Split Thread Criticisms of 9/11 Commission Report

[Nick Terry]

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?

On the contrary, those lies were so important they were exposed and discussed publicly.

"The government" is subject to multiple checks and balances, starting with the fact that US politics is structured around an adversarial system. It is always potentially in the interests of the party in opposition to attack the party in government, hold committee hearings, and so on.

Then there's the media, both national and international, who have a vested interest in exposing malfeasance in government, because it makes good copy. Journalists are also best placed to write the first books on any subject, and do so constantly.

In cases involving serious malfeasance, then the courts are involved, leaving written records, even if not all verdicts are what everyone might like.

Finally, we have academia,who don't necessarily break all the stories themselves, but who act as a kind of court assessing these matters by way of arriving at an eventual consensus, and settling them down to become accepted historical facts.

Iran-Contra is a great example. The story first broke in a Lebanese news magazine in early November 1986 and was rapidly transmitted worldwide including back to the US. Reagan announced a special review board by the end of November 1986, which reported back in February 1987 having interviewed 80 witnesses and produced 200 pages of criticism of government officials. Several officials resigned or were fired within weeks of the scandal breaking.

Separately, the Democratic-controlled Congress held hearings in 1987. The controversy led eventually to the trial of Oliver North, who was initially convicted before the appeal stage reversed the convictions for legitimate procedural considerations caused by his earlier testimony to Congress.

Bob Woodward separately published a book on 'The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981-1987' in 1987, which became a best-seller. Since then, many other authors and academics have chronicled and documented he Iran-Contra affair, which is now a firm part of history.

9/11, too, is a firm part of history. Journalists and academics independent of government have written extensively on al Qaeda, utilising al Qaeda and jihadist sources alongside sources generated by the US and other foreign governments. Journalists and academics have written extensively on the decision to invade Iraq and the consequences of the 2003 war.

The question, therefore, is whether you have ever bothered to read a book on 9/11 written by a reputable author.

 

[Jango]

Revise your sentence and think about your bias.

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

Revise your sentence and think about your bias.

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.

It is political naivety on your part though -- a gross miscalculation of the extent those in power will go to meet their objectives -- see Machiavellianism (also see where that term originates: The Prince by Nicolo Machiavelli)

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

It is political naivety on your part though -- a gross miscalculation of the extent those in power will go to meet their objectives --

Merely an unfounded assumption based upon your own confirmation bias. What did I state for you to construct this straw man? Or are you just slinging mud?

I deal in what is known and your assumptions, biases and beliefs are immaterial. Btw, when I said 'I see' it was sarcastic owing to the obviously partisan nature of your response.

see Machiavellianism (also see where that term originates: The Prince by Nicolo Machiavelli)

I've read it more than once, have you? You are making assumptions about people when you have no clue. Just stop or we're done, as I don't tolerate such nonsense.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

On the contrary, those lies were so important they were exposed and discussed publicly.

"The government" is subject to multiple checks and balances, starting with the fact that US politics is structured around an adversarial system. It is always potentially in the interests of the party in opposition to attack the party in government, hold committee hearings, and so on.

Then there's the media, both national and international, who have a vested interest in exposing malfeasance in government, because it makes good copy. Journalists are also best placed to write the first books on any subject, and do so constantly.

In cases involving serious malfeasance, then the courts are involved, leaving written records, even if not all verdicts are what everyone might like.

Finally, we have academia,who don't necessarily break all the stories themselves, but who act as a kind of court assessing these matters by way of arriving at an eventual consensus, and settling them down to become accepted historical facts.

Iran-Contra is a great example. The story first broke in a Lebanese news magazine in early November 1986 and was rapidly transmitted worldwide including back to the US. Reagan announced a special review board by the end of November 1986, which reported back in February 1987 having interviewed 80 witnesses and produced 200 pages of criticism of government officials. Several officials resigned or were fired within weeks of the scandal breaking.

Separately, the Democratic-controlled Congress held hearings in 1987. The controversy led eventually to the trial of Oliver North, who was initially convicted before the appeal stage reversed the convictions for legitimate procedural considerations caused by his earlier testimony to Congress.

Bob Woodward separately published a book on 'The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981-1987' in 1987, which became a best-seller. Since then, many other authors and academics have chronicled and documented he Iran-Contra affair, which is now a firm part of history.

9/11, too, is a firm part of history. Journalists and academics independent of government have written extensively on al Qaeda, utilising al Qaeda and jihadist sources alongside sources generated by the US and other foreign governments. Journalists and academics have written extensively on the decision to invade Iraq and the consequences of the 2003 war.

The question, therefore, is whether you have ever bothered to read a book on 9/11 written by a reputable author.

Well stated.

 

[Jango]

Merely an unfounded assumption based upon your own confirmation bias.

Confirmation of what? That you're political naive, yeah, thanks for agreeing

What did I state for you to construct this straw man? Or are you just slinging mud?

You perform one of the most fatally held positions in politics -- you give the government (any government mind you) the benefit of the doubt and completely underestimate the depths they'll go to reach their objective, no matter what it is or what laws it breaks, who it kills or how much it costs. It is a serious miscalculation on your part, and those who share the same view of any government at any level.

It is folly to do so when government has the monopoly on violence, among other things, yet here it is alive and well a fantasy of benevolent government. Grow up already, man.

I deal in what is known and your assumptions, biases and beliefs are immaterial. Btw, when I said 'I see' it was sarcastic owing to the obviously partisan nature of your response.

Partisan? In what way and for who/what?

I've read it more than once, have you?

Yes, sir. Many times actually. It was among the pleasant required reading I was tasked with in college. From this book: http://www.amazon.com/World-Ideas-Essential-Readings-College/dp/B003XZU1S0

I have obviously located it online too.

You are making assumptions about people when you have no clue. Just stop or we're done, as I don't tolerate such nonsense.

Thin skinned ye are then to shrivel underneath criticism. If you don't know politics that well, no problem. But claiming you know your stuff and what you've offered thus far is miles apart from one another. Politics isn't hard to quote-unquote master. Many people find it too depressing, stupid, pointless, annoying. I don't. I'm a daily consumer of it. Have been for years now. It so happens that politics (among many other topics) is also a research topic of mine. Your position, like so many others here, is a romanticized rubber stamped version of the U.S. Government (few here have even romanticized the Russian government). Your view isn't politically realistic ergo you're being politically naive.

 

[JayUtah]

Jango, do you ever have an argument that doesn't boil down to proclaiming the government to be omnipotent and evil, and to accusing your critics of naïveté for not taking that proclamation on faith?

 

[Jango]

On the contrary, those lies were so important they were exposed and discussed publicly.

Are they only lies if they're broadcasted for all to see?

"The government" is subject to multiple checks and balances, starting with the fact that US politics is structured around an adversarial system. It is always potentially in the interests of the party in opposition to attack the party in government, hold committee hearings, and so on.

Key word there -- 'potentially'. Potentially, the adversarial system can go along (nothing less to be expected from capitalist legislators) with the program or be unaware of it because they rely on the security services and other agencies to actually inform them. The Gang of Eight is not always notified of every operation POTUS orders.

Then there's the media, both national and international, who have a vested interest in exposing malfeasance in government, because it makes good copy. Journalists are also best placed to write the first books on any subject, and do so constantly.

There are examples stretching decades noting the complex relationship between the government and the media. While I don't believe that U.S. media (any mainstream media anywhere to be more precise) is truly independent in the spirit or literal definition of the word. The Church Committee brought out the information of the C.I.A. penetrating the U.S. media. Those practices continued under President Reagan. President Clinton's C.I.A. Director John Deutch openly admitted in a Congressional hearing that the intelligence community needs to be able to interact with journalists. And as we've seen with the Snowden disclosures, there's a sentence explaining how the government asked the paper not to print something and they didn't print it. -- Media isn't something to blindly trust as a buffer against government either.

In cases involving serious malfeasance, then the courts are involved, leaving written records, even if not all verdicts are what everyone might like.

Like the FISA court who rubber stamped generalized spying of Americans?
And with the courts, yes, there are records, but is there transparency? No, not really. -- The courts are also not to be blindly trusted as a buffer to government.

Finally, we have academia,who don't necessarily break all the stories themselves, but who act as a kind of court assessing these matters by way of arriving at an eventual consensus, and settling them down to become accepted historical facts.

With so much money on the line for grants and research opportunities, as well as a well-known history of being co-opted by the security services, academia isn't an end-all-be-all either. Like the other industries you named, academia has its upsides and downsides. Pros and cons, if you will. Commonsense dictates that. Blindly trusting them is not commonsense. Why assume they only have our best interests in mind?

Iran-Contra is a great example. The story first broke in a Lebanese news magazine in early November 1986 and was rapidly transmitted worldwide including back to the US. Reagan announced a special review board by the end of November 1986, which reported back in February 1987 having interviewed 80 witnesses and produced 200 pages of criticism of government officials. Several officials resigned or were fired within weeks of the scandal breaking.

Yes, feathers were violently ruffled, but what was the end result? The VPOTUS became POTUS and pardons came thereafter, just as we saw with President Ford pardoning Nixon. The system takes a stern body blow and recoils to defend itself from further damage aka CYA.

Separately, the Democratic-controlled Congress held hearings in 1987. The controversy led eventually to the trial of Oliver North, who was initially convicted before the appeal stage reversed the convictions for legitimate procedural considerations caused by his earlier testimony to Congress.

Yeah, a criminal got immunity. Such a victory.

Bob Woodward separately published a book on 'The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981-1987' in 1987, which became a best-seller. Since then, many other authors and academics have chronicled and documented he Iran-Contra affair, which is now a firm part of history.

I own the book. I admit without reservation that much is known about the Iran-Contra affair. Does that mean that a lot isn't known? You can't say one way or another without making an assumption of an unknown quantity.

9/11, too, is a firm part of history. Journalists and academics independent of government have written extensively on al Qaeda, utilising al Qaeda and jihadist sources alongside sources generated by the US and other foreign governments. Journalists and academics have written extensively on the decision to invade Iraq and the consequences of the 2003 war.

And they all have run into the same problem I have consistently talked about: knowing there is more information but not being allowed to see it or comment on it. Again, such a victory. "Yay! We know some things that happened!"

The question, therefore, is whether you have ever bothered to read a book on 9/11 written by a reputable author.

Does Steve Coll's Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 count? And no, I have not (and will not) buy the books written by Griffin or others like it.

 

[Belz...]

Are we really still on about this 9/11 nonsense ?

 

[Jango]

Jango, do you ever have an argument that doesn't boil down to proclaiming the government to be omnipotent and evil, and to accusing your critics of naïveté for not taking that proclamation on faith?

Define omnipotent in a humanist manner because the Biblical version renders discussion to null. Are we capable of extraordinary things, yeah, obviously. But what is the extent of that? Where is the glass ceiling? Do you personally know what it is? What capabilities are you in doubt of?

And evil things are in fact done by the government. You're not suggesting otherwise, are you? Or are you suggesting that I think that they are entirely evil with no good or in-between at all? Either way, you're wrong.

We can discuss all the good things the government has done and does simply by its existence, you know, if I am making you uncomfortable in your red, white and blue underwear because that's what your genuine complaint has been thus far, which is echoed by many: Rah Rah U.S.A. A partisan like mindset influenced by blind patriotism which has been demonstrated time-and-time-again by the government -- It's legal if the President says it is.

And that's just another arena of politics in which you fail. A false idol has been created -- a myth of altruism. 'We don't start wars, we finish wars.' 'We're the good guys.' 'The American Dream.' You've carried those myths from your childhood well into your adult life in the same manner that religion hooks people -- get 'em while they're young. I'm sorry, my friend, but those cherished childhood attained beliefs were debunked long before you ever learned them to begin with. There has been a steady undercurrent of opposition to overreaches by the government long before either of us were born. Why you continue to romanticize these notions in clear opposition to the historical record is interesting, to say the least. Perhaps it is just a coincidence?

Wanna play the Evil or Not Evil game to determine how much of a monster you are? First question: Is torture evil or not evil?

 

[Jango]

Are we really still on about this 9/11 nonsense ?

Why shouldn't we be?

 

[beachnut]

Why shouldn't we be?

Have you figured out the smoke movement yet?

 

[Spanx]

Why shouldn't we be?

Most of your lot aren't any more, in fact they have just disappeared. I guess there will always be a few who will never understand and keep flogging a dead horse.

 

[Jango]

Most of your lot aren't any more, in fact they have just disappeared. I guess there will always be a few who will never understand and keep flogging a dead horse.

Understand what? Be specific. What am I supposed to understand? Mind if I take a stab at it?

Ahem...

ON the morning of September 11th, 2001, the United States of America was viciously attacked by 19 Muslim hijackers in a surprise attack because they hated our freedoms. The reason why the internal U.S. defense failed to adequately safeguard CONUS that morning is because of the fog of war. The Twin Towers of the WTC complex collapsed because of the damage of the impacts of the kamikaze planes and the resulting fires. Building seven of the WTC complex collapsed due to falling debris from the Towers and fires. The government then investigated these matters, reached conclusions and came up with recommendations. All was well in the world thereafter.

Is that about right?

 

[Spanx]

Understand what? Be specific. What am I supposed to understand? Mind if I take a stab at it?

Ahem...

ON the morning of September 11th, 2001, the United States of America was viciously attacked by 19 Muslim hijackers in a surprise attack because they hated our freedoms. The reason why the internal U.S. defense failed to adequately safeguard CONUS that morning is because of the fog of war. The Twin Towers of the WTC complex collapsed because of the damage of the impacts of the kamikaze planes and the resulting fires. Building seven of the WTC complex collapsed due to falling debris from the Towers and fires. The government then investigated these matters, reached conclusions and came up with recommendations. All was well in the world thereafter.

Is that about right?

Whatever Jango, if you think you are helping your cause and actually achieving anything posting here then good for you. I say you are achieving nothing.

Now prove me wrong.

While you are at it, what about the silent explosives you claim exist ?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Is that about right?

Yeah, and even in more detail it doesn't take five minutes to understand....

 

[Spanx]

Yeah, and even in more detail it doesn't take five minutes to understand....

There you go Jango, a YouTube video for you, what more do you need ?

 

[Jango]

There you go Jango, a YouTube video for you, what more do you need ?

Ask yourself that. Can anything arouse suspicion about 9/11 for you?

 

[Jango]

Whatever Jango, if you think you are helping your cause and actually achieving anything posting here then good for you. I say you are achieving nothing.

Now prove me wrong.

While you are at it, what about the silent explosives you claim exist ?

Was I right or wrong?

Am I supposed to understand this:

ON the morning of September 11th, 2001, the United States of America was viciously attacked by 19 Muslim hijackers in a surprise attack because they hated our freedoms. The reason why the internal U.S. defense failed to adequately safeguard CONUS that morning is because of the fog of war. The Twin Towers of the WTC complex collapsed because of the damage of the impacts of the kamikaze planes and the resulting fires. Building seven of the WTC complex collapsed due to falling debris from the Towers and fires. The government then investigated these matters, reached conclusions and came up with recommendations. All was well in the world thereafter.

Yes or no.

 

[Spanx]

Ask yourself that. Can anything arouse suspicion about 9/11 for you?

To be honest no, I have seen so much BS over the years I have no reason to think it wasn't a terrorist attack.

When people believe in silent explosives I tend not to believe them.

 

[Spanx]

Was I right or wrong?

Am I supposed to understand this:

Yes or no.

Like I said, some people will never understand and be forever flogging a dead horse.