Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?

[beachnut]

... whose burning questions have been ignored ...
It's FUBAR, man, the cards we've been dealt.

You ignore all the questions, or answer with BS.

Please list the burning questions. You can leave out the BS, and FUBAR nonsense.

Quick list. You also ignored the what was torn to shreds...

The first official narrative, in so many regards, was torn to shreds by later revelations.

Looks like you are more like the government than the government is.
What was the first narrative?
How was it torn to shreds?


Where is the list of burning questions?
Explain in great detail the "first official narrative", and what was torn to shreds?

 

[Jango]

Alright, here's some sugar for that sweet tooth -- "Nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale." President Bush. He lied. "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. She lied. "No specific threat involving really a domestic operation or involving what happened, obviously—the cities, airliner and so forth." Vice President Cheney. He lied. The F.B.I. Director said he was unaware of the hijackers receiving flight training in the CONUS -- well, folks in his agency certainly knew about it. "No one could imagine someone being willing to commit suicide, being willing to use an airplane as a lethal weapon." FAA Administrator Jane Garvey. She lied. "You hate to admit it, but we hadn’t thought about this." General Richard Myers. He lied. "n the heads of three or four people." C.I.A. Director George Tenet. He lied. "The most important failure was one of imagination." 9/11 Commission. They lied.

(If you've got Google Chrome, highlight the text and then right click and click on Search Google for)

 

[beachnut]

Alright, here's some sugar for that sweet tooth -- "Nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale." President Bush. He lied. "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. She lied. "No specific threat involving really a domestic operation or involving what happened, obviously—the cities, airliner and so forth." Vice President Cheney. He lied. The F.B.I. Director said he was unaware of the hijackers receiving flight training in the CONUS -- well, folks in his agency certainly knew about it. "No one could imagine someone being willing to commit suicide, being willing to use an airplane as a lethal weapon." FAA Administrator Jane Garvey. She lied. "You hate to admit it, but we hadn’t thought about this." General Richard Myers. He lied. "n the heads of three or four people." C.I.A. Director George Tenet. He lied. "The most important failure was one of imagination." 9/11 Commission. They lied.

(If you've got Google Chrome, highlight the text and then right click and click on Search Google for)

LOL, political BS, who cares what Bush said, or Condi. And how do you conclude George Tenet lied? Is that your opinion, or a plagiarized 911 truth tagline.

Quote Mining, the stuff of CTs. What does it mean? You can quote mine but can't make anything to go with it; If these are your legitimate reasons to question the official narrative (a broad narrative at that), they are BS quote mining which don't support much.

Who cares what Bush said before or after. Wow, you can google up quote-mines which mean? nothing - what do the quote mine dots lead to

NORAD had by this time put fighter jets in the air in case other hijacked planes posed threats. "It was initially pretty confusing," Myers said. "You hate to admit it, but we hadn't thought about this."

They had not thought about people killing their way in a most brutal way to the cockpit and killing the pilots on the spot - I guess you and 911 truth did, and failed to take action to change how suspected hijackings were handled.

What did Myers lie about? List each lie and explain what it means; with sources; google some good stuff up. You are 13 years behind.

On 911 I saw the impact of the first plane, like Bush, and are you going to recycle that BS; when we leave out where, we saw where the first plane impacted. When I saw/heard of a second plane, I thought about UBL buying planes and doing the deed - but time will tell (oops, I was right, but wrong about who owned the planes) - could have been like OKC - who did it, time will tell.

I am interested, yet you bring old BS, revive old thread, make up a failed poll which is too broad to answer without and explanation. Planet X option is not offered.

What did Myers lie about; and does it make a difference?
It was cool how many USAF people rushed to based to help ready planes on 911, and pilots ready to fly; actually faster than what procedures were at the time sort of; commanders are allowed to exercise judgement in emergencies and take action. It does not matter what the President did on 911, or Myers, the rest of the USAF, and NORAD can act based on their oath.

Where is your burning questions from the Jersey Girls?

burning questions have been ignored like the Jersey Girls

List them. And explain what difference it makes? And add the extra burning questions you imply are being ignored, other than the Jersey Girls. Two lists.

BTW, the FBI was conducting a full blown biggest investigation in history for 911 starting on 911 - so talks of not doing an investigation are at best misleading. How long did it take to start the investigation on 911, about zero time, as soon as it was known to be an attack, the FBI started.

 

[Jango]

LOL, political BS, who cares what Bush said, or Condi. And how do you conclude George Tenet lied? Is that your opinion, or a plagiarized 911 truth tagline.

Quote Mining, the stuff of CTs. What does it mean? You can quote mine but can't make anything to go with it; If these are your legitimate reasons to question the official narrative (a broad narrative at that), they are BS quote mining which don't support much.

Who cares what Bush said before or after. Wow, you can google up quote-mines which mean? nothing - what do the quote mine dots lead to

1. Yes, unfortunately it involves politics, and if you don't like it, find somethin' else to talk about then.

2. Re:Tenet -- there were four hijackers, right? Well, Tenet said three-or-four, so four hijackers debunks the 'three' in Tenet's statement. Okay, then we've got KSM and OBL and his right hand man, al-Zawahiri, are natural gimmes, obviously. So we're up to seven now, so that debunks three-or-four right outta the gate.

3. Look at the barrage of silly terms -- quote-mining. Please. You asked me to show you what I meant when I said the first official narrative was torn to shreds, and I've done just that 'cause the first official narrative was one of ignorance -- We Never Thought Of Planes Being Used As Weapons. That's patently false. It also happens to torpedo the argument that 9/11 Was A Surprise Attack Like Pearl Harbor. It wasn't. The first instincts of our government at the time was to lie its ass off, and the dust hadn't even settled yet in NYC.

 

[Spanx]

At least it's comforting to know that terrorism doesn't exist and if it did exist the government would know all about it and put a stop to it before the crime was committed.

 

[Meed]

Alright, here's some sugar for that sweet tooth -- "Nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale." President Bush. He lied. "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. She lied. "No specific threat involving really a domestic operation or involving what happened, obviously—the cities, airliner and so forth." Vice President Cheney. He lied. The F.B.I. Director said he was unaware of the hijackers receiving flight training in the CONUS -- well, folks in his agency certainly knew about it. "No one could imagine someone being willing to commit suicide, being willing to use an airplane as a lethal weapon." FAA Administrator Jane Garvey. She lied. "You hate to admit it, but we hadn’t thought about this." General Richard Myers. He lied. "n the heads of three or four people." C.I.A. Director George Tenet. He lied. "The most important failure was one of imagination." 9/11 Commission. They lied.

Assuming you are correct, what does any of that prove exactly?

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Look at the barrage of silly terms -- quote-mining.

I'm sure other forum members will address your other points, so (as I'm something of a pedant) I'll talk you through quote-mining.

It's definitely not a 'silly term', it's a real thing:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

It's also a conspiracy theorist's bread and butter, and it's what you're doing in this thread to support your polemicky thingumabob. Here's a good example:

Alright, here's some sugar for that sweet tooth -- "Nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale." President Bush. He lied. "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. She lied. "No specific threat involving really a domestic operation or involving what happened, obviously—the cities, airliner and so forth." Vice President Cheney. He lied. The F.B.I. Director said he was unaware of the hijackers receiving flight training in the CONUS -- well, folks in his agency certainly knew about it. "No one could imagine someone being willing to commit suicide, being willing to use an airplane as a lethal weapon." FAA Administrator Jane Garvey. She lied. "You hate to admit it, but we hadn’t thought about this." General Richard Myers. He lied. "n the heads of three or four people." C.I.A. Director George Tenet. He lied. "The most important failure was one of imagination." 9/11 Commission. They lied.

A string of soundbites, presented in such a way as to obfuscate their precise origin and context, and peppered with assumption ('He lied', 'She lied', They lied')

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Assuming you are correct, what does any of that prove exactly?

Nothing, naturally.

A quick search for that paragraph as it appears in Jango's post returns one result, which is this thread.

Perhaps Jango will give us the precise source?

 

[Jango]

At least it's comforting to know that terrorism doesn't exist and if it did exist the government would know all about it and put a stop to it before the crime was committed.

Terrorism is still terrorism whether a government knows it is coming or not.

 

[Jango]

Nothing, naturally.

A quick search for that paragraph as it appears in Jango's post returns one result, which is this thread.

Perhaps Jango will give us the precise source?

Sure, highlight the quotes and Google 'em.

 

[Jango]

I'm sure other forum members will address your other points, so (as I'm something of a pedant) I'll talk you through quote-mining.

It's definitely not a 'silly term', it's a real thing:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

It's also a conspiracy theorist's bread and butter, and it's what you're doing in this thread to support your polemicky thingumabob. Here's a good example:




A string of soundbites, presented in such a way as to obfuscate their precise origin and context, and peppered with assumption ('He lied', 'She lied', They lied')

Except they're not assumptions -- they *did* lie.

 

[Spanx]

Sure, highlight the quotes and Google 'em.

Is this sounding familiar to anyone ?

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Sure, highlight the quotes and Google 'em.

Except they're not assumptions -- they *did* lie.

1. So you accept that quote mining is a real thing, and you acknowledge that that's what you're doing?


2. How do you know that they lied? As in deliberately set out to misinform? The 'He lied', 'She lied', They lied' bits are your additions.


3. As cornsail said above; Assuming you are correct, what does any of that prove exactly?

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Is this sounding familiar to anyone ?

I couldn't possibly comment

 

[beachnut]

1. Yes, unfortunately it involves politics, and if you don't like it, find somethin' else to talk about then.

When will you list those burning questions you claim are ignored. It is politics, and guess what, it is BS. List the questions; explain why it matters answered or not.

2. Re:Tenet -- there were four hijackers, right? Well, Tenet said three-or-four, so four hijackers debunks the 'three' in Tenet's statement. Okay, then we've got KSM and OBL and his right hand man, al-Zawahiri, are natural gimmes, obviously. So we're up to seven now, so that debunks three-or-four right outta the gate.

???, lol, 3 or 4. Wow, you are petty at this; and it means... nothing. It was 19, guess Tenet can't count; wait, you are talking about more BS. That is pretty weak stuff. This is gish gallop of nothingness.

3. Look at the barrage of silly terms -- quote-mining. Please. You asked me to show you what I meant when I said the first official narrative was torn to shreds, and I've done just that 'cause the first official narrative was one of ignorance -- We Never Thought Of Planes Being Used As Weapons. That's patently false. It also happens to torpedo the argument that 9/11 Was A Surprise Attack Like Pearl Harbor. It wasn't. The first instincts of our government at the time was to lie its ass off, and the dust hadn't even settled yet in NYC.

You failed to show anything. You string quotes together, cry liars, and run off not proving it.

911 was a surprise attack, but not like Pearl Harbor; the Japanese brought their own planes.

911 was a surprise attack, unless you take the warning in the 90s as the "you knew it was coming as your use 20/20 hindsight and back in BS".

Which part of 911 was not a surprize to you? Have you seen people attack fight crew and cut their throats in seconds, so they can not bother with being stopped. Kind of cruel, to kill pilots in place when they are still in their seats; but if you don't, they can disable the plane, and most likely the terrorist have no experience gliding, they were poor pilots, and I have evidence based on their flying.

You failed to define the first narrative, and explain how it was torn to shreds. The first official narrative I remember was 19 terrorist took four planes; yet I cheat and base my official narrative on facts and evidence, not conjecture before the final score is in; oh it looks like FSU will beat the Ducks,,,, ops, wait for the final score please...

What are you talking about; your post makes no sense and fails to define the first official narrative.

Yes, you were stringing together disjointed BS quote mines which don't support anything close to a first narrative torn to shreds. You left out the meaning, and never made a conclusion past an opinion Myers lied; and failed to mention Myers; are you saving that one; google it up yet.

What was Myers lie, and how does it fit in your claims.

The other posters are much better than I at explaining and hitting bad pitches out of the park...

 

[paloalto]

* = Official narrative being the 9/11 Commission Report, the 2002 Joint Congressional Investigation Report, the F.B.I.'s investigation, NIST's reports, etc etc other government sponsored reports and/or investigations as well the statements of government workers and the leadership.

So, in your opinion, is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative?


1. Yes
2. No
3. Undecided

The quote/unquote official narrative is the 9/11 Commission report. But we now know that the 9/11 Commission report was a complete fraud.

Realistically the only accurate narrative of the information at the CIA and FBI HQ prior to the attacks on 9/11 is found in only one or two books, books that are based on the following information:

The DOJ IG report, aggregated with the Defense Exhibits from the Moussaoui trial and this information combined with the book "Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright, the book "State of Denial", by Bob Woodward, the article in January 2007 in Harpers by Ken Silverstein on Richard Blee, the 9/11 Time Line by Paul Thompson, the Wikileaks document at the New York Times that is the charge sheet from Guantanamo for Hambali. And even one single footnote from the 9/11 Commission report that shows that FBI HQ had deliberately sabotaged the one investigation that could have stopped the attacks on 9/11.

Without all of this information, no one could have reconstructed the complete narrative of why the 9/11 attacks were allowed to happen.

 

[Oystein]

...
Without all of this information, no one could have reconstructed the complete narrative of why the 9/11 attacks were allowed to happen.

The way you word this sounds as if someone had actually "reconstructed the complete narrative of why the 9/11 attacks were allowed to happen"
Who?
Where is this available?
Can you give us a summary?

ETA: Nevermind, just found your post in the other thread

 

[Axxman300]

Yeah...I'm just going to point out that the DoD closed off all of our military bases to the public in May, 2001, in anticipation of a possible terror attack. I know this because they said that's why they were doing it.

The State Department issued a travel warning for that summer stating that Al Qaeda was planning to hijack passenger planes. DoS thought this would happen in the Med, or Middle East.

In an interview with a mid-level Al Qaeda operator in July, 2001, he said AQ was planning to hit the US "soon".

The closest anybody came was the State Department, whose warning ended on September 1, 2001. They were hearing "Hijacking", and yet not a single truther has ever tracked down this BLATANT FACT to its source information.

So I will say it again to any Truther who is serious about "getting to the bottom" of what the US Government knew before 9-11:

TRACK DOWN THE SOURCE FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT TRAVEL WARNING FOR THE SUMMER OF 2001. Somebody had enough information to issue the warning, and that's a huge deal at State.

I won't hold my breath though...

 

[Meed]

Assuming you are correct, what does any of that prove exactly?

Bumping in case you missed this question, Jango.

 

[paloalto]

The way you word this sounds as if someone had actually "reconstructed the complete narrative of why the 9/11 attacks were allowed to happen"
Who?
Where is this available?
Can you give us a summary?

ETA: Nevermind, just found your post in the other thread

Just for completeness for other bloggers:

I am the one that put this information together and reconstructed the complete narrative of why the 9/11 attacks were allowed to happen. This effort started at the April 14, 2004, 9/11 Commission Public hearings in the Hart Senate office building after I sat just behind George Tenet and heard him lie directly not only to the 9/11 Commission but to all of the American people, and continued for 3-4 years but as new inforamtion comes out, is still continuing today.

A summary is available in on JREF 9/11 in post #609 in the blog "deliberate obstruction by the CIA of pre-9/11 investigations"?

Here is a short summary:


The CIA moved Tom Wilshire, a high level CIA manage, over to the FBI HQ to be Deputy Chief of the ITOS unit in mid-May, 2001 just after the CIA had received a request from FBI Agent Ali Soufan, asking if the CIA had any information on Walid bin Attash or any al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur. It is now clear that Wilshire was moved over to spy of the FBI Cole bombing investigators and find out what they knew about the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting. Did they know that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at this meeting with Walid bin Attash actually planning the Cole bombing? We know this because as soon as Wilshire got to the FBI ITOS unit, he obtained three photos from the CIA of Khalid al-Mihdhar taken at Kuala Lumpur, and then enlisted FBI IOS Agent Dina Corsi to set up a meeting with Soufan’s own people in the New York FBI field office, to show them these photos to see what they knew about Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Corsi sets up this meeting for June 11, 2001, and passed out the three Kuala Lumpur photos of Mihdhar that Wilshire had obtained from the CIA. At that point Clarke Shannon who was Wilshire’s protégée, when Wilshire was at the CIA bin Laden unit asked FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, and his team, did they recognize anyone in these photos?

Apparently Wilshire did not trust Corsi enough at this time to have her ask this question. Bongardt and his team said they did not know who the people in the photos were. Bongardt then followed up with a question; who are these people and what did they have to do with the Cole bombing? Shannon and Corsi said they could give Bongardt this information due to the wall, which we now know was nothing but a complete fiction. The wall never applied if there was any evidence of a crime and the CIA already knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi had take part in the crime of planning the Cole bombing at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting, and even knew that everyone at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting were al Qaeda terrorists connected to the east Africa bombings. ......................