The article explains that the memo did not follow the proper chain to get to the right people. Thus answering the portion of the question "If not, please explain".
That is a good example of what I mentioned earlier and a good example of how a truther sees it. The truther will completely ignore the 30 comic panels previous to this one where "Gravy" points out why Alex Jones is a considered a Kook and that the answers to the question in your first panel were already answered. This is a person in the "Either bang your head on your desk or just point and laugh at them." stage.
You are kidding, right? There's nothing in the article that answers the question if this investigation led to any advises to flight schools. You really have to do better than that.
CNN Article said:The computer-generated memo was at least three pages long. It cites several students by name and Embry-Riddle University, an aeronautical school with campuses in Prescott, Arizona, and Daytona Beach, Florida.
None of the names in the memo have been identified by the FBI as any of the September 11 hijackers.
I won't bother to look into anything else you've written above.
It's irrelevant if Alex Jones is a kook or not - that's the point you missed - and the fact remains that the Bush admin tried to prevent ANY broader investigations from happening and many commission members had serious conflicts of interest, above all Zelikow.
Without the Jersey Girls, the commission investigation (if it had happened at all) would have been headed by Henry Kissinger, of all people, as you can see in the videos.
I'm quite sure you'd have nothing to complain about this, too. Such a nice elder statesman.![]()
FSC question to 911 commission said:Given the testimony in the trial in May, 2001 [below] were flight schools advised to be vigilant for Middle Eastern men training to be pilots and advised to report anything unusual? If not, please explain.
Seriously Scott, with this thread you got off my "suspected shills" list.![]()
TexasJack, IIRC the wikipedia article on the commission has a good section about that, also the Zelikow article. Or use the search function here.
Seems logical to me.Will someone other than CE read my post #44 and let me know if my approach to answering the FSC question is flawed?
I've seen the truther versions, none of them explain what conflicts of interest these 10 men had. They are there, so can you specifically state individually what the actual conflicts are? If you think Richard Ben-Veniste is some kind of Bush loyalist, I'm going to break out the laughing dogs.
Seems logical to me.
Let me get this straight. We're having a conversation about the questions that a group that disbanded 5 years ago originally asked. Wouldn't it seem to reason the questions were answered OR they were "bought out". If it's the later, are they are they not "in on it" also?
Why not focus on Zelikow? Show me what you find and i may expand.
It's irrelevant if Alex Jones is a kook or not - that's the point you missed - and the fact remains that the Bush admin tried to prevent ANY broader investigations from happening and many commission members had serious conflicts of interest, above all Zelikow.
Without the Jersey Girls, the commission investigation (if it had happened at all) would have been headed by Henry Kissinger, of all people, as you can see in the videos.
I'm quite sure you'd have nothing to complain about this, too. Such a nice elder statesman.![]()
Failure for 8 years; Jon and 911 truth. No evidence, just talk. Is he that stupid?A truth so nice they told it twice!
The political stuff is just innuendo at that site. On September 9, we (and Russia) already had plans to combat Afghanistan, which was being governed by an evil, woman hating, 11th Century cult who vowed to kill us. This is called good governance, if anything.
Quote mining - Bush says "This is a great opportunity." From a conversation 12 hours after the attacks, and referring to our relations with China and Russia.
Presented without comment:
Really, if Jon Gold or anyone would present a hypothesis that better explains events vs. the common narrative, I'd be happy to listen. So far, they seem to want to throw a bunch of "facts" at the wall, and see what sticks. "That's why we need a new investigation" is not an excuse for not presenting an affirmative hypothesis.
ETA - that quote above is unintentionally hilarious, I'll give CE that.
Zelikow was a member of the commission staff, he was not one of the 10 commission members. He also recused himself in some matters. I don't think he should have been there at all either, but one person, even with a conflict of interest, isn't going to override the ten that had the biggest impact. So do any of the ten have a conflict of interest or not?
Zelikow had BY FAR the biggest impact. If you want to discuss this, please start a thread about it. I'll participate.
Ask the members of the "steering committee". They seem to be satisfied.Then please quote the part of the article that answers the question.