Political Crossfire Forums

[redhed718]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=EGG20060802&articleId=2887Recent revelations by members of the 911 Commission (quoted in the Washington Post, 2 August 2006) have farreaching implications.
.
They confirm that the Pentagon was involved in criminal wrongdoing by deliberately distorting and/or withholding information concerning the September 2001 attacks:

"Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate." (WP, 2 August 2006)

These revelations uphold what has been documented regarding 911 in several carefully researched studies, which the mainstream media continues to identify as "conspiracy theories".

It would appear that the 911 "Conspiracy Theorists" have at last been vindicated. The information now released and yet to come is that the Pentagon was involved in acts of coverup at the highest levels of the military hierarchy.

"Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said." (Ibid)

If this were known to the 911 Commission, why was it withheld?

More generally, why was the contradictory evidence presented by the Pentagon, the White House and the CIA taken at face value. Why did the 911 Commission uphold the lies and falsehoods in its "authoritative" Report?

Damage control

The Commission was not misled. The Commission deliberately and consciously distorted the facts regarding 911. A large part of the 911 narrative as presented in its report is fabricated.

The Pentagon's top brass (including senior NORAD officials) were involved in acts of perjury with a view to misleading public opinion. If the Commission doubted the veracity of the information presented, why did it replicate the lies and falsehoods in its report.

These recent revelations have all the appearances of "damage control": they consist in admitting that the Pentagon withheld information, without questioning the broader findings of the 911 Commission Report:

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true." (Ibid).

Arnold, who could not be reached for comment yesterday, told the commission in 2004 that he did not have all the information unearthed by the panel when he testified earlier. Other military officials also denied any intent to mislead the panel.

John F. Lehman, a Republican commission member and former Navy secretary, said in a recent interview that he believed the panel may have been lied to but that he did not believe the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal referral.

"My view of that was that whether it was willful or just the fog of stupid bureaucracy, I don't know," Lehman said. "But in the order of magnitude of things, going after bureaucrats because they misled the commission didn't seem to make sense to me." (Ibid).

The integrity of the 911 commission members remains unscathed. The broader issue of sheer fabrication, presenting al Qaeda as the architect of the WTC attacks is not mentioned. Neither is the issue of Operation Able Danger, the Pentagon's secret operation, which consisted essentially is fabricating terrorist cells ahead of 911:

"Atta, according to the Kean report, was the “tactical leader of the 9/11 plot”. He was the pilot who on that dreadful morning flew the first plane, American Airlines 11, into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York. It was Atta’s face, on television and in newspapers across the world, that became the symbol of Islamic terrorism. And it was Atta’s name - not the names of any of the 18 other hijackers allegedly lead by Atta on that day - that was cited by international security researchers. Atta was, as the Kean report stresses, “the tactical commander of the operation in the United States”. According to both the Bush administration and the official 9/11 Commission report, he was working on the orders of Osama Bin Laden who, from remote Afghanistan, controlled the entire operation.

Now, almost exactly four years after 9/11, the facts appear to have been turned upside down. We now learn that Atta was also connected to a top secret operation of the Pentagon’s Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in the US. According to Army reserve Lieutenant-Colonel Anthony Shaffer, a top secret Pentagon project code-named Able Danger had identified Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers as members of an al-Qaida cell more than a year before the attacks.

Able Danger was an 18-month highly classified operation tasked, according to Shaffer, with “developing targeting information for al-Qaida on a global scale”, and used data-mining techniques to look for “patterns, associations, and linkages”. He said he himself had first encountered the names of the four hijackers in mid-2000." (See Daniele Ganser's study on Operation Able Danger

[Patriot911]

:lol: This is vindication? :rofl: It is nothing of the sort. Where does it say the government was behind 9/11? It doesn't. It says there may have been some CYA going on. Figures you would try and say it somehow lends any kind of credibility to the conspiracy morement. Too bad you can't see it still refutes your theories.

[Rhoades]

Patriot911 wrote: :lol: This is vindication? :rofl: It is nothing of the sort. Where does it say the government was behind 9/11? It doesn't. It says there may have been some CYA going on. Figures you would try and say it somehow lends any kind of credibility to the conspiracy morement. Too bad you can't see it still refutes your theories.

"Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate."

What are they trying to hide?

[Free Thinkr]

Rhoades wrote: Patriot911 wrote: :lol: This is vindication? :rofl: It is nothing of the sort. Where does it say the government was behind 9/11? It doesn't. It says there may have been some CYA going on. Figures you would try and say it somehow lends any kind of credibility to the conspiracy morement. Too bad you can't see it still refutes your theories.

"Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate."

What are they trying to hide?
Incompetence! Think about it for a second: the simplest answer is usually the best. What is government best known for? Incompetence! The likes of Alex Jones weave these grandiose conspiracy theories involving thousands of people and all kinds of devious plans, when the facts are much more simply and elegantly explained by mere incompetence, something that everyone with a brain knows the government is saturated with.

Again, you conspiracy theorists depend on this false dichotomy: either you believe the government is covering up some grand conspiracy, or you believe the official story verbatim. Not at all! No doubt there was some cover-up going on; but such instances are easily explained by, as Patriot said, "cover your ass" maneuvers.

When 3,000 Americans die on American soil, those who were responsible for defending the country get a mighty bright light shone on them; no one wants to be publicly outed as making mistakes that led to the tragedy. No one wants to be publicly regarded as the person whose incompetence cost the lives of 3,000 Americans. Of course there was some effort to cover of certain facts.

[Patriot911]

:lol: So you're telling me that if the 9/11 commission had proof that the Pentagon mislead the commission and had instead committed 9/11 that the 9/11 commission would have just said "Gee. We think we were mislead"? :rofl: Use your head! They would have immediately brought everyone involved up on charges! :roll:

[NAB]

Free Thinkr wrote: Rhoades wrote: Patriot911 wrote: :lol: This is vindication? :rofl: It is nothing of the sort. Where does it say the government was behind 9/11? It doesn't. It says there may have been some CYA going on. Figures you would try and say it somehow lends any kind of credibility to the conspiracy morement. Too bad you can't see it still refutes your theories.

"Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate."

What are they trying to hide?
Incompetence! Think about it for a second: the simplest answer is usually the best. What is government best known for? Incompetence! The likes of Alex Jones weave these grandiose conspiracy theories involving thousands of people and all kinds of devious plans, when the facts are much more simply and elegantly explained by mere incompetence, something that everyone with a brain knows the government is saturated with.

Again, you conspiracy theorists depend on this false dichotomy: either you believe the government is covering up some grand conspiracy, or you believe the official story verbatim. Not at all! No doubt there was some cover-up going on; but such instances are easily explained by, as Patriot said, "cover your ass" maneuvers.

When 3,000 Americans die on American soil, those who were responsible for defending the country get a mighty bright light shone on them; no one wants to be publicly outed as making mistakes that led to the tragedy. No one wants to be publicly regarded as the person whose incompetence cost the lives of 3,000 Americans. Of course there was some effort to cover of certain facts.

Your post pretty much describes my feelings on the subject. I mentioned in another thread (not in this section) that the ONLY conspiracy theory that I might begin to believe concerning 911 is if some officials KNOWINGLY allowed the attacks to occur due to intel they received. If the government was complicit in 911, it would come about through simple taking advantage of a situation. Now there is no evidence to prove this has happened, but there are a few suspicious events that might raise an eyebrow as to "who" had knowledge something was going to happen. If this occurred it would fall into the category of gross negligence and potentially manslaughter, but not a long-planned conspiracy. I've often wondered why this route is never taken by conspiracy theorists since it might be plausible (although I think unlikely), yet we are continually deluged with these overly complicated and elaborate theories that don't stand up to real scrutiny and common sense. I guess it's not "sexy" enough.

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. Napoleon Bonaparte.

[BigOMG]

I'm standing by my earlier opinion that the only charges will be for people CYA themselves. Happens all the time. No one wants to be the one who failed and gets blamed in ht e history books(Depending on who writes them, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm another interesting alternative theory if you ask me.).

[Bull]

redhed718 wrote: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=EGG20060802&articleId=2887Recent revelations by members of the 911 Commission (quoted in the Washington Post, 2 August 2006) have farreaching implications.
.
They confirm that the Pentagon was involved in criminal wrongdoing by deliberately distorting and/or withholding information concerning the September 2001 attacks:

"Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate." (WP, 2 August 2006)

These revelations uphold what has been documented regarding 911 in several carefully researched studies, which the mainstream media continues to identify as "conspiracy theories".

It would appear that the 911 "Conspiracy Theorists" have at last been vindicated. The information now released and yet to come is that the Pentagon was involved in acts of coverup at the highest levels of the military hierarchy.

"Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said." (Ibid)

If this were known to the 911 Commission, why was it withheld?

More generally, why was the contradictory evidence presented by the Pentagon, the White House and the CIA taken at face value. Why did the 911 Commission uphold the lies and falsehoods in its "authoritative" Report?

Damage control

The Commission was not misled. The Commission deliberately and consciously distorted the facts regarding 911. A large part of the 911 narrative as presented in its report is fabricated.

The Pentagon's top brass (including senior NORAD officials) were involved in acts of perjury with a view to misleading public opinion. If the Commission doubted the veracity of the information presented, why did it replicate the lies and falsehoods in its report.

These recent revelations have all the appearances of "damage control": they consist in admitting that the Pentagon withheld information, without questioning the broader findings of the 911 Commission Report:

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true." (Ibid).

Arnold, who could not be reached for comment yesterday, told the commission in 2004 that he did not have all the information unearthed by the panel when he testified earlier. Other military officials also denied any intent to mislead the panel.

John F. Lehman, a Republican commission member and former Navy secretary, said in a recent interview that he believed the panel may have been lied to but that he did not believe the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal referral.

"My view of that was that whether it was willful or just the fog of stupid bureaucracy, I don't know," Lehman said. "But in the order of magnitude of things, going after bureaucrats because they misled the commission didn't seem to make sense to me." (Ibid).

The integrity of the 911 commission members remains unscathed. The broader issue of sheer fabrication, presenting al Qaeda as the architect of the WTC attacks is not mentioned. Neither is the issue of Operation Able Danger, the Pentagon's secret operation, which consisted essentially is fabricating terrorist cells ahead of 911:

"Atta, according to the Kean report, was the “tactical leader of the 9/11 plot”. He was the pilot who on that dreadful morning flew the first plane, American Airlines 11, into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York. It was Atta’s face, on television and in newspapers across the world, that became the symbol of Islamic terrorism. And it was Atta’s name - not the names of any of the 18 other hijackers allegedly lead by Atta on that day - that was cited by international security researchers. Atta was, as the Kean report stresses, “the tactical commander of the operation in the United States”. According to both the Bush administration and the official 9/11 Commission report, he was working on the orders of Osama Bin Laden who, from remote Afghanistan, controlled the entire operation.

Now, almost exactly four years after 9/11, the facts appear to have been turned upside down. We now learn that Atta was also connected to a top secret operation of the Pentagon’s Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in the US. According to Army reserve Lieutenant-Colonel Anthony Shaffer, a top secret Pentagon project code-named Able Danger had identified Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers as members of an al-Qaida cell more than a year before the attacks.

Able Danger was an 18-month highly classified operation tasked, according to Shaffer, with “developing targeting information for al-Qaida on a global scale”, and used data-mining techniques to look for “patterns, associations, and linkages”. He said he himself had first encountered the names of the four hijackers in mid-2000." (See Daniele Ganser's study on Operation Able Danger

I posted this in the 9/11 thread in P&G. We should try to keep that thread up since it's not in the Alternate Theories section.

[NAB]

Bull wrote: redhed718 wrote: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=EGG20060802&articleId=2887Recent revelations by members of the 911 Commission (quoted in the Washington Post, 2 August 2006) have farreaching implications.
.
They confirm that the Pentagon was involved in criminal wrongdoing by deliberately distorting and/or withholding information concerning the September 2001 attacks:

"Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate." (WP, 2 August 2006)

These revelations uphold what has been documented regarding 911 in several carefully researched studies, which the mainstream media continues to identify as "conspiracy theories".

It would appear that the 911 "Conspiracy Theorists" have at last been vindicated. The information now released and yet to come is that the Pentagon was involved in acts of coverup at the highest levels of the military hierarchy.

"Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said." (Ibid)

If this were known to the 911 Commission, why was it withheld?

More generally, why was the contradictory evidence presented by the Pentagon, the White House and the CIA taken at face value. Why did the 911 Commission uphold the lies and falsehoods in its "authoritative" Report?

Damage control

The Commission was not misled. The Commission deliberately and consciously distorted the facts regarding 911. A large part of the 911 narrative as presented in its report is fabricated.

The Pentagon's top brass (including senior NORAD officials) were involved in acts of perjury with a view to misleading public opinion. If the Commission doubted the veracity of the information presented, why did it replicate the lies and falsehoods in its report.

These recent revelations have all the appearances of "damage control": they consist in admitting that the Pentagon withheld information, without questioning the broader findings of the 911 Commission Report:

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true." (Ibid).

Arnold, who could not be reached for comment yesterday, told the commission in 2004 that he did not have all the information unearthed by the panel when he testified earlier. Other military officials also denied any intent to mislead the panel.

John F. Lehman, a Republican commission member and former Navy secretary, said in a recent interview that he believed the panel may have been lied to but that he did not believe the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal referral.

"My view of that was that whether it was willful or just the fog of stupid bureaucracy, I don't know," Lehman said. "But in the order of magnitude of things, going after bureaucrats because they misled the commission didn't seem to make sense to me." (Ibid).

The integrity of the 911 commission members remains unscathed. The broader issue of sheer fabrication, presenting al Qaeda as the architect of the WTC attacks is not mentioned. Neither is the issue of Operation Able Danger, the Pentagon's secret operation, which consisted essentially is fabricating terrorist cells ahead of 911:

"Atta, according to the Kean report, was the “tactical leader of the 9/11 plot”. He was the pilot who on that dreadful morning flew the first plane, American Airlines 11, into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York. It was Atta’s face, on television and in newspapers across the world, that became the symbol of Islamic terrorism. And it was Atta’s name - not the names of any of the 18 other hijackers allegedly lead by Atta on that day - that was cited by international security researchers. Atta was, as the Kean report stresses, “the tactical commander of the operation in the United States”. According to both the Bush administration and the official 9/11 Commission report, he was working on the orders of Osama Bin Laden who, from remote Afghanistan, controlled the entire operation.

Now, almost exactly four years after 9/11, the facts appear to have been turned upside down. We now learn that Atta was also connected to a top secret operation of the Pentagon’s Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in the US. According to Army reserve Lieutenant-Colonel Anthony Shaffer, a top secret Pentagon project code-named Able Danger had identified Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers as members of an al-Qaida cell more than a year before the attacks.

Able Danger was an 18-month highly classified operation tasked, according to Shaffer, with “developing targeting information for al-Qaida on a global scale”, and used data-mining techniques to look for “patterns, associations, and linkages”. He said he himself had first encountered the names of the four hijackers in mid-2000." (See Daniele Ganser's study on Operation Able Danger

I posted this in the 9/11 thread in P&G. We should try to keep that thread up since it's not in the Alternate Theories section.

Weren't you the one who lobbied for the name change in the first place, and now it's not good enough for you? :P

[Bull]

NAB wrote: Bull wrote: redhed718 wrote: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=EGG20060802&articleId=2887Recent revelations by members of the 911 Commission (quoted in the Washington Post, 2 August 2006) have farreaching implications.
.
They confirm that the Pentagon was involved in criminal wrongdoing by deliberately distorting and/or withholding information concerning the September 2001 attacks:

"Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate." (WP, 2 August 2006)

These revelations uphold what has been documented regarding 911 in several carefully researched studies, which the mainstream media continues to identify as "conspiracy theories".

It would appear that the 911 "Conspiracy Theorists" have at last been vindicated. The information now released and yet to come is that the Pentagon was involved in acts of coverup at the highest levels of the military hierarchy.

"Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said." (Ibid)

If this were known to the 911 Commission, why was it withheld?

More generally, why was the contradictory evidence presented by the Pentagon, the White House and the CIA taken at face value. Why did the 911 Commission uphold the lies and falsehoods in its "authoritative" Report?

Damage control

The Commission was not misled. The Commission deliberately and consciously distorted the facts regarding 911. A large part of the 911 narrative as presented in its report is fabricated.

The Pentagon's top brass (including senior NORAD officials) were involved in acts of perjury with a view to misleading public opinion. If the Commission doubted the veracity of the information presented, why did it replicate the lies and falsehoods in its report.

These recent revelations have all the appearances of "damage control": they consist in admitting that the Pentagon withheld information, without questioning the broader findings of the 911 Commission Report:

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true." (Ibid).

Arnold, who could not be reached for comment yesterday, told the commission in 2004 that he did not have all the information unearthed by the panel when he testified earlier. Other military officials also denied any intent to mislead the panel.

John F. Lehman, a Republican commission member and former Navy secretary, said in a recent interview that he believed the panel may have been lied to but that he did not believe the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal referral.

"My view of that was that whether it was willful or just the fog of stupid bureaucracy, I don't know," Lehman said. "But in the order of magnitude of things, going after bureaucrats because they misled the commission didn't seem to make sense to me." (Ibid).

The integrity of the 911 commission members remains unscathed. The broader issue of sheer fabrication, presenting al Qaeda as the architect of the WTC attacks is not mentioned. Neither is the issue of Operation Able Danger, the Pentagon's secret operation, which consisted essentially is fabricating terrorist cells ahead of 911:

"Atta, according to the Kean report, was the “tactical leader of the 9/11 plot”. He was the pilot who on that dreadful morning flew the first plane, American Airlines 11, into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York. It was Atta’s face, on television and in newspapers across the world, that became the symbol of Islamic terrorism. And it was Atta’s name - not the names of any of the 18 other hijackers allegedly lead by Atta on that day - that was cited by international security researchers. Atta was, as the Kean report stresses, “the tactical commander of the operation in the United States”. According to both the Bush administration and the official 9/11 Commission report, he was working on the orders of Osama Bin Laden who, from remote Afghanistan, controlled the entire operation.

Now, almost exactly four years after 9/11, the facts appear to have been turned upside down. We now learn that Atta was also connected to a top secret operation of the Pentagon’s Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in the US. According to Army reserve Lieutenant-Colonel Anthony Shaffer, a top secret Pentagon project code-named Able Danger had identified Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers as members of an al-Qaida cell more than a year before the attacks.

Able Danger was an 18-month highly classified operation tasked, according to Shaffer, with “developing targeting information for al-Qaida on a global scale”, and used data-mining techniques to look for “patterns, associations, and linkages”. He said he himself had first encountered the names of the four hijackers in mid-2000." (See Daniele Ganser's study on Operation Able Danger

I posted this in the 9/11 thread in P&G. We should try to keep that thread up since it's not in the Alternate Theories section.

Weren't you the one who lobbied for the name change in the first place, and now it's not good enough for you? :P

No. That section is better moderated than this one. This section is like a circus...trolls can just run wild.

NAB, there is a very fine line between incompetence and deliberation. As I said in the other thread...you can only call incompetence on so much before there are too many inconsistencies. Then you just have to call bullsh*t. NORAD and the Pentagon have changed their story about 7 times already!! You also have the 9/11 Commission people who seem to not even buy their OWN story anymore. This is not incompetence! When someone continues to change their story it means they're lying about something.

What is the main excuse criminals give to why they're innocent? They say something along the lines of..."I didn't know," or "I forgot," or "I was mistaken." But in the end, incompetence is a weak excuse because you STILL did it! No matter if you knew what you were doing or not. Incompetence is NOT an alibi...and never will be because it's seen as playing dumb.

I don't think there is a coincidence between the numerous wargames being run that day and it just so happened to be the same day supposed hijackers take 4 planes. It's too convient for them to achieve their goal. The wargames (which I said was 15, but now there seems to be some confusion on how many were actually being run...some say 7) were meant to distract and confuse the pilots. This is heard in the audio where you can hear pilots questioning whether or not this is real world or wargame. Some tapes were destroyed (which is also shady, and people only destroy things when they have something to hide) too.

This was such a military failure on such large proportions...that logic should tell you somebody was in the loop. It was so bad, that the 9/11 Commission questioned criminal involvement IN our military. Is that not enough for you? Is it not enough for you when the FBI says they have no hard evidence linking bin Laden TO 9/11? I guess the FBI are just conspiracy nuts too huh?

[NAB]

Bull wrote: NAB wrote: Bull wrote: redhed718 wrote: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=EGG20060802&articleId=2887Recent revelations by members of the 911 Commission (quoted in the Washington Post, 2 August 2006) have farreaching implications.
.
They confirm that the Pentagon was involved in criminal wrongdoing by deliberately distorting and/or withholding information concerning the September 2001 attacks:

"Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate." (WP, 2 August 2006)

These revelations uphold what has been documented regarding 911 in several carefully researched studies, which the mainstream media continues to identify as "conspiracy theories".

It would appear that the 911 "Conspiracy Theorists" have at last been vindicated. The information now released and yet to come is that the Pentagon was involved in acts of coverup at the highest levels of the military hierarchy.

"Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said." (Ibid)

If this were known to the 911 Commission, why was it withheld?

More generally, why was the contradictory evidence presented by the Pentagon, the White House and the CIA taken at face value. Why did the 911 Commission uphold the lies and falsehoods in its "authoritative" Report?

Damage control

The Commission was not misled. The Commission deliberately and consciously distorted the facts regarding 911. A large part of the 911 narrative as presented in its report is fabricated.

The Pentagon's top brass (including senior NORAD officials) were involved in acts of perjury with a view to misleading public opinion. If the Commission doubted the veracity of the information presented, why did it replicate the lies and falsehoods in its report.

These recent revelations have all the appearances of "damage control": they consist in admitting that the Pentagon withheld information, without questioning the broader findings of the 911 Commission Report:

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true." (Ibid).

Arnold, who could not be reached for comment yesterday, told the commission in 2004 that he did not have all the information unearthed by the panel when he testified earlier. Other military officials also denied any intent to mislead the panel.

John F. Lehman, a Republican commission member and former Navy secretary, said in a recent interview that he believed the panel may have been lied to but that he did not believe the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal referral.

"My view of that was that whether it was willful or just the fog of stupid bureaucracy, I don't know," Lehman said. "But in the order of magnitude of things, going after bureaucrats because they misled the commission didn't seem to make sense to me." (Ibid).

The integrity of the 911 commission members remains unscathed. The broader issue of sheer fabrication, presenting al Qaeda as the architect of the WTC attacks is not mentioned. Neither is the issue of Operation Able Danger, the Pentagon's secret operation, which consisted essentially is fabricating terrorist cells ahead of 911:

"Atta, according to the Kean report, was the “tactical leader of the 9/11 plot”. He was the pilot who on that dreadful morning flew the first plane, American Airlines 11, into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York. It was Atta’s face, on television and in newspapers across the world, that became the symbol of Islamic terrorism. And it was Atta’s name - not the names of any of the 18 other hijackers allegedly lead by Atta on that day - that was cited by international security researchers. Atta was, as the Kean report stresses, “the tactical commander of the operation in the United States”. According to both the Bush administration and the official 9/11 Commission report, he was working on the orders of Osama Bin Laden who, from remote Afghanistan, controlled the entire operation.

Now, almost exactly four years after 9/11, the facts appear to have been turned upside down. We now learn that Atta was also connected to a top secret operation of the Pentagon’s Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in the US. According to Army reserve Lieutenant-Colonel Anthony Shaffer, a top secret Pentagon project code-named Able Danger had identified Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers as members of an al-Qaida cell more than a year before the attacks.

Able Danger was an 18-month highly classified operation tasked, according to Shaffer, with “developing targeting information for al-Qaida on a global scale”, and used data-mining techniques to look for “patterns, associations, and linkages”. He said he himself had first encountered the names of the four hijackers in mid-2000." (See Daniele Ganser's study on Operation Able Danger

I posted this in the 9/11 thread in P&G. We should try to keep that thread up since it's not in the Alternate Theories section.

Weren't you the one who lobbied for the name change in the first place, and now it's not good enough for you? :P

No. That section is better moderated than this one. This section is like a circus...trolls can just run wild.

No offense Bull, but I wonder who you would consider the troll? You obviously don't like Patriot replying to you, but he will go point by point on you guy's stuff. There aren't many who bother, and that wouldn't be considered trolling, at least not in my Net-book. Whereas I've seen many pro-Conspiracy types being COMPLETE trolls in this forum. :roll:

Maybe you were referring to the later? :roll:

[Bull]

NAB wrote: Bull wrote: NAB wrote: Bull wrote: redhed718 wrote: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=EGG20060802&articleId=2887Recent revelations by members of the 911 Commission (quoted in the Washington Post, 2 August 2006) have farreaching implications.
.
They confirm that the Pentagon was involved in criminal wrongdoing by deliberately distorting and/or withholding information concerning the September 2001 attacks:

"Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate." (WP, 2 August 2006)

These revelations uphold what has been documented regarding 911 in several carefully researched studies, which the mainstream media continues to identify as "conspiracy theories".

It would appear that the 911 "Conspiracy Theorists" have at last been vindicated. The information now released and yet to come is that the Pentagon was involved in acts of coverup at the highest levels of the military hierarchy.

"Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said." (Ibid)

If this were known to the 911 Commission, why was it withheld?

More generally, why was the contradictory evidence presented by the Pentagon, the White House and the CIA taken at face value. Why did the 911 Commission uphold the lies and falsehoods in its "authoritative" Report?

Damage control

The Commission was not misled. The Commission deliberately and consciously distorted the facts regarding 911. A large part of the 911 narrative as presented in its report is fabricated.

The Pentagon's top brass (including senior NORAD officials) were involved in acts of perjury with a view to misleading public opinion. If the Commission doubted the veracity of the information presented, why did it replicate the lies and falsehoods in its report.

These recent revelations have all the appearances of "damage control": they consist in admitting that the Pentagon withheld information, without questioning the broader findings of the 911 Commission Report:

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true." (Ibid).

Arnold, who could not be reached for comment yesterday, told the commission in 2004 that he did not have all the information unearthed by the panel when he testified earlier. Other military officials also denied any intent to mislead the panel.

John F. Lehman, a Republican commission member and former Navy secretary, said in a recent interview that he believed the panel may have been lied to but that he did not believe the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal referral.

"My view of that was that whether it was willful or just the fog of stupid bureaucracy, I don't know," Lehman said. "But in the order of magnitude of things, going after bureaucrats because they misled the commission didn't seem to make sense to me." (Ibid).

The integrity of the 911 commission members remains unscathed. The broader issue of sheer fabrication, presenting al Qaeda as the architect of the WTC attacks is not mentioned. Neither is the issue of Operation Able Danger, the Pentagon's secret operation, which consisted essentially is fabricating terrorist cells ahead of 911:

"Atta, according to the Kean report, was the “tactical leader of the 9/11 plot”. He was the pilot who on that dreadful morning flew the first plane, American Airlines 11, into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York. It was Atta’s face, on television and in newspapers across the world, that became the symbol of Islamic terrorism. And it was Atta’s name - not the names of any of the 18 other hijackers allegedly lead by Atta on that day - that was cited by international security researchers. Atta was, as the Kean report stresses, “the tactical commander of the operation in the United States”. According to both the Bush administration and the official 9/11 Commission report, he was working on the orders of Osama Bin Laden who, from remote Afghanistan, controlled the entire operation.

Now, almost exactly four years after 9/11, the facts appear to have been turned upside down. We now learn that Atta was also connected to a top secret operation of the Pentagon’s Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in the US. According to Army reserve Lieutenant-Colonel Anthony Shaffer, a top secret Pentagon project code-named Able Danger had identified Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers as members of an al-Qaida cell more than a year before the attacks.

Able Danger was an 18-month highly classified operation tasked, according to Shaffer, with “developing targeting information for al-Qaida on a global scale”, and used data-mining techniques to look for “patterns, associations, and linkages”. He said he himself had first encountered the names of the four hijackers in mid-2000." (See Daniele Ganser's study on Operation Able Danger

I posted this in the 9/11 thread in P&G. We should try to keep that thread up since it's not in the Alternate Theories section.

Weren't you the one who lobbied for the name change in the first place, and now it's not good enough for you? :P

No. That section is better moderated than this one. This section is like a circus...trolls can just run wild.

No offense Bull, but I wonder who you would consider the troll? You obviously don't like Patriot replying to you, but he will go point by point on you guy's stuff. There aren't many who bother, and that wouldn't be considered trolling, at least not in my Net-book. Whereas I've seen many pro-Conspiracy types being COMPLETE trolls in this forum. :roll:

Maybe you were referring to the later? :roll:

I updated my post above.

And there are trolls on both sides. But using ad hominems, red herrings, and every argument fallacy in the book is not debating point by point. It's trolling. I'm not the first one to say this either, many people have called him out on it. You are fairly new, you haven't been through almost every 9/11 debate on this forum (back when it was more populated with Truthers who seem to have moved on now) Why do you think he was suspended? You don't see me getting suspended do you? Because I don't attack people to make myself feel better.

[Free Thinkr]

Bull wrote: NAB wrote: No offense Bull, but I wonder who you would consider the troll? You obviously don't like Patriot replying to you, but he will go point by point on you guy's stuff. There aren't many who bother, and that wouldn't be considered trolling, at least not in my Net-book. Whereas I've seen many pro-Conspiracy types being COMPLETE trolls in this forum. :roll:

Maybe you were referring to the later? :roll:

I updated my post above.

And there are trolls on both sides. But using ad hominems, red herrings, and every argument fallacy in the book is not debating point by point. It's trolling. I'm not the first one to say this either, many people have called him out on it. You are fairly new, you haven't been through almost every 9/11 debate on this forum (back when it was more populated with Truthers who seem to have moved on now) Why do you think he was suspended? You don't see me getting suspended do you? Because I don't attack people to make myself feel better.
Isn't that pretty much exactly what you're doing now? Attacking Patriot to make yourself feel better? It's a lie to say that Patriot doesn't debate these issues point by point; he does, to an extent that I would like to but simply don't have the patience. You'd be right to say that he occasionally peppers those replies with insults, but then, often his replies are addressed to posts where there are insults. Not saying that somehow makes his insults okay, but just pointing out that it's a biased viewpoint to act as though Patriot is just trolling these posts and adding nothing of substance.

You should at least be honest with yourself in this regard.

[Claudia Schiffer]

Incompetence or conspiracy?.. I say conspiracy. Simply cause there's no hazard at that level. When a super power like the US(oil dependent) ends up invading some of the country's biggest oil producers in the world, i say it's not a mistake. :wink:

Are we suppose to believe that we are delivering democraty to these people, by invading there country and killing more than 200 000 while doing so? really???

Oops! i guess i was wrong, i just found proof that we are delivering democracy. Here is how they do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ObiLEgTjL4&NR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMqmIjszYio&NR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo1kD9UPoBc&mode=related&search=

of course it might hurt a bit at firts, but once they learned all the cool stuff you can do in a democracy, I'm sure they will like it... cool stuff like this..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPuYwJCtAHY&NR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sbpLId6Kk4&NR

I just don't see how they'll be able to resist are great culture...

[Free Thinkr]

Claudia Schiffer wrote: Incompetence or conspiracy?.. I say conspiracy. Simply cause there's no hazard at that level. When a super power like the US(oil dependent) ends up invading some of the country's biggest oil producers in the world, i say it's not a mistake. :wink:
Of course not. A dictator who has partial control over oil has more leverage to threaten the world than one who does not. It's a factor, no doubt. But to say that there was some conspiracy (a conspiracy, by the way, that would merit the death penalty if discovered) in order to invade is ridiculous, and without evidence.

Quote: Are we suppose to believe that we are delivering democraty to these people, by invading there country and killing more than 200 000 while doing so? really???
No, but then we didn't kill 200,000, or even close to that number.

Quote: Oops! i guess i was wrong, i just found proof that we are delivering democracy. Here is how they do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ObiLEgTjL4&NR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMqmIjszYio&NR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo1kD9UPoBc&mode=related&search=

of course it might hurt a bit at firts, but once they learned all the cool stuff you can do in a democracy, I'm sure they will like it... cool stuff like this..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPuYwJCtAHY&NR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sbpLId6Kk4&NR

I just don't see how they'll be able to resist are great culture...
You should just tell them that they can slander their country without end; that alone would be worth it, I'm sure. I mean, it seems to content you and all.

[Bull]

Free Thinkr wrote: Bull wrote: NAB wrote: No offense Bull, but I wonder who you would consider the troll? You obviously don't like Patriot replying to you, but he will go point by point on you guy's stuff. There aren't many who bother, and that wouldn't be considered trolling, at least not in my Net-book. Whereas I've seen many pro-Conspiracy types being COMPLETE trolls in this forum. :roll:

Maybe you were referring to the later? :roll:

I updated my post above.

And there are trolls on both sides. But using ad hominems, red herrings, and every argument fallacy in the book is not debating point by point. It's trolling. I'm not the first one to say this either, many people have called him out on it. You are fairly new, you haven't been through almost every 9/11 debate on this forum (back when it was more populated with Truthers who seem to have moved on now) Why do you think he was suspended? You don't see me getting suspended do you? Because I don't attack people to make myself feel better.
Isn't that pretty much exactly what you're doing now? Attacking Patriot to make yourself feel better? It's a lie to say that Patriot doesn't debate these issues point by point; he does, to an extent that I would like to but simply don't have the patience. You'd be right to say that he occasionally peppers those replies with insults, but then, often his replies are addressed to posts where there are insults. Not saying that somehow makes his insults okay, but just pointing out that it's a biased viewpoint to act as though Patriot is just trolling these posts and adding nothing of substance.

You should at least be honest with yourself in this regard.

Where in my post is an attack? I just stated that he uses argument fallacies in 90% of his posts (which is true). Lots of times he just replies TO attack. Case in point is when he got into a debate with Roy L. on thermite. Disciple of Common had to put him on his ignore list because he got tired of his insults. Listen, I don't mind debating with people who don't agree with me...it's the mud-slinging and childish antics that turns people off. We've had two threads locked in the past day because of troll posts. One, where people complained about a name change (like they care anyway)...and the other by William Amos which was intended to be a flame thread.

Saying it's something that goes on occasionally is just covering for him.

[Free Thinkr]

Bull wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Bull wrote: NAB wrote: No offense Bull, but I wonder who you would consider the troll? You obviously don't like Patriot replying to you, but he will go point by point on you guy's stuff. There aren't many who bother, and that wouldn't be considered trolling, at least not in my Net-book. Whereas I've seen many pro-Conspiracy types being COMPLETE trolls in this forum. :roll:

Maybe you were referring to the later? :roll:

I updated my post above.

And there are trolls on both sides. But using ad hominems, red herrings, and every argument fallacy in the book is not debating point by point. It's trolling. I'm not the first one to say this either, many people have called him out on it. You are fairly new, you haven't been through almost every 9/11 debate on this forum (back when it was more populated with Truthers who seem to have moved on now) Why do you think he was suspended? You don't see me getting suspended do you? Because I don't attack people to make myself feel better.
Isn't that pretty much exactly what you're doing now? Attacking Patriot to make yourself feel better? It's a lie to say that Patriot doesn't debate these issues point by point; he does, to an extent that I would like to but simply don't have the patience. You'd be right to say that he occasionally peppers those replies with insults, but then, often his replies are addressed to posts where there are insults. Not saying that somehow makes his insults okay, but just pointing out that it's a biased viewpoint to act as though Patriot is just trolling these posts and adding nothing of substance.

You should at least be honest with yourself in this regard.

Where in my post is an attack?
You're attacking Patriot's character.

Quote: I just stated that he uses argument fallacies in 90% of his posts (which is true).
No, it's not true.

Quote: Lots of times he just replies TO attack. Case in point is when he got into a debate with Roy L. on thermite. Disciple of Common had to put him on his ignore list because he got tired of his insults.
Well, insults are not fallacies. At least learn the difference if you're going to attack people for using fallacies.

But seriously, how do you expect people to react to such a self-evidently false argument? Thermite is not an explosive. Thermite is not used to demolish buildings. That people such as yourself and Roy claim it is, while simultaneously calling others deluded, is very irritating.

Quote: Listen, I don't mind debating with people who don't agree with me...it's the mud-slinging and childish antics that turns people off. We've had two threads locked in the past day because of troll posts. One, where people complained about a name change (like they care anyway)...and the other by William Amos which was intended to be a flame thread.

Saying it's something that goes on occasionally is just covering for him.
No, not really. I'm sure you've noticed that there's been probably 5 frequenters of this forum who have been permanently banned. Considering there is a general tendency among conspiracy nuts to have no manners, it's hardly surprising that the replies they get occasionally contain insults.

[Claudia Schiffer]

he! he! looks like our friend patriot has called for reinforcement...

[Claudia Schiffer]

Free Thinkr wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: Incompetence or conspiracy?.. I say conspiracy. Simply cause there's no hazard at that level. When a super power like the US(oil dependent) ends up invading some of the country's biggest oil producers in the world, i say it's not a mistake. :wink:
Of course not. A dictator who has partial control over oil has more leverage to threaten the world than one who does not. It's a factor, no doubt. But to say that there was some conspiracy (a conspiracy, by the way, that would merit the death penalty if discovered) in order to invade is ridiculous, and without evidence.

Quote: Are we suppose to believe that we are delivering democraty to these people, by invading there country and killing more than 200 000 while doing so? really???
No, but then we didn't kill 200,000, or even close to that number.

Quote: Oops! i guess i was wrong, i just found proof that we are delivering democracy. Here is how they do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ObiLEgTjL4&NR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMqmIjszYio&NR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo1kD9UPoBc&mode=related&search=

of course it might hurt a bit at firts, but once they learned all the cool stuff you can do in a democracy, I'm sure they will like it... cool stuff like this..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPuYwJCtAHY&NR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sbpLId6Kk4&NR

I just don't see how they'll be able to resist are great culture...
You should just tell them that they can slander their country without end; that alone would be worth it, I'm sure. I mean, it seems to content you and all.

Where did i say i was happy about it?

[NAB]

Claudia Schiffer wrote: he! he! looks like our friend patriot has called for reinforcement...

Yes the reinforcements have arrived. How else could a "Governement Agent" like Patriot stand up to this blistering assault. :roll:

Jesus, do you really take yourself THAT seriously?