911: The chain of evidence

Childlike Empress · 13th June 2006, 01:53 AM

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

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

Hawk one · 13th June 2006, 01:57 AM

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

Shrinker · 13th June 2006, 02:06 AM

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

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

EvilBiker · 13th June 2006, 02:32 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

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

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

Idiot.

MRC_Hans · 13th June 2006, 02:37 AM

Let's see:

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

MMmmm, I guess it all fits.

Hans

Childlike Empress · 13th June 2006, 02:51 AM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

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

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

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Passenger lists showing that the hijackers boarded the hijacked planes.

Source?

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

Anacoluthon64 · 13th June 2006, 03:07 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

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

This request, in and of itself, just begs to be regarded with deep suspicion.

What, pray, is your agenda?

'Luthon64

Shrinker · 13th June 2006, 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

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

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

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

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

Childlike Empress · 13th June 2006, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by Shrinker

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

I think the latter is ok for me.

Originally Posted by Shrinker

remind me, how much ... money the Commision required to pull together all the evidence

Sure, that would be less than $167 per murder.

Hawk one · 13th June 2006, 03:43 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Sure, that would be less than $167 per murder.

Or it would be more like 20 million dollars, which is a lot more than the 400 000 dollar lie you're suggesting.

Shrinker · 13th June 2006, 03:51 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

I think the latter is ok for me.

Sure, that would be less than $167 per murder.

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

You also seem to have missed a part...

Originally Posted by Shrinker

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

Childlike Empress · 13th June 2006, 03:55 AM

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

@Shrinker: I asked for evidence. Period.

Anacoluthon64 · 13th June 2006, 04:03 AM

Originally Posted by Me earlier ...

What, pray, is your agenda?

Your silence only adds to the suspicion.

'Luthon64

Shrinker · 13th June 2006, 04:04 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

@Shrinker: I asked for evidence. Period.

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

fsol · 13th June 2006, 04:05 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

@Shrinker: I asked for evidence. Period.

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

Hawk one · 13th June 2006, 04:07 AM

No, the link shows:

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

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

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

Childlike Empress · 13th June 2006, 04:19 AM

Originally Posted by Hawk one

No, the link shows:

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

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

Originally Posted by Shrinker

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

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

fsol · 13th June 2006, 04:24 AM

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

Hawk one · 13th June 2006, 04:32 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

Basically, all the available and real evidence are pointing at the 19 hijackers, so yes, you are 99,999% likely to be wrong.

Childlike Empress · 13th June 2006, 04:32 AM

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

Childlike Empress · 13th June 2006, 04:36 AM

Originally Posted by Hawk one

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

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

Shrinker · 13th June 2006, 04:38 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

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

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

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

kookbreaker · 13th June 2006, 04:38 AM

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

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

fsol · 13th June 2006, 04:40 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

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

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

Sword_Of_Truth · 13th June 2006, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

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

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

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

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

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

Childlike Empress · 13th June 2006, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by fsol

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

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

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

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

Hawk one · 13th June 2006, 04:53 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

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

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

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

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

Gravy · 13th June 2006, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

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

I then asked you this:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=2576

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

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

TriangleMan · 13th June 2006, 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

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

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

Gravy · 13th June 2006, 05:25 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

I was not joking when i opened this thread.

Then why are you running around the field with a blindfold on and goalposts attached to your head?

Stellafane · 13th June 2006, 05:45 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

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

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

Flo · 13th June 2006, 05:49 AM

Originally Posted by TriangleMan

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

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

TimmyBerry · 13th June 2006, 05:53 AM

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

dubfan · 13th June 2006, 06:15 AM

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

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

2. The report does not address WTC 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit: typo

MRC_Hans · 13th June 2006, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by dubfan

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

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

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

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

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

Hans

aggle-rithm · 13th June 2006, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

(we all wait for their report on wtc7).

Here, I'll give you a preview:

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

WTC 7 fell down.

There, was that so hard to understand?

kookbreaker · 13th June 2006, 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Here, I'll give you a preview:

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

WTC 7 fell down.

There, was that so hard to understand?

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

dubfan · 13th June 2006, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

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

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

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

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

Hans

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

Regnad Kcin · 13th June 2006, 06:43 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

...Am i wrong? I thought this is a "skeptics"-Forum.

It is more a forum dedicated to critical thinking. Though this does often include an initial or ongoing skeptical point of view.

MRC_Hans · 13th June 2006, 06:51 AM

Originally Posted by dubfan

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

In that case, we agree.

Hans

13th June 2006, 01:53 AM	#1
Childlike Empress Ewige Blumenkraft Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Ivory Tower Posts: 1,883	911: The chain of evidence Hi, i am missing the chain of evidence for the theory that the 19 alleged highjackers commited the mass murder of September 11th 2001. Please provide all sources but one - the "9/11 Commission"-Report.

13th June 2006, 01:57 AM	#2
Hawk one Bond Villain Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: The Guitar Hero dressing room... Posts: 9,613	But that report does present the chain of evidence, as collected by many different agencies and independent parties (such as the airplane companies). All you have to do is to read the facts.
	__________________ Every time you feed a troll, Jack Thompson files a motion. Think of the judges! I joined up on the forum solely because I am a big fan of Hawk One. - FSM From the chatroom: <Matt> Hawk, I am going to abduct you from wherever you happen to live and appoint you Minister of Humor. <--- Matt dared me to put in this

13th June 2006, 02:32 AM	#4
EvilBiker Muse Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cape Town Posts: 588	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress Hi, i am missing the chain of evidence for the theory that the 19 alleged highjackers commited the mass murder of September 11th 2001. It's in your sock drawer, where you always leave it! How many times do I have to tell you? Sheesh. Idiot.
	__________________ Truther: "We need a new investigation." Sane person : "Why?" Truther: "I don't know. That's what the investigation is for" (Credit to gc051360)

13th June 2006, 02:37 AM	#5
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: N55.47'36" E12.30'21" Posts: 10,119	Let's see: Planes being hijacked, as evidenced by flight control records. Planes flying into the buildings as evidenced by millons of withnesses, tons of stills and video footage. The hijacked planes failing to land in other places. No other planes missing. The passengers and crew on the hijacked planes failing to show up in other places. Remains of the passengers and crew on the hijacked planes being identified on the crash sites. Records and diaries of the hijackers being left behind. Passenger lists showing that the hijackers boarded the hijacked planes. MMmmm, I guess it all fits. Hans
	__________________ The time is always right to do what is right. (Martin Luther King JR.)

13th June 2006, 02:51 AM	#6
Childlike Empress Ewige Blumenkraft Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Ivory Tower Posts: 1,883	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans Planes being hijacked, as evidenced by flight control records. Planes flying into the buildings as evidenced by millons of withnesses, tons of stills and video footage. The hijacked planes failing to land in other places. No other planes missing. The passengers and crew on the hijacked planes failing to show up in other places. Remains of the passengers and crew on the hijacked planes being identified on the crash sites. Records and diaries of the hijackers being left behind. Irrelevant. I want a chain of evidence. That's not "there were planes" but "these people did it". Originally Posted by MRC_Hans Passenger lists showing that the hijackers boarded the hijacked planes. Source? @Shrinker: The parties are allowed. With independent (from the "report") statements.
	Last edited by Childlike Empress; 13th June 2006 at 02:53 AM.

13th June 2006, 02:06 AM	#3
Shrinker Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 1,026	Presumably all the parties who contributed to the report are also forbidden sources? FBI, FEMA etc, including all witnesses and individuals involved in the investigation. Because, if the report contradicted the individual findings then those parties would have spoken up by now. That they haven't spoken up shows that they are in on it too. So that leaves a bunch of Quicktimes off the net, and 'alternative' media sources. We've already learned that these aren't useful ways to assemble a coherent theory. The 9/11 Truth movement is proof of that.

13th June 2006, 03:07 AM	#7
Anacoluthon64 Defollyant Iconoclast Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Sceptylvania Posts: 1,026	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress Please provide all sources but one - the "9/11 Commission"-Report. This request, in and of itself, just begs to be regarded with deep suspicion. What, pray, is your agenda? 'Luthon64
	__________________ "The cynics were watchdogs terrifying malefactors. They tried to expose falseness and conceit. That's why their name is still spoken with a snarl." — Petr Skrabanek, In Defence of Destructive Criticism.

13th June 2006, 03:13 AM	#8
Shrinker Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 1,026	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress @Shrinker: The parties are allowed. With independent (from the "report") statements. So, an FBI statement that didn't make it into the report is okay, but if it did appear in the report it's disallowed? Or are you saying we can use any words in the report so long as we can also find them printed elsewhere? One more thing, remind me, how much time and money the Commision required to pull together all the evidence and publish it as a coherent whole. How long would it have taken them if they had to Google for the information, or go to a library, or file FOIA requests? And why is it that only this amount of time and effort on our part, will settle the debate? Why don't you settle it by showing us one single deception in the official report. Wouldn't that be quicker? Surely you have hundreds of these already...

13th June 2006, 03:24 AM	#9
Childlike Empress Ewige Blumenkraft Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Ivory Tower Posts: 1,883	Originally Posted by Shrinker So, an FBI statement that didn't make it into the report is okay, but if it did appear in the report it's disallowed? Or are you saying we can use any words in the report so long as we can also find them printed elsewhere? I think the latter is ok for me. Originally Posted by Shrinker remind me, how much ... money the Commision required to pull together all the evidence Sure, that would be less than $167 per murder.
	Last edited by Childlike Empress; 13th June 2006 at 03:38 AM.

13th June 2006, 03:43 AM	#10
Hawk one Bond Villain Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: The Guitar Hero dressing room... Posts: 9,613	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress Sure, that would be less than $167 per murder. Or it would be more like 20 million dollars, which is a lot more than the 400 000 dollar lie you're suggesting.
	__________________ Every time you feed a troll, Jack Thompson files a motion. Think of the judges! I joined up on the forum solely because I am a big fan of Hawk One. - FSM From the chatroom: <Matt> Hawk, I am going to abduct you from wherever you happen to live and appoint you Minister of Humor. <--- Matt dared me to put in this

13th June 2006, 03:51 AM	#11
Shrinker Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 1,026	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress I think the latter is ok for me. Sure, that would be less than $167 per murder. According to your link Al Qeada allegedly paid $166 per murder so that's a very poor answer. And next time, why don't you quote the relevant paragraph so I don't have to read the whole thing to find your badly mangled point. You also seem to have missed a part... Originally Posted by Shrinker Why don't you settle it by showing us one single deception in the official report. Wouldn't that be quicker? Surely you have hundreds of these already...
	Last edited by Shrinker; 13th June 2006 at 03:56 AM.

13th June 2006, 03:55 AM	#12
Childlike Empress Ewige Blumenkraft Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Ivory Tower Posts: 1,883	@Hawk one: What has your link to do with this thread? I am talking about the "9/11 Commission"-Report. Not the NIST-Report. @Shrinker: I asked for evidence. Period.
	Last edited by Childlike Empress; 13th June 2006 at 03:58 AM.

13th June 2006, 04:03 AM	#13
Anacoluthon64 Defollyant Iconoclast Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Sceptylvania Posts: 1,026	Originally Posted by Me earlier ... What, pray, is your agenda? Your silence only adds to the suspicion. 'Luthon64
	__________________ "The cynics were watchdogs terrifying malefactors. They tried to expose falseness and conceit. That's why their name is still spoken with a snarl." — Petr Skrabanek, In Defence of Destructive Criticism.

13th June 2006, 04:04 AM	#14
Shrinker Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 1,026	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress @Shrinker: I asked for evidence. Period. No you're making a childish and practically impossible challenge. It would take decades for any of us to replicate the 9/11 report using only spare time and personal resources, and you know it perfectly well. It would take minutes for you to show why the report is at fault, yet you can't do it. Why not?

13th June 2006, 04:05 AM	#15
fsol tinCAN Kiajaroovah Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 989	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress @Shrinker: I asked for evidence. Period. Period? No you didn't. What's wrong with the 9/11 commission report?
fsol tinCAN Kiajaroovah Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 989	__________________ I make things that sound like this. "Those who claim to forecast the future are all lying, even if, by chance, they are later proved right."

13th June 2006, 04:07 AM	#16
Hawk one Bond Villain Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: The Guitar Hero dressing room... Posts: 9,613	No, the link shows: NIST redirected $3.4 million in fiscal year 2002 to begin a three-part plan in response to the WTC disaster. The agency received $16 million for the investigation in September from the FY 2002 supplemental appropriation. The FY 2003 appropriation includes an increase of $3 million. Bolding mine. The other sums are additions to this main sum. Naturally, you wouldn't need as much money in 2004, because by then the bulk of the investigation is already done. That's the trick about reading comprehension. In other words, my mistake is that their total budget is a lot -more- than 20 million dollars, not less. Besides, didn't you not want the 9/11 commision report anyway? Well, read the NIST report instead, then.
	__________________ Every time you feed a troll, Jack Thompson files a motion. Think of the judges! I joined up on the forum solely because I am a big fan of Hawk One. - FSM From the chatroom: <Matt> Hawk, I am going to abduct you from wherever you happen to live and appoint you Minister of Humor. <--- Matt dared me to put in this

13th June 2006, 04:19 AM	#17
Childlike Empress Ewige Blumenkraft Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Ivory Tower Posts: 1,883	Originally Posted by Hawk one No, the link shows: NIST redirected $3.4 million in fiscal year 2002 to begin a three-part plan in response to the WTC disaster. The agency received $16 million for the investigation in September from the FY 2002 supplemental appropriation. The FY 2003 appropriation includes an increase of $3 million. And the link goes to what site? NIST. Watch Commander Kean speaking in the link i provided. Less than half a million for the Commission-Report. Compare that to one blowjob Mr. Clinton enjoyed. Originally Posted by Shrinker No you're making a childish and practically impossible challenge. It would take decades for any of us to replicate the 9/11 report using only spare time and personal resources, and you know it perfectly well. It would take minutes for you to show why the report is at fault, yet you can't do it. Why not? Gravy asked me if i really believe that there is no evidence for the "19 Highjackers"-CT and i said yes. Am i wrong? I thought this is a "skeptics"-Forum.

13th June 2006, 04:24 AM	#18
fsol tinCAN Kiajaroovah Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 989	And the amount of money spent has what bearing on the findings exactly? I find it quite distasteful that you would then say "only" $167 per victim as if the number of victims and the amount spent on the report have any bearing on each other. What would have been an adequate amount to spend on the report "per victim?"
fsol tinCAN Kiajaroovah Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 989	__________________ I make things that sound like this. "Those who claim to forecast the future are all lying, even if, by chance, they are later proved right."

13th June 2006, 04:32 AM	#19
Hawk one Bond Villain Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: The Guitar Hero dressing room... Posts: 9,613	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress And the link goes to what site? NIST. Watch Commander Kean speaking in the link i provided. Less than half a million for the Commission-Report. Compare that to one blowjob Mr. Clinton enjoyed. Why would I compare apples to oranges? I agree that the Clinton case was blown out of proportions, but that is an entirely separate matter. The objectives are so wildly different, as NIST are doing the investigation, while the 9/11 commission made the end report. Here's a tip: Any investigation will cost more to produce than a report. I'll leave it to you to figure out why this is. Quote: Gravy asked me if i really believe that there is no evidence for the "19 Highjackers"-CT and i said yes. Am i wrong? I thought this is a "skeptics"-Forum. Basically, all the available and real evidence are pointing at the 19 hijackers, so yes, you are 99,999% likely to be wrong.
	__________________ Every time you feed a troll, Jack Thompson files a motion. Think of the judges! I joined up on the forum solely because I am a big fan of Hawk One. - FSM From the chatroom: <Matt> Hawk, I am going to abduct you from wherever you happen to live and appoint you Minister of Humor. <--- Matt dared me to put in this

13th June 2006, 04:36 AM	#21
Childlike Empress Ewige Blumenkraft Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Ivory Tower Posts: 1,883	Originally Posted by Hawk one The objectives are so wildly different, as NIST are doing the investigation, while the 9/11 commission made the end report. That's wrong. NIST investigated only the collapse of the twin towers (we all wait for their report on wtc7). The "911 Commission"-Report (posed like it) investigated the criminals - and this investigation is what i am questioning here.

13th June 2006, 04:38 AM	#22
Shrinker Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 1,026	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress Gravy asked me if i really believe that there is no evidence for the "19 Highjackers"-CT and i said yes. Am i wrong? I thought this is a "skeptics"-Forum. Yes you are wrong. The victims on the planes made phone calls and described hijackers. That is one piece of evidence. Why should we spend all our time assembling all of the evidence, when you refuse to acknowldege even this most basic and fundamental fact? Skeptics do not disbelieve everything; they are suspicious of those things that appear to contradict the available evidence. The 9/11 report doesn't appear to contradict the avilable evidence, but you do. So do you know something we don't?

13th June 2006, 04:38 AM	#23
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 6,576	So, I guess the fact that the Saudi's, who were very reluctant to admit that their children had anything to do with 911, admitted that the majority of the hijackers were their citizens holds no weight for you? They were convinced, they had a lot more to lose by admitting it. What's your malfunction?
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 6,576	__________________ My Webstore of Telescopes, Science Fun, and More: Spectrum Scientifics! Spectrum Scientifics Store Blog!

13th June 2006, 04:40 AM	#24
fsol tinCAN Kiajaroovah Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 989	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress @fsol: What's the "defense" budget of the US? 400 Billion $? I would say: Investigate - money doesn't count. Then why bring it up? And then why bring up a figure that has nothing to do with the amount the report cost? I suppose if the cost of making a report isn't high enough they could always send for take out and charge it to the account. Maybe buy chocolate biscuits instead of plain. I dunno.
fsol tinCAN Kiajaroovah Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 989	__________________ I make things that sound like this. "Those who claim to forecast the future are all lying, even if, by chance, they are later proved right."

13th June 2006, 04:42 AM	#25
Sword_Of_Truth Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,265	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress Hi, i am missing the chain of evidence for the theory that the 19 alleged highjackers commited the mass murder of September 11th 2001. Please provide all sources but one - the "9/11 Commission"-Report. Is this a joke or a serious example of truth-seeker "open mindedness". Tell you what, Childlike... instead of this little game, why don't you meet me on a nuetral, punkbuster enabled Battlefield 2 server? At least that way I can be reasonably certain that we're playing a game you haven't deliberately rigged so that you will always win.

13th June 2006, 04:52 AM	#26
Childlike Empress Ewige Blumenkraft Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Ivory Tower Posts: 1,883	Originally Posted by fsol Then why bring it up? And then why bring up a figure that has nothing to do with the amount the report cost? I suppose if the cost of making a report isn't high enough they could always send for take out and charge it to the account. Maybe buy chocolate biscuits instead of plain. I dunno. I'm sorry but i think i don't get your point. @Sword_of_truth: That's easy: You smell strange. @all: I leave for now. I hope there is a discussion going on. I was not joking when i opened this thread.

13th June 2006, 04:53 AM	#27
Hawk one Bond Villain Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: The Guitar Hero dressing room... Posts: 9,613	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress That's wrong. NIST investigated only the collapse of the twin towers (we all wait for their report on wtc7). The "911 Commission"-Report (posed like it) investigated the criminals - and this investigation is what i am questioning here. OK, fair enough, I got a bit confused. But still, the commission didn't have to do much compared to NIST, which is the one fair investigation. How much money do you need to get the passenger list from the air plane companies? Hardly anything. It will cost more to then search out the information on the suspects - such as finding out that they had indeed been trained to fly commercial planes - but it's still a drop in the sea compared to the incredibly costly and time-consuming effort it is to check out Ground Zero as NIST did. I will admit that there would probably have been spent more if the hijackers were still alive, because then they would investigate with the goal of prosecution. But since there's no point in prosecuting dead men, and since it was known from Day 1 that the planes were hijacked at all (thanks to the overwhelming evidence), then there is hardly much point in dragging it out longer than it needs to. It's not just a question of quantity in dollars, it's a question of how effective each dollar is spent.
	__________________ Every time you feed a troll, Jack Thompson files a motion. Think of the judges! I joined up on the forum solely because I am a big fan of Hawk One. - FSM From the chatroom: <Matt> Hawk, I am going to abduct you from wherever you happen to live and appoint you Minister of Humor. <--- Matt dared me to put in this

13th June 2006, 05:19 AM	#28
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,062	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress Gravy asked me if i really believe that there is no evidence for the "19 Highjackers"-CT and i said yes. Am i wrong? I thought this is a "skeptics"-Forum. I then asked you this: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=2576 And you chose to start a new thread here in which you exclude the 9/11 Commission report. So, have you read the report? If so, what did it get wrong, and why?
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

13th June 2006, 05:24 AM	#29
TriangleMan Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Qatar (ya rly!) Posts: 1,088	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress Please provide all sources but one - the "9/11 Commission"-Report. As someone new to this topic could you please explain why the Report can not be used as a source?

13th June 2006, 05:25 AM	#30
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,062	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress I was not joking when i opened this thread. Then why are you running around the field with a blindfold on and goalposts attached to your head?
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

13th June 2006, 05:45 AM	#31
Stellafane Village Idiot. Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Green Mountains Posts: 3,475	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress ...I thought this is a "skeptics"-Forum. It is. It is not, however, an "indulge those who live in their own little fantasy world" forum.

13th June 2006, 05:49 AM	#32
Flo Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Massongy, France Posts: 1,916	Originally Posted by TriangleMan As someone new to this topic could you please explain why the Report can not be used as a source? maybe because it doesn't vindicate her dearly held beliefs about the evilness of the US government ?
	__________________ "Let me explain the order of things for you. There's the aristocracy, the upper class, middle class, working class, dumb animals, waiters, creeping things, head lice, people who eat packet soup, and then you." (Chef)

13th June 2006, 05:53 AM	#33
TimmyBerry Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: The armpit of the tornado valley Posts: 255	Don't you just love how they retreat when the evidence starts piling up around them?
	__________________ Your average tea-drinking, metal-working, lizard-keeping alien. "Draw me a leaf. But don't draw me a leaf!" -Dan Soha

13th June 2006, 06:15 AM	#34
dubfan Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 452	The CTs are suspicious of the 9/11 Commission report for several reasons: 1. Testimony of certain individuals is omitted (Edmonds, Rodriguez) 2. The report does not address WTC 7 3. The report contradicts other evidenciary sources on matters of fact (Otis fighter timeline) 4. Other matters have come to light since the report was released that cast doubt on its comprehensiveness (Able Danger) 5. The report is rather gentle in its political conclusions (it largely lets both Clinton and Bush off the hook, politically) I think these are fair criticisms. I don't conclude from these, however, that 9/11 was a false flag op carried out by the government. I tend to conclude from all of this that internal political considerations played a big part and there was certainly a lot of ass-covering/incompetence/negligence going on, particulary in the case of the FBI (Edmonds). That said, I think it's a mistake to dismiss the entire report, esp. as it is so well-sourced. In fact, the sourcing is what has made the inconsistencies so easy to find. I think the report could benefit from a revision to address/cleanup some of the contradictions, and to look at some of the things that have (rightly, IMO) been brought up since -- namely, Able Danger and Sibel Edmonds. I hope the Commission members will do that at some point. Also, I think a lot of the criticism deals with facts around the "edges" of the story -- issues of who knew what when and were people doing the jobs they were supposed to be doing. None of that really undermines the basic truth that 19 jihadists hijacked some planes and flew them into some buildings (or the ground in PA) on 9/11. Edit: typo
dubfan Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 452	__________________ "I'd rather be Locked up with those throat slitting terrorists, then with JREF." -- e-dog@Loose Change "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into." -- Jonathan Swift Last edited by dubfan; 13th June 2006 at 06:18 AM.

13th June 2006, 06:28 AM	#35
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: N55.47'36" E12.30'21" Posts: 10,119	Originally Posted by dubfan snip Also, I think a lot of the criticism deals with facts around the "edges" of the story -- issues of who knew what when and were people doing the jobs they were supposed to be doing. None of that really undermines the basic truth that 19 jihadists hijacked some planes and flew them into some buildings (or the ground in PA) on 9/11. However, that was the doubt raised in the opening post. It did not even address possible ass covering and hand-washing (of which I'm sure there is quite a bit) in the report. The claim of the CTs is not: "9/11 happened roughly like reported, but we think some people here and there have ducked responsibilities" It is "Something entirely different happened, and the US govt was deeply involved in plannning and executing the event". Hans
	__________________ The time is always right to do what is right. (Martin Luther King JR.)

13th June 2006, 06:30 AM	#36
aggle-rithm Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 6,270	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress (we all wait for their report on wtc7). Here, I'll give you a preview: Two 110 story buildings fell down near WTC 7, raining tons of debris on it. WTC 7 fell down. There, was that so hard to understand?
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.