9/11 commission told not to probe too deeply

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I bet RedIbis does believe that the firefighters were in on it. He's just too cowardly to say so.

Despite intricate gymnastic rhetorical dances and eye winking, batting eyes "who, ME?" denials , IMO nobody who thinks WTC7 was an 'inside job' can claim the firefighters weren't in on it. It could not have been accomplished without at least some firefighter 'help'.

RedIbis knows that the firefighters saw massive damage huge fires and heard ongoing structural failures inside the building well before the final collapse. He knows this because we've brought it up to him again and again and again and every time he runs away from the thread, returning days or weeks later restating his original claims.

He knows absolutely the content of the firefighter testimony. He knows this and insists on claiming their testimony is not true.

RedIbis definitely, 100% without reservation or regret believes absolutely that the "inside job", the murder of 343 FDNY personnel and the subsequent cover up was carried out with the knowledge and the willing participation of the surviving members of the FDNY.

 

[TruthersLie]

Farmer doesn't say anything about "twoof" because he's a grown-up.

you r wite widdle girly. Farmer doesn't say twoof.

But since you can't seem to weed for COM PWEE HEN SCHUN, I feel da need to make it simpwle for u.

Now if you prefer a more civilized debate, what does farmer say about 9/11 truthers or the claims of an inside job? Huh? I can't hear you.

 

[RedIbis]

RedIbis knows that the firefighters saw massive damage huge fires and heard ongoing structural failures inside the building well before the final collapse. He knows this because we've brought it up to him again and again and again and every time he runs away from the thread, returning days or weeks later restating his original claims.

He knows absolutely the content of the firefighter testimony. He knows this and insists on claiming their testimony is not true.

RedIbis definitely, 100% without reservation or regret believes absolutely that the "inside job", the murder of 343 FDNY personnel and the subsequent cover up was carried out with the knowledge and the willing participation of the surviving members of the FDNY.

Put a quote of mine in large red font, or pipe down.

 

[RedIbis]

Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5 are part of the 80% with which you claim to agree. Some excerpts from just one section (2.3):






There's a lot more (including the footnotes, which I left out), but I got tired of typing. Why don't you just read the 9/11 Commission Report? Then you'll know what is contained within the 80% with which you claim to agree.

You obviously don't understand the difference between the funding of Al Qaeda and the funding of the attacks.

I asked for the Commission's documentation for the funding of the attack.

 

[Pardalis]

I asked for the Commission's documentation for the funding of the attack.

And what about the "no plane at the Pentagon", and the "controlled demolitions" of the Towers and building 7? You still believe in those don't you?

How does the pertinence of the funding of the attack jibe with your 95% MIHOP beliefs?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Put a quote of mine in large red font, or pipe down.

Truther can't candle the truth, Red?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

And what about the "no plane at the Pentagon",

I almost forgot, RedIbis believes the Washington fire and rescue crews are in on it too.

 

[Profanz]

You obviously don't understand the difference between the funding of Al Qaeda and the funding of the attacks.

I asked for the Commission's documentation for the funding of the attack.

Come on Red. You know the skeptics around here don't need proof of anything. They have their story and they are sticking to it no matter what. It's religion to them. Even when the authors of that very story condemn it as bull.

Red? Stop criticizing people from practicing their religion will ya? You know this country was started by the same kind of people. God Bless America!!!!!

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It's religion to them. Even when the authors of that very story condemn it as bull.

Can you list for us the commission members who say 9/11 was an inside job?

 

[BigAl]

You obviously don't understand the difference between the funding of Al Qaeda and the funding of the attacks.

Why don't you explain the difference to us?

 

[twinstead]

Even when the authors of that very story condemn it as bull.

Can you point me to ANY authors of that story who think 19 arab terrorists didn't hijack planes and flew them into the Pentagon and into WTC1 and 2, causing them to collapse which also caused other buildings to collapse, including WTC7, and that one of the planes crashed in Shanksville before it could hit its intended target?

Cause that's what this sub forum is all about.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You obviously don't understand the difference between the funding of Al Qaeda and the funding of the attacks.

Why don't you explain the difference to us?

Oh.... and while you're at it, Red... also try to find out how the funding for the attack was also used to get the FDNY on board as you believe happened.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You obviously don't understand the difference between the funding of Al Qaeda and the funding of the attacks.

I asked for the Commission's documentation for the funding of the attack.

What is obvious is that you have not read chapter 5 of the report, to which I had directed your attention after you claimed to agree with it.

Here's just one of many excerpts from chapter 5 that describe one of many aspects of that funding:

In addition to staging actual terrorist attacks in partnership with al Qaeda, Hambalit and JI assisted al Qaeda operatives passing through Kuala Lumpur. One important occasion was in December 1999--January 2000. Hambali accomodated KSM's requests to help several veterans whom KSM had just finished training in Karachi. They included Tawfiq bin Attash, also known as Khallad, who later would help bomb the USS Cole, and future 9/11 hijackers Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar. Hambali arranged lodging for them and helped them purchase airline tickets for their onward travel. Later that year, Hambali and his crew would provide accomodations and other assistance (including information on flight schools and help in acquiring ammonium nitrate) for Zacarias Moussaoui, an al Qaeda operative sent to Malaysia by Atef and KSM.

That's from section 5.1. If you are unable to understand the connections with 9/11, then you should read the rest of chapter 5, in which the connections become even more immediate and direct.

 

[Pardalis]

Come on Red. You know the skeptics around here don't need proof of anything.[...] Even when the authors of that very story condemn it as bull.

I see you ignored my posts.

Could you respond to the two clear and recent instances of both Hamilton and Keane showing support for their conclusions in the Commission report?

Here is Lee Hamilton on March 8th 2010, talking about the threat of Al Qaeda:

http://www.indystar.com/article/201...INION/Lee-Hamilton-Al-Qaida-still-targets-U.S.

And here's Thomas Keane talking about the threat of Al Qaeda on September 11th 2009:

http://a.media.abcnews.com/podcasts/090911_punch_kean.mp3

[...]
about truthers:

(paraphrasing)"That's out there, and I do run into those people from time to time. I talk to them, but they're not usually willing to listen to reason. [then goes on to talk about conspiracy theories about Pearl Harbor and Lincoln...] We did our best to write the history of 9/11 in the report [...] As far as I'm concerned, we're basically (I'm talking about my fellow commissioners too) I think we basically stand with what's written in that report."

So I guess that's a huge FAIL on your part, again.

Truth hurts eh?

 

[dtugg]

I wonder what HI thinks he gains by telling such obvious lies.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I wonder what HI thinks he gains by telling such obvious lies.

Perhaps he believes truth exists on a circular path and that, while most people attempt to arrive at the truth by progressing in a "positive" direction, he's attempting to prove that the truth can also be arrived at by taking the "negative" direction.

That, or he's just trolling.

 

[sylvan8798]

Truth hurts eh?

Not as much as all this talk of "probing"

 

[Dave Rogers]

You obviously don't understand the difference between the funding of Al Qaeda and the funding of the attacks.

I asked for the Commission's documentation for the funding of the attack.

Nice work, RedIbis. By asking about the funding of the attack, you're diverting attention away from the fact that you've admitted that you believe al-Qaeda planned and organised the 9/11 attacks but that on the day they didn't go as the 9/11 Commission report states they did. If you didn't employ these sort of diversionary tactics, people might find out what you really believe, and for some reason you feel you have to avoid that ever happening.

So, would you now like to explain how the attacks differed from the 9/11 Commission's account on the day of 9/11 only, in a way that's compatible with the remainder of the Commission's account, which you've already claimed is entirely correct?

No, I didn't think so.

Dave

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Not as much as all this talk of "probing"

Just the tip at first, just to see how it feels.

And then it's all, "ow, ow, you're on my hair."

ETA: Man. That font up there is...wow. I feel on a subconscious level that I must give more credence to the argument.

 

[RedIbis]

Nice work, RedIbis. By asking about the funding of the attack, you're diverting attention away from the fact that you've admitted that you believe al-Qaeda planned and organised the 9/11 attacks but that on the day they didn't go as the 9/11 Commission report states they did. If you didn't employ these sort of diversionary tactics, people might find out what you really believe, and for some reason you feel you have to avoid that ever happening.

So, would you now like to explain how the attacks differed from the 9/11 Commission's account on the day of 9/11 only, in a way that's compatible with the remainder of the Commission's account, which you've already claimed is entirely correct?

No, I didn't think so.

Dave

Why don't you think that it's a legitimate distinction to make? The Report goes into great detail about the organization and its sources of funds over the years. It goes into almost no detail about the funding of the attacks.