9/11 commission told not to probe too deeply

[Dave Rogers]

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.

But, as we've seen, you acknowledge that limited amount of detail as being entirely accurate. We appear to be making some very small amount of progress here.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

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:

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.

Yes it's startlingly immediate and direct where at the end of Chapter 5 in a very short section entitled, The Funding of the 9/11 Plot, the Report states,

After the Hamburg recruits joined the 9/11 conspiracy, al Qaeda began giving them money. Our knowledge of the funding during this period, before the operatives entered the United States, remains murky.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Yes it's startlingly immediate and direct where at the end of Chapter 5 in a very short section entitled, The Funding of the 9/11 Plot, the Report states,

After the Hamburg recruits joined the 9/11 conspiracy, al Qaeda began giving them money. Our knowledge of the funding during this period, before the operatives entered the United States, remains murky.

Money is fungible. The report documents the funding of al Qaeda, and also documents the funding of the 9/11 attacks by al Qaeda. The murkiness you cited applies only to funding of the Hamburg recruits, and only to the period before they entered the United States.

Here is the full paragraph from which you took your quotation:

After the Hamburg recruits joined the 9/11 conspiracy, al Qaeda began giving them money. Our knowledge of the funding during this period, before the operatives entered the United States, remains murky. According to KSM, the Hamburg cell members each received $5,000 to pay for their return to Germany from Afghanistan after they had been selected to join the plot, and they received additional funds for travel from Germany to the United States. Financial transactions of the plotters are discussed in more detail in chapter 7.

There is considerable financial detail in chapter 6 as well as chapter 7. You should read those chapters also.

I agree with Dave Rogers: Your quibbles and out-of-context quotation appear designed to distract attention from your claimed agreement with 80% of the report, and from the inconsistency between that claim and your rejection of the report's major conclusions.

 

[funk de fino]

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

Did you or did you not say that the FF on the ground only said WTC7 would collapse because they were told by higher level FF?

Does this intimate that the higher level FF were in on it? If not them, then who could have duped those FF?

 

[Edx]

Did you or did you not say that the FF on the ground only said WTC7 would collapse because they were told by higher level FF?

Does this intimate that the higher level FF were in on it? If not them, then who could have duped those FF?

Exactly.

The easiest way to catch Red out without trawling through past posts is to just have the discussion again.

 

[RedIbis]

Did you or did you not say that the FF on the ground only said WTC7 would collapse because they were told by higher level FF?

Does this intimate that the higher level FF were in on it? If not them, then who could have duped those FF?

Quote me, so that we can see what I really said, as opposed to what debunkers here like to do, which is misrepresent.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Quote me, so that we can see what I really said, as opposed to what debunkers here like to do, which is misrepresent.

...

I don't doubt for a second that these firefighters came to agree with the official explanations "after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit."

My point from the get-go was what these people said before people came to them and told them the source of these events.

Sure, weeks, months, maybe years later, these people were informed of what the source of their initial descriptions were, but as any detective worth his/her salt knows, it's always the first interview which is most important. How people choose to interpret their experience later on is often of little consequence compared to the value of that first, unadulturated account.

 

[RedIbis]

...

I stand by each of those quotes, especially since none of them suggests complicity. At least you took the time actually find quotes of mine, I appreciate that.

 

[Edx]

I stand by each of those quotes, especially since none of them suggests complicity. At least you took the time actually find quotes of mine, I appreciate that.

So who told them and why didn't they question any of it Red?

 

[twinstead]

I stand by each of those quotes, especially since none of them suggests complicity. At least you took the time actually find quotes of mine, I appreciate that.

They suggest either complicity or incompetence.

 

[TruthersLie]

They suggest either complicity or incompetence.

false choice.

why can't it be incompetent complicity? Or complicit incompetence? Hmmm?

 

[Edx]

false choice.

why can't it be incompetent complicity? Or complicit incompetence? Hmmm?

I like the typical truther argument... genius incompetent complicity

 

[funk de fino]

Quote me, so that we can see what I really said, as opposed to what debunkers here like to do, which is misrepresent.

You know exactly what you posted. Who told the firefighters on the ground that WTC7 would collapse?

We are not taking about afterwards but the guys who said it would collapse before it did. Were those who told the firefighters on the ground that WTC7 would collapse in on it?

 

[funk de fino]

I stand by each of those quotes, especially since none of them suggests complicity. At least you took the time actually find quotes of mine, I appreciate that.

Do they stand for Willie Rod? His initial interviews stand then?

it's always the first interview which is most important. How people choose to interpret their experience later on is often of little consequence compared to the value of that first, unadulturated account.

 

[Edx]

You know exactly what you posted. Who told the firefighters on the ground that WTC7 would collapse?

We are not taking about afterwards but the guys who said it would collapse before it did. Were those who told the firefighters on the ground that WTC7 would collapse in on it?

And why none of them showed any sign of disagreement in all the years since 911, should be something to point as as well.

 

[funk de fino]

Originally posted by Red Ibis

I think that at some time earlier in the day, word began to hit the streets from high level members of the FDNY and OEM that WTC 7 was going to collapse. Many firefighters on the scene received the word and reported being warned of its collapse, they cleared the area and then it collapsed

My question put earlier stands.

Were those who told the firefighters on the ground that WTC7 would collapse in on it?

Was Mike Catalano wrong when he said it was huge fires in WTC7? Do you still claim there was "no discernible inferno" in WTC7?

 

[MIKILLINI]

Just when we thought there was already enough evidence showing that 9/11 commission was being controlled, it just keeps on piling up.

"We" as meaning you?

I wonder how debunkers will spin this one.

Look who's still attempting to spin it.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Was Mike Catalano wrong when he said it was huge fires in WTC7? Do you still claim there was "no discernible inferno" in WTC7?

RedIbis has seen this link numerous times. It's Gravys archive of the first responder eyewitness accounts of the massive fires that raged throughout WTC7. It's quite damning for truthers like RedIbis.

He knows about Mike Catalano. He knows about Nick Visconti, Harry Meyers, Robert Larocca, James McGlynn, Peter Hayden, Christopher Boyle and all the firefighter who saw with their own two eyes the massive fires and severe physical damage to WTC7.

He knows these men saw and made thier own expert predictions about WTC7s demise and he knows it wasn't some phantom MIB who told these men and zapped them with a neuralyzer.

RedIbis absolutely believes that the FDNY was in on it.

 

[RedIbis]

Originally posted by Red Ibis



My question put earlier stands.

Were those who told the firefighters on the ground that WTC7 would collapse in on it?

Was Mike Catalano wrong when he said it was huge fires in WTC7? Do you still claim there was "no discernible inferno" in WTC7?

Anyone who said that WTC 7 was a fully involved inferno or that all 47 floors were on fire was simply inaccurate. That doesn't make them "in on it", it doesn't make them incompetent. They simply weren't accurate.

 

[funk de fino]

Anyone who said that WTC 7 was a fully involved inferno or that all 47 floors were on fire was simply inaccurate. That doesn't make them "in on it", it doesn't make them incompetent. They simply weren't accurate.

Stop dodging Red.

You are making another dishonest argument.

I asked you if the people who told the FF on the ground were in on it. You said it came from higher up in FDNY or OEM. Please answer this question after I supplied you with the quote you wanted.

I never asked anything about fully involved. I asked you if you still claim there was "no discernible inferno"?

Inferno is a raging fire that is uncontrolled or uncontrollable. The fire was on at least 13 floors and Mike Catalano says it was a huge fire and he was in the buidling while it was on fire. Is he wrong?