." They are talking about where the hijacking originated, not ended up.

[DGM]

I don't subscribe to any particuliar theory as the proven truth. They are all just conspiracy theories to me NIST and the 9/11 commission report included.
So you argue for the sake argument.

[tsig]

I don't subscribe to any particuliar theory as the proven truth. They are all just conspiracy theories to me NIST and the 9/11 commission report included.

So you don't know how the buildings fell down? Not a clue? Even a idea?

[LastChild]

So you don't know how the buildings fell down? Not a clue? Even a idea?

A clue or an idea isn't proof.

[LastChild]

So you argue for the sake argument.


No I argue because I don't find the versions we have been fed as truth any more adequate then some of the conspiracy theories. It doesn't matter how many conspiracy theories get debunked. One conspiracy theory has nothing to do with another. Debunking one doesn't prove another true.

[DGM]

A clue or an idea isn't proof.
Do you believe any kind of investigation could possible lead to a conclusive proof? Never any doubts. Billions of dollars and thousands of people have and still are working on it you know.

[lapman]

No I argue because I don't find the versions we have been fed as truth any more adequate then some of the conspiracy theories. It doesn't matter how many conspiracy theories get debunked. One conspiracy theory has nothing to do with another. Debunking one doesn't prove another true.
Like OMG! You, like, said something, like, totally, like, almost intelligent.

We don't believe any of the theories just because it's in a report or the government says so either. However, we base our opinions on the full body of evidence, not just a few cherry picked YouTube videos that may, or may not support a speculation.

[LastChild]

Do you believe any kind of investigation could possible lead to a conclusive proof? Never any doubts. Billions of dollars and thousands of people have and still are working on it you know.

I don't think it can ever be a black and white situation so some people would never be satisfied. I understand that. I do feel however the 9/11 commission report is far from the best they could have done. In fact it's been shown that some people showed an interest in having no investigation at all.

[DGM]

I don't think it can ever be a black and white situation so some people would never be satisfied. I understand that. I do feel however the 9/11 commission report is far from the best they could have done. In fact it's been shown that some people showed an interest in having no investigation at all.
That is wrong. No one said they didn't want it investigated. The investigations started minutes after the first plane hit and have continued ever since.

Are you just looking for a scapegoat?

[Good Lt]

I don't think it can ever be a black and white situation so some people would never be satisfied.


Then why have another investigation? You'll NEVER be satisfied with the results unless it bends to fit your belief that 9-11 was an inside job.

You appear to have already come to the conclusion. An investigation follows the flow of facts and then reaches a conclusion. And the investigations that have been following the facts have not reached the conclusion that you've reached by following your emotions and not the facts.

So all of this "we need another investigation" is really just a call by you and the Troofers to legitimize your friends in the Troof movement because their conclusions (again, not based in fact) are not gaining legitimacy and never will.

do feel however the 9/11 commission report is far from the best they could have done. In fact it's been shown that some people showed an interest in having no investigation at all.

This is irrelevant. An investigation (several) took place or are taking place, and they're not being run by those who have reached foregone conclusions based on wild conspiracy fantasies, rumors and rampant speculation. And it is, then, no surprise that these real life investigations don't reach wild and speculative conclusions drawn by Troofer "researchers." They never will.

That's how investigations work.

QED

[Par]

Like OMG! You, like, said something, like, totally, like, almost intelligent. We don't believe any of the theories just because it's in a report or the government says so either. However, we base our opinions on the full body of evidence, not just a few cherry picked YouTube videos that may, or may not support a speculation.


He has already been explained this both at length and with characteristic eloquence by Myriad.

[LastChild]

That is wrong. No one said they didn't want it investigated. The investigations started minutes after the first plane hit and have continued ever since.

Are you just looking for a scapegoat?

I'm talking about the topic of this thread as well as the topic of the post you are replying to. You know... the 9/11 commission?


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml

Bush Opposes 9/11 Query Panel
May 23, 2002
(CBS) President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,437267,00.html

9-11 Commission Funding Woes
Mar 26 2003
Is the Bush White House trying to put the brakes on the congressional panel created last fall to investigate 9-11 attacks? Sources tell TIME that the White House brushed off a request quietly made last week by the 9-11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean, the Republican former governor of New Jersey, to boost his budget by $11 million. Kean had sought the funding as part of the $75 billion supplemental spending bill that the president just requested to pay for war with Iraq. Bush's recent move has miffed some members of the 9-11 panel.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28025-2004Jan18?language=printer

9/11 Panel Unlikely to Get Later Deadline
Hearings Being Scaled Back to Finish Work by May; Top Officials Expected to Testify
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 19, 2004; Page A09
President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, virtually guaranteeing that the panel will have to complete its work by the end of May, officials said last week.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E6DE1F3AF93BA15757C0A9629C8B 63

Bush-Cheney 9/11 Interview Won't Be Formally Recorded
April 28, 2004
The White House said on Tuesday that there would be no recording or formal transcription of the historic joint interview of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney by the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Mr. Bush will not be under oath, and the White House has been adamant that what he says should not be considered official testimony.

[DGM]

I'm talking about the topic of this thread as well as the topic of the post you are replying to. You know... the 9/11 commission?


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml

Bush Opposes 9/11 Query Panel
May 23, 2002
(CBS) President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,437267,00.html

9-11 Commission Funding Woes
Mar 26 2003
Is the Bush White House trying to put the brakes on the congressional panel created last fall to investigate 9-11 attacks? Sources tell TIME that the White House brushed off a request quietly made last week by the 9-11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean, the Republican former governor of New Jersey, to boost his budget by $11 million. Kean had sought the funding as part of the $75 billion supplemental spending bill that the president just requested to pay for war with Iraq. Bush's recent move has miffed some members of the 9-11 panel.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28025-2004Jan18?language=printer

9/11 Panel Unlikely to Get Later Deadline
Hearings Being Scaled Back to Finish Work by May; Top Officials Expected to Testify
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 19, 2004; Page A09
President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, virtually guaranteeing that the panel will have to complete its work by the end of May, officials said last week.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E6DE1F3AF93BA15757C0A9629C8B 63

Bush-Cheney 9/11 Interview Won't Be Formally Recorded
April 28, 2004
The White House said on Tuesday that there would be no recording or formal transcription of the historic joint interview of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney by the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Mr. Bush will not be under oath, and the White House has been adamant that what he says should not be considered official testimony.
But the post I replied to did not specify that.

I don't think it can ever be a black and white situation so some people would never be satisfied. I understand that. I do feel however the 9/11 commission report is far from the best they could have done. In fact it's been shown that some people showed an interest in having no investigation at all.

Surly you live up to the standards of accuracy you expect from others, Right?





9/11 Commission was only one of many.


ETA- Nice copy and paiste job BTW

[Par]

I'm talking about the topic of this thread as well as the topic of the post you are replying to. You know... the 9/11 commission?


Well, it’s not just about the 9/11 Commission Report, it’s about the supposed significant lies/errors in the 9/11 Commission Report. None of your latest info-blast seems to address that topic.

[T.A.M.]

LastChild:

You have yet to prove that the 9/11 Commission was in error when they stated that prior to 9/11 NORAD had not prepared for the scenario of USA BASED AIRCRAFT being used as weapons.

So your #2, has yet to be proven as an error. I do not think we should move on until (A) you prove it an error (which you have not), or you concede you were wrong.

TAM:)

[LastChild]

Well, it’s not just about the 9/11 Commission Report, it’s about the supposed significant lies/errors in the 9/11 Commission Report. None of your latest info-blast seems to address that topic.

I posted the links as a reply to a question that was not on the errors in the report. I was clarifying what I meant by some people being against the investigation initially as in the 9/11 commission investigation.

[LastChild]

LastChild:

You have yet to prove that the 9/11 Commission was in error when they stated that prior to 9/11 NORAD had not prepared for the scenario of USA BASED AIRCRAFT being used as weapons.

So your #2, has yet to be proven as an error. I do not think we should move on until (A) you prove it an error (which you have not), or you concede you were wrong.

TAM:)


I disagree and I explained why. Sorry.

I don't think I need your approval to move on if I so choose. Because I do have some more "errors" I'd like to get to. I just haven't had time to put them together yet. Maybe later.

[T.A.M.]

well you said "Start again", and I said "I do not THINK we should move on". I wasnt telling you what to do, just as you were not telling me.

If you want to agree to disagree on the point, fine, but to misrepresent as if the matter was settled, or you won (calling our replies non-significant), is not really fair...is it?

You made a statement that the commission was in error, yet your article does not prove such. please show me where in the article provided, that you have proven that the commissions comment that

“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.”

...is false or in error.

TAM:)

[Par]

...I do have some more "errors" I'd like to get to. I just haven't had time to put them together yet. Maybe later.


You could always just provide us with the link.

[LastChild]

well you said "Start again", and I said "I do not THINK we should move on". I wasnt telling you what to do, just as you were not telling me.

If you want to agree to disagree on the point, fine, but to misrepresent as if the matter was settled, or you won (calling our replies non-significant), is not really fair...is it?

You made a statement that the commission was in error, yet your article does not prove such. please show me where in the article provided, that you have proven that the commissions comment that

“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.”

...is false or in error.

TAM:)

I agree to disagree. Remember I was asked for lies and errors and I'm trying to be polite. I think the commission is committing double talk with their little qualifiers. Like "within the US" as if it matters. Then for some here to claim that they only prepared to intercept hijacked aircraft when the commission also states an intercept wasn't part of the protocol either is just another error and not an excuse. If you want to claim is not an error, not disingenuous, not dishonest with their false implication then fine. I’m moving on.

[LastChild]

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_10.pdf

“No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001.”

“We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4014-2004Jul21.html

A staff report by the Sept. 11 commission this spring said the flight was one of six chartered flights carrying 142 people, mostly Saudi nationals, from the United States between Sept. 14 and 24 after airspace was reopened. The U.S. government had allowed, before commercial airspace was reopened, at least one domestic flight for Saudis who had feared for their safety, Lautenberg's staff said.


http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_10.pdf

“The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity.”

“The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks, or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion.”


http://www.judicialwatch.org/6322.shtml

Judicial Watch Releases New FBI Documents: Osama bin Laden May Have Chartered Saudi Flight Out of U.S. after 9/11
Moreover, the documents contain numerous errors and inconsistencies which call to question the thoroughness of the FBI’s investigation of the Saudi flights. For example, on one document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 20 of 23 passengers on the Ryan International Airlines flight (commonly referred to as the “Bin Laden Family Flight”). On another document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 15 of 22 passengers on the same flight.


U.S. District Court Judge Richard W. Roberts ordered the FBI to resubmit “proper disclosures” to the Court and Judicial Watch, having previously criticized the adequacy of redaction descriptions, the validity of exemption claims, and other errors in the FBI’s disclosures. Incredibly, the FBI had previously redacted Osama bin Laden’s name from the records in order “to protect privacy interests.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4014-2004Jul21.html

The flight manifest lists 13 people with the bin Laden surname and others with Brazilian, British, Indonesian and Yemeni passports. Passenger Omar Awad bin Laden had lived with Abdullah bin Laden, a nephew of Osama bin Laden who was involved in forming the U.S. branch of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth in Alexandria. Federal agents raided the office this spring in connection with a terrorism-related investigation. The FBI has described the group as a "suspected terrorist organization."

[DGM]

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_10.pdf

“No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001.”

“We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4014-2004Jul21.html

A staff report by the Sept. 11 commission this spring said the flight was one of six chartered flights carrying 142 people, mostly Saudi nationals, from the United States between Sept. 14 and 24 after airspace was reopened. The U.S. government had allowed, before commercial airspace was reopened, at least one domestic flight for Saudis who had feared for their safety, Lautenberg's staff said.


http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_10.pdf

“The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity.”

“The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks, or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion.”


http://www.judicialwatch.org/6322.shtml

Judicial Watch Releases New FBI Documents: Osama bin Laden May Have Chartered Saudi Flight Out of U.S. after 9/11
Moreover, the documents contain numerous errors and inconsistencies which call to question the thoroughness of the FBI’s investigation of the Saudi flights. For example, on one document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 20 of 23 passengers on the Ryan International Airlines flight (commonly referred to as the “Bin Laden Family Flight”). On another document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 15 of 22 passengers on the same flight.


U.S. District Court Judge Richard W. Roberts ordered the FBI to resubmit “proper disclosures” to the Court and Judicial Watch, having previously criticized the adequacy of redaction descriptions, the validity of exemption claims, and other errors in the FBI’s disclosures. Incredibly, the FBI had previously redacted Osama bin Laden’s name from the records in order “to protect privacy interests.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4014-2004Jul21.html

The flight manifest lists 13 people with the bin Laden surname and others with Brazilian, British, Indonesian and Yemeni passports. Passenger Omar Awad bin Laden had lived with Abdullah bin Laden, a nephew of Osama bin Laden who was involved in forming the U.S. branch of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth in Alexandria. Federal agents raided the office this spring in connection with a terrorism-related investigation. The FBI has described the group as a "suspected terrorist organization."
Try again these flights were after the reopening.

[lapman]

I thought that this was supposed to be about significant lies/errors?

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_10.pdf

“No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001.”

“We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4014-2004Jul21.html

A staff report by the Sept. 11 commission this spring said the flight was one of six chartered flights carrying 142 people, mostly Saudi nationals, from the United States between Sept. 14 and 24 after airspace was reopened. The U.S. government had allowed, before commercial airspace was reopened, at least one domestic flight for Saudis who had feared for their safety, Lautenberg's staff said.
First, is there a copy of the log book entries for the pilots and aircraft that confirms the Lautenberg staff statement?
Second, how is missing just one domestic flight considered "significant?"

[T.A.M.]

I agree to disagree. Remember I was asked for lies and errors and I'm trying to be polite. I think the commission is committing double talk with their little qualifiers. Like "within the US" as if it matters. Then for some here to claim that they only prepared to intercept hijacked aircraft when the commission also states an intercept wasn't part of the protocol either is just another error and not an excuse. If you want to claim is not an error, not disingenuous, not dishonest with their false implication then fine. I’m moving on.

You misunderstand me as someone who is presently arguing opinion. We were talking (or at least I was) facts. The fact is that technically there was no error in what they said. as for the intent, the dishonesty or lack of, that is opinion, and speculation, which we usually do not promote here in terms of debate...

If we are moving on, only to have the same argument each time, because your perception or take on the "intent" of a statement by the Commission is your evidence or error, than it is pointless.

When people here are asking you to point out errors in the report, they are not asking you to point out what you feel is misleading, or dishonest, but to point out the FACTUAL ERRORS in the report...everything else depends on your pov.

TAM:)

[pomeroo]

No I argue because I don't find the versions we have been fed as truth any more adequate then some of the conspiracy theories. It doesn't matter how many conspiracy theories get debunked. One conspiracy theory has nothing to do with another. Debunking one doesn't prove another true.


Precise use of language is a good thing. You don't argue; you blather. NIST published a comprehensive explanation of the collapses of the Towers. You refuse to read any of it. You have no opinion on the "adequacy" of NIST's explanation because you have, at best, only the haziest notion of what it is and you lack competence in any scientific field.

Going a step further, one of the leaders of the fantasy movement, David Ray Griffin, has offered extensive criticisms of the NIST Report in his latest book. Have you read Griffin and do you find him persuasive?

Finally, Ryan Mackey has subjected Griffin's views to a withering critique in a recently-published whitepaper. Have you read it? Why not? Mackey is a scientist and he has no problems understanding that the impacts of the planes and the resultant fires brought down the buildings. You must think that he's making mistakes, but what are they?

You mulishly refuse to go where the overwhelming evidence leads. You bring to the table your irrational hatred of America, your emotional need to stand reality on its head, and what else?

[T.A.M.]

dont' hold back Ron.:D

TAM:)

[pomeroo]

dont' hold back Ron.:D

TAM:)


TAM, am I too wishy-washy?

[twinstead]

TAM, am I too wishy-washy?

I was thinking the same thing. You need to grow some cajones pameroo and tell people how you really feel ;)

[MIKILLINI]

do you have any idea what domestic exercise means?

why do I have a feeling this is going to turn into another propitious to policy marathon?

If that happens, there can always be another Selma interlude.:D

[MIKILLINI]

No I argue because I don't find the versions we have been fed as truth any more adequate then some of the conspiracy theories. It doesn't matter how many conspiracy theories get debunked. One conspiracy theory has nothing to do with another. Debunking one doesn't prove another true.

I asked this same question to A-Train, but I didn't get a response. So...
LC, if You look up the definition of comprehension, one section reads as follows; It involves the ability to make sense of the material.

This would indicate the ability to understand and accept the truth. Where are you going to get the truth? How are you going to know it's the truth? When will you realize it's the truth? Are you going to use facts to arrive at the truth or are you going to continue with the assumption that the Government was the perpetrator on 9/11?

[Shrinker]

No I argue because I don't find the versions we have been fed as truth any more adequate then some of the conspiracy theories.

This is an interesting thing to say in a thread were a conspiracy theorist has been asked to find significant errors in a 600 page book, and essentially failed. Whereas supporters of the official story have studied a single forum post of this conspiracy theorist, containing only three points, and found all three to be erroneous or dishonest.

[LastChild]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/3569.shtml

US Government Documents Show 160 Saudis Flew from the US Between September 11 and September 15, 2001

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/homelandsecurity.pdf

[LastChild]

Precise use of language is a good thing. You don't argue; you blather. NIST published a comprehensive explanation of the collapses of the Towers. You refuse to read any of it. You have no opinion on the "adequacy" of NIST's explanation because you have, at best, only the haziest notion of what it is and you lack competence in any scientific field.

Going a step further, one of the leaders of the fantasy movement, David Ray Griffin, has offered extensive criticisms of the NIST Report in his latest book. Have you read Griffin and do you find him persuasive?

Finally, Ryan Mackey has subjected Griffin's views to a withering critique in a recently-published whitepaper. Have you read it? Why not? Mackey is a scientist and he has no problems understanding that the impacts of the planes and the resultant fires brought down the buildings. You must think that he's making mistakes, but what are they?

You mulishly refuse to go where the overwhelming evidence leads. You bring to the table your irrational hatred of America, your emotional need to stand reality on its head, and what else?

What's the matter Ron are you still mad because Griffin won't come on your hack show?

Get over it will you? I mean why would he come talk to you. Who are you?

[LastChild]

This is an interesting thing to say in a thread were a conspiracy theorist has been asked to find significant errors in a 600 page book, and essentially failed. Whereas supporters of the official story have studied a single forum post of this conspiracy theorist, containing only three points, and found all three to be erroneous or dishonest.

What's interesting is how you fail to dispute any of it in any significant way.

[LastChild]

I asked this same question to A-Train, but I didn't get a response. So...
LC, if You look up the definition of comprehension, one section reads as follows; It involves the ability to make sense of the material.

This would indicate the ability to understand and accept the truth. Where are you going to get the truth? How are you going to know it's the truth? When will you realize it's the truth? Are you going to use facts to arrive at the truth or are you going to continue with the assumption that the Government was the perpetrator on 9/11?

You're the only one making any assumptions.

[MIKILLINI]

You're the only one making any assumptions.

I'm not the one asking for another investigation.

[LastChild]

I'm not the one asking for another investigation.

That's because you assume to know the truth. You also assume to know what I think.

[Gravy]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/3569.shtml

US Government Documents Show 160 Saudis Flew from the US Between September 11 and September 15, 2001

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/homelandsecurity.pdf

One person flew out on the regularly-scheduled flight on South Africa Airways on the morning of 9/11. The rest flew after commercial air travel was resumed on the 13th. Are you suggesting that these people (some of whom had already been questioned by the FBI) should have been detained without cause?

[DGM]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/3569.shtml

US Government Documents Show 160 Saudis Flew from the US Between September 11 and September 15, 2001

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/homelandsecurity.pdf
This does not support your argument. Only one was before 9/13 and it was from Atlanta. What time? I believe that's a regular morning flight. SA 210

ETA Damn Gravy, beat me again.

[Gravy]

Also, LastChild, the article you linked to is blatantly false. Nice research.

The CBP document, dated February 24, 2004, lists the birth date, visa status, citizenship, date of departure, port of departure, departing airline code, and flight number for each Saudi subject who left the country at a time when the US government had supposedly restricted all commercial and private air traffic through US airspace.

Failpost.

[LastChild]

One person flew out on the regularly-scheduled flight on South Africa Airways on the morning of 9/11. The rest flew after commercial air travel was resumed on the 13th. Are you suggesting that these people (some of whom had already been questioned by the FBI) should have been detained without cause?

I'm not suggesting anything I'm pointing to the facts. Are you suggesting they should have got preferential treatment? Was everyone allowed to fly on Sept 13th?

[Sabrina]

I'm not suggesting anything I'm pointing to the facts. Are you suggesting they should have got preferential treatment? Was everyone allowed to fly on Sept 13th?

IIRC, that is when commercial airtraffic was allowed to resume, yes.

[MIKILLINI]

That's because you assume to know the truth. You also assume to know what I think.

Early on I had assumptions, but those assumptions were initially gained from CT
sites linked to other sites with assumptions and speculations.
Coming to this forum changed My perceptions with investigative facts that proved Me wrong.
I don't assume to know what you think, but you think the government had some involvement. Why else would you want another investigation?

[Gravy]

I'm not suggesting anything I'm pointing to the facts. Are you suggesting they should have got preferential treatment? Was everyone allowed to fly on Sept 13th?Yes. How hard is that to find out? That you posted on this topic without researching it is simply sad.

[DGM]

I'm not suggesting anything I'm pointing to the facts. Are you suggesting they should have got preferential treatment? Was everyone allowed to fly on Sept 13th?
What did the 9/11 commission say?:D

[LastChild]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E4D8153DF934A15754C0A9629C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Scrutinizing the Saudi Connection
By GERALD POSNER
Published: July 27, 2004

The report fails, however, to note that when the flights occurred, airspace was open only to a limited number of commercial – not private -- planes. And it attributes incorrect positions maintained for months by the federal government, particularly the F.B.I., to a ''misunderstanding'' between federal and local law enforcement.

[LastChild]

Yes. How hard is that to find out? That you posted on this topic without researching it is simply sad.

You better go back and check your little notebook. Maybe it needs to be updated?

[DGM]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E4D8153DF934A15754C0A9629C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Scrutinizing the Saudi Connection
By GERALD POSNER
Published: July 27, 2004

The report fails, however, to note that when the flights occurred, airspace was open only to a limited number of commercial – not private -- planes. And it attributes incorrect positions maintained for months by the federal government, particularly the F.B.I., to a ''misunderstanding'' between federal and local law enforcement.
This supports you position on the 9/11 commission how?

[LastChild]

This supports you position on the 9/11 commission how?

In the sense that it's dishonest and inaccurate.

[LastChild]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=flight+ban&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go
September 13, 2001: Saudi Royals Fly to Kentucky in Violation of Domestic Flight Ban

After a complete air flight ban in the US began during the 9/11 attacks, some commercial flights begin resuming this day. However, all private flights are still banned from flying. Nonetheless, at least one private flight carrying Saudi royalty takes place on this day. And in subsequent days, other flights carry royalty and bin Laden family members. These flights take place even as fighters escort down three other private planes attempting to fly.

[LastChild]

Now did they fly in a way (private) and at a time that other flights of the same manner and time were still banned?

Yes or no?

[contra]

Keyword Royalty? As much as people don't like to admit it, they do get treated differently to the rest of people. Its not like these people are normal people from Saudi Arabia or nationals. They are heard of state. I'm pretty sure George Bush travelled during the week after 9/11. I have no idea how many other countries royalty or heads of state were in the country...

And nowhere does it say how many other private jets there were during the days after 911; 3 were escourted in... but how many flights were there?

[DGM]

In the sense that it's dishonest and inaccurate.
You said
“No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001.”

“We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace.”

Care to change your story now?

[LastChild]

Keyword Royalty? As much as people don't like to admit it, they do get treated differently to the rest of people. Its not like these people are normal people from Saudi Arabia or nationals. They are heard of state. I'm pretty sure George Bush travelled during the week after 9/11. I have no idea how many other countries royalty or heads of state were in the country...

And nowhere does it say how many other private jets there were during the days after 911; 3 were escourted in... but how many flights were there?

There is no royalty in the US.

What does it matter how many were escorted down? The ban was still on for private planes. And it took a couple days before all commercial flights resumed.

[ihaunter]

The Claim you're disputing:

“No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001.”

“We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace.”


The evidence you present:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=flight+ban&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go
September 13, 2001: Saudi Royals Fly to Kentucky in Violation of Domestic Flight Ban


bolding added to both for emphasis
Again, not an error in the Commision Report.

[LastChild]

You said


Care to change your story now?

No it's dishonest in the same way their statement about Norad and hijacked planes is.

They are making a dishonest implication that the Saudis didn't get preferential treatment. That's not accurate is it?

[contra]

There is no royalty in the US.

What dose it matter how many were escorted down? The ban was still on for private planes. And it took a couple days before all commercial flights resumed.

But they are heads of state. There is a difference from a diplomat wanting to travel, and a head of state. It would be bad to annoy royalty, especially when they are pulling political pressure from above. I'm not saying its right... but its how it works.

And I wonder how many other private flights happened. Was it just those 4, or were others allowed as the situation called. It is very relevent.

[LastChild]

The Claim you're disputing:


The evidence you present:

bolding added to both for emphasis
Again, not an error in the Commision Report.

They departed the country the same day in the same plane when private planes were still grounded.

[DGM]

No it's dishonest in the same way their statement about Norad and hijacked planes is.

They are making a dishonest implication that the Saudis didn't get preferential treatment. That's not accurate is it?
Where did it say any thing about preferential treatment? Moving you own goal posts?

[LastChild]

But they are heads of state. There is a difference from a diplomat wanting to travel, and a head of state. It would be bad to annoy royalty, especially when they are pulling political pressure from above. I'm not saying its right... but its how it works.

And I wonder how many other private flights happened. Was it just those 4, or were others allowed as the situation called. It is very relevent.

Contra. The 9/11 commission is trying to imply the Saudis didn't get preferential treatment.

Is that accurate?

[LastChild]

Where did it say any thing about preferential treatment? Moving you own goal posts?

What are you talking about? Why is it addressed in the report? Why are people concerned with it?

[contra]

I don't know if they did. It could be noone cleared them to fly. If they were cleared there is a list of people that would know about it; I've only seen a few reports saying they violated the order not to fly. Nothing that says the government allowed them to fly.

I ask about other planes, because if there was a lot of it happening they could not do anything about its is significant.

[ihaunter]

They departed the country the same day in the same plane when private planes were still grounded.

Source for this claim? It's not in the linked article.

Edited to add: In fact the article says they left the next day.

[DGM]

What are you talking about? Why is it addressed in the report? Why are people concerned with it?
We're not! You said it was an error. Remember?

As far as why it's in the report. People are prejudice they fixate on this type of thing.

[LastChild]

“We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace.”

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E4D8153DF934A15754C0A9629C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

On Sept. 13, 2001, a private jet flew from Tampa, Fla., to Lexington, Ky., before leaving the country later that same day. On board were top Saudi businessmen and members of the royal family. The assertion is that they were afforded extraordinary treatment since they flew out after the most cursory F.B.I. checks and at a time when American airspace was still closed to private aviation.

It's dishonest and inaccurate.

[T.A.M.]

Fetzer, who at the time was one of the main leaders of the movement, went on "Hardfire". I understand why you would call it a "hack" show though, as it has been the burial site for many a stund truther.

DRG and others have seen what happens EACH AND EVERY TIME one of them sets foot on that studio floor...they get destroyed...plain and simple.

DRG, from what I have seen of his replies, fears debating Roberts, as he fears losing credibility with his movement, the purchasers of his merchandise.

TAM:)

[LastChild]

I don't know if they did. It could be noone cleared them to fly. If they were cleared there is a list of people that would know about it; I've only seen a few reports saying they violated the order not to fly. Nothing that says the government allowed them to fly.

I ask about other planes, because if there was a lot of it happening they could not do anything about its is significant.

I'm not saying they took it in their own hands and violated the order. I'm saying it was lifted for them while it still remained for others.

[LastChild]

Fetzer, who at the time was one of the main leaders of the movement, went on "Hardfire". I understand why you would call it a "hack" show though, as it has been the burial site for many a stund truther.

DRG and others have seen what happens EACH AND EVERY TIME one of them sets foot on that studio floor...they get destroyed...plain and simple.

DRG, from what I have seen of his replies, fears debating Roberts, as he fears losing credibility with his movement, the purchasers of his merchandise.

TAM:)

Yeah I looked it up on youtube and tried watching the debate between the loose change guys and Mark Roberts. Why would anyone go to a debate where you have to both debate your opponent and the host? Or was the host suppose to be the moderator? I couldn't tell.

Anyway what a snoozefest.

[LastChild]

DRG, from what I have seen of his replies, fears debating Roberts, as he fears losing credibility with his movement, the purchasers of his merchandise.

TAM:)

Really? Do you watch the hardfire debates for free or do you buy the hardfire DVD's?

[T.A.M.]

what does that have to do with DRG selling his snake oil to the starving truther nation?

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Yeah I looked it up on youtube and tried watching the debate between the loose change guys and Mark Roberts. Why would anyone go to a debate where you have to both debate your opponent and the host? Or was the host suppose to be the moderator? I couldn't tell.

Anyway what a snoozefest.

well there was two of the loose change boys, so why not two on the just side?

Roberts knocked out their lights, so why not yours...have a nice nap.

TAM:)

[pomeroo]

What's the matter Ron are you still mad because Griffin won't come on your hack show?

Get over it will you? I mean why would he come talk to you. Who are you?



Normally, I would ask the twoofer why he's lying, but you are obtuse enough to be unable to understand why Griffin chickened out. The issue of why he would or wouldn't talk to me is not a real one: He AGREED to talk with me. It is not a matter of opinion.

Are we clear on this? Good.

The reason he beat a shamefaced retreat is that Ryan Mackey has written a paper that exposes Griffin's chapter on the NIST Report as a farrago of errors and outright falsehoods. Griffin cannot hope to defend the nonsense he peddles to gullible, America-hating dunces, and he doesn't intend to try.

[Gravy]

“We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace.”

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E4D8153DF934A15754C0A9629C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

On Sept. 13, 2001, a private jet flew from Tampa, Fla., to Lexington, Ky., before leaving the country later that same day. On board were top Saudi businessmen and members of the royal family. The assertion is that they were afforded extraordinary treatment since they flew out after the most cursory F.B.I. checks and at a time when American airspace was still closed to private aviation.

It's dishonest and inaccurate.

Really? You clearly aren't paying attention. NATIONAL AIRSPACE WAS OPEN. You should try reading the 9/11 Commission Report. Page 556:
Another particular allegation is that a flight carrying Saudi nationals from Tampa, Florida, to Lexington, Kentucky, was allowed to fly while airspace was closed, with special approval by senior U.S. government officials. On September 13, Tampa police brought three young Saudis they were protecting on an off-duty security detail to the airport so they could get on a plane to Lexington. Tampa police arranged for two private investigators to provide security on the flight. They boarded a chartered Learjet. Dan Grossi interview (May 24, 2004); Manuel Perez interview (May 27, 2004); John Solomon interview (June 4, 2004); Michael Fendle interview (June 4, 2004). The plane took off at 4:37 P.M., after national airspace was open, more than five hours after the Tampa airport had reopened, and after other flights had arrived at and departed from that airport. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority,Tampa International Airport response to Commission questions for the record, June 7, 2004. The plane’s pilot told us there was “nothing unusual whatsoever” about the flight other than there were few airplanes in the sky. The company’s owner and director of operations agreed, saying that “it was just a routine little trip for us” and that he would have heard if there had been anything unusual about it. The pilot said he followed standard procedures and filed his flight plan with the FAA prior to the flight, adding,“I was never questioned about it.” Christopher Steele interview (June 14, 2004); Barry Ellis interview (June 14, 2004). FAA records confirm this account. FAA supplemental response to Commission questions for the record, June 8, 2004. When the plane arrived at Lexington Blue Grass Airport, that airport had also been open for more than five hours. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Airport Board, Blue Grass Airport response to Commission questions for the record, June 8, 2004. The three Saudi nationals debarked from the plane and were met by local police. Their private security guards were paid, and the police then escorted the three Saudi passengers to a hotel where they joined relatives already in Lexington. Mark Barnard interview (June 7, 2004). The FBI is alleged to have had no record of the flight and denied that it occurred, hence contributing to the story of a “phantom flight.” This is another misunderstanding. The FBI was initially misinformed about how the Saudis got to Lexington by a local police officer in Lexington who did not have firsthand knowledge of the matter. The Bureau subsequently learned about the flight. James M. interview (June 18, 2004).Super-UltraFailpost.

[LastChild]

Really? You clearly aren't paying attention. NATIONAL AIRSPACE WAS OPEN. You should try reading the 9/11 Commission Report. Page 556:
Super-UltraFailpost.

I did read it. What's your point? That they are again talking out of both sides of their mouth?

Private planes were still grounded. So is the following statement correct?

“We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace.”

Again...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

On Sept. 13, 2001, a private jet flew from Tampa, Fla., to Lexington, Ky., before leaving the country later that same day. On board were top Saudi businessmen and members of the royal family. The assertion is that they were afforded extraordinary treatment since they flew out after the most cursory F.B.I. checks and at a time when American airspace was still closed to private aviation.

[Gravy]

I'm not saying they took it in their own hands and violated the order. I'm saying it was lifted for them while it still remained for others.And had you read the 9/11 Commission report, you'd have known that you are mistaken, and you wouldn't have publicly started this line of incorrect assertions.

What have you learned from this experience, LastChild?

[Gravy]

I did read it. What's your point? That they are again talking out of both sides of their mouth?

Private planes were still grounded. So is the following statement correct?
Yes. Private planes were not grounded. What part of this don't you understand?

The plane took off at 4:37 P.M., after national airspace was open, more than five hours after the Tampa airport had reopened, and after other flights had arrived at and departed from that airport. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority,Tampa International Airport response to Commission questions for the record, June 7, 2004. The plane’s pilot told us there was “nothing unusual whatsoever” about the flight other than there were few airplanes in the sky. The company’s owner and director of operations agreed, saying that “it was just a routine little trip for us” and that he would have heard if there had been anything unusual about it. The pilot said he followed standard procedures and filed his flight plan with the FAA prior to the flight, adding,“I was never questioned about it.” Christopher Steele interview (June 14, 2004); Barry Ellis interview (June 14, 2004). FAA records confirm this account.ETA: also from page 556:
The Department of Transportation reopened the national airspace to U.S. carriers effective 11:00 A.M. on September 13, 2001, for flights out of or into airports that had implemented the FAA’s new security requirements.IncrediFailpost.

Are you learning, LastChild? Or not?

[pomeroo]

[snip]

What have you learned from this experience, LastChild?


Absolutely nothing.

[ihaunter]

Really? You clearly aren't paying attention. NATIONAL AIRSPACE WAS OPEN. You should try reading the 9/11 Commission Report. Page 556:
Super-UltraFailpost.

It wasn't a complete failure, he did finally (after a little prodding) post a quote that supported his claim. It was wrong (as you showed), but it actually supported his claim. I thought that was an improvement.

Seriously, Last Child, do you see how the posts I was addressing previously did not in any way support your claim? I'm asking, in the future, PLEASE, read your sources completely before you post them to see if they actually support what you are saying. It will make things go a lot smoother for everyone.

[LastChild]

Yes. Private planes were not grounded. What part of this don't you understand?

ETA: also from page 556:
IncrediFailpost.

Are you learning, LastChild? Or not?

What don't you understand? The ban on private planes was still in place.

BTW I already posted another inaccuracy from that same part of the report.
Did you miss it? Just another update for your notes. Don't mention it. You're welcome.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_...atement_10.pdf

“The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity.”

“The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks, or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion.”


http://www.judicialwatch.org/6322.shtml

Judicial Watch Releases New FBI Documents: Osama bin Laden May Have Chartered Saudi Flight Out of U.S. after 9/11
Moreover, the documents contain numerous errors and inconsistencies which call to question the thoroughness of the FBI’s investigation of the Saudi flights. For example, on one document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 20 of 23 passengers on the Ryan International Airlines flight (commonly referred to as the “Bin Laden Family Flight”). On another document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 15 of 22 passengers on the same flight.

[Gravy]

Failpost. You are wrong. Again.

"The Department of Transportation reopened the national airspace to U.S. carriers effective 11:00 A.M. on September 13, 2001, for flights out of or into airports that had implemented the FAA’s new security requirements."

Judicial Watch Releases New FBI Documents: Osama bin Laden May Have Chartered Saudi Flight Out of U.S. after 9/11The flight was chartered by the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C. The FBI categorically rejects the suggestion that it was chartered by bin Laden.

Goodbye, and good luck. You'll need it.

[pomeroo]

What don't you understand? The ban on private planes was still in place.

BTW I already posted another inaccuracy from that same part of the report.
Did you miss it? Just another update for your notes. Don't mention it. You're welcome.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_...atement_10.pdf

“The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity.”

“The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks, or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion.”


http://www.judicialwatch.org/6322.shtml

Judicial Watch Releases New FBI Documents: Osama bin Laden May Have Chartered Saudi Flight Out of U.S. after 9/11
Moreover, the documents contain numerous errors and inconsistencies which call to question the thoroughness of the FBI’s investigation of the Saudi flights. For example, on one document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 20 of 23 passengers on the Ryan International Airlines flight (commonly referred to as the “Bin Laden Family Flight”). On another document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 15 of 22 passengers on the same flight.


Do you attempt to read the stuff you post? Have you noticed that the Judicial Watch release talks about flights from 9/14/01 to 9/20/01? What point can you be making?

[LastChild]

It wasn't a complete failure, he did finally (after a little prodding) post a quote that supported his claim. It was wrong (as you showed), but it actually supported his claim. I thought that was an improvement.

Seriously, Last Child, do you see how the posts I was addressing previously did not in any way support your claim? I'm asking, in the future, PLEASE, read your sources completely before you post them to see if they actually support what you are saying. It will make things go a lot smoother for everyone.

ihaunter what's the title of the thread?

[LastChild]

Also Gravey? I asked you if everyone was allowed to fly on the 13th and you answered...

Yes. How hard is that to find out? That you posted on this topic without researching it is simply sad.

Now that's not correct is it?

[pomeroo]

ihaunter what's the title of the thread?


Okay. Now, you haven't yet shown any significant lies or errors made by the 9/11 Commission. Your turn.

[Skibum]

What point can you be making?
I don't think he has a point. I liken it to the violent thrashing of a drowning man.

[Slayhamlet]

I did read it. What's your point? That they are again talking out of both sides of their mouth?

Private planes were still grounded. So is the following statement correct?

“We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace.”

Again...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

On Sept. 13, 2001, a private jet flew from Tampa, Fla., to Lexington, Ky., before leaving the country later that same day. On board were top Saudi businessmen and members of the royal family. The assertion is that they were afforded extraordinary treatment since they flew out after the most cursory F.B.I. checks and at a time when American airspace was still closed to private aviation.


Your NYT opinion piece is wrong. How hard is that to understand? Surely you don't take opinion pieces that don't cite their sources at gospel, do you? The 9/11 Commission Report gives very specific sources explaining that there was nothing out of the ordinary for the flight and that it followed standard procedures. They interviewed the pilot. They interviewed the company's owner and director of operations. If you insist that the 9/11 Commission Report is wrong and that the FAA and the airports are lying, why don't you interview some of these people yourself and disprove it yourself? You'll be the first 9/11 denier to do so. Will you?

Or at least find some sources to back up your claims. An unsourced opinion piece isn't good enough.

[Gravy]

Do you attempt to read the stuff you post? Have you noticed that the Judicial Watch release talks about flights from 9/14/01 to 9/20/01? What point can you be making?He's one of these people whose typing is far ahead of his research or thinking. He doesn't seem to understand the most basic stuff, like what a charter flight is. There's no excuse. This information is available in seconds to everyone. I think he feels that he has to respond in this thread, and so he'll keep posting nonsense until we get tired of refuting it. I'm tired already, so I'm out. I've got no patience for people who aren't interested in learning.

[LastChild]

Failpost. You are wrong. Again.

"The Department of Transportation reopened the national airspace to U.S. carriers effective 11:00 A.M. on September 13, 2001, for flights out of or into airports that had implemented the FAA’s new security requirements."

The flight was chartered by the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C. The FBI categorically rejects the suggestion that it was chartered by bin Laden.

Goodbye, and good luck. You'll need it.

Really? Everyone was allowed to fly? Don't let the door hit you in the...

[ihaunter]

ihaunter what's the title of the thread?

My apologies for assuming you would want to make sure that what you were saying was actually true and not wild speculation. I'll try not to make that mistake again.

It was only a request, anyways. No reason to get all possessive, just because your name is in the threads title. If we're going to harp on the title of this thread, can we get to the significant part? You have yet to provide anything that, even if true, would have a serious effect on the central conclusions of the report.

[LastChild]

Gravey you are wrong. The Saudis departed the country in a private plane when airspace to private planes had not yet been re-opened.

You were also wrong to state everyone was allowed to fly on the 13th..

[LastChild]

Well since no one seems to be able to even try to significantly dispute most of my inaccuracies with the 9/11 commission report so far (I’ll do a little point by point re-cap tomorrow) it’s time to move on to my next disputed 9/11 commission report assertion.

Now I’ve heard many a debunker argue the collapse times of the towers so tell me…

is following 9/11 commission report statement accurate?

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm
9.2
From 9:59 until 10:28 A.M.
”At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds,… ”

[LastChild]

My apologies for assuming you would want to make sure that what you were saying was actually true and not wild speculation. I'll try not to make that mistake again.

It was only a request, anyways. No reason to get all possessive, just because your name is in the threads title. If we're going to harp on the title of this thread, can we get to the significant part? You have yet to provide anything that, even if true, would have a serious effect on the central conclusions of the report.

I'm not talking about my name genius. I was asked to list significant lies and errors. I'm not only pointing out errors in the report but parts that are dishonest.

[Skibum]

Well since no one seems to be able to even try to significantly dispute most of my inaccuracies with the 9/11 commission report so far (I’ll do a little point by point re-camp tomorrow) it’s time to move on to my next disputed 9/11 commission report assertion.

Now I’ve heard many a debunker argue the collapse times of the towers so tell me…

is following 9/11 commission report statement accurate?

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm
9.2
From 9:59 until 10:28 A.M.
”At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds,… ”


Accurate-no
Significant- again, no.

[Slayhamlet]

Gravey you are wrong. They Saudis departed the country in a private plane when airspace to private planes had not yet been re-opened.

You were also wrong to state everyone was alowed to fly on the 13th.

You haven't proved this. The 9/11 report specifically refutes your opinion piece nonsense with primary sources. Why did you ignore my post? Are you just trolling now?

[LastChild]

Accurate-no
Significant- again, no.

Credibility is significant.

[Slayhamlet]

Well since no one seems to be able to even try to significantly dispute most of my inaccuracies with the 9/11 commission report so far (I’ll do a little point by point re-cap tomorrow) it’s time to move on to my next disputed 9/11 commission report assertion.

Now I’ve heard many a debunker argue the collapse times of the towers so tell me…

is following 9/11 commission report statement accurate?

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm
9.2
From 9:59 until 10:28 A.M.
”At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds,… ”

Oh. My. God.

How is this significant in any way at all, LastChild? How is this a deception? It is obviously neither.

Please how this is either significant or purposefully deceptive.

[Arus808]

5 pages and not one single post by last child that point out any errors in the 911 comission report?

color me ... not surprised.

[LastChild]

Do you attempt to read the stuff you post? Have you noticed that the Judicial Watch release talks about flights from 9/14/01 to 9/20/01? What point can you be making?

Can you read what I post? Remember to put your reading glasses on then check the dates again...


http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive...ndsecurity.pdf

[Skibum]

Can you read what I post? Remember to put your reading glasses on then check the dates again...


http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive...ndsecurity.pdf

Your link is broken.

ETA- most of your links don't work.

[LastChild]

Oh. My. God.

How is this significant in any way at all, LastChild? How is this a deception? It is obviously neither.

Please how this is either significant or purposefully deceptive.

I know it's significant to debunkers. They never stop arguing about it.

Credibility is significant in a report on the deaths of almost 3000 people. Why don't you tell me how many things they are allowed to get wrong and by how much to make it significant to you?

For instance how close are they with the 10 seconds? If you know it’s wrong you should know by how much.

[WildCat]

Can you read what I post? Remember to put your reading glasses on then check the dates again...


http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive...ndsecurity.pdf
The problem, Last Child, is that you don't understand what you are reading.

[Slayhamlet]

Your NYT opinion piece is wrong. How hard is that to understand? Surely you don't take opinion pieces that don't cite their sources at gospel, do you? The 9/11 Commission Report gives very specific sources explaining that there was nothing out of the ordinary for the flight and that it followed standard procedures. They interviewed the pilot. They interviewed the company's owner and director of operations. If you insist that the 9/11 Commission Report is wrong and that the FAA and the airports are lying, why don't you interview some of these people yourself and disprove it yourself? You'll be the first 9/11 denier to do so. Will you?

Or at least find some sources to back up your claims. An unsourced opinion piece isn't good enough.

You haven't proved this. The 9/11 report specifically refutes your opinion piece nonsense with primary sources. Why did you ignore my post? Are you just trolling now?

Anything, LastChild? Anything at all?

[LastChild]

Your link is broken.

ETA- most of your links don't work.


If this doesn't work the second link in post #111 should.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/homelandsecurity.pdf

[LastChild]

Anything, LastChild? Anything at all?

No one has proven where any of my sources are wrong and the judicial watch documents show where the commission was wrong or the statements they excepted and printed where wrong.

Now what do you have besides assertions and hand waving? Anything?

[LastChild]

The problem, Last Child, is that you don't understand what you are reading.

Really?

That was a reply to this...

Do you attempt to read the stuff you post? Have you noticed that the Judicial Watch release talks about flights from 9/14/01 to 9/20/01? What point can you be making?


The document I posted had an entire page of flights that departed on the 13th.

Now do you understand what you read or is it a math problem you have?

[David Wong]

He's doing that little kid thing where if he has the last word, he wins. Regardless of what that last word is.

That's why you're getting all these one-liner responses, and why he feels like he has to respond regardless of whether or not he has even read the post. This is how teenagers debate.

[Slayhamlet]

I know it's significant to debunkers. They never stop arguing about it.

Credibility is significant in a report on the deaths of almost 3000 people. Why don't you tell me how many things they are allowed to get wrong and by how much to make it significant to you?

For instance how close are they with the 10 seconds? If you know it’s wrong you should know by how much.

It'd be a significant if the figure were used in a report on the mechanics of the collapse, which is not something the 9/11 Commission Report was tasked with. It is very significant when specific collapse time is being used as a point of argument concerning the mechanics of the collapses, such as deniers do when they assert that they collapsed too fast to be the result of structural damage from the planes and resultant fire alone. Do you understand the difference?

To the question itself there's really no single answer: it must be an approximation since the view of the towers is obstructed by the dust at the final seconds of the collapse, and there are several criteria on which to gauge the exact collapse time. But that has nothing to do with this thread.

As it is, the figure used by the 9/11 Commission Report does not affect its credibility to any significant degree. It would have been nice if they had been more careful with their language, but it doesn't affect the major conclusions they have drawn. Besides, there's another government report which covers the matter much better.

BTW, the "Truth Movement", going by the statements and actions of its leaders and its typical proponents, has just about the least amount of credibility of any movement I can think of, with the possible exception of Holocaust deniers.

[TjW]

I don't think you quite understand. The government distinguishes between civil and military aviation. If the national airspace is open to civil aviation (this would include the airlines), it is open to everyone. Within commercial aviation, it may add additional restrictions. For example, if I were to lease back my airplane to the FBO so that other people could rent it, it would need to undergo additional inspections to stay legal. As it is, I don't need to do that.
In general, airlines have to jump through many more hoops for the government than private pilots exercising their privileges under part 91 of the FARs.

Charter flights, operating under part 135 of the FARs, are sort of in between. They have to jump through more hoops than private pilots, but not as many as the airlines.

It's not at all surprising to anyone who knows anything about aviation that air carriers would be made to meet new security standards before being allowed to fly, even when the airspace is open to other users.

[Slayhamlet]

No one has proven where any of my sources are wrong and the judicial watch documents show where the commission was wrong or the statements they excepted and printed where wrong.

Now what do you have besides assertions and hand waving? Anything?

The 9/11 Commission Report refutes your assertion that the 9/13 chartered flight of Saudi Nationals from Tampa to Lexington, Kentucky was given special permission by the government to operate in US airspace closed to private flights. This is proved wrong by the testimony of the pilot of that flight, Christopher Steele, and of the owner of the charter jet company, Barry Ellis, which was provided to the 9/11 Commission:

Another particular allegation is that a flight carrying Saudi nationals from Tampa, Florida, to Lexington, Kentucky, was allowed to fly while airspace was closed, with special approval by senior U.S. government officials. On September 13, Tampa police brought three young Saudis they were protecting on an off-duty security detail to the airport so they could get on a plane to Lexington. Tampa police arranged for two private investigators to provide security on the flight. They boarded a chartered Learjet. Dan Grossi interview (May 24, 2004); Manuel Perez interview (May 27, 2004); John Solomon interview (June 4, 2004); Michael Fendle interview (June 4, 2004). The plane took off at 4:37 P.M., after national airspace was open, more than five hours after the Tampa airport had reopened, and after other flights had arrived at and departed from that airport. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority,Tampa International Airport response to Commission questions for the record, June 7, 2004. The plane’s pilot told us there was “nothing unusual whatsoever” about the flight other than there were few airplanes in the sky. The company’s owner and director of operations agreed, saying that “it was just a routine little trip for us” and that he would have heard if there had been anything unusual about it. The pilot said he followed standard procedures and filed his flight plan with the FAA prior to the flight, adding,“I was never questioned about it.” Christopher Steele interview (June 14, 2004); Barry Ellis interview (June 14, 2004). FAA records confirm this account. FAA supplemental response to Commission questions for the record, June 8, 2004. When the plane arrived at Lexington Blue Grass Airport, that airport had also been open for more than five hours. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Airport Board, Blue Grass Airport response to Commission questions for the record, June 8, 2004. The three Saudi nationals debarked from the plane and were met by local police. Their private security guards were paid, and the police then escorted the three Saudi passengers to a hotel where they joined relatives already in Lexington. Mark Barnard interview (June 7, 2004). The FBI is alleged to have had no record of the flight and denied that it occurred, hence contributing to the story of a “phantom flight.” This is another misunderstanding. The FBI was initially misinformed about how the Saudis got to Lexington by a local police officer in Lexington who did not have firsthand knowledge of the matter. The Bureau subsequently learned about the flight. James M. interview (June 18, 2004).

This is primary source info and easily trumps an unsourced opinion piece. The FBI documents posted from Judicial Watch, which are a primary source, don't contain anything that disputes this testimony as far as I can tell. If you disagree then please post which parts of them disprove this testimony, or otherwise provide the source behind Mr. Posner's claim that contradicts it.

[T.A.M.]

LAstchild you have proven nothing wrt your suggestion of pointing out factual errors. You have insinuated, based on your interpretation of the Commission statements you have posted, that they were being dishonest, but that is an opinion.

As for the issue with the Saudi's flying, Gravy showed you where it stated the skies were opened to aircraft again, prior to the Saudi Fly Out, so where is the error.

TAM:)

[Dave Rogers]

No one has proven where any of my sources are wrong and the judicial watch documents show where the commission was wrong or the statements they excepted and printed where wrong.

Now what do you have besides assertions and hand waving? Anything?

Translation:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/14764473d931300e91.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9240)

"Come back! I'll bite yer legs off!"

Dave

[Z]

LastChild, you've now been refuted on two points, clearly and accurately, yet you cannot and will not acknowledge that refutation. Your reading comprehension is attrocious, and your research capabilities sketchy at best.

Of course, you can continue as you wish - it's a free country, after all. But your own credibility is rapidly, RAPIDLY going down the toilet in the process.

[LastChild]

It'd be a significant if the figure were used in a report on the mechanics of the collapse, which is not something the 9/11 Commission Report was tasked with. It is very significant when specific collapse time is being used as a point of argument concerning the mechanics of the collapses, such as deniers do when they assert that they collapsed too fast to be the result of structural damage from the planes and resultant fire alone. Do you understand the difference?

To the question itself there's really no single answer: it must be an approximation since the view of the towers is obstructed by the dust at the final seconds of the collapse, and there are several criteria on which to gauge the exact collapse time. But that has nothing to do with this thread.

As it is, the figure used by the 9/11 Commission Report does not affect its credibility to any significant degree. It would have been nice if they had been more careful with their language, but it doesn't affect the major conclusions they have drawn. Besides, there's another government report which covers the matter much better.

BTW, the "Truth Movement", going by the statements and actions of its leaders and its typical proponents, has just about the least amount of credibility of any movement I can think of, with the possible exception of Holocaust deniers.

Is it accurate? Yes or no?

[LastChild]

I don't think you quite understand. The government distinguishes between civil and military aviation. If the national airspace is open to civil aviation (this would include the airlines), it is open to everyone. Within commercial aviation, it may add additional restrictions. For example, if I were to lease back my airplane to the FBO so that other people could rent it, it would need to undergo additional inspections to stay legal. As it is, I don't need to do that.
In general, airlines have to jump through many more hoops for the government than private pilots exercising their privileges under part 91 of the FARs.

Charter flights, operating under part 135 of the FARs, are sort of in between. They have to jump through more hoops than private pilots, but not as many as the airlines.

It's not at all surprising to anyone who knows anything about aviation that air carriers would be made to meet new security standards before being allowed to fly, even when the airspace is open to other users.

I understand fine. The statement by the 911 commission is misleading in suggesting there was no evidence the Saudi's flew and got preferential treatment. It’s dishonest and it dishonest to try and wave it off with technicalities.

[LastChild]

LAstchild you have proven nothing wrt your suggestion of pointing out factual errors. You have insinuated, based on your interpretation of the Commission statements you have posted, that they were being dishonest, but that is an opinion.

As for the issue with the Saudi's flying, Gravy showed you where it stated the skies were opened to aircraft again, prior to the Saudi Fly Out, so where is the error.

TAM:)

Gravey showed me nothing by popping in the thread in the middle of it to cherry pick one item to refute ignoring all the previous ones and then claiming the entire thread was invalid. He also claimed everyone was alowed to fly on the 13th. That is false.

Gravey should address everything I listed honestly or he shouldn't bother.

[LastChild]

The 9/11 Commission Report refutes your assertion that the 9/13 chartered flight of Saudi Nationals from Tampa to Lexington, Kentucky was given special permission by the government to operate in US airspace closed to private flights. This is proved wrong by the testimony of the pilot of that flight, Christopher Steele, and of the owner of the charter jet company, Barry Ellis, which was provided to the 9/11 Commission:



This is primary source info and easily trumps an unsourced opinion piece. The FBI documents posted from Judicial Watch, which are a primary source, don't contain anything that disputes this testimony as far as I can tell. If you disagree then please post which parts of them disprove this testimony, or otherwise provide the source behind Mr. Posner's claim that contradicts it.

The 9/11 commission doesn't refute my sources. My sources refute the commission and have not been proven wrong.

[Dave Rogers]

Is it accurate? Yes or no?

It's only a flesh wound!

Dave

[funk de fino]

I understand fine. The statement by the 911 commission is misleading in suggesting there was no evidence the Saudi's flew and got preferential treatment. It’s dishonest and it dishonest to try and wave it off with technicalities.

Not as dishonest as you are being all the way through this thread, carry on it by all means, it only exposes your pathetic inability to see where you have made mistakes, the very thing you try to berate the 911 commission for

Your own statement above is dishonest, that you cannot see it is not our problem but your own

lurkers will see this and you send more over to the side of honesty and reason with every post

[Par]

The 9/11 commission doesn't refute my sources. My sources refute the commission and have not been proven wrong.


Repeating bare assertion over and over again neither makes it true nor constitutes a valid argument.

[lapman]

If this doesn't work the second link in post #111 should.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/homelandsecurity.pdf
LC, your link shows both airline and flight number. Private flights do not have a flight number. This shows that everyone that flew on 9/13/01 was on a chartered flight which was allowed on 9/13/01 per your own newspaper article link(which is a bad link). Secondly, if it was a private flight, they could still request and have granted permission to fly. You have to prove that the supposed private flight was the only one that flew on that day. Do you have that proof?

[JimBenArm]

I heard there was a typo in the 9/11 commision report. Used a semicolon when it definitely called for a full colon.
This, of course, means 9/11 was indeed done by Bush and Cheney.

[TjW]

I understand fine. The statement by the 911 commission is misleading in suggesting there was no evidence the Saudi's flew and got preferential treatment. It’s dishonest and it dishonest to try and wave it off with technicalities.

Can you show me where it says the Saudis didn't fly?
What technicality? That the airspace was open to part 135 operators?
Since the airspace was open to charter flights, what preferential treatment did the Saudis receive?

[Sparky]

He's doing that little kid thing where if he has the last word, he wins. Regardless of what that last word is.



He reminds me of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail after he has lost both of his arms and legs:

"Okay, let's call it a draw."

Edit: I see Dave Rogers was thinking the exact same thing as I was!

[Pookster]

Oh. My. God.

How is this significant in any way at all, LastChild? How is this a deception? It is obviously neither.

Please how this is either significant or purposefully deceptive.

What I find interesting is that this is probably the only thing in the Commission Report that might have supported one of the main woo arguments of "near freefall collapse".

[Dave Rogers]

I heard there was a typo in the 9/11 commision report. Used a semicolon when it definitely called for a full colon.

I can only repeat my closing remark from post 62 - it'll take a misplaced apostrophe to convince me of an inside job.

Dave

[eeyore1954]

The way I read it the 10 second collapse time is correct in that it was part of a narrative of the events. It was not meant to be a scientific calculation of the time it took for the building to collapse.

[JimBenArm]

I can only repeat my closing remark from post 62 - it'll take a misplaced apostrophe to convince me of an inside job.

Dave
What, are you in denial? Can't you see what's right there under your nose?
NISTian!

[Pookster]

... Credibility is significant in a report on the deaths of almost 3000 people. Why don't you tell me how many things they are allowed to get wrong and by how much to make it significant to you?...

Inconsequential errors are bound to happen in any report. While they can be a real nuisance and distracting, they usually don't have much effect on credibility unless they're numerous and/or cause confusion about the main topic at hand.

However, after five pages, we're still waiting for one significant lie/error in the 9/11 Commission Report to be posted by you. This should be so easy for you to do. Are you just trying to build suspense with this long wait?

[beachnut]

LC, your link shows both airline and flight number. Private flights do not have a flight number. This shows that everyone that flew on 9/13/01 was on a chartered flight which was allowed on 9/13/01 per your own newspaper article link(which is a bad link). Secondly, if it was a private flight, they could still request and have granted permission to fly. You have to prove that the supposed private flight was the only one that flew on that day. Do you have that proof?
I do not think he understands what private means in flying.

[Pookster]

The way I read it the 10 second collapse time is correct in that it was part of a narrative of the events. It was not meant to be a scientific calculation of the time it took for the building to collapse.

Even if it is considered an error, which it probably is, what is the significance of it to the report? If the collapse time was longer than 10 seconds, how does it change the validity of the major findings in the report? Was it a significant error or not? After all, these are the kinds of errors that LastChild was asked to list.

This error seems to support the troothers more than the Government's theory. Why LastChild is so willing to sacrifice it, by recognizing it as an error, is interesting though.

[Darth Rotor]

Now Jonnyclueless tells me they would escort the plane to another country. How do you escort a hijacked plane from 5 miles back to another country?


By using standard ICAO procedures as you near the border, or at such time as loose trail monitor mission is changed to "escort to XX point." Part of the reason for the loose trail position is to avoid spooking hijackers into doing something abrupt before the decision is taken to attempt a forced landing, shoot down, or escort to point XX.

Look up the Flight Information Handbook, if you don't understand what I am talking about.

Hmm, sorry, the DoD FLIP series is getting scarce. Last year one could down load some of the FLIP pubs.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Gravey you are wrong. The Saudis departed the country in a private plane when airspace to private planes had not yet been re-opened.

You were also wrong to state everyone was allowed to fly on the 13th..
That's irrelevant. The pilot reported to the commission that he filed a flight plan with the FAA, and that the FAA reps at the airport approved the flight plan. This is a standard procedure. I've done it hundreds of times. Having complied with procedure, he was able to fly the flight planned route, to Lexington, Kentucky. Had FAA still restricted airspace, his flight plan would have been disapproved, or delayed. Such restrictions happen now and again, as they did on and after 9-11, for example on 9-12.

I am trying to determine how your gray matter concludes that the FAA was not permitting planes to fly when they permitted planes to fly. Your allegation of the significance of the word "private" is not just a red herring, it is obviously incorrect given that pilot's report to the commission.

All other ash and trash you add to this alleged discussion (which is more like you spitting into the wind) have to consider the facts as reported by the pilot.

DR

[T.A.M.]

The 9/11 commission doesn't refute my sources. My sources refute the commission and have not been proven wrong.

With regards to the USA based aircraft as weapons point, your sources proved you wrong in your assertion that the commission was in error. the very source you gave, stated the drills in question were using the scenario of OVERSEAS BASED AIRCRAFT.

TAM:)

[pomeroo]

Can you read what I post? Remember to put your reading glasses on then check the dates again...


http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive...ndsecurity.pdf


Judicial Watch is a conservative group that totally rejects your conspiracy moonshine. They think that the Saudis got treated with kid gloves.

Again, you are not making any point.

[LastChild]

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

pdf pg 558 of 585

Notes to chapter 8

"The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft

http://members.cox.net/damor1/wtccore.jpg

http://www.european911citizensjury.com/WTC%20-%20construction%20-%20good%20picture.jpg

[DGM]

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

pdf pg 558 of 585

Notes to chapter 8

"The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft

http://members.cox.net/damor1/wtccore.jpg

http://www.european911citizensjury.com/WTC%20-%20construction%20-%20good%20picture.jpg
LastChild;
Have you tried running spell check on the report for errors?

[slyjoe]

LastChild;
Have you tried running spell check on the report for errors?

I don't think so, nor did he check his own work. It was the note to chapter 9.

[Par]

"The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft


The quotation in more context:

For the dimensions, see FEMA report, "World Trade Center Building Performance Study," undated. In addition, the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart.These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building.The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. Ibid. For stairwells and elevators, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004.

[T.A.M.]

I can't believe he pulled the "Hollow Steel Shaft" quote out...lol, that is like the ultimate out of context cherry pick...truthing 101.

TAM:)

[jhunter1163]

I heard there was a typo in the 9/11 commision report. Used a semicolon when it definitely called for a full colon.
This, of course, means 9/11 was indeed done by Bush and Cheney.

I'm so not touching that "full colon" business re: the Twoof movement. Just too easy.

[T.A.M.]

This town needs an enema!

TAM;)

[LashL]

"The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft


How dishonest of you.



And, how unsurprising.

[Slayhamlet]

Is it accurate? Yes or no?

No. It's technically inaccurate. It's also very insignificant for the reasons I mentioned.

[Gravy]

The quotation in more context:The "hollow steel shaft statement" is inaccurate, of course, as is the contention that the exterior walls bore most of the building weight (gravity load was distributed about 40/60 to the exterior/interior columns).

As has been stated here and elsewhere a few hundred times, and as should not need to be stated to anyone who has read the report, the 9/11 Commission investigation was in no way an engineering investigation, the Commission's recommendations weren't engineering recommendations, and its report was in no way an engineering report.

Listing these errors as "significant" in any way is childish and wrong.

[Slayhamlet]

I understand fine. The statement by the 911 commission is misleading in suggesting there was no evidence the Saudi's flew and got preferential treatment. It’s dishonest and it dishonest to try and wave it off with technicalities.

Except there isn't any evidence that they got preferential treatment, remember? No technicalities. Your opinion piece is proven wrong by witness testimony. Why are you such dishonest person?

[Slayhamlet]

The 9/11 commission doesn't refute my sources. My sources refute the commission and have not been proven wrong.

Stellar. Another conspiracy liar doesn't understand the nature of evidence and writes off first hand witness testimony based solely on an inaccurate opinion piece. You are accusing Christopher Steele and Barry Ellis of lying, without any evidence. There's no way around it, LC. They directly refute your false opinion piece. And all of this just so that you won't have to admit a mistake to us mean rationalists. Disgusting.

Look like it's time for another dishonest creep to go on ignore. You're in distinguished company, Vastly Childish.

Have fun tormenting the over-patient among us with your immature pigheadedness. Hopefully you'll grow out of it one day and become a decent human being.

[LastChild]

Time for a re-cap of what I posted so far on the 9/11 commission report you all seem to be forgetting some of the items I have brought and I still need to list more. So please try and at least touch on each one point by point at least once instead of cherry picking one and driving the thread into semantic arguments. I'll check back and see how you are all doing periodical. You know... make sure no ones crying and needs me to wipe their nose. I should have some more issues with the report to bring up later. So far I have not been impressed with your responses so... good luck and please try harder.

“…we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization.”

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/t...5.php?CID=1668
For example, one Saudi public relations blitz came on the heels of Riyadh's refusal to cooperate with German authorities investigating links between a Saudi diplomat in Berlin and Mounir Motassadeq, who is charged with more than 3,000 counts of accessory to murder in the September 11 plot.

“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.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...18-norad_x.htm

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

“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.”

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/chp7.html

Order 7610.4J: Special Military Operations
Effective Date: November 3, 1998
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.

“No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001.”

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

On Sept. 13, 2001, a private jet flew from Tampa, Fla., to Lexington, Ky., before leaving the country later that same day. On board were top Saudi businessmen and members of the royal family. The assertion is that they were afforded extraordinary treatment since they flew out after the most cursory F.B.I. checks and at a time when American airspace was still closed to private aviation.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/s...h=on&search=Go
September 13, 2001: Saudi Royals Fly to Kentucky in Violation of Domestic Flight Ban

After a complete air flight ban in the US began during the 9/11 attacks, some commercial flights begin resuming this day. However, all private flights are still banned from flying. Nonetheless, at least one private flight carrying Saudi royalty takes place on this day. And in subsequent days, other flights carry royalty and bin Laden family members. These flights take place even as fighters escort down three other private planes attempting to fly.

“We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace.”

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

Scrutinizing the Saudi Connection
By GERALD POSNER
Published: July 27, 2004

The report fails, however, to note that when the flights occurred, airspace was open only to a limited number of commercial – not private -- planes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jul21.html

A staff report by the Sept. 11 commission this spring said the flight was one of six chartered flights carrying 142 people, mostly Saudi nationals, from the United States between Sept. 14 and 24 after airspace was reopened. The U.S. government had allowed, before commercial airspace was reopened, at least one domestic flight for Saudis who had feared for their safety, Lautenberg's staff said.

“The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity.”

“The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks, or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion.”

http://www.judicialwatch.org/6322.shtml

Judicial Watch Releases New FBI Documents: Osama bin Laden May Have Chartered Saudi Flight Out of U.S. after 9/11
Moreover, the documents contain numerous errors and inconsistencies which call to question the thoroughness of the FBI’s investigation of the Saudi flights. For example, on one document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 20 of 23 passengers on the Ryan International Airlines flight (commonly referred to as the “Bin Laden Family Flight”). On another document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 15 of 22 passengers on the same flight.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard W. Roberts ordered the FBI to resubmit “proper disclosures” to the Court and Judicial Watch, having previously criticized the adequacy of redaction descriptions, the validity of exemption claims, and other errors in the FBI’s disclosures. Incredibly, the FBI had previously redacted Osama bin Laden’s name from the records in order “to protect privacy interests.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jul21.html

The flight manifest lists 13 people with the bin Laden surname and others with Brazilian, British, Indonesian and Yemeni passports. Passenger Omar Awad bin Laden had lived with Abdullah bin Laden, a nephew of Osama bin Laden who was involved in forming the U.S. branch of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth in Alexandria. Federal agents raided the office this spring in connection with a terrorism-related investigation. The FBI has described the group as a "suspected terrorist organization."


”At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds,… ”

“Has anyone seen an explanation for why so many CTs, in 2006, continue to claim that the towers fell at free fall?” – Gravy

Please go to this site, download this very common video, which you must have seen many times if you've been doing this for a while.

http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=108995
”If you still cling to your "free fall" nonsense after seeing this, please stop trolling and seek professional help.” – Gravy

[LastChild]

double

[Par]

"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds,… ”

“Has anyone seen an explanation for why so many CTs, in 2006, continue to claim that the towers fell at free fall?” – Gravy

Please go to this site, download this very common video, which you must have seen many times if you've been doing this for a while.

”If you still cling to your "free fall" nonsense after seeing this, please stop trolling and seek professional help.” – Gravy


Glorious. Firstly, you cite the mention of a ten second collapse time as an error in the 9/11 Commission Report. Then you cite it to try to prove Gravy wrong. Heh.

[kookbreaker]

The "hollow steel shaft statement" is inaccurate, of course, as is the contention that the exterior walls bore most of the building weight (gravity load was distributed about 40/60 to the exterior/interior columns).

As has been stated here and elsewhere a few hundred times, and as should not need to be stated to anyone who has read the report, the 9/11 Commission investigation was in no way an engineering investigation, the Commission's recommendations weren't engineering recommendations, and its report was in no way an engineering report.

Listing these errors as "significant" in any way is childish and wrong.

I would also point out that as a simple explanation, I have heard few engineers say that 'Hallow Steel Shaft' is criticially inaccurate. In fact, JayUtah of the BAUT forum said he has not problem with it.

[Par]

I'll check back and see how you are all doing periodical. You know... make sure no ones crying and needs me to wipe their nose.
Oh come on don't cry.


That's funny.

[twinstead]

LC REPOSTING the same links and 'proof' again doesn't suddenly make you have a better case.

[Par]

LC REPOSTING the same links and 'proof' again doesn't suddenly make you have a better case.


I’ve tried to tell him essentially that before.

Repeating bare assertion over and over again neither makes it true nor constitutes a valid argument.


I don’t think he was very keen to take it on board.

[rwguinn]

I’ve tried to tell him essentially that before.




I don’t think he was very keen to take it on board.
He uses this Operating System:
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=9197&d=1195314480

[LastChild]

Glorious. Firstly, you cite the mention of a ten second collapse time as an error in the 9/11 Commission Report. Then you cite it to try to prove Gravy wrong. Heh.

Oh is that how you read what I'm doing there genius? I guess it's that kind of comprehension of yours that made you pretty much back out of your own thread pretty early on. A thread that attempted to put words in my mouth and blew up in your face. How embarrassing for you.

How many of my points have you personally refuted with what evidence? Any? Congratulations.

And I'm not even done yet.

[Par]

Oh is that how you read what I'm doing there genius? I guess it's that kind of comprehension of yours that made you pretty much back out of your own thread pretty early on. A thread that attempted to put words in my mouth and blew up in your face. How embarrassing for you. How many of my points have you personally refuted with what evidence? Any? Congratulations. And I'm not even done yet.


Word!

But can we have less hip-hop trash talk and more rational argument, please?!

[e^n]

And I'm not even done yet.

I don't see where you started? Which of these supposed errors are significant and why is it that several of them seem to have been refuted but instead of arguing why they are still valid or accepting the refutation you have simply repeated yourself?

[Sabrina]

Has he still failed to point out any errors?

Yep, I see that's still the case. Carry on!

[LastChild]

Has he still failed to point out any errors?

Yep, I see that's still the case. Carry on!

Really?


Last Child:
I'll give you these errors.


OK, congratulations, you've identified a linguistic error in the 9-11 Commission report. The error is that they do not recognise that this falls within the military definition of the word "interception",


I'm afraid you all set yourselves up by asking LC to find 'a single error


Even if it is considered an error, which it probably is…


The "hollow steel shaft statement" is inaccurate, of course, as is the contention that the exterior walls bore most of the building weight (gravity load was distributed about 40/60 to the exterior/interior columns).

[Par]

Really?


I suspect that Sabrina was referring to the supposed significant errors, which are the subject of this thread.

[twinstead]

You see LC, that's what I'm talking about. You aren't interested in finding errors that might suggest the investigation was improperly performed, or errors that might suggest their basic conclusions were wrong, you're simply interested in pedantic brownie points in response to our ill-advised demand you find 'AN' error.

I don't care how many irrelevant 'errors' of this kind you hunt for with a microscope--The report's conclusions and all of its major parts stand in my eyes.

Your little rhetorical games just strengthen my position, not yours.

[LibraryLady]

Let's remember to keep the tone civil, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you!

[gumboot]

None of those points are really errors at all:

Saudi government funding:

We get information that Saudi Arabia refused to cooperate with German investigations into links between a terrorist and a Saudi diplomat. This, in itself, is meaningless. Diplomats have diplomatic immunity, and "links" does not mean "gave them money".

NORAD didn't expect attack:

While local NORAD units performed exercises that involved suicide airline attacks coming from outside the USA, no exercises were undertaken with a domestic threat. Furthermore, no "Vigilant" (NORAD-wide CPX) or "Amalgam" (NORAD-wide FIX) exercises ever presented a suicidal hijacking scenario (domestic or international) as NORAD HQ exercise planners considered such a scenario unrealistic. NORAD considered the most likely threat from terrorists to be cruise missiles launched from ships in the Atlantic or Pacific. This was the focal point of their major NORAD-wide "Amalgam Warrior" field exercise held in June 2001.

NORAD don't do intercepts:

This is nothing more than semantics. The commission is quite correct - escort protocol called for a discreet trailing of the target aircraft by five miles, for the purpose of reporting aircraft movement. It was not an aggressive intercept posture, and the use of force was strictly prohibited.

Saudis Flying:

This is the stupidest of all. The Commission says that no one was allowed to fly until Sept 13th, and to refute this LastChild cites a bunch of Saudis that flew on Sept 13th. This, of course, does not contradict the report at all.

-Gumboot

[LastChild]

You see LC, that's what I'm talking about. You aren't interested in finding errors that might suggest the investigation was improperly performed, or errors that might suggest their basic conclusions were wrong, you're simply interested in pedantic brownie points in response to our ill-advised demand you find 'AN' error.

I don't care how many irrelevant 'errors' of this kind you hunt for with a microscope--The report's conclusions and all of its major parts stand in my eyes.

Your little rhetorical games just strengthen my position, not yours.

Well you see Twin I understand though I feel every one of them is significant some may try to take one of the individual errors or distortions that I point to and wave it off as insignificant on its own. Be that as it may still all of them together weigh in against the validity of the investigation and the credibility of the report.

I would also like to point out the title of this thread was not my words. It was a liberty taken by Par that I let go. I have stated in the past that I feel the 9/11 commission was a good idea and I even feel that some of them on the commission had good intentions for the most part. In the end though the investigation wasn't under their control and only served in the end to remove blame and accountability for the failure to protect America on 9/11. Some of these found virtually unaccountable people being the very ones who were in control of the investigation. The assertions from the commission after the fact that state they feel the investigation was a success is nothing more then them trying to save face. People should remember that though they have tried to assert their satisfaction with the job they performed they didn't state it without inserting one of their now infamous double talking qualifiers...

"I don’t believe for a minute that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history. ... 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." - Lee Hamilton

[LastChild]

None of those points are really errors at all:

Saudi government funding:

We get information that Saudi Arabia refused to cooperate with German investigations into links between a terrorist and a Saudi diplomat. This, in itself, is meaningless. Diplomats have diplomatic immunity, and "links" does not mean "gave them money".

I missed what you think it means there or were you just making a lame excuse? Pointing to what the 9/11 commission claims to support the 9/11 commission findings isn't really proving anything genius. It's too bad Oswald died. You could have just asked him if he killed the President and he could have cleared it all up for people like you and Gravy.

NORAD didn't expect attack:

Why not?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06EFDD1738F93AA25756C0A9649C8B 63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/K/Kannapell,%20Andrea

FRONT LINES

And then questions were raised about a warning in a 1999 report for the National Intelligence Council, which oversees government intelligence analysis. That report said: ''Suicide bomber(s) belonging to Al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency or the White House.''

While local NORAD units performed exercises that involved suicide airline attacks coming from outside the USA, no exercises were undertaken with a domestic threat. Furthermore, no "Vigilant" (NORAD-wide CPX) or "Amalgam" (NORAD-wide FIX) exercises ever presented a suicidal hijacking scenario (domestic or international) as NORAD HQ exercise planners considered such a scenario unrealistic. NORAD considered the most likely threat from terrorists to be cruise missiles launched from ships in the Atlantic or Pacific. This was the focal point of their major NORAD-wide "Amalgam Warrior" field exercise held in June 2001.

Well that's brilliant. They were preparing for potential threats of airline suicide attacks but not domestically. And you know this because this is the excuse they gave and that's just good enough for you. Tell me at what point do you intercept a foreign plane on a suicide mission? If it's out of the country how do you know it’s on a suicide mission to say hit maybe the White House? Does someone phone ahead and let them know they're coming and what exactly their intentions are? Was that part of the script? What's that word you like to use? Wasn't it "stupid"?

NORAD doesn’t do intercepts:

This is nothing more than semantics. The commission is quite correct - escort protocol called for a discreet trailing of the target aircraft by five miles, for the purpose of reporting aircraft movement. It was not an aggressive intercept posture, and the use of force was strictly prohibited.

No what I showed is nothing more then the very definition of what they do using the very word intercept. Now you can explain how intercept doesn't mean intercept. Then again the truth doesn't mean the truth to some people does it?

Saudis Flying:

This is the stupidest of all. The Commission says that no one was allowed to fly until Sept 13th, and to refute this LastChild cites a bunch of Saudis that flew on Sept 13th. This, of course, does not contradict the report at all.

-Gumboot

No I pointed to way more then that. Private planes were still restricted when they were given permission to fly. The very significance of the commission addressing whether or not Saudis flew is to dispel any thoughts that they might have received preferential treatment and if it had any connections to the White House as Michael Moore implied and whether or not they were properly interrogated before they were allowed to flee the country. I proved with the judicial watch documents that the commission was either wrong or made a deliberate attempt to distort the facts on both of these points.

[Par]

[Y]ou're simply interested in pedantic brownie points in response to our ill-advised demand you find 'AN' error.


Second time: I don’t think anyone has asked him to highlight “an error”, but rather to list the significant errors.

[Par]

I would also like to point out the title of this thread was not my words. It was a liberty taken by Par that I let go.


In reality, I straightforwardly asked you and you accepted:

So, if I start a new thread for you, will you be willing to use it to point out the significant lies and/or errors in the 9/11 Commission Report?
I already told you start another thread if you like.


For a summary of the whole rather drawn-out exchange, see the following post:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3154252&postcount=1

[twinstead]

Second time: I don’t think anyone has asked him to highlight “an error”, but rather to list the significant errors.

well it then becomes a matter of haggling over the definition of 'significant', does it not?

my point is that we should be demanding LC come up with a theory that better explains the events of that day instead of reinforcing the 'god of the gaps' technique he seems to be taking from conspiracy theorist 101.

[Par]

The assertions from the commission after the fact that state they feel the investigation was a success is nothing more then them trying to save face.


When you were trying to deceive people with the cherry-picked “set up to fail” quotation, you were touting Hamilton and Kean as some kind of courageous whistle-blowers. When it comes to them stating that they believe the Commission to have been a success, however, you claim that they are merely lying in an attempt to “save face”.

This is a classic example of the special pleading fallacy.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/specplea.html

[LastChild]

In reality, I straightforwardly asked you and you accepted:





For a summary of the whole rather drawn-out exchange, see the following post:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3154252&postcount=1

Yes and that's what I said. The title of the thread is what you got out of me saying the investigation was inadequate.

Now you started this thread and have come with absolutely nothing. Good job.

[LastChild]

well it then becomes a matter of haggling over the definition of 'significant', does it not?

my point is that we should be demanding LC come up with a theory that better explains the events of that day instead of reinforcing the 'god of the gaps' technique he seems to be taking from conspiracy theorist 101.

And I stated it is in my opinion that every point is significant in an investigation on the deaths of almost 3,000 people on 9/11. Anything wrong or distorted asserted as fact diminishes the credibility of the report as a whole.