9/11 commission told not to probe too deeply

[jammonius]

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.

jackanory,

Your reply lacks coherence and is devoid of connection with what you previously posted.

It doesn't matter to me if you do not wish to continue in further direct discussion.

 

[Jackanory]

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

I would also add that the video tapes of UBL are still public but to fit in with a 911 inside jobby these videos must be fake or UBL must be a patsy for the CIA or UBL doesnt exist etc etc etc . Regardless, KSM confessed pre and post waterboarding. The outcome of which is to be determined soon.

 

[Jackanory]

jackanory,

Your reply lacks coherence and is devoid of connection with what you previously posted.

It doesn't matter to me if you do not wish to continue in further direct discussion.

My post and subsequent reply are perfectly coherant. You either cant read or dont want to. I expected nothing less.

 

[sylvan8798]

jammonius:

Do you need a spreadsheet to keep track of which posters you are "discussing" things with and which you are not?

 

[RedIbis]

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?

Although others in this thread have already located this easily accessible information, you are unable to find it. But what difference does it really make? Even if I post the quotes that prove the CIA destroyed interrogation tapes, is that going to suddenly turn you into a skeptic? Is that going to create a sense of doubt that the Bush administration did everything in their power to limit the investigation and render it impotent? I very much doubt it.

As Dave and other have done here, you'll simply find another excuse to disregard this obvious obstruction of justice. And this is not just any justice, this is an investigation into what defines foreign policy indefinitely.

 

[jammonius]

The topic under discussion is that of consideration of information indicating the 9/11 Commission was "warned" away from investigating too deeply. We know, from a variety of other acknowledgments, that the 9/11 Commission failed to determine what happened on 9/11. As such, it is not possible to have confidence in the claims of who did 9/11.

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.

However, "alQaeda" remains a staple of Americn xenophobia. Americans appear to like blaming alQaeda for things and Americans appear to want to have justification for attacking in the name of alQaeda. It is for those reasons, perhaps, that when it became clear alQaeda did not do the anthrax attack, it did not matter.

Like blaming Iraq for 9/11, despite that being a false claim, polls consistently revealed that most Americans believe Iraq responsible for 9/11; and, most Americans almost certainly believe alQaeda responsible for the anthrax attacks, irrespective of Bruce Ivins being blamed for it and irrespective of the fact that blaming Bruce Ivins was, itself, a coverup of the fact that the anthrax attack was a false flag op pure and simple.

In 2007, the attempt to steal a nuke, that may or may not have been thwarted, was another false flag op.

In 2008 and continuing to the present, the transfer of America's wealth and the collapsing of America's economy, in favor of a few wealthy entities, to the detriment of all the rest of us is also a false flag op, of a slightly different sort.

The fact that they are continuing is proof of the importance of seeking accountability for 9/11. False flag ops will continue until we as a society demand accountability.

9/11 was bad, the anthrax attack was less bad, but bad enough. The attempt to steal a nuke, particularly if it succeeded, could set us up for a worse attack. In a certain sense, the 2008 economic collapse might be worse than 9/11 on a long term basis and on the basis of what it does to our collective living standard.

All of the foregoing reasonably follows from the disclosure that the 9/11 Commission was told to go fly a kite and mind its own business.

Who had the authority to squelch the commission?

Who has authority to demand accountability now?

 

[jammonius]

jammonius:

Do you need a spreadsheet to keep track of which posters you are "discussing" things with and which you are not?

I will consider your query as rhetoric. Please get to the point you are trying to make directly.

thanks

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

As Dave and other have done here, you'll simply find another excuse to disregard this obvious obstruction of justice.

As somebody said recently,

Do you read anything?

Dave

 

[Jackanory]

The topic under discussion is that of consideration of information indicating the 9/11 Commission was "warned" away from investigating too deeply. We know, from a variety of other acknowledgments, that the 9/11 Commission failed to determine what happened on 9/11. As such, it is not possible to have confidence in the claims of who did 9/11.

That is a very dangerous situation to be in.

Searching for something suspicious to satisfy the suspicious is always going to be a tough job.

It would help if you could clarify what fields you are qualified or experienced in. If you are a welder wishing to discuss and refute the specific techniques of the FBI in Shanksville then you need a little more than the usual 'i just dont believe it' mantra.

If you are infact an FBI agent who didnt actually get involved in the investigation at Shankville then you need a little more than 'i just dont believe it' mantra.

If you are an FBI agent who was actually involved in the Shanksville investigation then please provide us with the proof that you didnt carry out your duties as laid out in your operating procedures.

My guess is that you are none of the above and therefore are not in a position to confirm or deny what actually took place in Shanksville. Investagoogling just doest cut the mustard yet that is all you have.

 

[Jackanory]

Although others in this thread have already located this easily accessible information, you are unable to find it. But what difference does it really make? Even if I post the quotes that prove the CIA destroyed interrogation tapes, is that going to suddenly turn you into a skeptic? Is that going to create a sense of doubt that the Bush administration did everything in their power to limit the investigation and render it impotent? I very much doubt it.

As Dave and other have done here, you'll simply find another excuse to disregard this obvious obstruction of justice. And this is not just any justice, this is an investigation into what defines foreign policy indefinitely.

Prove that the CIA destroyed tapes.

I would ask you the same questions that i have asked Jammonious. What is your qualification or experience to enable you to confirm or deny anything that you say? Investagoogling just doesnt cut it. Yet thats all you have. Those in the know and those who needed to know have concluded that 19 terrorists did it. This has been confirmed by those who personally investigated it. This has been confirmed by those who planned it. The mountain of evidence clarifies this. The families affected feel it everyday and the few billions who witnessed it arent interested in discussing it on JREF.

Who is disregarding obvious obstruction to justice?

The suspicious investagooglers will always find something suspicious to be suspicious about but never actually find anything thats real.

 

[Jackanory]

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.



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.

Fortunately for me, i have the life experiences and qualifications and experiences in fields being discusssed about 911. Real hands on experiences gained in real hands on situations. I dont quote others who have done it or trawl wiki for examples or quotemine some report. Its all in my head gained from actually doing it. Care to clarify what it is you have done?

If you wish to discuss commercial aircraft manufacture then you best have some hands on experiences. If you wish to discuss explosives and demolitions then you best have hands on experiences. If you wish to discuss the terrorist techiques used by Al Quiada, Afghanis, Taliban and Iraqis then you best have the experiences to do so. Until then you had best stick with your investagoogling and leave the real stuff to those who actually know what they are talking about instead of just speculating, investagoogling and repeating gullible lies.

 

[RedIbis]

Prove that the CIA destroyed tapes.

I would ask you the same questions that i have asked Jammonious. What is your qualification or experience to enable you to confirm or deny anything that you say? Investagoogling just doesnt cut it. Yet thats all you have. Those in the know and those who needed to know have concluded that 19 terrorists did it. This has been confirmed by those who personally investigated it. This has been confirmed by those who planned it. The mountain of evidence clarifies this. The families affected feel it everyday and the few billions who witnessed it arent interested in discussing it on JREF.

Who is disregarding obvious obstruction to justice?

The suspicious investagooglers will always find something suspicious to be suspicious about but never actually find anything thats real.

What you call 'investagoogling' is actually how newspaper articles can be found. Give it a shot. Google isn't a website, it's a search engine. So search, see if you can find the right search term to find out if the CIA destroyed interrogation tapes of 9/11 suspects.

If you can't, there's nothing I can do to help you or convince you to engage in discourse.

 

[beachnut]

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.

http://rawstory.com/2010/03/revealed-ashcroft-tenet-rumsfeld-warned-911-commission-line-should-cross/

Edited by Cuddles: 

Some people have reported possible malicious software at this link. It seems most likely to be a compromised ad server rather than the site itself, but to be safe I am un-linking it. Be warned if you wish to visit this url.

HIT and RUN posting. I wonder how truthers failed to make rational ideas on this topic?

8 years of living a delusion for you; when will you join reality? You support lies and delusions as you hit and run; when is your next schedule post of stupid junk on 911?

 

[BCR]

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

I don't have to, I'm not accusing them of anything, you are.

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.

Well, since I at least earned a footnote in that book I guess I am better qualified than you are to address it. He is talking about bureaucratic stong-walling. I've encountered it not just in 911 research, but in other projects as well. It does not translate to "inside jobby", just your government at work.

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

You'll have to ask them, but you can't provide one quote that they imply "inside jobby".

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.

There is nothing new about any of this. If you'll read the 911 Commission report, they address the very issue in it.

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

I'm not "enaging in unsupported denial", just telling you that you are full of crap. The burden of proof is on you to provide support when accusing someone of a crime, not on them to prove themselves innocent. So far all you have done is make wild claims with no evidence to back them up.

 

[beachnut]

...
Who has authority to demand accountability now?

Not you, you think jet engine parts are wheel covers, doubt you could shed light on high-noon on a clear day.

You are posting in a thread started by someone who makes a post ever 5 months or so and runs away because he has no evidence. Like you, but you keep posting nonsense.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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

I can think of more plausible reasons....here are two...

A) they were obtained under some form of torture

B) The prisoners made themselves look like they had been tortured

Either of the above are very good reasons for not making videos public as either would make good propaganda for the enemy.

 

[Jackanory]

I can think of more plausible reasons....here are two...

A) they were obtained under some form of torture

B) The prisoners made themselves look like they had been tortured

Either of the above are very good reasons for not making videos public as either would make good propaganda for the enemy.

Kinda stupid of the CIA to videotape 'illegal torture techniques' whilst extracting information. Then dumber of the CIA to tell the gubmint they did it, for the gubmint to then tell the commission that they cant see the videos for national security reasons. Why would they do that? Why admit that these video tapes even existed in the first place? Why draw attention to yourself by even using the 'national security' get out clause?

Maybe it didnt actually happen that way folks. Some stuff is really dumb.

 

[332nd]

So... Let me get this straight... Even more evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. Proof that "Bushco" made sure that the 9/11 commission would fail!

... And do truthers take to the streets? Nope. Hold mass protest? Nope. Rush to the internet to present "another smoking gun" to the people that have crused their arguments for years? Onward info warriors.


BTW, wasn't there a member of the 9/11 commission that said he felt that they were set up to fail?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Maybe it didnt actually happen that way folks. Some stuff is really dumb.

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

 

[Pardalis]

So does this mean now truthers are admitting Al Qaeda terrorists were behind 9/11?

Red Ibis, this means you are no longer 95% MIHOP?