911: The chain of evidence

[Gravy]

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth. So far there was no evidence provided. Instead i was repeatedly refered back to the Commission-Report.

Post of the week!

 

[kookbreaker]

Loose Trains

That's old hat. We now know that it was Abby Scott!

 

[RandFan]

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth. So far there was no evidence provided. Instead i was repeatedly refered back to the Commission-Report.

Ad hominem argument. The report contains data and logical argument. If you are intellectually honest you can't simply dismiss the report by attacking the source. You are going to have to attack the evidence in the report.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth...

Question: Is it your assertion that the NIST report is "one source?" Yes or no, please.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Childlike. I have no idea why these guys are so patient with you...

She might be hot.

 

[Drysdale]

She might be hot.

Yea, but would it be possible to sit thru an evening with this banter geez.
It took me about 20 posts from her at least to understand what the hell she was alluding to. For or against CT? I did'nt know what was going on.
Now granted Idont know brainiac fu like a lot of you ninjas but I know BS when I see it. And brother they're still carting it out.

 

[Flange Desire]

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth. So far there was no evidence provided. Instead i was repeatedly refered back to the Commission-Report.

Generalisations - ... you all take a story ...
Lies - ... only backed up by ONE source ...
Willful ignorance - you repeatedly ingnore posts that try to help you.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth. So far there was no evidence provided. Instead i was repeatedly refered back to the Commission-Report.

The Commission Report is not a source. At least not an original one. There are these things in the back of the Report called "endnotes" that list many original sources--HUNDREDS of them, in fact. By referring to these, you can check for yourself whether or not the Report reported things accurately. It's a pretty clever device, I think, these "endnotes".
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm

 

[demonologist]

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why the facts in the 911 commission report don't count as evidence. We're not talking about editorial interpretation here, we're talking about just the facts. Did the government pay off all of those witnesses?

 

[demonologist]

Where's the chain of evidence that leads anywhere other than to the hijackers in the official report?

I've asked this question before and never got a satisfactory answer, so I'll ask again: Why is the conspiracy suggested by CTs more complicated than an episode of mission impossible? Anyone who makes good plans makes simple plans. There is less to go wrong and less of these "obvious" holes in them, picked up by ordinary people on the street. Why didn't 9/11 follow the same MO as the previous attack on the WTC, bombing the car park, if the desired outcome was to drop the towers? Why a complex aerial ballet syncronised with fireworks that leaves doubt in CT minds about the physics behind it all? Why not the Mother Of All Car Bombs in the car park taking out key support structures and collapsing the tower? There's no complex physics involved, no pancake theories, no fire melting steel doubts, no "demolition squibs" for everyone to see. Anyone can understand "bomb blows up foundations, building he fall down". Why on Earth would somone try to convince Joe Average that his city is being attacked by using an overly complex plan that Joe Average has difficulty understanding?

If I want to get out of something, I lie and say that I'm busy. I don't tell people I have a broken pelvis and my dad's been taken into custody for shooting the pope. That's much too complicated and doesn't make any sense. People can prove me wrong. If I just BS and tell tehm I'm busy, they can't prove otherwise. Simple plan works. Needlessly complex plan, fails.

Look at military plans for invasions, look at how they created deception to fool the enemy into where their forces were being built up, and how they hid the real invasion forces. They are nearly always laughably simple, like inflatable tanks, passing some real information to make the enemy accept the mountain of fake. They know that deception can only last a few minutes, a few hours, maybe days if you're lucky.

It's a cliche, but you really can only fool some of the people all of the time.

Not to mention that the more elaborate the conspiracy, the more people who know about it and therefore have to be trusted to keep it hush. Which would never fly anyways. Conspiracies have to be simple and small. No more than a few people can know.

 

[bignickel]

What I can never understand is why the altCT-ers refuse to apply their strict demands for a 'proper chain of evidence' to their own CTs. If their demands for evidence are so high that the 911 commission can't pass it, how can their own pet theories even come close?

To wit: why do they demand impossible-to-meet standards of evidence for the conventional theory, but refuse to impose those same standards on their own feeble conjectures?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Well, bignickel, I seem to recall a recent post by Childlike Empress in which she indicated an intent to first nullify the conventional wisdom vis-a-vis Sept. 11 before progressing any further.

ETA: "I'm trying to falsify the common hypothesis."

 

[Yahzi]

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth.

I have to agree with her. Everybody in business knows what a bad idea "sole-sourcing" is.

With that in mind, I would like someone to prove to me that the Allies won WWII. Without referring to the monolithic source known as "the media," which we all know is controlled by Aliens. By media, I mean newspapers, films, newscasts, photographs, government records, eye-witnesses, and material evidence.

In fact, I bet you foos can't prove there even was a WWII without resorting to your ONE source called "history."

Please provide just one internet link to evidnce that WWII actually occurred and was not a huge government scam to write off bad debt. Keep in mind this link can't refer to any "media" or "history," since those are only single sources and hence obviously under the control of the Aliens.

 

[Yahzi]

What I can never understand is why the altCT-ers refuse to apply their strict demands for a 'proper chain of evidence' to their own CTs.

Because CTers aren't interested in fairness.

 

[valis]

Compare that to one blowjob Mr. Clinton enjoyed.

Pres. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not the actual act of oral sex (see you can say it without being crude, we all know what the words mean).

Besides I'll bet he got more than one.

 

[Childlike Empress]

What I can never understand is why the altCT-ers refuse to apply their strict demands for a 'proper chain of evidence' to their own CTs.

I did not present a detailed CT and i will continue to refuse presenting one (nice try, delphi_ote). I created this thread to see if you apply the high standards you demand from "the CTs" to your own theories. It's an experiment. You make fun of "the CTs" for believing Loose Change and i make fun of you for believing the Commission Report.

Of course the Commission uses a mountain of sources but they decided which (parts of the) sources were used, how they were used, what wasn't used and - most important - they narrated the story.

Where is Gravys debunk of the Report? Unlike the video of some college students, the recommendations made in the Commission-Report were taken very serious. f.e., they were the inspiration for reforming the intelligence apparatus of the US. The position of the "National Intelligence Director" was recommended (look at the diagram on page 413) and created.

John Negroponte got the job. Negroponte is a very controversial character who is known for his involvement in the covert funding of the Contras and for covering up human rights abuses in honduras.

So, was the 911-Commission really independent? I think not and i don't believe their version of the events of 9/11. That doesn't mean i don't trust any of the sources they used.

Some quotes and links:

Claims of bias within the commission

Some members of victims' families have claimed that the commission has numerous conflicts of interest. 9/11 CitizensWatch, in particular, called for the resignation of Philip D. Zelikow, the executive staff director. Zelikow is a Bush-appointee who served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. He spent three years on the President George H. W. Bush's National Security Council. Zelikow worked closely with Bush NSC advisor Condoleezza Rice and even co-wrote a book with her. Some worry that Zelikow may be using his power to deflect blame from himself and to protect Rice.

In addition, many members had ties which could be viewed as conflicts of interest.

• Thomas Kean has ties to the National Endowment for Democracy, a long-time conduit of CIA covert operations abroad. Kean also has a history of investments that link him to Saudi investors who have financially supported both George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden in the past. One example is his former business connections to Khalid bin Mahfouz, an alleged terrorist financier. He was also at one point or still is on the board of Pepsi Bottling, Amerada Hess, UnitedHealth Group, CIT Group and Aramark.
  
• Fred F. Fielding has done legal work for two of Bush's leading "Pioneer" fund-raisers. Fielding also works for a law firm lobbying for Spirit Airlines and United Airlines.
  
• Slade Gorton has close ties to Boeing, which built all the planes destroyed on 9/11, and his law firm represents several major airlines, including Delta Air Lines.
  
• James Thompson is the head of a law firm that lobbies for American Airlines, and he has previously represented United Airlines.
  
• Richard Ben-Veniste has represented Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe, and continues to represent Boeing and United Airlines.
  
• Max Cleland, former US senator, has received $300,000 from the airline industry. He has since resigned from the commission.
  
• Lee Hamilton sits on many advisory boards, including those to the CIA, the president's Homeland Security Advisory Council, and the US Army.
  
• Tim Roemer represents Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
  
• Jamie Gorelick's firm has agreed to represent Prince Mohammed al Faisal in the suit by the 9/11 families. The families contend that al Faisal has legal responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. According to Attorney General John Ashcroft in his testimony before the commission, Gorelick wrote a procedural memo that would have prevented communication between various government agencies (the wall memo[2]). She is on the board of United Technologies.

The commission's defenders claim that these do not represent significant conflicts of interest, and that the commission can be expected to maintain its neutrality.

Wikipedia: 9/11 Commission

Prof. Zelikow's area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, "public myths" or "public presumptions," which he defines as "beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community." In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called "‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene. In the United States, beliefs about the formation of the nation and the Constitution remain powerful today, as do beliefs about slavery and the Civil War. World War II, Vietnam, and the civil rights struggle are more recent examples." He has noted that "a history’s narrative power is typically linked to how readers relate to the actions of individuals in the history; if readers cannot make a connection to their own lives, then a history may fail to engage them at all" ("Thinking about Political History," Miller Center Report [Winter 1999], pp. 5-7).

Wikipedia: Philip D. Zelikow

[Thomas] Kean is a director of Amerada Hess, an oil giant married up to Saudi Arabia's Delta Oil in a venture to pump black gold in Azerbaijan. (The partnership is incorporated in a secretive offshore "tax haven," natch. You can't expect a worthy like Kean to pay taxes like some grubby wage slave.)

One of Delta's biggest backers is the aforesaid Mahfouz, a Saudi wheeler-dealer who has bankrolled some of most dubious players on the world scene: Abu Nidal, Manuel Noreiga, Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush. Mahfouz was also a front for the bin Laden family, funneling their vast wealth through American cut-outs in a bid to gain power and influence in the United States.

One of those cut-outs was Mahfouz factotum James Bath, a partner in George W.'s early oil venture, Arbusto. Bath has admitted serving as a pass-through for secret Saudi money. Years later, when Bush's maladroit business skills were about to sink another of his companies, Harken Energy, the firm was saved by a $25 million investment from a Swiss bank--a subsidiary of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), partly owned by the beneficent Mahfouz.

What was BCCI? Only "one of the largest criminal enterprises in history," according to the U.S. Senate. What did BCCI do? "It engaged in pandemic bribery of officials in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas," says journalist Christopher Bryon, who first exposed the operation. "It laundered money on a global scale, intimidated witnesses and law officers, engaged in extortion and blackmail. It supplied the financing for illegal arms trafficking and global terrorism. It financed and facilitated income tax evasion, smuggling and prostitution." [...]

Somehow we doubt that worthy Kean will poke very hard at the nexus of intersections between his own business partner, Mahfouz, and the bin Ladens, the Bushes, the Saudi royals, Saddam, the CIA and BCCI. We've only scratched the surface here, but even this cursory glance makes the current world crisis look less like some grand geopolitical "clash of civilizations" and more like a nasty falling out among thieves, with rival mafias--who sometimes collude, sometimes collide--now duking it out for turf, cloaking their murderous criminality with pious rhetoric about freedom, security, jihad and God.

Kean Insight - Bush, bin Laden, BCCI and the 9/11 Commission

Hmm ... BCCI, Saudi billionaires? Remember Adnan Khashoggi?

Khashoggi, BCCI and Iran Contra

Genesis Intermedia Fraud

AMENDED COMPLAINT (search for John Gray)

John Gray spoke at the alternative 911 Inquiry Conference in Toronto 2004 and sponsored the event with 15000 $

Saudi Entrepeneur Adnan Khashoggi Linked to 911 Terrorists

What was in the 28 pages of the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry suppressed by the White House?

Spencer Ackerman and John B. Judis have more on the suppressed pages of the report in an August 2003 New Republic piece, here:

Since the joint congressional committee investigating September 11 issued a censored version of its report on July 24, there's been considerable speculation about the 28 pages blanked out from the section entitled "Certain Sensitive National Security Matters." The section cites "specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers," which most commentators have interpreted to mean Saudi contributions to Al Qaeda-linked charities. But an official who has read the report tells The New Republic that the support described in the report goes well beyond that: It involves connections between the hijacking plot and the very top levels of the Saudi royal family. "There's a lot more in the 28 pages than money. Everyone's chasing the charities," says this official. "They should be chasing direct links to high levels of the Saudi government. We're not talking about rogue elements. We're talking about a coordinated network that reaches right from the hijackers to multiple places in the Saudi government."

But, as Spencer notes in an email exchange on this issue, why did the independent 9/11 commission also refuse to acknowledge Saudi financial support for two of the hijackers? In a related issue, WaPo journalist Douglas Farah has also been questioning on his excellent blog why the 9/11 commission has to date refused to acknowledge that al Qaeda has also laundered its finances through West African blood diamonds.

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/001093.html

What does all this mean? My impression is that a nexus of financiers, organized crime, "intelligence", polititians and corporations exists which was involved in 9/11 and wants to make us believe the story of the lone highjackers and Osama as evil genius in the background. A rogue element in western (and middle eastern) society. They try to play the oldest game in the book and to create a backlash into fear and barbarianism to save their interests - at a moment in history when it's time for humanity to grow up.

Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. (...) The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Experience proves that it is rather the so-called intelligentsia’ that is most apt to yield to these disastrous collective suggestions.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...Of course the Commission uses a mountain of sources...

Ah, so then you agree that this next statement of yours is incorrect:

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth...

Moving along...

...So, was the 911-Commission really independent? I think not and i don't believe their version of the events of 9/11...

Which "version" do you "believe?" Why?

 

[chipmunk stew]

I did not present a detailed CT and i will continue to refuse presenting one (nice try, delphi_ote). I created this thread to see if you apply the high standards you demand from "the CTs" to your own theories. It's an experiment. You make fun of "the CTs" for believing Loose Change and i make fun of you for believing the Commission Report.

The same high standards were applied. The Commission Report cleared the hurdle with few exceptions (Sibel Edmonds and Able Danger being among them). Loose Change tripped and fell on its face before it could even get airbound.

 

[Apollyon]

CE,

How can we take seriously what you posted above? All your references came from ONE source - the internet.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Of course the Commission uses a mountain of sources but they decided which (parts of the) sources were used, how they were used, what wasn't used and - most important - they narrated the story.

Watch this:

Of course the Loose Change Movie uses a mountain of sources but they decided which (parts of the) sources were used, how they were used, what wasn't used and - most important - they narrated the story.

Out of curiousity, how many engineers, scientists and witnesses were in the report compared to LC?