Above conspiring to cover-up?

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

Well then I guess all of the structural engineers, architects, pilots, and former military/government people in the truth movement should get started on their own investigation, put it up for peer review, (world wide) and prove their theories right.

Complete. More then a first draft.
What's stopping the truthers from doing it? If the evidence is there, if the whistle blowers are there, if the research done by experts is there, yadda, yadda, as so many truthers claim then the investigation is the easy part.

I meant fiscally conservitive as in the victim of 9/11 aren't worth a comple investigation. You answered this on another thread.

No I didn't. I said tax payer money shouldn't be used for a new investigation. Why? Because truthers can't say who should carry out said investigation, agree on what should be investigated, etc..., etc.... because if truthers could, thruthers would.

Alright then.

Well then why? You seem to think a "first draft" is good enough and a complete draft isn't worth the money. You explain.

Because when I first heard about these theories I asked some of my colluges at FSU and FAMU who were engineering, architecture, and Poli-Sci professors and they saw nothing wrong with it.

Because I don't go to the East Coast means I don't stand up and go outside?

Well yes. If I believed or even half-seriously thought that the US government was involved in 9/11 or willfully ignored warnings to allow it to happen I'd be there now. Are the victims not worth it?
 
I think you missed the point. When you pontificate about "no real investigation" you ignore the enormous volume of investigation that has followed 9/11. I'm not just talking the largest criminal investigation in human history, or the immense NIST investigations, or the 9/11 Commission Report's post mortem. I'm not just talking the thousands of hours spent assembling a case to prosecute those responsible. I'm not just talking the mountain of evidence gathered from seized materials in Afghanistan which will no doubt be used in upcoming warcrimes tribunals.

I'm talking the restructuring of the CIA and FBI. The total change in NORAD's mission. The changes in the FAA. In a myriad of walks of life. 9/11 revealed a LOT of flaws in a LOT of systems. Many of them have since been addressed. Some haven't of course, and should be. Other reactions were perhaps over zealous, and need to be trimmed back.

In September 2001, the US Government, with it's many branches, had no way whatsoever of stopping the attacks, except by dumb luck.

Today, in September 2007, I believe if a similar attack was attempted, it would be stopped dead in its tracks.

In the end, that's all that matters.

-Gumboot

Good that brings us back to the original post. You believe if a terrorist act like the original or better yet a brand spanking new one attempted today under this same administration would be stopped dead in its tracks?

Really???

Where do you get that faith? What has Michael Chertoff's gut been telling him lately? Is Al Queda regrouped or not? How did that happen in this all very affective war on terror?
 
Well then I guess all of the structural engineers, architects, pilots, and former military/government people in the truth movement should get started on their own investigation, put it up for peer review, (world wide) and prove their theories right.

Not all structural engineers and architects agree. Most don't weigh in at all.

What's stopping the truthers from doing it? If the evidence is there, if the whistle blowers are there, if the research done by experts is there, yadda, yadda, as so many truthers claim then the investigation is the easy part.

There are FBI who were left out of the 911 commission report who have things to say about it officially. There just no one to officially listen to them.

The following Veteran National Security experts were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 Commission, even though they had direct and relevant information related to the Commission’s investigation (for the PDF version Click Here):

http://www.nswbc.org/Press Releases/NSWBC-911Comm.htm

John M. Cole, Former Veteran Intelligence Operations Specialist; FBI - Mr. Cole worked for 18 years in the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division as an Intelligence Operations specialist, and was in charge of FBI’s foreign intelligence investigations covering India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Mr. Cole had knowledge of certain activities that directly related to the terror attacks on September 11, 2001. He notified the 9/11 Commission during its investigation, but never received a response. His name and contact information was provided to the Commission as a key witness by other witnesses, but he was never contacted or interviewed.

John Vincent, Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI - Mr. Vincent worked for the FBI for 27 1/2 years before retiring in 2002. He worked his last 8 years in counterterrorism in the FBI’s Chicago Field Office. Mr. Vincent, along with Robert Wright, exposed inefficiencies within the FBI in working counterterrorism cases, and certain warnings they had tried to pursue prior to the 9/11 attack that were directly related to Al-Qaeda’s financial network and money laundering activities. Although he was granted an interview, the commissioners’ investigators refused to let him provide them with information related to his case and the 9/11 terrorists network; they insisted on limiting the interview to only administrative and irrelevant questions and issues.

Robert Wright, Veteran Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI - Mr. Wright is a veteran special agent in the FBI Chicago Field Office Counterterrorism Unit. He had been investigating a suspected terrorist cell for three years, when he was informed in January 2001 that the case was being closed. Agent Wright, along with Mr. Vincent, exposed inefficiencies within the FBI in working counterterrorism cases and certain warnings they’d tried to pursue prior to the 9/11 attack that were directly related to Al-Qaeda’s financial network and money laundering activities. Three months before September 11, Wright wrote a stinging internal memo charging that the FBI was not interested in thwarting a terrorist attack, but rather "was merely gathering intelligence so they would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred." The FBI refused to allow Wright to testify before the 9/11 Commission, however, the Commission did not insist or attempt to subpoena Wright; despite the fact that it had subpoena power.

Sibel Edmonds, Former Language Specialist; FBI - Ms. Edmonds worked for the FBI’s Washington Field Office as a language specialist with Top Secret Clearance performing translations for counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations dealing with Turkey, Iran, and Turkic speaking Central Asian countries. She contacted the 9/11 Commission in May 2003 and requested a meeting to provide them with information directly related to the terrorist attack. The Commission investigators refused to meet with Edmonds and informed her that due to their limited resources and time they were not going to interview all witnesses. She was able to provide the commission with information and documents only after certain 9/11 family members intervened directly. Ms. Edmonds’ testimony was completely censored by the Commission.

Behrooz Sarshar, Former Language Specialist; FBI - Mr. Sarshar worked for the FBI’s Washington Field Office as a language specialist with Top Secret Clearance performing Farsi translations for counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations dealing with Iran and Afghanistan. He had first-hand information of prior specific warning obtained from a reliable informant in April 2001 on the terrorist attacks of September 11. Mr. Sarshar contacted the Commission directly but was refused. He was given an interview with the Commission investigators only after 9/11 family members intervened directly. Mr. Sarshar’s documented testimony was completely omitted from the commission’s final report, despite his case being publicly confirmed by Director Mueller’s Office.

Mike German, Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI - Mr. German served sixteen years as an FBI Special Agent and is one of the rare agents credited with actually having prevented acts of terrorism before it became the FBI's number one priority. He contacted the Commission in the spring of 2004, but did not receive a response. In 2002 he reported gross mismanagement in a post 9/11-counterterrorism investigation, which included serious violations of FBI policy and federal law. Mr. German contacted the 9/11 Commission during its investigation and requested that he be given an interview session in order to provide them with certain domestic counterterrorism investigations that he’d pursued. According to Mr. German there were links between certain domestic and international counterterrorism related to the September 11 attacks. The 9/11 Commissioners refused to acknowledge his request and never interviewed him.

Gilbert Graham, Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence; FBI - Mr. Graham worked for the FBI’s Washington Field Office Counterintelligence Division until 2002. In February 2004 his name and contact information were provided to the Commission as a key witness with information pertinent to the Commission’s investigation. The 9/11 Commission refused to follow up and never contacted Mr. Graham.

Coleen Rowley, Retired Division Counsel; FBI - In May 2002, Coleen Rowley, as the Division Counsel at the FBI Minneapolis Office, blew the whistle on the FBI’s failure to pursue Zacarias Moussaoui’s case prior to 9/11, despite all attempts made by the Minneapolis division counterterrorism agents. She reported that FBI HQ personnel in Washington, D.C., had mishandled and neglected to take action on information provided by her division. Despite her high-profile case the commission chose not to interview Ms. Rowley. According to Ms. Rowley, no one from the FBI Minneapolis Office (several Agents had direct information) was ever asked to provide testimony, information, to the 9/11 Commission.

Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer, DIA - Colonel Shaffer provided the Commission with detailed information on intelligence and pre warning information obtained by his unit’s data mining project, Able Danger. The 9/11 commission staff received not one but two briefings on Able Danger from Mr. Shaffer and his former team members, yet did not pursue the case, did not follow up on this documented report and refused to subpoena the relevant files. Mr. Shaffer’s testimony, together with other witnesses who corroborated his testimony and information, were censored by the 9/11 Commissioners and never made it to its final report.

Dick Stoltz, Retired Special Agent; ATF- Mr. Stoltz, a veteran undercover agent with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, had played an important role in Operation Diamondback between 1998 and 2001. The sting operation involved a group of Middle Eastern men living in New Jersey who were caught on tape in an ATF weapons sting conspiring to buy millions of dollars of weapons including components for nuclear bombs. The case came to a screeching halt with the arrest of only a handful of suspects in June of 2001 even though there was ample evidence that some of the people who were attempting to buy these weapons had connections with the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden himself. The 9/11 Commission refused to contact Agent Stoltz despite all attempts made by several witnesses from the intelligence & Law Enforcement Communities, and the 9/11 Family group, Jersey Moms.

Bogdan Dzakovic, Former Red Team Leader; FAA - Mr. Dzakovic had worked for the Security Division of the Federal Aviation Administration since 1987 as a Special Agent, as a Team Leader in the Federal Air Marshals, and from 1995 until September 11, 2001 was a Team Leader of the Red Team (terrorist team). Mr. Dzakovic had tried for several years prior to the 9-11 attacks to improve aviation security in the face of the ever-increasing terrorist threat. He provided the 9/11 Commission with his testimony and documented reports. His testimony and report to the Commission was completely omitted from the final report.

Linda Lewis, Retired Emergency Programs Specialist; USDA - Ms. Lewis worked for 13 years evaluating and coordinating federal, state and local preparedness for nuclear, radiological and chemical weapons emergencies. Prior to September 11, 2001, she had reported numerous inadequacies and dysfunctions in emergency preparedness, including a culture of intimidation that discouraged federal evaluators from reporting inadequacies in state and local plans and preparedness. USDA officials had thwarted her efforts to bring in terrorism experts to help the agency prepare for attacks on federal buildings, including bio-weapons attacks such as the anthrax attacks of 2001. In vain, she had urged FEMA officials to develop a national emergency communications plan and require interoperability of federally funded emergency communications equipment. In the absence of these preparations, New York City firefighters and police officers were unable to communicate critical information on September 11 at the World Trade Center. Ms. Lewis contacted the Commission and offered to provide information regarding dysfunctional government preparedness, but the Commission never responded.

Mark Burton, Senior Analyst; NSA – Mr. Burton served as an all-source threat analyst in NSA’s Information Assurance Directorate (IAD) for most of his 16-year career. He was the editor of IAD’s premier threat document; the 300+ page ISSO Global Threat Summary, and was an adjunct faculty member at NSA’s National Cryptologic School. He provided dozens of pages of relevant information to the 9/11 Commission, but was completely ignored and never asked to testify.

The above list does not include many others from the intelligence and law enforcement communities who had similarly contacted or reported to the commission but had been either turned away or censored, and of course many others’ who are still working within these agencies and are fearful of making their identities known, due to the relentless pursuit of and retaliation against whistleblowers by government agencies.

No I didn't. I said tax payer money shouldn't be used for a new investigation. Why? Because truthers can't say who should carry out said investigation, agree on what should be investigated, etc..., etc.... because if truthers could, thruthers would.
Truthers don't have subpoena power or the leverage of enforcing consequences. The 9/11 commission was also limited in this regard by the president. That's what needs to be different.

Alright then.

Right on!

Because when I first heard about these theories I asked some of my colluges at FSU and FAMU who were engineering, architecture, and Poli-Sci professors and they saw nothing wrong with it.

I also talked to some people. It's still a debated topic.

Well yes. If I believed or even half-seriously thought that the US government was involved in 9/11 or willfully ignored warnings to allow it to happen I'd be there now. Are the victims not worth it?

They're worth whatever you can do. I do what I can.
 
Good that brings us back to the original post. You believe if a terrorist act like the original or better yet a brand spanking new one attempted today under this same administration would be stopped dead in its tracks?

Really???

Where do you get that faith? What has Michael Chertoff's gut been telling him lately? Is Al Queda regrouped or not? How did that happen in this all very affective war on terror?

You're barely being coherent here. He said a similar attack, i.e. using hijacked aircraft as directed missiles against ground targets. He did not say say anything about one being better than the original (whatever that means). And what does any of this have to do with Michael Chertoff and his gut reactions, or whether Al Qaeda has regrouped or not? Please try to make sense.
 
Good that brings us back to the original post. You believe if a terrorist act like the original or better yet a brand spanking new one attempted today under this same administration would be stopped dead in its tracks?

Really???


Yes. In fact, several have already.




Where do you get that faith? What has Michael Chertoff's gut been telling him lately? Is Al Queda regrouped or not? How did that happen in this all very affective war on terror?


Michael Chertoff's gut is irrelevant. Michael Chertoff's gut doesn't protect the USA from terrorist attacks. If 9/11 happened today improved fireproofing would prevent floor trusses sagging under heat. If 9/11 happened today fire-hardened stairwells would allow everyone in the buildings to evacuate. If 9/11 happened today all four flights would be shot down by NORAD before reaching their targets. If 9/11 happened today the passengers would fight back immediately. If 9/11 happened today the flight crew wouldn't let anyone into the cockpit, no matter what. If 9/11 happened today the hijackers would never make it on the plane. If 9/11 happened today the hijackers would be picked up by a tip from a flight school instructor. If 9/11 happened today the hijackers would never make it into the country.

You get the idea.

-Gumboot
 
Not all structural engineers and architects agree. Most don't weigh in at all.

Then the ones on your side should start their investigation.



There are FBI who were left out of the 911 commission report who have things to say about it officially. There just no one to officially listen to them.
snip...
I bet they would have some good info for an investigation. Why have none of the truthers done it?


Truthers don't have subpoena power or the leverage of enforcing consequences. The 9/11 commission was also limited in this regard by the president. That's what needs to be different.

And you trust who to carry that out?


Right on!

You are not allowed to say that without the fro.:p



I also talked to some people. It's still a debated topic.

Yeah and you side hasn't convinced me.



They're worth whatever you can do. I do what I can.

As do we.
 
Yes. In fact, several have already.

Yes I particularly remember the liquid bomb one that came out right around the time Rove had to go back and correct his Plame testimony. Whatever happened about those liquid bombs? As I remember they never even had any explosives but I was still delayed two hours at the airport.

Michael Chertoff's gut is irrelevant. Michael Chertoff's gut doesn't protect the USA from terrorist attacks. If 9/11 happened today improved fireproofing would prevent floor trusses sagging under heat. If 9/11 happened today fire-hardened stairwells would allow everyone in the buildings to evacuate. If 9/11 happened today all four flights would be shot down by NORAD before reaching their targets. If 9/11 happened today the passengers would fight back immediately. If 9/11 happened today the flight crew wouldn't let anyone into the cockpit, no matter what. If 9/11 happened today the hijackers would never make it on the plane. If 9/11 happened today the hijackers would be picked up by a tip from a flight school instructor. If 9/11 happened today the hijackers would never make it into the country.

You get the idea.

The point being is Chertoff can make any kind of assertion about a Ghost no one can see. How do you dispute something imaginary like a gut feeling about a ghost? Like I said nothing tangible.
 
So it should be taken to mean the opposite?
People speak (and write) in analogies, metaphors, and similies all the time. Most folks can understand the difference between a phrasing being used to describe something which is not to be taken at its literal meaning.

Simple example: any time someone is mad at somebody and says, "I'm gonna kill him!" With your literalist interpretation the police would have to be brought in every single time anyone uttered that phrase since your literalism would classify it as a death threat.

When’s the next draft due?
Dealt with already. Try re-reading my reply.

No one has anything significant to add.
I've added to it. I put something there that I thought you'd find at least somewhat provocative and worthy of a comment. I also have a host of links with hard data and facts to support my points. I haven't posted them as yet because A) there's a huge amount of info so it'd be quite a long post to write up, and B) I don't want to put that much effort into a reply unless there is some interest from forum members in the topic. If even you aren't going to return to the topic, then it would seem interest has waned. Which means, sadly, all the great material I've amassed will go unused.

Rest assured that material paints the issue as mostly protectionism and xenophobia. At the very least it shows that the U.S. is quite untrustworthy when it comes to living up to the terms of signed trade agreements.
 
Last edited:
People speak (and write) in analogies, metaphors, and similies all the time. Most folks can understand the difference between a phrasing being used to describe something which is not to be taken at its literal meaning.

Simple example: any time someone is mad at somebody and says, "I'm gonna kill him!" With your literalist interpretation the police would have to be brought in every single time anyone uttered that phrase since your literalism would classify it as a death threat.

No. This is not the case. He states clearly that he doesn't think for a minute they got everything right and points to time constraints as one problem and that they did the best they could. By stating "first draft" he's admitting there is at least more that could have, should have, and hopefully will be done in the future. I'm not entirely faulting them I think the commission was a good idea and most of the people had good intentions for the most part. It was just too little and could have been put together and executed much better and still can be.

Dealt with already. Try re-reading my reply.

Yes by historians. It would be sad to see the 9/11 commission report meet with the same infamous legacy as the Warren Commission.

I've added to it. I put something there that I thought you'd find at least somewhat provocative and worthy of a comment. I also have a host of links with hard data and facts to support my points. I haven't posted them as yet because A) there's a huge amount of info so it'd be quite a long post to write up, and B) I don't want to put that much effort into a reply unless there is some interest from forum members in the topic. If even you aren't going to return to the topic, then it would seem interest has waned. Which means, sadly, all the great material I've amassed will go unused.

Rest assured that material paints the issue as mostly protectionism and xenophobia. At the very least it shows that the U.S. is quite untrustworthy when it comes to living up to the terms of signed trade agreements.

I will check it out but like I said I'm waiting to see what happens with this funding issue. Protectionism? Maybe but that's not always a bad thing. Xenophobia? I disagree. America is a free country but it's not the world’s public toilet. It has borders and laws that are valid. How about your house? Do you ever lock the door?
 
Zen, what action are you recommending to deal with this situation? I'm a U.S. citizen.

Are you suggesting that I should vote for somebody other than George W. Bush in the next presidential election? (Because, not to give away too much private political information, I was probably going to do that anyhow.)

Do you have more specific voting recommendations than that? Is there a candidate or a party you wish me to support?

Are there products you think I should be boycotting? Investments you want me to avoid, or divest if I'm already bought in?

Do you want me to blow something up, or to kill someone? (Just to be clear: I'm not offering to do so, I'm merely asking if that is something you would want me to do.)

I'm asking this because people like you come here over and over and ask me to believe certain things. "So and so is responsible for such and such, and plans to do this and that in the future, and then won't you be sorry you didn't believe me."

But belief is immaterial unless it motivates action. If the beliefs you want me to adopt mean anything, then I assume that if I believe you but do nothing, you think I will be just as sorry as if I didn't believe you at all. So supposing I believed everything that you claim, what action would you wish of me? What must I do, in order to not regret my inaction in the future?

Please note that "help you spread your belief" doesn't really answer the question. That might indeed be what you most want from me specifically, in the short term, but the question still remains what action you would desire from all of those to whom the belief is ultimately spread. Also, please avoid vague verbs like telling me to "support" something. Tell me the tangible form such "support" should take: voting, donating, boycotting, investing, divesting, bombing, singing, digging, etc.

Respectfully,
Myriad


I notice, ZENSMACK89, that you haven’t yet addressed this issue. It’s rather an important one.
 
Yes I particularly remember the liquid bomb one that came out right around the time Rove had to go back and correct his Plame testimony. Whatever happened about those liquid bombs? As I remember they never even had any explosives but I was still delayed two hours at the airport.

Should I take this to mean you don't like tighter airport security? Do you think liquid explosives are not real?

This seems like you don't like security changes based on suspicions. Don't feel bad no one does that's why the much tighter security need to stop 9/11 would never have been implemented without 9/11, The US population would have reacted exactly like you have. (I'm a US citizen)
 
I notice, ZENSMACK89, that you haven’t yet addressed this issue. It’s rather an important one.
Sorry it took me a couple times to read it all the way through without falling asleep. I'm not trying to get you to believe anything that is an assumption of yours to work out. Though some of them might be debated the history of events listed in the OP are well documented by other sources then me.

I'm asking given their track record where does the faith come from to support their version of events?

Will you be specifically addressing this anytime soon?
 
Should I take this to mean you don't like tighter airport security? Do you think liquid explosives are not real?

This seems like you don't like security changes based on suspicions. Don't feel bad no one does that's why the much tighter security need to stop 9/11 would never have been implemented without 9/11, The US population would have reacted exactly like you have. (I'm a US citizen)
You should take it as I don't think they should be stockpiling possible terrorist threats to whip out every time they need to divert the news. For one.
 
Sorry it took me a couple times to read it all the way through without falling asleep. I'm not trying to get you to believe anything that is an assumption of yours to work out. Though some of them might be debated the history of events listed in the OP are well documented by other sources then me.

I'm asking given their track record where does the faith come from to support their version of events?

Will you be specifically addressing this anytime soon?


None of what you have said here addresses Myriad’s post in any way. You have merely tried to evade it. Further, I have answered you original question and addressed your subsequent one three times or more.
 
Sorry it took me a couple times to read it all the way through without falling asleep.


I'm sorry to hear that, Zen. Information to help you is available.

The Effects of Sleep Deprivation

...

Without adequate rest, the brain's ability to function quickly deteriorates. The brain works harder to counteract sleep deprivation effects, but operates less effectively: concentration levels drop, and memory becomes impaired.

Similarly, the brain's ability to problem solve is greatly impaired. Decision-making abilities are compromised, and the brain falls into rigid thought patterns that make it difficult to generate new problem-solving ideas. Insufficient rest can also cause people to have hallucinations.
(emphasis added)


Source: http://www.sleep-deprivation.com/articles/effects-of-sleep-deprivation/index.php

I'm not a medical professional (and I suggest you consult one if this is a chronic problem), but might I suggest a nap?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
You should take it as I don't think they should be stockpiling possible terrorist threats to whip out every time they need to divert the news. For one.
What makes you think "they" are stockpiling threats? You don't see this case as some group "testing the waters" of our security?

How did it detract from the Karl Rove story? You think only one thing can be covered at a time?

First "truthers" say 9/11 was an "inside job" because we didn't act on threats, now if we act on threats it's to detract from something else. Make up your minds.
 
America is a free country but it's not the world’s public toilet. It has borders and laws that are valid.
That's true. And, whether you like it or not, NAFTA is also the law of the land in the United States since it did sign that agreement, The U.S. is in violation of that law (and not just on the Mexican trucking issue, it's also in violation in regards to the tariffs being assessed on Canadian softwood lumber).
 
What makes you think "they" are stockpiling threats? You don't see this case as some group "testing the waters" of our security?

How did it detract from the Karl Rove story? You think only one thing can be covered at a time?

First "truthers" say 9/11 was an "inside job" because we didn't act on threats, now if we act on threats it's to detract from something else. Make up your minds.

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/6976

Olbermann finishes with this closing statement...

Olbermann: "In all fairness, as we observed last October, and we observe again tonight, we could possibly construct a similar time line of terror events and warnings and their relationship to the opening of new chain stores around the country. But if merely a reasonable case could be made that any of these juxtapositions of events are more than just coincidence, especially the one last week in which terror policy was again injected directly into a political race. It underscores the need for questions to be asked in this country, questions about what is prudence and what is fear-mongering."
 

Back
Top Bottom