Commission report ommitted and ignored, but defended vigorously by shills

Discussion in '9/11' started by RtWngaFraud, May 25, 2011.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So what in all that leads you to believe the 9/11 commission got the entire thing completely and entirely wrong as RWAF would have you believe?
     
  2. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Don't assume too much. I was merely pointing out the report has received high level criticism, of which, I was unaware of.
     
  3. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Continuing on with this discussion...

    I was unaware of criticism to that level. I could spend a lot of time spewing off words about this, but to me, it is suspicious, and it makes me curious and want to investigate things more for myself. I mean, Patriot, Hannibal, Fangbeer, and DDave, as well others, are you not curious about those criticisms that I posted? There has been an absence of replies to it. Why?
     
  4. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0


    They trust their "officials" emphatically IMO. They "know" what happened, because they've accepted the "accepted narrative". Variance in any other direction than "official" is automatically wrong, regardless of any evidence or lack of it.
     
  5. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because they are a bunch of quotes taken out of context along with some outright lies that have been gone over ad nauseum. It still boggles my mind people would continue to believe truther sites are credible even after they get caught in lie after lie after lie.
     
  6. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    For several reasons . . .

    Same old quotes taken out of context as is typical of truther arguements.

    I have actually read the Commission Report for myself. I don't rely on the bilge spewed out by truther sites.

    As RWF says, question EVERYTHING. Accept only that which you can verify.

    Be an intelligent reader.
     
  7. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    None of the criticisms even suggest that anyone other than the Muslim terrorists was responsible for 9/11. The criticisms that you post suggest exactly what I said - that the government that was supposed to protect us failed, and failed spectacularly, and no one really wants to admit that, for obvious political reasons.

    Which, once again, leads to my point: There is not one shred of evidence that anyone other than the Muslim hijackers and their cohorts (like Atta) planned, funded, and carried out the attacks of 9/11. Specifically, there is absolutely no evidence anyone from "The Government" was involved.
     
  8. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As I pointed out in another thread, RWAF's posts are doing nothing more than what his posts claim everyone else does which is muddy the waters. RWAF makes the claim that the 9/11 commission report omitted some stuff, yet he can't say what, and according to his posts HE DOESN'T BELIEVE A WORD OF IT! It is the equivalent of an atheist whining about the specific meaning of passages in the Bible. It is all a moot point as an atheist doesn't believe in the Bible in the first place. Just more evidence that RWAF's posts are nothing but dishonest blather to push his antigovernment agenda.
     
  9. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I got all of that info from Wikipedia. I looked at their references, and they're not from truther sites or establishments.

    Explain to me how they were taken out of context, please.
     
  10. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wait.... you think truthers are somehow prevented from editing wikipedia articles?

    Lets take the first one.

    Truthers like to pretend that this statement means the government set up the commission to fail. It doesn't. Does Thomas Kean or Lee Hamilton think they failed? No. In fact, if you read the entire interview here, you will see that when the commission asked for things, they got them. They asked for an extension. They got it. They asked for more money. They got it. They asked for time with the President and Vice President. They got it. Maybe not right away, but they got it. Did they believe initially that they were set up to fail? Yes. That is what they said. Do they still believe they were set up to fail as the quote from Wikipedia says? Not from what I read.

    Let me ask you a question. In that list of "issues" you have with the 9/11 commission, do ANY of them hint at someone else being responsible for 9/11? There was a lot of fear that the 9/11 commission was going to hang people out to dry. The article I posted above goes into that quite well and in Lee Hamilton's own words. If you think a commission might use you or your department as a scapegoat, are you going to freely give them ammo to do so? I wouldn't. I doubt you would either.
     
  11. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://web.archive.org/web/20070108233707/http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html


    Okay. How is this being taken out of context when the man is directly stating what he thinks in an interview. Hell, he and Kean have written a book about the topic. I chalk this one up as 'denial' on your part Patriot and Dave.
     
  12. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Simple. Look at tense like I posted in my previous post. They THOUGHT they were set up to fail. Is that what the quote from Wikipedia says? No. Present tense. They BELIEVE they were set up to fail. What someone thought in the past before going through an event like creating the 9/11 commission report and what they think AFTER the event can be two different things. In this case, Lee Hamilton's words certainly leads one to that conclusion. Yet the Wikipedia article clearly makes the claim that Kean and Hamilton STILL BELIEVE the government set the commission up for failure.

    You seem to have missed a very pertinent question, so I will ask it again. In that list of "issues" you have with the 9/11 commission, do ANY of them hint at someone else being responsible for 9/11?
     
  13. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't know why you put quotes around issues. They are issues, man. Do you really want to have a debate on the effectiveness of torture in gaining intelligence? It's 50/50. The Commission relied on Intel from men who admitted that they spoke out only to be stopped being tortured. And to top it off, the CIA does their normal SOP, and goes and destroys the evidence.

    But to answer your question...no, they do not. All they illustrate in my mind is that the Commission encountered a lot of flak and red tape along the way while performing their investigation; they didn't use all of the information supposedly available to them; and they relied on intelligence gathered from men whom were tortured.

    So it is like I said it is a while back, a big but reserved governmental investigation.
     
  14. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That depends on what you think I am denying. I have NEVER claimed that the 9/11 Commission Report was perfect. Yes there are issues with it. Does that change the key points of their conclusions? Does that mean that the government was really behind 9/11?

    I don't think so.

    Agreed.
     
  15. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So what else is being taken out of context from the criticism that I posted about the report then? That's what I was saying you were having denial in, Dave, not the legitimacy of the report itself. I had already learned that you, as well, the other "defenders" have similar imperfect allegiances with said report.

    I am in the process of reading the report myself, and have already found some problematic areas, but I think I will reserve commentary and analysis for a later date :)
    But...what was it that you found to be imperfect about the report?



    Does that not raise issues with you?

    The interview Patriot and I linked to earlier, it shocked me in a way. I was unaware that $40 million was spent investigating President Clinton. But only $3 million is allocated to the 9/11 Commission? Yes, they were granted additional monies at a later date. And how much, I do not actually know...but $3 million? That's chump change! 9/11 was the worst tragedy to ever befall America, and $3 million is the dollar amount the US government thinks is satisfactory to cover the investigation. How is that not odd?
     
  16. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    First of all, don't label me. I am not a "defender" and I have no allegiances to one side or the other. I look at as much information as I can get FROM BOTH PERSPECTIVES and I decide for myself which seems more logical and is more likely based on the evidence I have seen.

    It would be nice to have a book that gives us all the answers of exactly what happened. The 9/11 Commission Report does not do that. There are several areas where they do not know what happened so they offer their best hypothesis based on what information they did have. Those are the imperfections I was referring to.

    How so? Does that make me think it was an "inside job"? That they are "hiding something"?

    I find it frustrating but it does not "raise issues" with me.

    It only took a matter of seconds to find out the cost with Google.

    http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Comparing_costs

    You could have easily confirmed that before you raised the issue here.

    That's what I mean by looking at both sides. When I hear something about an aspect of 9/11 (commission budget was only $3m) I go looking for more information. Then I look at ALL of the information and make my own decision as to which I find more credible.

    Not which information I like better or supports my foregone conclusion, but the information that is more logical and credible and current.
     
    Jango and (deleted member) like this.
  17. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is another completely baseless accusation made by the truthers. The 40 million was not spent investigating President Clinton. The 40 million was spent investigating the Whitewater scandal which encompassed numerous scandals including the Monica Lewinski scandal. In all, 15 people were convicted in the scandal.

    Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, removed from office (fraud, 3 counts)
    John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax fraud)
    William J. Marks, Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker business partner (conspiracy)
    Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
    Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)
    Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)
    Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple fraud) Bill Clinton pardoned.
    David Hale: banker, self proclaimed Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)
    Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)
    Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud) Bill Clinton pardoned.
    Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)
    Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy). Bill Clinton pardoned.
    John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)
    Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)
    Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant (bribery)

    But lets get back to what was spent on 9/11. The 9/11 commission report was NOT the investigation into 9/11. Many truthers make this claim, but it simply is not true. It was the job of the 9/11 commission to put together a report based on the real investigations by numerous government agencies, the largest of which was the FBI which remains the largest single investigation in US history. We do not know the entire cost of the 9/11 investigation because it is still ongoing, but in 2003 the FBI had put in almost four million hours into the official investigation, the vast majority of which was FBI special agents. Payroll alone would be hundreds of millions of dollars. Add on top of that all the travel and support and the total money spent on the 9/11 investigation is mind boggling.
     
  18. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Our military sucked on 9/11 for sure. Is it your contention that our intelligence industries suffered as well? Because you're insinuating that the agencies would have no idea how to conceal such an operation. America is the "Black Ops" masters (in case you haven't heard).
     
  19. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Cite your source for this accusation, please.
     
  20. 7forever

    7forever Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,726
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  21. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well if that is true and they were really behind 9/11, then how is it that a couple of philosophy professors and scores of basement dwelling half wits have exposed their master plan?
     
  22. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's the true paradox of conspiracy theorists - how to logically believe that a conspiracy can be both hypercompetent and stupefyingly incompetent.
     
  23. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It hasn't been exposed. You all still think in "official" terms. It's still well hidden and aided by disinformation specialists (the ones Georgey said he'd be deploying...remember?)
     
  24. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Truther sheep have been deluded by their cult leaders, and are to blinded by their own ego to notice.
     
  25. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Then how would they dare let people like you post about it? If they are truly as evil as you try and pretend, you would have just "disappeared" after your first post or so. Think anyone on the net would have noticed or cared? Even if you were to suddenly stop posting now, nobody would have a way to see what happened to you or even have much of a reason to look. Supposedly they've already killed 3,000 Americans publicly. What would a couple more anonymouse "disappearances" mean to them?
     

Share This Page