9/11 commission told not to probe too deeply

[Jackanory]

Yes, but then again sometimes people do dumb things. If you want to go over an interrogation to make sure you didn't miss anything, then it's a good idea to videotape it. The dumb thing, if all this is true, was letting the Commission find out that videotapes existed; the rest is just standard CYA. And one of the classic problems with conspiracy theories is that they depend on nobody having done anything just mildly stupid, like letting it be too widely known that they've been doing something suspicious, but demand that they both get everything perfect and do monumentally stupid things like accidentally confessing everything on a pre-recorded TV show. I find it a lot more plausible that the CIA tried to keep their enhnced interrogation techniques under wraps, but somebody said something they shouldn't have, and the Bush administration had to invoke national security to stop the leak.

Dave

I wish my life was as black and white and as straighforward as a truthers. Everything done in orderly fashion, by the book and perfect with no lose ends and all reading from the same hymn sheet. Reality then kicks in.

I agree completely Dave. A leak is probably correct. I also know that the CIA do a difficult job, probably made more difficult due to interagency ethos. In as much to say that when dealing with matters of terrorism, and more importantly the prevention of it occuring, i think that it is only right that we fight it with any means possible. I know that not everyone will agree and never will but i can only speak from personal experiences of seeing first hand the lengths terrorists will go to. Preventing 911 happening again or preventing child suicide bombers often requires radical inervention and action.

 

[Pardalis]

The topic under discussion is that of consideration of information indicating the 9/11 Commission was "warned" away from investigating too deeply.

No, the only thing the letter says is that they are not allowed to interview detainees, so no to interfere with ongoing investigations and for security reasons.

That is a very dangerous situation to be in. Since the date 9/11/01, there have been other unexplained events, some of which are clearly false flag operations. The first one occurring after 9/11 was the anthrax attack that was attributed to "alQaeda" but that claim failed based on analysis of the type of anthrax used.

And the US government subsequently denied the involvement of Al Qaeda. The case is now considered closed, IRRC.

 

[Pardalis]

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

Why are the people in this vast conspiracy able to fake plane crashes, rig three massive working office buildings for demolition in secrecy, fake DNA and eyewitnesses, make the most prestigious engineering agency produce a false analysis, but are somehow unable to provide false confessions of planted terrorists?

And BTW, if you are suspicious that the Commission report could have unraveled things in the interrogations of detained terrorists, does this mean that you trust the Commission report's legitimacy? And if you trust them, does this mean that you accept what they found about everything else, like the reports of the plane crash at the Pentagon?

I mean, you can't trust the 9/11 Commission Report and accuse them of complicity in cover-up at the same time.

It's like when we talk about other subjects like the DNA at the Pentagon, you view the Commission as the "bad guys", and when we talk about this subject of Ashcroft and Co not allowing them access to terrorist prisoners, now suddenly you view the Commission as the "good guys".

You can't have it both ways.

So truthers, if you think most if not all of the Commission is a lie, then what would interviewing these detainees have mattered? It certainly wouldn't change your views about controlled demolitions and fake airplanes, now would it?

 

[RedIbis]

Why are the people in this vast conspiracy able to fake plane crashes, rig three massive working office buildings for demolition in secrecy, fake DNA and eyewitnesses, make the most prestigious engineering agency produce a false analysis, but are somehow unable to provide false confessions of planted terrorists?

And BTW, if you are suspicious that the Commission report could have unraveled things in the interrogations of detained terrorists, does this mean that you trust the Commission report's legitimacy? And if you trust them, does this mean that you accept what they found about everything else, like the reports of the plane crash at the Pentagon?

I mean, you can't trust the 9/11 Commission Report and accuse them of complicity in cover-up at the same time.

It's like when we talk about other subjects like the DNA at the Pentagon, you view the Commission as the "bad guys", and when we talk about this subject of Ashcroft and Co not allowing them access to terrorist prisoners, now suddenly you view the Commission as the "good guys".

You can't have it both ways.

So truthers, if you think most if not all of the Commission is a lie, then what would interviewing these detainees have mattered? It certainly wouldn't change your views about controlled demolitions and fake airplanes, now would it?

a) you didn't answer my question.
b) when have I talked about the Commission as the "bad guys"?

 

[Pardalis]

a) you didn't answer my question.
b) when have I talked about the Commission as the "bad guys"?

a) I don't know why they were destroyed.
b) so you agree with the Commission report that flight 77 did crash into the Pentagon?

 

[Pardalis]

 

[Pardalis]

Red, it's very simple.

Do you agree with the 9/11 Commission about the American Airlines flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon?

BTW, this is not a derail, I'm just trying to figure out how you view the Commission's work, and its worth. I'm just taking the Pentagon as an example, since you have often taken position that the flight never crashed there.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Getting a straight answer out of a truther like RedIbis is like lighting your hair on fire and paying someone to put it out with a sledgehammer.

 

[Pardalis]

You're right, Sword, he's never going to answer, so I may just as well cut to the chase and go straight to the point I was trying to make.

Red, if you think flight 77 didn't crash in the Pentagon (I know you do), then:

- you disagree with the 9/11 Commission

- If you disagree with their findings, then therefore you must think they are lying about what happened, i mean they must be, since all the data they collected, the witnesses the debris, and the DNA point to a crash.

- If you think they lied about the Pentagon, then you must think the Commission isn't trustworthy, and worse, part of the conspiracy.

-If you think they are not trustworthy and part of the conspiracy, then what does it matter to you that they didn't have access to the detainees at Guantanamo? Wouldn't they have lied about it as well? Wouldn't they have incorporated the testimonies to the narrative? Wouldn't they have lied about the testimonies just as they lied (according to you) about all the evidence at the Pentagon?

If you think the 9/11 Commission is a part of it, then why would Aschroft and Co block them?

Red, the fact that you run away each time we try to make you think it through only shows that you are afraid to think about your own views, and see how they pan out. Because when you do think them through, your conspiracies crumble apart, and of course you don't like that, you want there a conspiracy, so you avoid any contradictions.

The thing is, everybody can see that.

 

[RedIbis]

You're right, Sword, he's never going to answer, so I may just as well cut to the chase and go straight to the point I was trying to make.

Red, if you think flight 77 didn't crash in the Pentagon (I know you do), then:

- you disagree with the 9/11 Commission

- If you disagree with their findings, then therefore you must think they are lying about what happened, i mean they must be, since all the data they collected, the witnesses the debris, and the DNA point to a crash.

- If you think they lied about the Pentagon, then you must think the Commission isn't trustworthy, and worse, part of the conspiracy.

-If you think they are not trustworthy and part of the conspiracy, then what does it matter to you that they didn't have access to the detainees at Guantanamo? Wouldn't they have lied about it as well? Wouldn't they have incorporated the testimonies to the narrative? Wouldn't they have lied about the testimonies just as they lied (according to you) about all the evidence at the Pentagon?

If you think the 9/11 Commission is a part of it, then why would Aschroft and Co block them?

Your line of reasoning is strange to say the least. Because I might disagree with the Commission's findings doesn't mean I think they're part of the conspiracy. This is bizarre to the extreme.

 

[Pardalis]

Your line of reasoning is strange to say the least. Because I might disagree with the Commission's findings doesn't mean I think they're part of the conspiracy. This is bizarre to the extreme.

OK, what do you disagree with in the Commission, and how could they have gotten it wrong?

Let's take the Pentagon as an example. How could they have gotten the intel wrong about that?

THINK IT THROUGH

 

[Edx]

Your line of reasoning is strange to say the least. Because I might disagree with the Commission's findings doesn't mean I think they're part of the conspiracy. This is bizarre to the extreme.

Wouldn't it necessitate that they'd have to be? How else do you explain them backing up nothing truthers say?

 

[Jackanory]

You're right, Sword, he's never going to answer, so I may just as well cut to the chase and go straight to the point I was trying to make.

Red, if you think flight 77 didn't crash in the Pentagon (I know you do), then:

- you disagree with the 9/11 Commission

- If you disagree with their findings, then therefore you must think they are lying about what happened, i mean they must be, since all the data they collected, the witnesses the debris, and the DNA point to a crash.

- If you think they lied about the Pentagon, then you must think the Commission isn't trustworthy, and worse, part of the conspiracy.

-If you think they are not trustworthy and part of the conspiracy, then what does it matter to you that they didn't have access to the detainees at Guantanamo? Wouldn't they have lied about it as well? Wouldn't they have incorporated the testimonies to the narrative? Wouldn't they have lied about the testimonies just as they lied (according to you) about all the evidence at the Pentagon?

If you think the 9/11 Commission is a part of it, then why would Aschroft and Co block them?

Red, the fact that you run away each time we try to make you think it through only shows that you are afraid to think about your own views, and see how they pan out. Because when you do think them through, your conspiracies crumble apart, and of course you don't like that, you want there a conspiracy, so you avoid any contradictions.

The thing is, everybody can see that.

With his never ending display of failures and dead ends, Red sees it too. Yet he will be back to jiggle that mishaped jigsaw again.

 

[Pardalis]

Wouldn't it necessitate that they'd have to be? How else do you explain them backing up nothing truthers say?

Exactly. The Commission must be in on it if the conspiracy is to work. If the Commission and its hundreds of investigators weren't in on it, then the "Conspirators" are extremely lucky that the Commission didn't find them out. Red can't expect us to think the conspiracy was so perfect it fooled everyone, that noone saw a red flag here and there during the investigations.

The same thing with the NIST. If the NIST aren't in on it, then the Conspirators must have lived through hell and anguish during the years the analysis took place, crossing their fingers that the engineers wouldn't at anytime find evidence of demolition.

 

[Edx]

Exactly. The Commission must be in on it if the conspiracy is to work. .

Red knows this of course since he knows that other truther's do understand this. But he acts like its some crazy suggestion anyway because he likes pushing peoples buttons.

The same thing with the NIST. If the NIST aren't in on it, then the Conspirators must have lived through hell and anguish during the years the analysis took place, crossing their fingers that the engineers wouldn't at anytime find evidence of demolition

Luckily they were all just too incompetent! Good thing we have that small group AE911 that won't let them get away with it!

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Red, if you think flight 77 didn't crash in the Pentagon (I know you do), then:

- you disagree with the 9/11 Commission

- If you disagree with their findings, then therefore you must think they are lying about what happened, i mean they must be, since all the data they collected, the witnesses the debris, and the DNA point to a crash.

- If you think they lied about the Pentagon, then you must think the Commission isn't trustworthy, and worse, part of the conspiracy.

-If you think they are not trustworthy and part of the conspiracy, then what does it matter to you that they didn't have access to the detainees at Guantanamo? Wouldn't they have lied about it as well? Wouldn't they have incorporated the testimonies to the narrative? Wouldn't they have lied about the testimonies just as they lied (according to you) about all the evidence at the Pentagon?

If you think the 9/11 Commission is a part of it, then why would Aschroft and Co block them?

You hit the nail on the head.

Redibis feels the same way about the FDNY.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Exactly. The Commission must be in on it if the conspiracy is to work. If the Commission and its hundreds of investigators weren't in on it, then the "Conspirators" are extremely lucky that the Commission didn't find them out. Red can't expect us to think the conspiracy was so perfect it fooled everyone, that noone saw a red flag here and there during the investigations.

Especially considering the actual topic of this thread--that the Commission was "told not to probe too deeply"--and the implication that it was told this in an effort to keep them away from any evidence that would prove government complicity or involvement.

That would be one of those red flags.

 

[Matthew Cline]

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

There's information about 9/11 that only Bush and Cheney have? How do you know this?

- If you disagree with their findings, then therefore you must think they are lying about what happened, i mean they must be, since all the data they collected, the witnesses the debris, and the DNA point to a crash.

Playing devil's advocate: that isn't the only possible explanation. Another explanation is that the Commission was fed false information and they fell for it. Maybe the labs who did the DNA analysis on the tissue samples lied. Maybe someone in the chain of custody from the crash site to the labs tampered with the tissue samples. Maybe someone in the chain of custody of the blood samples from the relatives tampered with that. Maybe someone planted the tissue samples at the crash site, and everyone involved in the chains of custody and the analysis were completely honest.

 

[Edx]

Playing devil's advocate: that isn't the only possible explanation. Another explanation is that the Commission was fed false information and they fell for it. Maybe the labs who did the DNA analysis on the tissue samples lied. Maybe someone in the chain of custody from the crash site to the labs tampered with the tissue samples. Maybe someone in the chain of custody of the blood samples from the relatives tampered with that. Maybe someone planted the tissue samples at the crash site, and everyone involved in the chains of custody and the analysis were completely honest.

But the truth movement claims that they ignored evidence, that they intentionally lied about Rodriguez' statement and kept that and other important information out of the report, that they didn't care about where the source of the money came from. etc etc

Yet, Red acts like its a crazy suggestion to even think of it. Maybe he should be telling other truthers that.

 

[twinstead]

Crap. It's hard to keep up with all these twists and turns in "The Man did it" theory. Truthers, do you perchance have a score card?