• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Re-Open the 9/11 Investigation Now

My problem would be using Twoofies as an excuse to avoid asking important and uncomfortable questions and exhibiting true skepticism, as Oystein has commendably done above.

All I know is that fire and damage alone brought down the WTC buildings, caused by 19 Islamic hijackers. Anything above and beyond that I have no problem being skeptical about. Maybe if you stopped claiming otherwise the true discussion could begin.
 
Last edited:
I fully expect that there is more to it than we know. My problem is with truthers using what could be an honest desire to find out those things to somehow try to prove that 9-11 was an inside job.

I can sympathize with that.

I think shure has come a long way, and if (perhaps he is, I don't know) he is not quite there yet, we should not make the rest of the journey unnecessarily difficult.

And well, perhaps we have a step or two to go, too?

This line of innquiry isn't geared toward uncovering an "inside job" as in "some US government cabal thought it would be a swell idea to wreak havoc in downtown Manhattan and cheerfully invited some Saudi thugs to help themselves with flight training, boarding passes and free travel". More likely it might be discovered that some folks badly failed to do their job right, but got their arses covered by higher-ups. I certainly wouldn't mind if that sort of responsobility was pointed out, and accountability followed.
 
My problem would be using Twoofies as an excuse to avoid asking important and uncomfortable questions and exhibiting true skepticism, as Oystein has commendably done above.

And so did Chris Mohr, and so do many of the regulars.
 
I said this about various shortcomings of the government's investigations, four years ago. Nothing has really changed since then.

[quotes from ages ago]

Yes, it's a disappointing state of affairs, as it was four years ago and six years ago and eight years ago. But I'm not clear on why anyone should be whining to us about it now.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Well said.

What one could whine about then is that we don't realize that many of us would be a lot more on shure's side than against him.

We could collaborate on this and see where it leads.



Over time, I think it might be possible to break a few influential truthers out of the CD/inside job phalanx. On other forums, we have seen the likes of Sander Orling (who was on the AE911Truth board in ca. 2010) and the truthactionists go that path. More recently, John-Michael Talboo seems to approach a more and more reasobable stance - he has started to doubt the validity of the thermite hypothesis, and with it must come a feeling that perhaps the entired CD debate is bogus. Btw, I just wrote a little blog post about him:
JM Talboo: "Terrorists did 9/11" - CENSORED
 
Most damning is the fact that links between Saudi financiers and AQ were covered up by the US gov't.

Something being written in a news story does not make it a "fact".

The only reference you cite as the "meat" of the article says nothing about anything being covered up by the US gov't. it says exactly the opposite: that the gov't was releasing info to the public.

story said:
In July of this year, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Homeland Security, issued a 330-page report faulting banking giant HSBC for ignoring the ties to terrorist financing of Al Rajhi Bank, Saudi Arabia's largest private bank. The report states that after the 9/11 attacks, "evidence began to emerge that Al Rajhi Bank and some of its owners had links to organizations associated with financing terrorism, including that one of the bank's founders was an early financial benefactor of al Qaeda." This individual was identified in the report as being part of Osama bin-Laden's "Golden Chain" of al-Qaeda financiers.

"issued a report" is not the same as "covered up".

HSBC is not the US Gov't.
 
Frankly, Oy, I don't see any difference in shure's debating or journalistic techniques now than when he was a full-blown truther. He has simply switched sides in some respects, and not the slightest in others.

It is not his conclusions with which I have the biggest problem, but his methods.

My problem is that he seems to me to make his case with careful (read "disingenuous & misleading) word crafting & quote mining, rather than a mature, informed & balanced presentation of the arguments on both sides of an issue.

He operates, in my inion, in the absolute worst tradition of a "Geraldo advocate journalist". Which means, "not like a journalist in the slightest".

I would truly be happy to see him actually mature a bit, start recognizing his lawn limitations, and stop coming to his conclusions (based on his own prejudices) before he starts gathering his carefully excised &trimmed quote snippets.

Frankly, I find it more embarrassing to have his type of arguments made on my side of the issue than I was happy to see that behavior on the other side.
 
Re-Open the 9/11 Investigation Now - we did not comprehend the others - dumb it down

Evidence piles up that Bush administration got many pre-9/11 warnings
OOPS! UBL warned us in the late 90s, looks like everyone got pre-9/11 warnings. Wow, what failed story, posted on 911 to sell books.

Bob Graham has a book, "reformed" failed 911 truth believers and pushers have found political claptrap to push their, they knew Bush and Cheney did it. Gee, the proved "stand-down" because Cheney said "shoot down" logic in place, a new kind of 911 truth comes out.

Specifially, which warning would have stopped 911? How many warnings and threats. Please, state all the warnings, and all the treats. Numbers please, do the math.
Evidence piles up that Bush administration got many pre-9/11 warnings
Looks like NEWS! Wow, Huffington Post. Wow.


40,000 plus will die on US roads in the next year, we were warned. Will the CIA and FBI let all those people die? Will Obama heed the warning?

Where is the warning 19 idiots are going to storm the cockpits and kill the pilots in seconds. Was that one of the warnings?

Was faking hijacking to use aircraft as weapons of mass destruction one of the explicit warnings? When, where, who, ... etc.

MONEY? How much was that knife? ... terrorism on the cheap.

What has happen, failed former 911 truth activists are upset they were fooled only BS and politics are left, and Bob is selling two books. Follow the money.

Late June information that cited a “big event” that was forthcoming.
Where? When? How? Who?


How respectful of those who died, post political claptrap on 911. Good one.

How is the old "shoot-down" means "stand-down", politics in action going?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-graham/911-saudi-arabia_b_1868863.html
Political claptrap posted on 911. How neat, politics on a day of mourning

Follow that money and we find...
Bob Graham is a former U.S. Senator from Florida, Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and co-Chair of the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11. He is the author of two books on 9/11.
LOL, Bob Graham has two books, are sales flat?

I was warned of terrorist who might kill me while traveling around the world. The warning never include who, what, where, when, how, or much more.

A few "reformed" 911 truthers think hindsight is insight.

I can see the results of the new, we failed 911 truthers need another investigation investigation, future viewing needed - how much will that cost? The demo will win the million dollar challenge.


Late 1990s, UBL said he would kill Americans (the USA ones) - WARNING ONE

Bob Graham has book - has to make the news!

Interesting the amount of after 911 investigation is used to back in the should of could have, would have nonsense.

Took years for some 911 truthers to stop pushing the crazy claims, now stuck for years following nonsense spread by people like Graham? 11 more years?

Are crank calls next?
 
Said it before and I'll say it again:

This is a reasonable line of inquiry.

HOWEVER, the amount of financing involved here is pathetic. I could have bankrolled the 9/11 attacks. Transactions on this scale are difficult to trace, and one must not read too much into coincidences.

There is a fine line between "financed by the Saudi government" and "financed by a lone crank within the Saudi government," or even "financed by a family member of someone in the Saudi government." This information is likely to be subjective. I gravely doubt that any "smoking gun" will ever be found, for there is no reason to expect it to exist in the first place. Actually writing down policy documents and creating dedicated charge numbers for the 9/11 operation would be the work of profoundly incompetent conspirators.

But, again, I have no problem with this line of investigation, and I would like to see more of the background information released. There is rich fodder here for private investigative journalism and they may indeed come up with something.

The USA has many enemies in West Asia. This is not news.

That is a good point.

How much money could the 9/11 attacks have cost, anyway?

Flight lessons: Varies, maybe $100 an hour? $8K per person for 80 hours of training.

Boxcutter: $5 each

Plane ticket: Maybe $100 each

This was not some ultra-complicated, decades-in-the-making Xanatos plot. Learn how to fly. Learn flight schedules, and the layout of airliner security. Hijack planes. Crash planes. This was well within the means of AQ. But if there was anyone else involved, that's certainly a legitimate line of inquiry.

My problem would be using Twoofies as an excuse to avoid asking important and uncomfortable questions and exhibiting true skepticism, as Oystein has commendably done above.

Criticizing others for avoiding the right questions is a little hypocritical when you're among those asking those people the wrong questions.

Nobody would be distracted by spacebeams and "pull it" if you and others didn't keep bringing them up in the first place.
 
I've said it before on this forum, if there was a sincere effort to hold those accountable for negligence, I'd give up on MIHOP immediately. It's sort of the Al Capone strategy of convicting the mob boss on tax evasion as opposed to the slew of obvious other crimes.

A "sincere effort to hold those accountable for negligence" would require a seismic shift in US politics, which has been notoriously split very nearly 50/50 between the two major parties for more than a decade, with one or other party regularly controlling one or both houses even when there is a President from the opposing party in office. Put simply, nobody has sufficient political capital to waste on revisiting an issue which dates back 11 years, especially not when "those accountable" logically include senior Republican politicians, so that attempts to prosecute them would immediately cause a closing of the ranks on party lines. The same can also be said for all of the fallout from the subsequent war on terror under Bush and now Obama - the invasion of Iraq, Abu Ghraib, and sundry other disasters since.

It'd help to pay attention to how the 1970s committee investigations came about - because of a truly major political scandal which temporarily knocked the Republicans out of office and reduced their delegations in Congress and the Senate, so that the 94th Congress saw the Rockefeller Commission into the CIA, and the 95th Congress saw hearings into MKULTRA. The 95th Congress also had a filibuster-proof majority, which undoubtedly helped to shut down any attempts to throw sand in the cogs of the committee hearings. These two congresses also saw the House Select Committee on Assassinations function from 1976-1978.

The other reason why these committees could investigate previously hushed-up or sidelined issues was because the relevant war (Vietnam) was over, Saigon having fallen in 1975.

The US has had several moments of closure in the past few years, starting with the pull-out from Iraq and continuing with the death of Osama Bin Laden. But the ongoing war in Afghanistan coupled with the gridlock in US politics as a whole means that there is not yet a comparable window of opportunity to reopen old wounds as there was between 1975-1979.

Incidentally, the US government has only this week declassified a slew of documents relating to US knowledge of the Katyn affair which took place a whopping 72 years ago. It took 11 to 12 years for the US to acknowledge this as a Soviet crime, during the Korean War, after it had long become obvious that the Soviet Union was not a US ally. The same conditions don't, of course, apply to Saudi Arabia, which is still a US ally.

But if it takes the US government 72 years to release potentially quite embarrassing documents on an event in 1940, then it's a fair bet that none of us are going to see the last i dotted regarding 9/11 in our lifetimes.

So all in all, waiting until "a sincere effort to hold those accountable for negligence" may amount to the same thing as waiting for pigs to fly.
 
Besides, MIHOP is either true and has evidence to support it, or it isn't. It's a separate issue from LIHOP
 
I don't think we need a new investigation, or to reopen the existing one. I would be happy to see the redacted 28 pages released, partially because it would give the idiot Troofers one less thing to moan about. Of course, given that they still bring up things like the Doubletree video (which was released about five years ago) perhaps that is a vain hope.
 
Frankly, Oy, I don't see any difference in shure's debating or journalistic techniques now than when he was a full-blown truther. He has simply switched sides in some respects, and not the slightest in others.

It is not his conclusions with which I have the biggest problem, but his methods.
...

To be honest, I wasn't around when the "old" shure was a full-blown twoofer, and haven't read much by the "new" one. So I can't say much at all about his methods etc.

And perhaps they are bunk. If you say so - well, I know you're a smart guy, I enjoy your sharp and witty engineering pieces, so yeah, your opinion counts, for what it's worth.

But since the conclusions are plausible, and the line of inquire reasonable, why not help shure a bit with the methods?



Great post by Nick Terry.
I'd remark that Obama's first Congress had solid democratic majorities in both houses, so perhaps there was a wasted opportunity - if it weren't for the closures that hadn't happened by then.



Oh and anyway, before I'd investigate 9/11 negligence or untasty allies, I'd look deeper into the Iraq adventure. I am still convinced that some in the Bush administrations were criminally liable for international crimes. More importantly: The US taxpayer was made to pay dearly for crap based on lies. But that's for a different sub-forum...
 
I've said it before on this forum, if there was a sincere effort to hold those accountable for negligence, I'd give up on MIHOP immediately. It's sort of the Al Capone strategy of convicting the mob boss on tax evasion as opposed to the slew of obvious other crimes.

That analogy makes absolutely no sense.
 
That is a good point.

How much money could the 9/11 attacks have cost, anyway?

Flight lessons: Varies, maybe $100 an hour? $8K per person for 80 hours of training.

Boxcutter: $5 each

Plane ticket: Maybe $100 each

In total, the attacks cost Al Qaeda between $400,000-$500,000 to execute. $270,000 of that was spent within the US and has been traced. The remaining amount is an estimate based on the costs of the various activities and trips during the planning stage overseas.


This was not some ultra-complicated, decades-in-the-making Xanatos plot. Learn how to fly. Learn flight schedules, and the layout of airliner security. Hijack planes. Crash planes. This was well within the means of AQ. But if there was anyone else involved, that's certainly a legitimate line of inquiry.

While the attacks were surprisingly simple in concept, their execution was very well planned and the concept had been in the pipeline since 1994. However, Al Qaeda was already notorious for it's extensive planning and ambitious executional style long before 9/11 so the attacks were obviously well within their capability. They also had millions of dollars at their disposal if that kind of money had been needed to execute the attacks.
 
That analogy makes absolutely no sense.

Why not? If I'm interested in accountability and those who were criminally negligent being prosecuted, I won't get hung up on exactly what they are convicted on.
 
Why not? If I'm interested in accountability and those who were criminally negligent being prosecuted, I won't get hung up on exactly what they are convicted on.

The reason it fails is that Capone's "other crimes" actually were obvious in that they took place in the real world.

Nanothermite hush-a-booms and other fantasy 9/11 scenarios - not so much.
 
Quote:
I further believe that al Bayoumi was acting at the direction of elements of the Saudi government and that an official from the Islamic and Cultural Affairs section of the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles, Fahad al Thumairy, likely played some role in the support network for the 9/11 Attacks.” -Former U.S. Senator Bob Graham who led a joint 2002 Congressional inquiry into the attacks

http://blog.motleyrice.com/former-s...-of-saudi-arabia-supported-the-911-hijackers/

...
Edited by LashL: 
Snipped quote of moderated content.


:boxedin:

Recycled crap, a cut and paste special. Why did you plagiarized parts of your post?

http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=51401&sid=1eb1985437847e8305afe5d01348e038

Fooled by Balsamo, now posting for jimd, or what?

Bob Graham is selling two books on 911.
He served for 10 years on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which he chaired during and after 9/11 and the run up the Iraq war.
OOPS. The conspiracy in this case is making money.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
nice censor job on important information.

Anyway,

Thank you Oystein and R.Mackey for being more objective and level headed compared to someone like beachnut who just appeals to ridicule. beachnut, you sound like Ari Fleischer did on Anderson Cooper:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2012/09/12/fleischer-and-eichenwald-s-fiery-9-11-feud.html

Ryan,

Bob Graham actually addressed what you think is nothing concerning hijacker support network two days ago in his September 11, 2012 talk:

(just a minute or so in)

http://www.browardbulldog.org/video-bob-graham/



:cool:
 

Back
Top Bottom