9/11 commission told not to probe too deeply

[RedIbis]

And so, as usual, we see that the aim of the conspiracy theorist is to discard understanding rather than add to it.

It seems fairly obvious to anyone that the delay in formation of the 9/11 Commission was because the Bush administration was afraid of being found culpably negligent, and that the limits placed on it were because the Bush administration was afraid of being found to be using criminal interrogation techniques. But the real failings of the Bush administration don't demonise it to the satisfaction of the fanatic, so they have to make up some imaginary ones.

Dave

So if you're convinced of their negligence and "criminal interrogation techniques" do you support prosecution?

I suspect not because you would rather express smug apathy and attack your favorite chimera, the Twoofie.

 

[RedIbis]

redbis and posters,

[...] The slowness of the public reaction to deceit is disappointing, but the public does appear to be on the verge of coming to grips with the fact that 9/11 was a false flag op and almost ready to start demanding accountability.

I wouldn't be so sure.

 

[Jackanory]

It has to do with the fact that the administration never wanted the Commission to do a thorough investigation, it didn't want them to access the videotapes of the interviews and didn't want them "to cross a line."

And yes the administration did tell them why: so that national security wouldn't be jeapordized. Since the administration can invoke that privledge any time they want, it's obvious there never was and never will be a thorough investigation into 9/11.

You buy that lame excuse, most wouldn't. Their deceit is obvious.

So you accept that the gubmint actually had video tapes of the interviews that would confirm that 19 terrorists did it but wouldnt allow the commission to access those video tapes because ................?

Surely you have just conceded that video tapes of interviews do exist, which would indicate that the gubmint did indeed investigate.

Please clarify your logic.

 

[RedIbis]

So you accept that the gubmint actually had video tapes of the interviews that would confirm that 19 terrorists did it but wouldnt allow the commission to access those video tapes because ................?

Bolded to illustrate massive assumption devoid of critical thinking.

If these videotaped interviews provided confessions and solid evidence of their involvement, why were they destroyed?

Wait, I know: national security.

 

[twinstead]

Bolded to illustrate massive assumption devoid of critical thinking.

If these videotaped interviews provided confessions and solid evidence of their involvement, why were they destroyed?

Wait, I know: national security.

Why would you accuse somebody of a massive assumption and then go ahead and do the same exact thing?

 

[RedIbis]

Why would you accuse somebody of a massive assumption and then go ahead and do the same exact thing?

Which assumption is that?

 

[Jackanory]

redbis and posters,



The uselessness of the 9/11 Commission Report as well as the process used in the preparation of it has been well established from the outset. One of the first events tht confirmed that uselessness was the Bush/Cheney refusal to testify separately, on the record.

In the absence of information from the president and vice president, it is not possible to know what happened on 9/11.

So, the additional disclosure that the Commission was specifically "warned" NOT to investigate while significant, is basically not new information.

We know the 9/11 Commission Report is not worth the paper it is written on, let alone the trees felled to supply the paper.



And that is also why 9/11 can legitimately be characterized as a false flag operation, done intentionally by unknown entities for unknown reasons, however, as to those reasons, it is almost certain they had a lot to do with profit motivation.



Deceit is obvious. The slowness of the public reaction to deceit is disappointing, but the public does appear to be on the verge of coming to grips with the fact that 9/11 was a false flag op and almost ready to start demanding accountability.

The problem with your arguements are quite simple. Like me, you are joe public. You are not privy to all the information. Only those with the need to know are. You and i dont need to know the ins and outs of such things.

We are not privy to know the exact description and location of the remains of Mrs X. We are not privy to know the exact procedures undertaken by the FBI when searching a field. Those with the need to know will know. You and i just dont need to know. Simple. We have not been designated to investigate 911. We are not the FBI. We are not coroners. We are not ATC. We are not witnesses. We wernt there. We are not crash investigators. We are not a commission member. We are not experienced enough to be in the loop. We dont need to be in the loop. Why should we be in the loop? Why should we be fed with every minute detail of the entire investigation? Why? What right do we have? What would it achieve? What experience or training do you have that is specific to 911 to be able to determine who did what and when correctly?

No evidence for an inside job.
No experience specific to any organisation or agency involved in 911.
No evidence or clarifiable answers to explain your theories.
Nothing at all - just a factless opinion.

 

[Jackanory]

Bolded to illustrate massive assumption devoid of critical thinking.

If these videotaped interviews provided confessions and solid evidence of their involvement, why were they destroyed?

Wait, I know: national security.

Destroyed? Prove it! What video tapes where destroyed?

Isnt it the truther mantra that KSM was forced to give a false confession? Did he do this on video? Was his video destroyed? Was UBL video destroyed?

Bolded to illustrate massive assumption devoid of critical thinking.

 

[RedIbis]

Destroyed? Prove it! What video tapes where destroyed?

Isnt it the truther mantra that KSM was forced to give a false confession? Did he do this on video? Was his video destroyed? Was UBL video destroyed?

Bolded to illustrate massive assumption devoid of critical thinking.

Do you read anything?

 

[Dave Rogers]

So if you're convinced of their negligence and "criminal interrogation techniques" do you support prosecution?

The negligence issue was addressed very thoroughly by the 9/11 Commission; I imagine that their findings of severe structural failings in the organisations tasked with prevention of terrorism, rather than blame attaching to specific individuals, came as something of a relief to the Bush administration, but that alone does nothing towards invalidating them. I would support investigation of, and if appropriate prosecution for, the interrogation techniques used by the USA in recent years; it seems clear to me that violations of international law took place. If anything, the 9/11 truth movement is a distraction from these rather more realistic concerns, though in fact it's too insignificant to be a serious one.

This of course has no bearing on whether the 9/11 Commission was allowed to adequately investigate who was responsible for 9/11.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Do you read anything?

I've yet to read the bit where you provide a source for your assertion that videotapes of interrogations were destroyed.

Dave

 

[jammonius]

No we don't. As a matter of fact, there is not one shred of evidence for anything you just said.

Kindly source the location of the transcript of what Bush/Cheney said to the 9/11 Commission.

Kindly explain what John Farmer meant in his book 'The Ground Truth' that the Commission was lied to by the military and other governmental officials.

Kindly explain what other commission members meant when they are saod to have disavowed the commission report.

Needless to say, the new assertion of "warning" of the commission not to investigate too deeply has a prior foundation that serves to confirm the uselessness of the 9/11 Commission Report.

Finally, then, kindly explain why you are engaging in unsupported denial?

 

[RedIbis]

I've yet to read the bit where you provide a source for your assertion that videotapes of interrogations were destroyed.

Dave

It's not my assertion, it's Kean and Hamilton's. I didn't have any problems finding the original rawstory report.

 

[Jackanory]

Do you read anything?

Yes. You bolded my comment on 19 terrorists doing it. Logical explanation given the evidence. The said videos would confirm this. You accepted that those videos existed but then stated that those videos where destroyed.

Do you answer questions? If so then answer my previous questions.

What proof do you have that said videos where destroyed?

 

[Jackanory]

Kindly source the location of the transcript of what Bush/Cheney said to the 9/11 Commission.

Kindly explain what John Farmer meant in his book 'The Ground Truth' that the Commission was lied to by the military and other governmental officials.

Kindly explain what other commission members meant when they are saod to have disavowed the commission report.

Needless to say, the new assertion of "warning" of the commission not to investigate too deeply has a prior foundation that serves to confirm the uselessness of the 9/11 Commission Report.

Finally, then, kindly explain why you are engaging in unsupported denial?

Perhaps those people with responsibility felt ashamed that those responsibilities where not met. Perhaps those in responsibility where scared of losing a job or being vilified for making a mistake. Perhaps those people are human with human emotions who make mistakes then try to wriggle out of them. Perhaps they are spineless beurocrats or gubmint officials who didnt listen to or pass on intelligence that they should have.

None of which indicates an inside job. Sloppy yes. Guilty of planning and carrying out mass murder - No. Guilty of covering up a plan to carry out mass murder - No.

Slinging accusations out of frustration simply because you are not permitted to be in the loop doesnt help.

 

[jammonius]

Greetings jackanory,

The problem with your arguements are quite simple. Like me, you are joe public. You are not privy to all the information. Only those with the need to know are. You and i dont need to know the ins and outs of such things.

If I understand you correctly, your above quote serves to justify the uselessness of the 9/11 Commission Report on the basis that falsity and use of what are sometimes called "cover stories" is fine so long as a claim of national security and a claim of 'top secret' can be made?

Well, if that is a fair interpretation, then a couple of points appear to be established:

1--You are not disputing that the 9/11 Commission Report is useless for establishing what happened on 9/11.

2--Rather, you justify the uselessness of the Report on the basis that the public does not need to know what happened on 9/11.

While your statement may sound radical to me, I am prepared to consider whether there is a way to determine the extent to which the public agrees with you. I am also prepared to be 'shocked' that your point of view might be widely supported.

We know, for example, that a claim of "national security" can all but end any sort of Congressional oversight of anything a president does. And, we know a claim of 'national security' can result in justification for torturing you or me or, as you call us, "joe public."

So, your post is worthy of consideration here, I think.

We are not privy to know the exact description and location of the remains of Mrs X. We are not privy to know the exact procedures undertaken by the FBI when searching a field. Those with the need to know will know. You and i just dont need to know. Simple. We have not been designated to investigate 911. We are not the FBI. We are not coroners. We are not ATC. We are not witnesses. We wernt there. We are not crash investigators. We are not a commission member. We are not experienced enough to be in the loop. We dont need to be in the loop. Why should we be in the loop? Why should we be fed with every minute detail of the entire investigation? Why? What right do we have? What would it achieve? What experience or training do you have that is specific to 911 to be able to determine who did what and when correctly?

In the above quote I suppose our disagreement is mild, but clear. I do not think a society that purports to be free or democratic can function on the basis of being intentionally, wantonly, and willingly kept ignorant. In my view "ignorance is not bliss" and I do not wish to advance a discussion by lauding ignorance.

I am tempted to ask you if you are engaging in irony or some form of sarcasm in your above quote? However, I fear I may not like the answer you might provide.

No evidence for an inside job.
No experience specific to any organisation or agency involved in 911.
No evidence or clarifiable answers to explain your theories.
Nothing at all - just a factless opinion.

It is one thing to justify ignorance, it is quite another to then draw conclusions from what you:

a) Do not know; and

b) Do not want to know.

 

[Jackanory]

Greetings jackanory,



If I understand you correctly, your above quote serves to justify the uselessness of the 9/11 Commission Report on the basis that falsity and use of what are sometimes called "cover stories" is fine so long as a claim of national security and a claim of 'top secret' can be made?

Well, if that is a fair interpretation, then a couple of points appear to be established:

1--You are not disputing that the 9/11 Commission Report is useless for establishing what happened on 9/11.

2--Rather, you justify the uselessness of the Report on the basis that the public does not need to know what happened on 9/11.

While your statement may sound radical to me, I am prepared to consider whether there is a way to determine the extent to which the public agrees with you. I am also prepared to be 'shocked' that your point of view might be widely supported.

We know, for example, that a claim of "national security" can all but end any sort of Congressional oversight of anything a president does. And, we know a claim of 'national security' can result in justification for torturing you or me or, as you call us, "joe public."

So, your post is worthy of consideration here, I think.



In the above quote I suppose our disagreement is mild, but clear. I do not think a society that purports to be free or democratic can function on the basis of being intentionally, wantonly, and willingly kept ignorant. In my view "ignorance is not bliss" and I do not wish to advance a discussion by lauding ignorance.

I am tempted to ask you if you are engaging in irony or some form of sarcasm in your above quote? However, I fear I may not like the answer you might provide.



It is one thing to justify ignorance, it is quite another to then draw conclusions from what you:

a) Do not know; and

b) Do not want to know.

There you go again, mis - interpreting something to be something else. As usual, you understand incorrectly and twist things to suit your own arguement. If that is how you wish to continue then fine. By all means continue on your way.

I, however, will repeat that in the real world of work and experience that reality sucks. We are not privy to know the ins and outs of an investigation. Only those with an alternative theory want to prove their theory through grasping onto the minute detail when the evidence required and the larger picture is evident. Continuosly searching for something suspicious that is not there is always going to be viewed as suspicious by the truther. Go figure.

 

[Thunder]

Just when we thought there was already enough evidence showing that 9/11 commission was being controlled, it just keeps on piling up. I wonder how debunkers will spin this one.

spin? why spin?

i honestly don't care.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It's not my assertion, it's Kean and Hamilton's. I didn't have any problems finding the original rawstory report.

OK, got it. The answer to your question, therefore, is: The videotapes were destroyed because the Bush administration did not want to preserve evidence of their use of illegal interrogation techniques in information gathering. You should also note that there is ample evidence to determine that al-Qaeda planned and executed the 9/11 attacks irrespective of anything anyone may have said under interrogation. In fact, this entire issue has nothing to do with the question of who carried out the 9/11 attacks. If you could overcome the irrational belief that the Bush administration must be found guilty of the attacks in order to substantiate any criticism of it, you would have a chance to become relevant.

Dave

 

[jammonius]

Perhaps those people with responsibility felt ashamed that those responsibilities where not met. Perhaps those in responsibility where scared of losing a job or being vilified for making a mistake. Perhaps those people are human with human emotions who make mistakes then try to wriggle out of them. Perhaps they are spineless beurocrats or gubmint officials who didnt listen to or pass on intelligence that they should have.

jackanory, why are putting so much speculation into a single paragraph? The whole point of an "investigation' is to find what happened, how, by whom, in what manner and to, in short, provide answers to the speculation you raised in your above quote.

The commission did not do that. Your speculation remains just that: your speculation. And that is the point. We, as a society, do not know what happened on 9/11, let alone who did it.

None of which indicates an inside job. Sloppy yes. Guilty of planning and carrying out mass murder - No. Guilty of covering up a plan to carry out mass murder - No.

Slinging accusations out of frustration simply because you are not permitted to be in the loop doesnt help.

Your conclusions do not follow from your speculation. You are engaging in the making of excuses without any information upon which to base or substantiate your excuses.

That is the problem with 9/11: It has not ever been properly investigated. We do not know who did it. We also have no official, valid explanation of what happened.