Above conspiring to cover-up?

JimBenArm said:
I called the government up and asked them to do a new investigation. Sorry, no go, man. They said that "Because Zensmack said to" wasn't a good enough reason to do another one. Also, they said they were Animal Control, not Criminal Investigations, but I called them shills for you. Hey, I tried, but man, they still are just covering it all up!

Stupid government!
Click to expand...
I hope you asked to speak to the government's supervisor. This is a disgrace! :mad:
 
JimBenArm said:
I called the government up and asked them to do a new investigation. Sorry, no go, man. They said that "Because Zensmack said to" wasn't a good enough reason to do another one. Also, they said they were Animal Control, not Criminal Investigations, but I called them shills for you. Hey, I tried, but man, they still are just covering it all up!

Stupid government!
Click to expand...


You forgot to put the "89" at the end of his screen name. Go back to the government and try again.
 
Par said:
So, you want 9/11 to be investigated until evidence of a conspiracy comes to light? Further, you're making the same dishonest representations again, ZENSMACK89?

While they indeed had sincere reservations about how it was formed, funded and so forth, neither Hamilton nor Keane believe that the 9/11 Commission was ultimately unsuccessful. In fact, the opposite is true. The following is a quotation from their book Without Precedent:

In short, whether or not they believe that the commission was “set up to fail”, they don’t believe that it actually did fail.
Click to expand...

I can quote from the book or plenty of post interviews myself all day long to support my argument but I don't need to. I already stated I know they have claimed they did the best possible job under the circumstances. That's not good enough. Reservations about how it was formed funded and so forth? What's the so forth?

Par said:
The “loose end” that never got tied did not concern what actually happened during the attacks. It was the question of whether, during the investigation, NORAD initially gave the commission false information intentionally (to cover their mistakes) or inadvertently. (However, the commission uncovered the correct information in the end.)
Click to expand...

The loose end was "one of those loose ends that never got tied." Not a loose end. They did not uncover anything on this "loose end" in the report itself. This quote is after the report came out while they were promoting Without Precedent. Now I know it's claimed NORAD came back later and supposedly cleared up their testimony but that doesn't explain why they were "so far from the truth" in the first place and needed to clarify. That part of it is still a loose end.

Now back to the OP because all you have offered up falls under the same heading.

Where’s the faith come from? Why the offered up excuses? Why do you apologies for them? What’s your investment?
 
Zensmack:
What is stopping the "truth" movement from doing an investigation? Investigative journalist do it all the time and come up with results they can back up in court. Very few of the claims of the "truth" movement would need subpoena power to get to the bottom of. That would at least be a better start then the last 6 years.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
I can quote from the book or plenty of post interviews myself all day long to support my argument but I don't need to. I already stated I know they have claimed they did the best possible job under the circumstances. That's not good enough. Reservations about how it was formed funded and so forth? What's the so forth? The loose end was "one of those loose ends that never got tied." Not a loose end. They did not uncover anything on this "loose end" in the report itself. This quote is after the report came out while they were promoting Without Precedent. Now I know it's claimed NORAD came back later and supposedly cleared up their testimony but that doesn't explain why they were "so far from the truth" in the first place and needed to clarify. That part of it is still a loose end.
Click to expand...


You attempted to create the impression that the commissioners in question believe the 9/11 Commission to have been a failure. You also attempted to create the impression that the aforementioned “loose end” concerned something that actually occurred during the attacks. Both of these impressions are false. In attempting to create them, you were being dishonest. Further, the commissioners did not merely claim that they did “the best possible job under the circumstances”, but rather that the commission had been a success.

I agree, however, that the question of why NORAD and the FAA initially gave the 9/11 Commission false information is an important one and perhaps even one worthy of direct investigation. Nevertheless, the existence of this issue does not cast any appreciable doubt on the accuracy of 9/11 Commission Report itself. Therefore, it is not a good reason to favour a new investigation.

If you have any evidence to suggest that the commissioners believe the 9/11 Commission Report to contain significant errors, then please present it.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
Exactly why there should be a real investigation that isn't "set-up for failure" and doesn't leave "loose ends that never got tied" .
Click to expand...

So the proof that we need another investigation is in the fact that said investigation will prove the proof is there?


Because you seem to think that an underfunded incomplete investigation is better then having to spend money on a real one.
Click to expand...
Your definition of real?



Is it consevative politics you can't let go of?
Click to expand...
No. I'm not a conservative.

Have you declared just about everything but education a waste of money?
Click to expand...
Nope.

Let's give them a pass because the alternative is too expensive? That's not proof that's ignorence.
Click to expand...
Really? Explain.



None.
Click to expand...
So you're willing to stand up and demand a new investigation as long as you don't have to actually stand up and go outside? Such commitment!
 
Last edited:
ZENSMACK89 said:
Where’s the faith come from? Why the offered up excuses? Why do you apologies for them? What’s your investment?
Click to expand...


You are committing the begging the question fallacy. Many here do not consider that they have seen sufficient evidence to suggest that the 9/11 Commission Report contains significant errors. Therefore, asking us why we are attempting to excuse those errors is illegitimate.
 
Par said:
You attempted to create the impression that the commissioners in question believe the 9/11 Commission to have been a failure. You also attempted to create the impression that the aforementioned “loose end” concerned something that actually occurred during the attacks. Both of these impressions are false. In attempting to create them, you were being dishonest. Further, the commissioners did not merely claim that they did “the best possible job under the circumstances”, but rather that the commission had been a success.

I agree, however, that the question of why NORAD and the FAA initially gave the 9/11 Commission false information is an important one and perhaps even one worthy of direct investigation. Nevertheless, the existence of this issue does not cast any appreciable doubt on the accuracy of 9/11 Commission Report itself. Therefore, it is not a good reason to favour a new investigation.

If you have any evidence to suggest that the commissioners believe the 9/11 Commission Report to contain significant errors, then please present it.
Click to expand...

Here you go.

Hamilton:" I don’t believe for a minute that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history. We wrote it under a lot of time pressure, and we sorted through the evidence as best we could."

Unless it's looked into how is one to know if it's significant or not? He's says it's a "First Draft". He also says "People will be investigating 9/11 for the next hundred years in this country, and they’re going to find out some things that we missed here."

Who will that be and do we need to wait a hundred years?

Now the question I raised is given their track record why is a report commissioned and peddled out by this administration given the benifit of the doubt?

Now why all the avoidence? Besides my main issue is not just if what little they were able to investigate is accurate it's also whether or not it's complete.

A first draft is not a final version. When does the final draft come? Why is a first draft good enough for you? Where do you find the basis for your faith?
 
Redtail said:
So the proof that we need another investigation is in the fact that said investigation will prove the proof is there?
Click to expand...

No the proof that we need another investigation is in the fact that the only thus far investigation is only a first draft.

Redtail said:
Your definition of real?
Click to expand...
Complete. More then a first draft.

Redtail said:
No. I'm not a conservative.
Click to expand...
I meant fiscally conservitive as in the victim of 9/11 aren't worth a comple investigation. You answered this on another thread.

Redtail said:
Nope.
Click to expand...
Good.

Redtail said:
Really? Explain.
Click to expand...
Well then why? You seem to think a "first draft" is good enough and a complete draft isn't worth the money. You explain.

Redtail said:
So you're willing to stand up and demand a new investigation as long as you don't have to actually stand up and go outside? Such commitment!
Click to expand...

Because I don't go to the East Coast means I don't stand up and go outside?
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
Here you go.
Click to expand...


Please stop being deceitful with other people’s words.

Hamilton said:
I don’t believe for a minute that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history. We wrote it under a lot of time pressure, and we sorted through the evidence as best we could.
Click to expand...


Quite clearly, this does not constitute evidence that the commissioners believe the 9/11 Commission Report to contain significant errors. It might be worth bearing in mind that he also says the following:

Hamilton said:
I do not know at this point of any factual error in our report, that I would absolutely say 'we just plain missed it.' Now, maybe I need to review it more carefully, but I cannot recall right now at this instance any fact that we just plain missed.
Click to expand...

ZENSMACK89 said:
Who will that be and do we need to wait a hundred years?
Click to expand...


He says that people “will be investigating 9/11 for the next hundred years”. He doesn’t say that people we have to wait a hundred years to know the truth about 9/11.

ZENSMACK89 said:
A first draft is not a final version. When does the final draft come? Why is a first draft good enough for you?
Click to expand...


Again, as shown by the first quotation above, Hamilton did not claim that the report was a first draft period. He said it was a “first draft of history”. There’s an appreciable distinction.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
Hamilton:" I don’t believe for a minute that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history. We wrote it under a lot of time pressure, and we sorted through the evidence as best we could."

Unless it's looked into how is one to know if it's significant or not? He's says it's a "First Draft". He also says "People will be investigating 9/11 for the next hundred years in this country, and they’re going to find out some things that we missed here."

Who will that be and do we need to wait a hundred years?
Click to expand...
Wow, do you always take people's statements so literally?

The reference to "first draft of history" I would say is merely reflecting the fact that the 9/11 Commission Report was the first attempt to pull together a cohesive and comprehensive examination of what transpired.

As to the reference "people will be investigating 9/11 for the next hundred years" considering that historians to this day still do research and investigations on the events of WWII, I fail to see how the remark has any particular significance. Major events are always subjects for investigations and examinations for many decades.


By the way, have you given up on the Mexican trucking thread in the Politics forum>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom