Indisputable 911 coverup facts

[Edx]

How could I accuse him of lying if I don't even know what he said?

Then watch the interview before you try and tell me Im wrong.

Hey, the CIA said that mobiles laboritories were found. If you've got a problem with that ,take it up with them.

Blix said they didnt find any and it wasnt confirmed. But my point is Bush didnt ask them to make sure it was confirmed, he just went on TV and said it. They either have the WMDs and the mobiles laboratories, or they dont. It shoudnt take too long to confirm, but as usual Bush didnt hesitate to rush to state this uncomfirmed intelligence as if were.

Why would some be fired or reprimanded? Strange that you would ask me that. Weren't you just complaining about the possibility that no one has been held accountable?

You suggested maybe they had been fired or reprimanded, presumably without anyone being made aware about it, so I asked you what makes you think that. Is it just pure speculation? What dont you understand about the question?

Again, you're making a big deal out of nothing. They both were within their rights to inform the public of what they knew or believed in order to sell them on a potential invasion of Iraq.

[emphasis above, mine] Wow. Just look at what you just wrote. I thought they had a duty to make sure they were truthfull and accurate as far as they can be, but according to you they can say whatever they believe to be true, no matter how unconfirmed the intelligence is, and present it to the public as if it was a confirmed certianity for the purpose of selling them on an invasion of Iraq? The public assume, or expect their governmen who has access to classified intelligence, to be honest. They dont expect a load of spin you cant trust. If Bush says they know Saddam or Iran or whoever else has done this or that, they think well he's the president and all the other spokespeople in the administration are saying the same thing they must know whats going on and their the best people to know whats going on. I can trust that this is accurate and that they wouldnt say this without checking their facts. But you cant believe them now, you have to mistrust them and now you're defending their misleading spindoctor-style statements because you claim they have a right to say it if it can sell the idea of war! Oh, my!

The reason their memory happen to conviently "fail" is becuase they'd have had to address and defend their previous statements.

Speculative!

No, the fact is if they didnt claim they didnt say what we have them on record as saying, they would have to defend the reasons why they said it at the time, thats just a fact.

"

I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try and use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile" -Condoleezza Rice

I don't see that as backpeddling. I'm sorry but I just don't.

First of all this is about her claiming that no one could have imagined using airplanes as a weapons.

"If Condi Rice had been doing her job and holding those daily meetings the way Sandy Berger did, if she had a hands-on attitude to being national security adviser when she had information that there was a threat against the United States ... [the information] would have been shaken out in the summer of 2001,"
- Richard Clarke, President Bush's former counterterrorism chief on Larry King

Secondly, you fail to quote from the relevant part of her testimony. this is backpedelling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N62ZRjhIGX8

(and before someone discards the entire clip above because of the Ashcroft warning, yes I am aware that apparently that warning was about something else. )

Like what? They said that they couldn't imagine it. So what did George Bush and Ari Fleischer do that was more than just imagining planes being used to fly into buildings?

I already told you they had lots of intelligence from many different sources about planes being used as weapons. They had the August 6th PDB who not only said Bin Laden was gunning for Washington and in New York and that there had been suspicious activity consistent with preperations for hijackings, but two years before 911 NORAD conducted exercises simulating hijacked airliners used as weapons. They even had a third scenario where one of the targets was the Pentagon, but was not run due to it being deemed "unrealistic". It also appears Norad was running drills on 911 involving hijacked airliners. But according to you the Bush administrations statements are still true, no one not even in the prior government even imagined flying airplanes into buildings. Even though they had all this information and more still that I havent detailed here they still claimed complete and total ignorence to all of it.

They knew Bin Laden was determined to attack the US, they knew a specific place he wanted to attack, they knew what forms the attack might take and they knew the attack was imminent. How can they act like they didnt know anything, and worse, that never even imagined it?

if I was given 250 possible scenarios of terror attacks, that would have been one that I wouldn't have paid much heed or probably even remembered seeing it.

So the intelligence that the Bush administration jumped upon without questioning it or confirming it before they gushed it all over the international media regarding WMDs as if it were a sure certianty, the intelligence you're still defending even after its been shown to be unsupported and unreasonable, you're saying they were justified in ignoreing all these reports about Bin Laden launching an imminent massive attack that Bin Laden wanted to attack in Washington and that they have evidence of plans to use hijackings and were presently surveilling federal buildings in New York. Yet they cared so little and noticed so little of their intelligence that they couldnt even remember? And why was the NORAD responce such a failure? All that information and they still failed miserably to do anything about it but not only that when they defended themselves they state they had no idea about any planes and no warnings at all! Spin-doctoring is dishonest.

Nope! Already dealt with the memo. There's nothing in it that demonstrates that misleading and deceptive statements were made to justify a war.

No, all you did was palm me off to some website copy and pasting a link for me and ignore my responce to it. If you dont understand the Downing Street Memo enough for yourself then you should read it and research it a little better so you can talk about it in in your own words.

 

[Edx]

Edx,
Due to the other thread being locked. I would like to address your comments on the Popular Mechanics here.

Sure.

Note that I do not think the article is flawless nor the most up to date debunking available.

You claim the source is biased because it is owned by Hearst.
You have referenced Loose Change and Alex Jones.

Obviously arguing bias gets us nowhere. Address the evidence.

Hold on, you referenced Popular Mechanics while I sort of referenced Loose Change: Final Cut by briefly mentioning that it was a lot better and contained a lot less that Im critical about than the other error riddled versions, but never did I actually use it as a "reference" and I still havent exactly talked about it in a very favourable light. And as for Alex Jones, I said I agreed with him and Dylan Avery that the BBC Conspiracy files was a dishonest hit piece, which it certianly was. I only really referenced 911 Press for Truth, and only in the sence that I really would reccomend watching it. (edit: I used a clip from Press for Truth above but that was after you posted your comment)

And Popular Mechanics background, while of course not having any bearing on the evidence they present, is relevant to see how impartial they really are and can provide an explanation as to why they might behave in a certian way.

You seem to complain about debunkers addressing outlandish 911 theories. People still believe many of the things you find to be crazy or "strawmen". And many more would continue to believe them if the debunking were not done. You can still find new "no plane" videos on youtube. Complaining about this does not address the evidence.

The people that believe those things will continue to believe them anyway, and its not that they cant talk about those people, they are more than welcome to address those insane theories if they want to, but to present them as some kind general opinion to people that dont know better while at the same time ignoring much more soilid facts to show a coverup isnt honest or its at least, very sloppy.

You know what, I dont like it when someone makes arguments against "Creationists" but only attacking the Y in YEC and then concluding that - see - Creationists are wrong wrong wrong while not specifying that this still leaves OECs and Intelligent Design Creationists, which the arguments wouldnt have made any difference to. But to anyone looking at Creationism and Evolution for the first time might assume that all Creationists believe in a young earth.

Could you point me to the information about NORAD and domestic flight interception.

Heres one:

"Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD's alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged one per site, or less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites' total activity.\3 The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress."
- Continental Air Defense: A Dedicated Force Is No Longer Needed (Letter Report, 05/03/94, GAO/NSIAD-94-76)

This was written in 1994, so thats an average of 750 intercepts already in the 10 years before 911 for just 2 of those years.

Your comment about the representative dodging a question. Are you implying that Popular Mechanics lied about the DNA evidence?

No. Just that it appears he hasnt thought enough about it.

DNA can be gathered from hotel rooms, personal objects, homes, etc. The first process of identification in this case involved separating known ( other passengers for example) from unknown DNA.

Did you really think because this person was not able to answer the question on the spot that the question had no answer?
Sorry, but thats a real creationist style "gotcha".

No its not, becuase the problem is not he couldnt answer the question on the spot. The problem was that he couldnt see why it was a valid question in any way whatsoever. A rational responce would be something like, you know what thats a reasonable question, I dont know, I'll get back to you. And while he started off saying he'll get back to them, he then starts saying its an unreasonable question and wont explain how to frame it in another way while trying to answer another question to not have to answer the one asked, and thats why the presenter gets so frustrated with him. When you present an argument like he did, you have to be aware of the logical follow up questions. It appears he didnt even consider it, but he's supposed to be the head researcher or something? He even said it wasnt a question worth answering!

You sound like you have just decided Im being unreasonable like a Creationist that takes things out of context without actually looking at what Im talking about. You need to stop assuming Im like that, we'd get along much better if you did.

Below is part 2 of the interview, which contains the section Im talking about which starts at 5 mins 10 and the section of the argument Im referring to starts at 6 mins 50 . Note that Davin is totally correct until he hand waves the question as to where they got the DNA evidence. Even if the answer is availible he didnt acknowledge it was a logical question to want to ask. So there you go, thats the problem I have with him and Popular Mechanics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb49MfDrwOo

(Note: I only want to talk about the section above.)

 

[EnemyPartyII]

 

[Edx]

Have anything of substance to add, Enemy?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Have anything of substance to add, Enemy?

Like what?

Absolutely no concrete evidence of a conspiracy exists.

The vast majority of experts in the fields of terrorism analysis, military demolitions, disaster management and engineering agree that there is nothing to suggest the 9/11 attacks did not proceed exactly as they are alleged to have happened... that is, a group of independant terrorists, hijacked aircraft and crashed them into a number of buildings, which caused catastrophic failure of those building strucxtures, with the intention of furthering militant Islamic extremist goals.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Like what?

Absolutely no concrete evidence of a conspiracy exists.

The vast majority of experts in the fields of terrorism analysis, military demolitions, disaster management and engineering agree that there is nothing to suggest the 9/11 attacks did not proceed exactly as they are alleged to have happened... that is, a group of independant terrorists, hijacked aircraft and crashed them into a number of buildings, which caused catastrophic failure of those building strucxtures, with the intention of furthering militant Islamic extremist goals.

Isn't that evidence of a conspiracy itself? A conspiracy performed by Islamist extremists?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Isn't that evidence of a conspiracy itself? A conspiracy performed by Islamist extremists?

*sigh* Yes. That WAS a conspiracy... however it has been rather effectively rendered non secret, so it can no longer be considered a conspiracy.

There is no evidence that there was, is, or ever will be any deliberate attempt to blame innocent or uninvolved groups, or that anyone is deliberately covering up, or missrepresenting facts about the attacks.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

*sigh* Yes. That WAS a conspiracy... however it has been rather effectively rendered non secret, so it can no longer be considered a conspiracy.

There is no evidence that there was, is, or ever will be any deliberate attempt to blame innocent or uninvolved groups, or that anyone is deliberately covering up, or missrepresenting facts about the attacks.

Let's take a look at the 9/11 Commission as a case in point of deliberate cover-up and misrepresentation of facts:

Now being bi-partisan as the Commission claims, means that there was an equal number of republicans and democrats involved. However, that does not mean that the Commission was an independent investigation.
Case in point, Phillip Zelikow, executive director of the Commission who was in charge of the lines of inquiry that would be explored. One only needs to briefly look at Zelikow's history to conclude that this man does not qualify to be even a candidate for an independent investigation, yet alone leading its lines of inquiry!
As Professor Griffin highlights:
"That this description is no exaggeration can be seen by reviewing some of Zelikow's history. He had worked with Condoleezza Rice on the National Security Council (NSC) in the administration of the first President Bush. When the Republicans were out of office during the Clinton administration, Zelikow and Rice wrote a book together. Then when Rice was named national security advisor for the second President Bush, she had Zelikow help make the transition to the new NSC." Zelikow was also one of the primary authors of NSS 2002- a document which articulated the doctrine of preemptive warfare. He was handed this task by none-other than Rice who ordered the entire document to be rewritten- a task that she then gave to her buddy Zelikow.
As Griffin observes, Zelikow was and is "politically, personally, and ideologically intertwined with the Bush administration. For the 9/11 Commission to have been 'independent' would have been for it to be independent from all the organizations that might have been responsible- whether through incompetence, carelessness, or complicity- for the success of the 9/11 attacks."
Zelikow, being executive director and in charge of the lines of inquiry that would be followed, totally compromises the independence of the investigation. This can not be under-emphasized. Zelikow, as one commissioner put it was, "calling the shots. He's skewing the investigation and running it his own way."
Griffin concludes stating that: "With Zelikow in charge, the 9/11 Commission provided a classic example of putting a fox in charge of investigating the foxes." That is a fair analogy. Having these links to the White House, particularly the Bush-Cheney administration (itself being a suspect), places Zelikow in no position to head an 'independent' investigation.

When I say the 9/11 Commission took upon a prosecutorial role as opposed to the investigative role that it was assigned, what I am saying basically is that considered only one hypothesis and looked at only one suspect - bin Laden, upon which it proceeded to gather evidence against the accused rather than exploring other hypotheses and other suspects including the Bush administration itself. According to Griffin, "The Commission took the role of the prosecution. Simply assuming the truth of the Bush administration's account of 9/11, the Commission devoted much fo the report to Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and the 19 alleged hijackers, as if their responsibility for the attacks were unquestionable."
Kean and Hamilition, the chair and vice-chair of the Commission almost unwittingly admit this, stating in their publication Without Precedent that:
"Often, the truth about a criminal conspiracy comes out in the trial of the conspirators, where the public is presented with evidence and witness testimony. This time, though, there would be no trial: the nineteen perpetrators were dead, victims of their atrocities. So we directed our team 1A to approach their task as if putting together the case against the conspirators."
Griffin comments on this: "Accordingly, the public was presented only with evidence to al-Qaeda's responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. If some of this evidence was fabricated, moreover, there was no one to challenge its authenticity."
To further illustrate how the 9/11 Commission considered only a single hypothesis and demonstrated the role of prosecution, Kean and Hamilition state: "When we set up our stuff teams, we assigned the subject of 'al Qaeda' to staff team 1." Staff team 1A was assigned the task "telling the story of al Qaeda's most successful operation- the 9/11 attacks."
Griffin comments: "If that does not provide a text-book example of starting with a theory, what would?"

Now to investigate the omissions and distortions of the 9/11 Omission (sorry, I really mean Commission) Report. I will list only one example of an omission and a distortion. For many many more, read The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions and the 9/11 Omission Report, which is a citizens' critique.
An example of an distortion. The Commission claims that: "The interior core of the buildings was a hollow shaft ..." This is demonstratively outright false. A complete distortion likely produced to give credence to the theory of the pancake collapse.
An example of an omission: US transportation secretary Norman Mineta's testimony:
"... the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who'd come in and say to the Vice-President, "The plane is fifty miles out... the plane is thirty miles out," and when it got down to "the plane is ten miles out," the young man also said to the Vice-President, "Do the orders still stand?" The Vice-President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
Given that such testimony would raise questions, you can see why it and along with other information that did not fit into the official theory, was omitted or distorted.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Let's take a look at the 9/11 Commission as a case in point of deliberate cover-up and misrepresentation of facts:

Once again and unsupportable assertion.

Now being bi-partisan as the Commission claims, means that there was an equal number of republicans and democrats involved. However, that does not mean that the Commission was an independent investigation.

Yes it does

Case in point, Phillip Zelikow, executive director of the Commission who was in charge of the lines of inquiry that would be explored. One only needs to briefly look at Zelikow's history to conclude that this man does not qualify to be even a candidate for an independent investigation, yet alone leading its lines of inquiry!
As Professor Griffin highlights

"That this description is no exaggeration can be seen by reviewing some of Zelikow's history. He had worked with Condoleezza Rice on the National Security Council (NSC) in the administration of the first President Bush. When the Republicans were out of office during the Clinton administration, Zelikow and Rice wrote a book together. Then when Rice was named national security advisor for the second President Bush, she had Zelikow help make the transition to the new NSC." Zelikow was also one of the primary authors of NSS 2002- a document which articulated the doctrine of preemptive warfare. He was handed this task by none-other than Rice who ordered the entire document to be rewritten- a task that she then gave to her buddy Zelikow.

How does that prove he was not independent? How can you prove he was involved in a conspiracy? You have no evidence of that. Next question

As Griffin observes, Zelikow was and is "politically, personally, and ideologically intertwined with the Bush administration. For the 9/11 Commission to have been 'independent' would have been for it to be independent from all the organizations that might have been responsible- whether through incompetence, carelessness, or complicity- for the success of the 9/11 attacks."

The 09/11 Commission concluded that the government was indirectly responsible for the attacks by being asleep at the wheel for decade

s as far as domestic anti-terrorism measyures
Zelikow, being executive director and in charge of the lines of inquiry that would be followed, totally compromises the independence of the investigation. This can not be under-emphasized

Prove how his actions differed from anyone else's. You can prove bias by identity. Need to prove that his actions differed from those of an otherwise "independent" investigation.

. Zelikow, as one commissioner put it was, "calling the shots. He's skewing the investigation and running it his own way."

Who was this commissioner and need a citation.

Griffin concludes stating that: "With Zelikow in charge, the 9/11 Commission provided a classic example of putting a fox in charge of investigating the foxes." That is a fair analogy. Having these links to the White House, particularly the Bush-Cheney administration (itself being a suspect), places Zelikow in no position to head an 'independent' investigation.

Once again, no evidence of an unbiased investigation. He was calling the shots because THAT WAS HIS JOB AS EXCUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COMMISSION. If he was not calling the shots, he wouldn't have been doing his job.

When I say the 9/11 Commission took upon a prosecutorial role as opposed to the investigative role that it was assigned, what I am saying basically is that considered only one hypothesis and looked at only one suspect - bin Laden, upon which it proceeded to gather evidence against the accused rather than exploring other hypotheses and other suspects including the Bush administration itself.

This has been disproven as a canard a long time ago. By the time the commission was formed and it's report issued, the FBI, CIA, and Justice. determined it was an Al Qaeda attack. It would have been POINTLESS to look at other theories. LOL The Bush Administration were suspects? Maybe in the eyes of the kooks. Who else should the commission looked at? Buddhist monks? Mexicans? The Pope? Maybe it was those suicidal French Canadians. You would have the commission investigate people/persons who didnt need investigated?

According to Griffin, "The Commission took the role of the prosecution. Simply assuming the truth of the Bush administration's account of 9/11,

Once again Griffin has no idea what he is talking about. It was not the Bush administration's version. The Bush administration relied on CIA, FBI, Justice, Unless you can prove cover-ups at those agencies your assertions have no merit whatsoever.

he Commission devoted much fo the report to Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and the 19 alleged hijackers, as if their responsibility for the attacks were unquestionable."

It is unquestionable to anyone that is reasonable. Do you know of any suicidal CIA agents? Are you saying CIA agents hijacked the planes and killed themselves?

Kean and Hamilition, the chair and vice-chair of the Commission almost unwittingly admit this, stating in their publication Without Precedent that:
"Often, the truth about a criminal conspiracy comes out in the trial of the conspirators, where the public is presented with evidence and witness testimony. This time, though, there would be no trial: the nineteen perpetrators were dead, victims of their atrocities. So we directed our team 1A to approach their task as if putting together the case against the conspirators."
Griffin comments on this: "Accordingly, the public was presented only with evidence to al-Qaeda's responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. If some of this evidence was fabricated, moreover, there was no one to challenge its authenticity."

ZZZZ

To further illustrate how the 9/11 Commission considered only a single hypothesis and demonstrated the role of prosecution, Kean and Hamilition state: "When we set up our stuff teams, we assigned the subject of 'al Qaeda' to staff team 1." Staff team 1A was assigned the task "telling the story of al Qaeda's most successful operation- the 9/11 attacks."
Griffin comments: "If that does not provide a text-book example of starting with a theory, what would?"

This was already explained and refuted.

Now to investigate the omissions and distortions of the 9/11 Omission (sorry, I really mean Commission) Report. I will list only one example of an omission and a distortion. For many many more, read The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions and the 9/11 Omission Report, which is a citizens' critique.
An example of an distortion. The Commission claims that: "The interior core of the buildings was a hollow shaft ..." This is demonstratively outright false. A complete distortion likely produced to give credence to the theory of the pancake collapse.

There were no distortions in the report. They were using illustrative language that is comprehendable to the layment and not experts.

An example of an omission: US transportation secretary Norman Mineta's testimony:
"... the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who'd come in and say to the Vice-President, "The plane is fifty miles out... the plane is thirty miles out," and when it got down to "the plane is ten miles out," the young man also said to the Vice-President, "Do the orders still stand?" The Vice-President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

This was also refuted as well earlier in the thread

 

[Edx]

Like what?

Absolutely no concrete evidence of a conspiracy exists.

The vast majority of experts in the fields of terrorism analysis, military demolitions, disaster management and engineering agree that there is nothing to suggest the 9/11 attacks did not proceed exactly as they are alleged to have happened... that is, a group of independant terrorists, hijacked aircraft and crashed them into a number of buildings, which caused catastrophic failure of those building strucxtures, with the intention of furthering militant Islamic extremist goals.

Ive brought up a lot of points over the course of this thread (there are a lot more valid points left unmentioned) and only a few people have been addressing them, but I am thankfull to them that they are, at least, talking about them. Since Im involved with unbelievably long discussions with Big Cedar and oldbetang (you know it took me 3 hours in total yesterday to research all the information and quotes in oldbetangs post) I dont feel I have the energy to start all over again completely fresh with you especially as it doesnt appear that you've been reading much of what Ive been posting.

Ed

 

[BigCedar]

Let's take a look at the 9/11 Commission as a case in point of deliberate cover-up and misrepresentation of facts:

Now being bi-partisan as the Commission claims, means that there was an equal number of republicans and democrats involved. However, that does not mean that the Commission was an independent investigation.
Case in point, Phillip Zelikow, executive director of the Commission who was in charge of the lines of inquiry that would be explored. One only needs to briefly look at Zelikow's history to conclude that this man does not qualify to be even a candidate for an independent investigation, yet alone leading its lines of inquiry!
As Professor Griffin highlights:
"That this description is no exaggeration can be seen by reviewing some of Zelikow's history. He had worked with Condoleezza Rice on the National Security Council (NSC) in the administration of the first President Bush. When the Republicans were out of office during the Clinton administration, Zelikow and Rice wrote a book together. Then when Rice was named national security advisor for the second President Bush, she had Zelikow help make the transition to the new NSC." Zelikow was also one of the primary authors of NSS 2002- a document which articulated the doctrine of preemptive warfare. He was handed this task by none-other than Rice who ordered the entire document to be rewritten- a task that she then gave to her buddy Zelikow.
As Griffin observes, Zelikow was and is "politically, personally, and ideologically intertwined with the Bush administration. For the 9/11 Commission to have been 'independent' would have been for it to be independent from all the organizations that might have been responsible- whether through incompetence, carelessness, or complicity- for the success of the 9/11 attacks."
Zelikow, being executive director and in charge of the lines of inquiry that would be followed, totally compromises the independence of the investigation. This can not be under-emphasized. Zelikow, as one commissioner put it was, "calling the shots. He's skewing the investigation and running it his own way."
Griffin concludes stating that: "With Zelikow in charge, the 9/11 Commission provided a classic example of putting a fox in charge of investigating the foxes." That is a fair analogy. Having these links to the White House, particularly the Bush-Cheney administration (itself being a suspect), places Zelikow in no position to head an 'independent' investigation.

When I say the 9/11 Commission took upon a prosecutorial role as opposed to the investigative role that it was assigned, what I am saying basically is that considered only one hypothesis and looked at only one suspect - bin Laden, upon which it proceeded to gather evidence against the accused rather than exploring other hypotheses and other suspects including the Bush administration itself. According to Griffin, "The Commission took the role of the prosecution. Simply assuming the truth of the Bush administration's account of 9/11, the Commission devoted much fo the report to Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and the 19 alleged hijackers, as if their responsibility for the attacks were unquestionable."
Kean and Hamilition, the chair and vice-chair of the Commission almost unwittingly admit this, stating in their publication Without Precedent that:
"Often, the truth about a criminal conspiracy comes out in the trial of the conspirators, where the public is presented with evidence and witness testimony. This time, though, there would be no trial: the nineteen perpetrators were dead, victims of their atrocities. So we directed our team 1A to approach their task as if putting together the case against the conspirators."
Griffin comments on this: "Accordingly, the public was presented only with evidence to al-Qaeda's responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. If some of this evidence was fabricated, moreover, there was no one to challenge its authenticity."
To further illustrate how the 9/11 Commission considered only a single hypothesis and demonstrated the role of prosecution, Kean and Hamilition state: "When we set up our stuff teams, we assigned the subject of 'al Qaeda' to staff team 1." Staff team 1A was assigned the task "telling the story of al Qaeda's most successful operation- the 9/11 attacks."
Griffin comments: "If that does not provide a text-book example of starting with a theory, what would?"

Now to investigate the omissions and distortions of the 9/11 Omission (sorry, I really mean Commission) Report. I will list only one example of an omission and a distortion. For many many more, read The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions and the 9/11 Omission Report, which is a citizens' critique.
An example of an distortion. The Commission claims that: "The interior core of the buildings was a hollow shaft ..." This is demonstratively outright false. A complete distortion likely produced to give credence to the theory of the pancake collapse.
An example of an omission: US transportation secretary Norman Mineta's testimony:
"... the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who'd come in and say to the Vice-President, "The plane is fifty miles out... the plane is thirty miles out," and when it got down to "the plane is ten miles out," the young man also said to the Vice-President, "Do the orders still stand?" The Vice-President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
Given that such testimony would raise questions, you can see why it and along with other information that did not fit into the official theory, was omitted or distorted.

Bjs,
Please bring one fact you believe the Commission Report misrepresented.
Not some broad net about "they didn't look into the things we speculate about."
Should they really have looked for evidence of Judy Woods space beam? ( by the way you don't know what real peer review entails.)

David Ray Griffin has had the chance to put forth his "evidence" of what happened to the general public. He has a Hovindesque way of continuing to repeat falsehoods after he has been shown his errors.
(Christians may be interested in his "evidence" for Jesus visiting the Americas)

Please read a rebuttal to what Mr.Griffin has to say about 911.
http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

You have obviously steeped yourself in "Truth Movement" disinformation. You will prove that you are indeed looking for the truth by showing the ability to adjust your viewpoint in light of new information. Otherwise you are just acting on faith, not facts.

And yes, I hold myself to the same measures. Show me some facts and I will not simply dismiss them ( note: debunking does not equal dismissing). In the case of things that we can yet only speculate on, I choose Occam's Razor.

About Mineta.
FAA reports, military radar and witnesses from the pentagon all give a different timeline than Mineta's. He himself admitted his times, and understanding of what order and aircraft involved , were assumptions.
A thorough explanation can be found here:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Norman_Mineta

 

[Edx]

Bjs,
Please bring one fact you believe the Commission Report misrepresented.

Oh boy, if I hadnt got so many other discussions on the go I'd love to address the problems with the 911 Commission.

 

[BigCedar]

Sure.

Hold on, you referenced Popular Mechanics while I sort of referenced Loose Change: Final Cut by briefly mentioning that it was a lot better and contained a lot less that Im critical about than the other error riddled versions, but never did I actually use it as a "reference" and I still havent exactly talked about it in a very favourable light. And as for Alex Jones, I said I agreed with him and Dylan Avery that the BBC Conspiracy files was a dishonest hit piece, which it certianly was. I only really referenced 911 Press for Truth, and only in the sence that I really would reccomend watching it. (edit: I used a clip from Press for Truth above but that was after you posted your comment)

And Popular Mechanics background, while of course not having any bearing on the evidence they present, is relevant to see how impartial they really are and can provide an explanation as to why they might behave in a certian way.

The people that believe those things will continue to believe them anyway, and its not that they cant talk about those people, they are more than welcome to address those insane theories if they want to, but to present them as some kind general opinion to people that dont know better while at the same time ignoring much more soilid facts to show a coverup isnt honest or its at least, very sloppy.

You know what, I dont like it when someone makes arguments against "Creationists" but only attacking the Y in YEC and then concluding that - see - Creationists are wrong wrong wrong while not specifying that this still leaves OECs and Intelligent Design Creationists, which the arguments wouldnt have made any difference to. But to anyone looking at Creationism and Evolution for the first time might assume that all Creationists believe in a young earth.

Heres one:

"Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD's alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged one per site, or less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites' total activity.\3 The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress."
- Continental Air Defense: A Dedicated Force Is No Longer Needed (Letter Report, 05/03/94, GAO/NSIAD-94-76)

This was written in 1994, so thats an average of 750 intercepts already in the 10 years before 911 for just 2 of those years.

No. Just that it appears he hasnt thought enough about it.
No its not, becuase the problem is not he couldnt answer the question on the spot. The problem was that he couldnt see why it was a valid question in any way whatsoever. A rational responce would be something like, you know what thats a reasonable question, I dont know, I'll get back to you. And while he started off saying he'll get back to them, he then starts saying its an unreasonable question and wont explain how to frame it in another way while trying to answer another question to not have to answer the one asked, and thats why the presenter gets so frustrated with him. When you present an argument like he did, you have to be aware of the logical follow up questions. It appears he didnt even consider it, but he's supposed to be the head researcher or something? He even said it wasnt a question worth answering!

You sound like you have just decided Im being unreasonable like a Creationist that takes things out of context without actually looking at what Im talking about. You need to stop assuming Im like that, we'd get along much better if you did.

Below is part 2 of the interview, which contains the section Im talking about which starts at 5 mins 10 and the section of the argument Im referring to starts at 6 mins 50 . Note that Davin is totally correct until he hand waves the question as to where they got the DNA evidence. Even if the answer is availible he didnt acknowledge it was a logical question to want to ask. So there you go, thats the problem I have with him and Popular Mechanics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb49MfDrwOo

(Note: I only want to talk about the section above.)

Edx,
So the fact that there is a good answer to the question means nothing to you in terms of the debate, but how a person responds to badgering after saying "I don't know, I'll get back to you." is oh so damning?

Do you really expect me believe that you didn't think it was a "gotcha" question? Are you saying you knew the answer to the question but were only brining it up as "evidence of someone not acknowledging a logical question"?

The rest ,that you do not want to discuss, shows how there was probably a good deal of frustration on his part at that point having to deal with a hounding, misinformed interviewer and misinformed callers.

Still looking into the NORAD claim.

 

[BigCedar]

Oh boy, if I hadnt got so many other discussions on the go I'd love to address the problems with the 911 Commission.

A fact that the 911 commission report misrepresented is not the same as "problems with the 911 Commission."

And I'm certainly not saying there are none. I just want people like BJs to stop with sweeping claims and goalpost shifting.

 

[Harpuia]

Well theres lots I could list but lets start with just 2 of my favourite ones:

1. Zero fighter responce. NORAD (officially) failed 4 times in 1 day to intercept any of the planes despite having a good track record. Planes were not scrambled effectively or they were sent off in the wrong direction. You could say this was because of the many war games going on that day, including one that apparently included terrorists flying hyjacked planes into buildings.

Astonishingly the Norad chief testified to the 911 Commission that the war games actually HELPED the fighter responce! So they are saying their responce would have been even worse if these war games hadent been going on!


2. The white house lied about air safety which is why many of the first responder clean up crews are now dead or very sick and dying. I havent double checked this next fact but apparently the enviromental services department even sent a memo to the white house saying that the air was not safe, and they changed it to say it was!



Why are these coverups? Because no one has been fired or brought up on charges regarding any of this.


I dont know why a conspiracy is so hard for some people to believe. We know they lied about the reasons they wanted a war. They wanted to invade Afghanistan and Irac for years. We know they lied about the WMDs, thats also a coverup and conspriacy by definition.


There are unreasonble conspiracy theorists and a lot of arguments that are bounced around that are false, but there are a lot of unreasonable "debunkers" as well. Its like they arent even willing to consider any of it, but theres a lot of reason to question the official story without having to believe in silly no plane theories, that there was no plane on Shanksville, or not even that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition.

So where's the other 909 facts?

 

[Edx]

Edx,
So the fact that there is a good answer to the question means nothing to you in terms of the debate, but how a person responds to badgering after saying "I don't know, I'll get back to you." is oh so damning?

Yes it is damning. And I didnt say an answer means nothing, I dont know how you gleaned that impression from my post. But I think I was very clear what the problem was I had with Davin. It is possible to think Popular Mechanics is bad while still agreeing with their conclusion, you know.

EDIT: And you know what I cant find the answer to the DNA question either on the site you linked to "debunking911myths.com"

Do you really expect me believe that you didn't think it was a "gotcha" question? Are you saying you knew the answer to the question but were only brining it up as "evidence of someone not acknowledging a logical question"?

No I dont, the presenter says ok you say you'll come back. The question he THEN ASKS is can you see why someone would want to know? Davins reaction to THAt question is the issue.

The rest ,that you do not want to discuss, shows how there was probably a good deal of frustration on his part at that point having to deal with a hounding, misinformed interviewer and misinformed callers.

The interviewer is misinformed but he also brings up a lot of good issues. Such as, how could it be that Popular Mechanics allowed to see classified documents whereas the rest of the population cant.

 

[Edx]

So where's the other 909 facts?

Im not going to list everything, many of these issues are very complicated. Look how large a discussion its gotten just talking about the governments attitude to WMDs which was only a side issue for the OP! I listed two points I felt showed at the very least there is a coverup, for at the very least incompetence in regards to Norad, and that they lied lying about the air safety.

 

[BigCedar]

Thats not what I said, I dont know how you gleaned that impression from my post. I think I was very clear what the problem was I had with Davin.

No I dont, the presenter says ok you say you'll come back. The question he THEN ASKS is can you see why someone would want to know? Davins reaction to THAt question is the issue.

The interviewer is misinformed but he also brings up a lot of good issues. Such as, how could it be that Popular Mechanics allowed to see classified documents whereas the rest of the population cant.

Did you know the answer to the question when you first referenced the interview?

 

[BigCedar]

Im not going to list everything, many of these issues are very complicated. Look how large a discussion its gotten just talking about the governments attitude to WMDs which was only a side issue for the OP! I listed two points I felt showed at the very least there is a coverup, for at the very least incompetence in regards to Norad, and that they lied lying about the air safety.

I agree with you about what looks like misinformation on public air safety.

Does an issue to the public about air safety apply to workers in hazardous conditions?

As a tie in to a greater conspiracy wouldn't keeping people away from the scene be of greater benefit?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Ive brought up a lot of points over the course of this thread (there are a lot more valid points left unmentioned) and only a few people have been addressing them, but I am thankfull to them that they are, at least, talking about them. Since Im involved with unbelievably long discussions with Big Cedar and oldbetang (you know it took me 3 hours in total yesterday to research all the information and quotes in oldbetangs post) I dont feel I have the energy to start all over again completely fresh with you especially as it doesnt appear that you've been reading much of what Ive been posting.

Ed

how about we start small, one point at a time... maybe start with something you havn't addressed?

I'll wake my flatmate up too, if you like, he's a military demolitions expert.