Split Thread Criticisms of 9/11 Commission Report

[Jango]

And what do you speculate would be practical to Kissinger?

The practical one -- shying away from dangerous areas by limiting the scope of the investigation and who was allowed access to sensitive information, exactly what happened anyway.

But you have no evidence of this.

What do you call Philip Zelikow and Jamie Gorelick besides management from the inside?

What body or agency do you feel should have undertaken the job in order to avoid accusations of conflict of interest?

Is there a "body or agency" that 1) I can blindly trust & 2) not be tainted by political pressures?

More speculation?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/01/politics/01berger.html

These all originate from one source and the Justice Department response to the accusation seems reasonable to me.

Of course it does...

 

[Jango]

A Gish Gallop, with no comment included, of political and quote-mined filed news stories to cover up another failed claim, a virtual "smoke" screen of BS?

What are you questioning (besides the butchering of English (again) and your inability to make a point, let alone, stay focused)?

 

[beachnut]

What are you questioning (besides the butchering of English (again) and your inability to make a point, let alone, stay focused)?

Projection. A sign, I nailed it.
No comment on the Gish Gallop of political BS articles you dropped URLs for. Did you read them, or was it a shallow quick scan, a cherry picking quote mine smoke screen to avoid answering the posts. You never explained the sources. "an inability to make a point"? There were some great quote mining possibilities you passed up.

And your post above, some quote mining you left out of the post; you left out the good part.

 

[Jango]

Projection. A sign, I nailed it.
No comment on the Gish Gallop of political BS articles you dropped URLs for. Did you read them, or was it a shallow quick scan, a cherry picking quote mine smoke screen to avoid answering the posts. You never explained the sources. "an inability to make a point"? There were some great quote mining possibilities you passed up.

And your post above, some quote mining you left out of the post; you left out the good part.

Edit: So if the NYT & Washington Post are "political BS articles" then what sources are acceptable in your book? Fox News? Only .gov sites?

 

[beachnut]

Edit: So if the NYT & Washington Post are "political BS articles" then what sources are acceptable in your book? Fox News? Only .gov sites?

Which one was the "washington post"? The articles you posted were pretty much political news, not much to support for anything.

You posted junk you did not read for comprehension and offered zero comment to tie it to anything. I started laughing when I saw Politics for the NYT source. It was like you did not read the articles. When I read the articles, they did not say much, more of a way to sell soap; make a headline, put in some junk, and done.

Do your sources, the articles support anything you claim? Why no comment to explain how they fit, and support your claims, or points.

LOL, Fox News, what about CNN, or Alex Jones.

What is acceptable; evidence. Gee, easy questions, easy answers.

911 was an event, there is evidence. If NORAD generals make a mistake with time, etc, we have the logs, Radar, FAA tapes, aka, evidence.

Evidence; like the smoke issue you have; you could check the evidence; get another video of 175 impact, and see clearly, 175 impacted before the smoke moved, and made the smoke move.

What is acceptable; did I say evidence? yes

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

The practical one -- shying away from dangerous areas by limiting the scope of the investigation and who was allowed access to sensitive information, exactly what happened anyway.

I see.

What do you call Philip Zelikow and Jamie Gorelick besides management from the inside?

That's not what I was talking about.

Is there a "body or agency" that 1) I can blindly trust & 2) not be tainted by political pressures?

You tell me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/01/politics/01berger.html

Irrelevant to my point.

Of course it does...

And there's the usual assumption made by someone who doesn't appear to have given it much thought.

 

[Jango]

I see.

That's not what I was talking about.

How isn't it? I said 'managed from the inside' you said 'you have no evidence' so I pointed out the obvious.

You tell me.

I would have if I could...which is why I asked you what I did.

Irrelevant to my point.

Of 'More speculation?' It wasn't.

And there's the usual assumption made by someone who doesn't appear to have given it much thought.

...or a person who isn't naive to politics.

 

[Jango]

Which one was the "washington post"? The articles you posted were pretty much political news, not much to support for anything.

You posted junk you did not read for comprehension and offered zero comment to tie it to anything. I started laughing when I saw Politics for the NYT source. It was like you did not read the articles. When I read the articles, they did not say much, more of a way to sell soap; make a headline, put in some junk, and done.

Do your sources, the articles support anything you claim? Why no comment to explain how they fit, and support your claims, or points.

LOL, Fox News, what about CNN, or Alex Jones.

What is acceptable; evidence. Gee, easy questions, easy answers.

911 was an event, there is evidence. If NORAD generals make a mistake with time, etc, we have the logs, Radar, FAA tapes, aka, evidence.

Evidence; like the smoke issue you have; you could check the evidence; get another video of 175 impact, and see clearly, 175 impacted before the smoke moved, and made the smoke move.

What is acceptable; did I say evidence? yes

Okay. So Fox News is out. NYT and WaPo are out. CNN is out. The only positive thing you said about a source carries the .gov domain.

 

[pgimeno]

Okay. So Fox News is out. NYT and WaPo are out. CNN is out. The only positive thing you said about a source carries the .gov domain.

That's the trap many truthers fall into. If the government said it, then the opposite must be true, because like in a Raymond Smullyan riddle, government always lies.

 

[beachnut]

Okay. So Fox News is out. NYT and WaPo are out. CNN is out. The only positive thing you said about a source carries the .gov domain.

You don't read for content, then you make up BS.

The only positive thing you said about a source carries the .gov domain.

This is what you made up, out of the blue. What positive thing did I say about a source with .gov?
The only positive thing I said; evidence.

 

[Jango]

That's the trap many truthers fall into. If the government said it, then the opposite must be true, because like in a Raymond Smullyan riddle, government always lies.

It unfortunately happens enough to be a 'real thing' -- not necessarily "the opposite" (which has been trademarked by the right-wing with President Obama) but the fact is, the government does indeed lie its ass off whenever the need arises -- see D.N.I. Clapper committing perjury. Or if you want an older example, look at former C.I.A. Director Richard Helms. He perjured himself too. As did President Reagan with Iran-Contra. President George H.W. Bush about taxes (Read my lips). President Clinton about having an extramarital affair in the Oval Office no less. But these lies are unimportant, right?

 

[pgimeno]

It unfortunately happens enough to be a 'real thing' -- not necessarily "the opposite" (which has been trademarked by the right-wing with President Obama) but the fact is, the government does indeed lie its ass off whenever the need arises -- see D.N.I. Clapper committing perjury. Or if you want an older example, look at former C.I.A. Director Richard Helms. He perjured himself too. As did President Reagan with Iran-Contra. President George H.W. Bush about taxes (Read my lips). President Clinton about having an extramarital affair in the Oval Office no less. But these lies are unimportant, right?

Perjury? As in, one person lying about something?

Can they also lie, say, about whether the United Airlines passenger manifest showed five Arabic names? Was that a lie too? Did U.A. support that lie? How does it get from the airline records all the way to the Commission report, with everyone in between supporting the lie?

That's where I'm going. Evidence is evidence, and it's what supports the historic account of the facts. It doesn't depend on the statements of people.

 

[cjnewson88]

There are legitimate areas of the 9/11 report which need correcting. I link two such areas on my blog which Tim Lusch discovered. I also think there is more to tell regarding CIA, Saudi Intelligence and the two al-Qaeda operatives living in California. Aside from that the rest of the report is solid. It's a pity truthers are still so blinded from bias that they refuse to see the legitimate criticisms.

 

[WilliamSeger]

There are legitimate areas of the 9/11 report which need correcting. I link two such areas on my blog which Tim Lusch discovered.

I couldn't find those at the link in your signature line. Do you have a direct link?

 

[Jango]

There are legitimate areas of the 9/11 report which need correcting. I link two such areas on my blog which Tim Lusch discovered. I also think there is more to tell regarding CIA, Saudi Intelligence and the two al-Qaeda operatives living in California. Aside from that the rest of the report is solid. It's a pity truthers are still so blinded from bias that they refuse to see the legitimate criticisms.

I sincerely hope you don't find me in that category. I also hope that your appearances won't be as sparse as they have been thus far. We do share middle ground on topics and we are civil with one another. One such middle ground falls under the context of What The Security Services Were Doing.

We know a lot about their actions and plans, but there are areas where the information chain has stopped before reaching a conclusion therefore creating fragments in the historical record therefore creating questions.

Take the instance you mentioned -- Two hijackers living in California + Saudi Intelligence + the C.I.A.

Information about that is very fragmented. Not a whole lot is known about it. But what is known creates only more questions.

Because the information that is known, like the hijackers living with an F.B.I. informant, expands the context of the Two hijackers living in California + Saudi Intelligence + the C.I.A. formula. (The F.B.I. informant living with two hijackers was widely reported -- CNN, NYT, ABC, CBS, Newsweek, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, etc and it was mentioned by the government too: http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/0506/chapter5.htm)

There's a few basic questions to be asked -- Who knew what and when did they know it? Is all of the information relevant to this incident publicly known?

The information chain runs out before we reach conclusions on either question.

 

[DGM]

I sincerely hope you don't find me in that category.

You wouldn't be unless you show some opinion this indicates a conspiracy. You don't think it does, do you?

 

[cjnewson88]

I couldn't find those at the link in your signature line. Do you have a direct link?

It's about mid way down, under the Radar section, but the link appears to be broken and I can't find Tom's presentation on his website. Luckily I have a copy on my laptop:

https://mega.co.nz/#!JIhRFKqC!uxANHt8hJWSmZURr52E0-qoqBSwWdpz9PYFAAoKCi4Q

I sincerely hope you don't find me in that category.

For you I have a bit more faith Jango

I also hope that your appearances won't be as sparse as they have been thus far. We do share middle ground on topics and we are civil with one another. One such middle ground falls under the context of What The Security Services Were Doing.

Sorry I find myself very busy working two jobs these days. NWO doesn't give annual leave anymore

We know a lot about their actions and plans, but there are areas where the information chain has stopped before reaching a conclusion therefore creating fragments in the historical record therefore creating questions.

Take the instance you mentioned -- Two hijackers living in California + Saudi Intelligence + the C.I.A.

Information about that is very fragmented. Not a whole lot is known about it. But what is known creates only more questions.

Agreed.

Because the information that is known, like the hijackers living with an F.B.I. informant, expands the context of the Two hijackers living in California + Saudi Intelligence + the C.I.A. formula. (The F.B.I. informant living with two hijackers was widely reported -- CNN, NYT, ABC, CBS, Newsweek, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, etc and it was mentioned by the government too: http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/0506/chapter5.htm)

If I recall correctly they FBI informant didn't know they were al-Qaeda operatives, did he? As far as has been reported he was just a random flat mate. Going by the amount that the FBI was kept in the dark by the CIA about the two operatives, I think this to be a strange yet believable circumstance.

There's a few basic questions to be asked -- Who knew what and when did they know it? Is all of the information relevant to this incident publicly known?

The information chain runs out before we reach conclusions on either question.

I believe that's touching on the contents of the famous "40 redacted pages". The sooner they're released the better our picture may become.

 

[Jango]

For you I have a bit more faith Jango

Sorry I find myself very busy working two jobs these days. NWO doesn't give annual leave anymore

They don't seem to be hiring at the moment either.

Agreed.

If I recall correctly they FBI informant didn't know they were al-Qaeda operatives, did he? As far as has been reported he was just a random flat mate. Going by the amount that the FBI was kept in the dark by the CIA about the two operatives, I think this to be a strange yet believable circumstance.

That is the claim, yes, but there's no verification of the claim via documentation.

I believe that's touching on the contents of the famous "40 redacted pages". The sooner they're released the better our picture may become.

28 pages

My list would also include *all* relevant PDB's as well *all* relevant information from the security services, particularly analysis.

 

[pgimeno]

They don't seem to be hiring at the moment either.

You wouldn't pass the test anyway. Gage only asks you to sign a statement saying that you believe nanothermite was used to destroy the towers. The NWO requirements are much more stringent.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

How isn't it? I said 'managed from the inside' you said 'you have no evidence' so I pointed out the obvious.

Revise your sentence and think about your bias.

I would have if I could...which is why I asked you what I did.

Well, I'm not the one complaining about the 9/11 commission.

Of 'More speculation?' It wasn't.

Revise your sentence and think about your bias.

...or a person who isn't naive to politics.

More snark. So, if I don't share your heavily biased opinion I'm politically naïve. That is some rational thinking right there. You can dispense with the smartarse comments anytime you like, as I've given you no cause for such behaviour.