911: The chain of evidence

[Childlike Empress]

The objectives are so wildly different, as NIST are doing the investigation, while the 9/11 commission made the end report.

That's wrong. NIST investigated only the collapse of the twin towers (we all wait for their report on wtc7). The "911 Commission"-Report (posed like it) investigated the criminals - and this investigation is what i am questioning here.

 

[Shrinker]

Gravy asked me if i really believe that there is no evidence for the "19 Highjackers"-CT and i said yes. Am i wrong? I thought this is a "skeptics"-Forum.

Yes you are wrong. The victims on the planes made phone calls and described hijackers. That is one piece of evidence. Why should we spend all our time assembling all of the evidence, when you refuse to acknowldege even this most basic and fundamental fact?

Skeptics do not disbelieve everything; they are suspicious of those things that appear to contradict the available evidence. The 9/11 report doesn't appear to contradict the avilable evidence, but you do. So do you know something we don't?

 

[kookbreaker]

So, I guess the fact that the Saudi's, who were very reluctant to admit that their children had anything to do with 911, admitted that the majority of the hijackers were their citizens holds no weight for you?

They were convinced, they had a lot more to lose by admitting it. What's your malfunction?

 

[fsol]

@fsol: What's the "defense" budget of the US? 400 Billion $? I would say: Investigate - money doesn't count.

Then why bring it up? And then why bring up a figure that has nothing to do with the amount the report cost? I suppose if the cost of making a report isn't high enough they could always send for take out and charge it to the account. Maybe buy chocolate biscuits instead of plain. I dunno.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Hi, i am missing the chain of evidence for the theory that the 19 alleged highjackers commited the mass murder of September 11th 2001.

Please provide all sources but one - the "9/11 Commission"-Report.

Is this a joke or a serious example of truth-seeker "open mindedness".

Tell you what, Childlike... instead of this little game, why don't you meet me on a nuetral, punkbuster enabled Battlefield 2 server?

At least that way I can be reasonably certain that we're playing a game you haven't deliberately rigged so that you will always win.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Then why bring it up? And then why bring up a figure that has nothing to do with the amount the report cost? I suppose if the cost of making a report isn't high enough they could always send for take out and charge it to the account. Maybe buy chocolate biscuits instead of plain. I dunno.

I'm sorry but i think i don't get your point.

@Sword_of_truth: That's easy: You smell strange.

@all: I leave for now. I hope there is a discussion going on. I was not joking when i opened this thread.

 

[Hawk one]

That's wrong. NIST investigated only the collapse of the twin towers (we all wait for their report on wtc7). The "911 Commission"-Report (posed like it) investigated the criminals - and this investigation is what i am questioning here.

OK, fair enough, I got a bit confused. But still, the commission didn't have to do much compared to NIST, which is the one fair investigation. How much money do you need to get the passenger list from the air plane companies? Hardly anything. It will cost more to then search out the information on the suspects - such as finding out that they had indeed been trained to fly commercial planes - but it's still a drop in the sea compared to the incredibly costly and time-consuming effort it is to check out Ground Zero as NIST did.

I will admit that there would probably have been spent more if the hijackers were still alive, because then they would investigate with the goal of prosecution. But since there's no point in prosecuting dead men, and since it was known from Day 1 that the planes were hijacked at all (thanks to the overwhelming evidence), then there is hardly much point in dragging it out longer than it needs to.

It's not just a question of quantity in dollars, it's a question of how effective each dollar is spent.

 

[Gravy]

Gravy asked me if i really believe that there is no evidence for the "19 Highjackers"-CT and i said yes. Am i wrong? I thought this is a "skeptics"-Forum.

I then asked you this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1700813&postcount=2576

And you chose to start a new thread here in which you exclude the 9/11 Commission report.

So, have you read the report?
If so, what did it get wrong, and why?

 

[TriangleMan]

Please provide all sources but one - the "9/11 Commission"-Report.

As someone new to this topic could you please explain why the Report can not be used as a source?

 

[Gravy]

I was not joking when i opened this thread.

Then why are you running around the field with a blindfold on and goalposts attached to your head?

 

[Stellafane]

...I thought this is a "skeptics"-Forum.

It is. It is not, however, an "indulge those who live in their own little fantasy world" forum.

 

[Flo]

As someone new to this topic could you please explain why the Report can not be used as a source?

maybe because it doesn't vindicate her dearly held beliefs about the evilness of the US government ?

 

[TimmyBerry]

Don't you just love how they retreat when the evidence starts piling up around them?

 

[dubfan]

The CTs are suspicious of the 9/11 Commission report for several reasons:

1. Testimony of certain individuals is omitted (Edmonds, Rodriguez)

2. The report does not address WTC 7

3. The report contradicts other evidenciary sources on matters of fact (Otis fighter timeline)

4. Other matters have come to light since the report was released that cast doubt on its comprehensiveness (Able Danger)

5. The report is rather gentle in its political conclusions (it largely lets both Clinton and Bush off the hook, politically)

I think these are fair criticisms. I don't conclude from these, however, that 9/11 was a false flag op carried out by the government. I tend to conclude from all of this that internal political considerations played a big part and there was certainly a lot of ass-covering/incompetence/negligence going on, particulary in the case of the FBI (Edmonds).

That said, I think it's a mistake to dismiss the entire report, esp. as it is so well-sourced. In fact, the sourcing is what has made the inconsistencies so easy to find. I think the report could benefit from a revision to address/cleanup some of the contradictions, and to look at some of the things that have (rightly, IMO) been brought up since -- namely, Able Danger and Sibel Edmonds. I hope the Commission members will do that at some point.

Also, I think a lot of the criticism deals with facts around the "edges" of the story -- issues of who knew what when and were people doing the jobs they were supposed to be doing. None of that really undermines the basic truth that 19 jihadists hijacked some planes and flew them into some buildings (or the ground in PA) on 9/11.

Edit: typo

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
Also, I think a lot of the criticism deals with facts around the "edges" of the story -- issues of who knew what when and were people doing the jobs they were supposed to be doing. None of that really undermines the basic truth that 19 jihadists hijacked some planes and flew them into some buildings (or the ground in PA) on 9/11.

However, that was the doubt raised in the opening post.

It did not even address possible ass covering and hand-washing (of which I'm sure there is quite a bit) in the report.

The claim of the CTs is not: "9/11 happened roughly like reported, but we think some people here and there have ducked responsibilities"

It is "Something entirely different happened, and the US govt was deeply involved in plannning and executing the event".

Hans

 

[aggle-rithm]

(we all wait for their report on wtc7).

Here, I'll give you a preview:

Two 110 story buildings fell down near WTC 7, raining tons of debris on it.

WTC 7 fell down.

There, was that so hard to understand?

 

[kookbreaker]

Here, I'll give you a preview:

Two 110 story buildings fell down near WTC 7, raining tons of debris on it.

WTC 7 fell down.

There, was that so hard to understand?

You forgot the 'WTC7 was on fire for seven hours' part.

 

[dubfan]

However, that was the doubt raised in the opening post.

It did not even address possible ass covering and hand-washing (of which I'm sure there is quite a bit) in the report.

The claim of the CTs is not: "9/11 happened roughly like reported, but we think some people here and there have ducked responsibilities"

It is "Something entirely different happened, and the US govt was deeply involved in plannning and executing the event".

Hans

Yes, I agree completely. That post was for the benefit of Childlike. I'm trying to show that it's possible for it to be true that the 9/11 Report is flawed and also the case that 19 jihadists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings. The one does not exclude the other.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...Am i wrong? I thought this is a "skeptics"-Forum.

It is more a forum dedicated to critical thinking. Though this does often include an initial or ongoing skeptical point of view.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, I agree completely. That post was for the benefit of Childlike. I'm trying to show that it's possible for it to be true that the 9/11 Report is flawed and also the case that 19 jihadists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings. The one does not exclude the other.

In that case, we agree.

Hans