Ed Moving On is coming.

[Moving On]

I, too, am appalled by all the bureacratic stonewalling and ass-covering in the aftermath of 9/11.

That does not negate the overwhelming evidence that intelligent, determined Islamist terrorists with a simple, effective plan attacked the U.S. on 9/11 and caught the Giant, if not exactly sleeping, at least groggy.

ETA: It's important to remember that the Commission report is primarily a summary of the largest criminal investigations, by far, in U.S. history. To me, the most interesting details are in the footnotes more than in the body of the report.

I believe your first paragraph indicates the valid position of people who would like to see the matter reopened.

I know you haven't said this personally but some here have referred to this as complex enough to be responsible for generating a mountain of peculiarities, coincidences and anomalies.

After what the chair and vice chair have declared in the highlights and excerpts I have read from the book I believe the term "investigations" may be used loosely but not accurately per the definition of the word.

If you go and look at the FBI website here http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/aa77/77.htm I do not consider that page or the pages related to it for the other three aircraft the result of a serious investigation.

Since the NTSB was precluded from doing comprehensive reports we will also have to limit the true meaning of the word "investigations" here. Consider that the FBI could have retained full jurisdictional control and supported the NTSB in performing the normally required crash investigations. One does not preclude the other.

I also do not regard the ASCE report on the Pentagon the result of a serious investigation either. The details of that can be read in the following link mostly in quotes from the report itself. http://www.pentagonresearch.com/bps.html

At what point will we be able to mutually consent that both skeptics and CT's are not dealing with confirmed, verified facts and thus are operating on indirect evidence interpreted through diametrically opposed belief systems only?

Russell

 

[DavidJames]

David James,

No I have not read the book. Just highlights and excerpts.

The fact that 19 unaware Arabs may have been involved is not something I dismiss.

If the cover up involved how this happened then at the very least we do not have the details to factually dismiss a LIHOP scenario.

Russell

Why am I not surprised you haven't read the book which you use to discredit the 9/11 report?

Have you contacted the authors to find out their thoughts on the LIHOP scenario, I'm sure they would love to know they have an avid reader of excerpts their book who then use those excerpts to suggest their government murdered 3000 innocent people.

Why not spend some time actually reading the things you, with a wave of your hand, simply dismiss (9/11 report) or in the case of the Kean and Hamilton book, use to bolster what appears to me to be a firmly held belief? Then after you've read them, you can tell us exactly the problems you have, support it with evidence and begin a debate?

 

[Moving On]

Mince,

You seemingly lack the intellectual capacity to either research the significance of the above poll or understand the scientific implications derived from such research.

That was kind of harsh but I understand your frustration.

So then are we disregarding the science of polls developed over years via mathematical algorithms and practical experience? Does this cast doubt on the NY Times and CBS as sources of information in this discussion?

Here is a link to the poll without interpretation by the people you disagree with.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469

Please don't bring up the 2000 election exit polls as an example. That will just open another nasty can of worms and throw this discussion off course.

If we keep dismissing reports, eyewitnesses, polls and the other various forms of gathering evidence here, pretty soon we will be in an empty room discussing nothing.

Russell

 

[Moving On]

David James,

Why am I not surprised you haven't read the book which you use to discredit the 9/11 report?

Am I to interpret this as meaning that me not reading the whole book is now considered direct evidence that the USG 19 Arab conspiracy is a fact?

I have realized (is realization valid?) that many of the responses to me here would indicate that some here have not even fully read the posts I have written let alone the links to information I have provided.

Does that prove my case is fact?

David - have you completely read all of the materials referenced here in this thread?

I was honest.

Russell

 

[Moving On]

TAM and DHR,

I appreciate your noticing the workload here.

Right now I feel the highest priority is to determine what and what is not regarded as firm evidence.

Then as I go back I will have a better idea of how to respond.

The other option is for us all to admit the simplicity of the fact that neither side has anything like direct provable evidence and should not pretend to.

Then we can just freely discuss various factors without the pressure of false standards of evidence looming over us.

Russell

 

[WildCat]

I agree with you in principal that 19 people who did not realize they were being facilitated may have been involved in the operation. But their identities are not a fact until the FBI positively confirms the 5 bodies they are in currently in possession of for a start. Redundantly confirmed by a neutral laboratory.

I addressed this earlier in this thread, but you may have missed it in the clutter (sorry Killtown hijacked it so). We have the DNA profiles of all the hijackers, equal in number to the suspects identified through the passenger manifests. But you do know what the next step is to make a positive match between the DNA profiles and actual names, don't you? You compare them to close relatives - sisters, brothers, parents. Thus far, those relatives have refused to provide a comparative DNA sample. And until they do, the bodies will remain technically "unidentified".

eta: I have a lot of other points, but in respect to the amount of people peppering you w/ questions here I'll defer them.

 

[LashL]

TAM and DHR,

I appreciate your noticing the workload here.

Right now I feel the highest priority is to determine what and what is not regarded as firm evidence.

Then as I go back I will have a better idea of how to respond.

The other option is for us all to admit the simplicity of the fact that neither side has anything like direct provable evidence and should not pretend to.

Then we can just freely discuss various factors without the pressure of false standards of evidence looming over us.

Russell

Completely understandable, but please don't forget the response to my post of two days ago that you promised

 

[Moving On]

We have the DNA profiles of all the hijackers, equal in number to the suspects identified through the passenger manifests. But you do know what the next step is to make a positive match between the DNA profiles and actual names, don't you? You compare them to close relatives - sisters, brothers, parents. Thus far, those relatives have refused to provide a comparative DNA sample. And until they do, the bodies will remain technically "unidentified".

eta: I have a lot of other points, but in respect to the amount of people peppering you w/ questions here I'll defer them.

Wildcat,

With respect is there documentation that the USG attempted to make this confirmation and that the families refused? I am not familiar with that.

Having the bodies positively identified at first appearance would not seem objectionable to the families. Martyrdom is regarded highly in that culture.

Yes I understand mitochondrial DNA analysis requires antecedent samples from the familial genetic pool.

Russell

 

[Mince]

Mince,



That was kind of harsh but I understand your frustration.

Yeah, it was kind of harsh, and, I probably misspoke. I apologize. I didn't mean "intellectual capacity." I meant you we're being intellectually dishonest, a fine distinction. Trust me, not too many people more than I respect your knowledge and ability to debate issues. But the recent release and interpretations of this poll anger me greatly.

"Oh look, 84% of Americans agree with me."

For a ridiculous (but proportionally relevant) analogy:

I ask one person in the state of Illinois who they would like to win Governor next month. That one person indicates he would like Rod Blagojevich to win. I then report that 100% of Illinois supports Rod Blagojevich. If you do no fact finding (and let's be honest, a lot of people don't) then you're apt to think this poll is representational.

So then are we disregarding the science of polls developed over years via mathematical algorithms and practical experience?

No, but we are recognizing the limits of such polls.

Does this cast doubt on the NY Times and CBS as sources of information in this discussion?

Not at all. They conducted the poll, reported the results and all of the relevant numbers. They did not use the poll as an ideological tool. They weren't trying to deceive anyone. They knew very well their sample size was too small; and they did not pretend otherwise.

Please don't bring up the 2000 election exit polls as an example. That will just open another nasty can of worms and throw this discussion off course.

Hadn't even though of it until you brought it up.

If we keep dismissing reports, eyewitnesses, polls and the other various forms of gathering evidence here, pretty soon we will be in an empty room discussing nothing.

But if we keep using such fraudulent documents and pseudo-scientific enterprises to support our discussion, then our debate becomes just as meaningless.

Here is a link to the poll without interpretation by the people you disagree with.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469

I've read that article many times. Quotation from that article:

Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News.

**emphasis added

Many? Many compared to what? From the article:

Sample Size: 983.

Hiding something: 53%
Mostly lying: 28%

That's 81%. Not 84%, because you cannot include the 3% undecided. So, 0.81 (81%) X 983 = 796. 796 is many? Sure, in a room full of 800 people, 796 is many. In a country of 300 million, 796 is not so many.




Anyway, as you said, I am hijacking. I apologize for the hijack and my tart response to you. Hopefully you can understand my frustration with this poll (as you seem to have, above) and forgive me.

 

[uk_dave]

Wildcat,

With respect is there documentation that the USG attempted to make this confirmation and that the families refused? I am not familiar with that.

Having the bodies positively identified at first appearance would not seem objectionable to the families. Martyrdom is regarded highly in that culture.

Yes I understand mitochondrial DNA analysis requires antecedent samples from the familial genetic pool.

Russell

I hate to jump in here and cause more work for russell but, honestly, why should we expect DNA identification of someone who has already been identified by other means?

As far as I can tell, the only reason any DNA was sought for the hijackers was so that their remains could be seperated from those of the innocent victims. That the authorities didn't persue the DNA identification further by approaching the terrorists families for samples does not strike me as odd or negligent.

If the families themselves wished to prove that their (presumeably missing) relative was not the criminal in question then perhaps they would seek to prove this by asking for their DNA to be compared, but as far as I am aware this has not happened.

Carry on.

 

[twinstead]

This thread reiterates to me one of the many fundamental differences that will almost always prevent any constructive dialog between the 'debunkers' and the 'CTs'--we can't even agree on what is acceptable evidence.

In that respect a lot of what this laymen believes is based on reading the works of as many true experts in relevant fields as I can. It becomes obvious very quickly to me that the overwhelming majority of people who REALLY know what they are talking about concerning controlled demolitions, structural engineering, etc think that although it may not be perfect (what historical record is?), the official story is the closest to what the evidence points to.

 

[Moving On]

LashL,

Completely understandable, but please don't forget the response to my post of two days ago that you said you would respond to.

If it's the last thing I do here I will.

It was thorough and requires time.

As a lead in I will tell you that my communications with Mr. Vialls prior to his passing away were not prosperous. I attempted to seek some documentaion from him, in particular some video he was alleged to be in possession of. His responses to me were not forthcoming and the evidence was never produced. This is not to disrespect him but a factual accounting of my experience with him.

The bulk of your response I agree with. I casually linked you to a site without qualifying the information in it I was referring you to. I also did not qualify that I disagreed with any of it. For that I am willing to pay the price I deserve.

Russell

 

[WildCat]

Wildcat,

With respect is there documentation that the USG attempted to make this confirmation and that the families refused? I am not familiar with that.

Having the bodies positively identified at first appearance would not seem objectionable to the families. Martyrdom is regarded highly in that culture.

Yes I understand mitochondrial DNA analysis requires antecedent samples from the familial genetic pool.

Russell

Apparently many of the families don't want to think their little angels are martyrs. And it should be pointed out that not all (in fact very few, relatively speaking) of Muslims consider the 9/11 attacks legitimate acts of martyrdom.

I don't have time to find more right now (going out to play hold 'em) but the NYT reported a little in this Sept. 14, 2003 article (registration required):

One senior law enforcement official said efforts to seek interviews with the 9/11 hijackers' families had more recently "fallen through the cracks" in Washington. But he said that in the new openness between Saudi Arabia and the United States, augured by the August meetings, American officials might broach the issue again. Another American official in the Middle East said the Saudis offered limited cooperation by obtaining DNA samples from family members of some of the hijackers and turning them over to Americans to help in identifying the hijackers' remains.

I don't think all the relatives cooperated, perhaps someone else here can find more.

 

[LashL]

LashL,



If it's the last thing I do here I will.

It was thorough and requires time.

As a lead in I will tell you that my communications with Mr. Vialls prior to his passing away were not prosperous. I attempted to seek some documentaion from him, in particular some video he was alleged to be in possession of. His responses to me were not forthcoming and the evidence was never produced. This is not to disrespect him but a factual accounting of my experience with him.

The bulk of your response I agree with. I casually linked you to a site without qualifying the information in it I was referring you to. I also did not qualify that I disagreed with any of it. For that I am willing to pay the price I deserve.

Russell

Thanks.

I completely understand that you have a lot on your plate here so I won't post my revised version in which I have addressed additional errors and weaknesses in Mr. Vialls' article.

But if you don't mind, could you please send me a quick PM when you do post your response so that I don't miss it (since this thread is already lengthy and I expect it will get a lot longer very quickly )

 

[Moving On]

Mince,

Honest error on the 3%.

I do agree the poll has been misrepresented in some quarters of the 9/11 community. I have never disagreed that people there are unscrupulous at times.

I include the 9/11 Commission Report and the Pentagon Building Performance Report as fraudulent. One by admission and the latter by evidence.

I agree polls have been in error in the past. But the more established and reputable companies have determined what sampling bases are required for accuracy. A company prestigious enough to be hired by the NY Times and CBS is probably in this category.

Ultimately the doubt expressed in that poll doesn't prove 9/11 is a conspiracy - I agree. But it very much implicates the government for handling this very poorly. The void they have created IS going to be filled in with speculation. That is just nature.

All is forgiven. I still might snap and require forgiveness as well!!

Russell

 

[Moving On]

Wildcat,

Right now I see limited cooperation. I will wait for further info on this along with you.

Russell

 

[Moving On]

LashL,

You got it. Now my word is on the line so it is ensured.

Russell

 

[jon]

Mince,

I include the 9/11 Commission Report and the Pentagon Building Performance Report as fraudulent. One by admission and the latter by evidence.

Are you saying that the 9/11 Commission Report is fraudulent by admission? If so, I haven't seen this admission: some of the Commissioners believe some witnesses mislead them, and some Commissioners and staff expressed dissatisfaction with aspects of the investigation (I doubt anyone is happy with every word of the document). This doesn't make the report fraudulent, just imperfect (and, short of divine intervention, I don't see how a 'perfect' investigation into 9/11 would be possible).

 

[Moving On]

jon,

Fair distinction. They did not indicate the Report was fraudulent.

I do believe they indicate that some of the information in the report may be fraudulent and certainly incomplete.

My extrapolation.

But for me that is enough to wonder what is and isn't true.

Russell

 

[Pardalis]

Russell, as many have observed, I realize you are being bombarded with questions, so feel free to answer my question at your discretion.

I agree with you in principal that 19 people who did not realize they were being facilitated may have been involved in the operation.

So you agree that al Qaeda did attack America on 9/11 right?

But their identities are not a fact until the FBI positively confirms the 5 bodies they are in currently in possession of for a start.

A few people have adressed that question. But what about the 14 other highjackers? Don't you find this compelling evidence?

Here I find at least "speculation" and "gut feeling" from your own list to be valid ways of determining facts.

I do not. Sorry.

Blind trust in a government report in my opinion is not a way to determine facts either.

I am not blindly trusting the US government's report, but I find it compelling enough to have no doubt as to who perpetrated the attacks. I also agree with its conclusions that the US intelligence had major failures and many opportunities were missed that could have twarted the attacks.