What did the 9/11 Commission get wrong?

reply to post by Boone 870


Instead of your incessant badgering, why don't you read what I posted from the Congressional Record, and tell us what exactly what you do not find wrong with it.

I allowed the words of the Congressional Record and those of the co-chairs to form my points of argument for me. I agree with both, and, in the case of both, those words are from the horses' own mouth so to speak, not hearsay.

reply to post by CaptainObvious


If you read what I posted from the Congressional Record,, including what was not excerpted from the link, it certainly does indicate it quite clearly and concisely. If you have read the interview transcripts of Kean and Hamilton, plus, their book, their own words are also clear and exceptionally concise.

reply to post by bsbray11


Which other laboratory testing did the 9/11 Commission have, if not relying solely on final NIST report? I did not see any other testing done. I know that is one of the greatest complaints, regarding "official" reports. No independent testing was allowed to be done per the Bush Administration. NIST had, at best, only .9% of what they needed for forensic evidence to test. That is not conclusive, by any stretch of any scientist's imagination.

Per qualified professional scientists - Illogical laypersons' and disreputable scientists' opinions are irrelevant, in relation to science professions and consensus of qualified, ethical scientists.

reply to post by OrionStars


Again,

The 911 Report was not an Engineering Document. That is what NIST was for. The 911 Report was completed prior to the final report on the twin towers. Please re-read your post about the congressional hearings. They indeed got what they were looking for.

Again, please choose an article from the 911 report that you feel is in error. I am not claiming to be the know all of the report, nor do I think the OP is. You however have not even pointed out one factualy error.

NIST had, at best, only .9% of what they needed for forensic evidence to test. That is not conclusive, by any stretch of any scientist's imagination.

Orion, please show where you got this information along with the names of the scientists that back your statement up. ( I am not saying that NIST wouldn't have liked to have more evidence, I am curious as to where you obtained this information)

[edit on 31-12-2007 by CaptainObvious]

reply to post by CaptainObvious


I did not say it was. The duties of the 9/11 Commission were to specifically include logically presented expert testimony, related directly to the materials and construction of commercial jetliners, the WTC complex, the Pentagon, and Shanksville. Plus, what most probably transpired in all four cases, based on science laboratory physical simulations in scale. All pertinent law enforcement and FAA records were requested by the committee, and were consistently blocked by the Bush administration from being presented.

All US taxpayer paid data, concerning 9/11, was to be, without any hinderance, presented to the committee upon request. That consistantly did not happen.

The committee was prevented from having any opposition testimony to refute NIST report and the "Popular Mechanics" article, which became the "official" report. "Popular Mechanics" has never been a professional journal of structural engineers or any other science profession.

NIST was placed in the position of being forced to agree with the "official" report, no matter how many of their scientists knew they could not legitimately complete any substantial forensic evidence testing. They were blocked because at least 99.9% of the forensic evidence was ordered hauled off, by the Bush administration, to China and India to be recycled, before the FBI, NIST, and any independents could properly forensically examine it. FEMA was the messenger on that one. The same FEMA so conveniently arrived in NYC Manhattan on 9/10/2001. FEMA employees were blocking FBI forensic examiners from examining the evidence.

The committee was prevented from utilizing the education and expertise of anyone not agreeing with the "official" report, particularly independent scientists.

I know I have stated the same above during in several discussions.

I do believe, CO, they called the core of the twin towers a "hollow steel shaft".

They did not talk about quick disposal of the steel, or as detectives would call it, "evidence".

They didn't discuss lack of defense. Why there was no jet fighter coverage. How could those flights not have been intercepted?

They did not discuss drills occuring on that day.

No discussion of the Israeli's warning or other warnings given to individuals not to fly that day.

What about the French article that discusses of bin Laden meeting with a CIA agent? (Was that ever debunked?)

And while researching, I was reminded of the initial debate to not even have a commission. I do remember that it in the news now that I think of it. The white house did not want an official inquiry.

They didn't even look into the briefs talking about using planes as missles, how flagged terrorists entered the country with such ease, or terrorists that were being watched by ours and other countries intelligence agencies.

It was more of a book report than an investigation. That's basically off the top of my head without really needed to quote sources or anything - as I'm sure there are others who have found more.

Originally posted by OrionStars
.

Per qualified professional scientists - Illogical laypersons' and disreputable scientists' opinions are irrelevant, in relation to science professions and consensus of qualified, ethical scientists.

So then you're saying that disreputable sources like Jones, Hoffman, Ryan, LC, etc are irrelevant?

Hey, we actually agree to something.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by CaptainObvious

 

I did not say it was. The duties of the 9/11 Commission were to specifically include logically presented expert testimony, related directly to the materials and construction of commercial jetliners, the WTC complex, the Pentagon, and Shanksville. Plus, what most probably transpired in all four cases, based on science laboratory physical simulations in scale.
All US taxpayer paid data, concerning 9/11, was to be, without any hinderance, presented to the committee upon request. That consistantly did not happen. .................

The committee was prevented from having any opposition testimony to refute NIST report and the "Popular Mechanics" article, which became the "official" report. "Popular Mechanics" has never been a professional journal of structural engineers or any other science profession.

NIST was placed in the position of being forced to agree with the "official" report, no matter how many of their scientists knew they could not legitimately complete any substantial forensic evidence testing.

The committee was prevented from utilizing the education and expertise of anyone not agreeing with the "official" report, particularly independent scientists.

The OP is "What did the 911 Commission Get Wrong?" You have failed in pointing anything out. It was not the commissions job to find the collapse mechanism of the twin towers, wtc-7 or the Pentagon partial collapse. It was not an Engineering document.

So far, all you have posted is your opinion on matters you don't agree with. That's fine, but not on topic.

Please tell me how the steel below the impact areas would assist in the investigation? Again... I think that question should be brought up in one of the NIST threads in here.

Your statement about the committee being "allowed" to utilize the expertise of others is either a lie or you got it wrong.

Do you know how many independant companies, scientists, universities,etc. were involved?

Did you know NIST held public meetings for others to see the progress of the reports, and to voice thier opionions and other ideas?

Anyway, I apologize to Boone for the derail. I shall stick to the topic from hear on out.

I did. What they got wrong is they didn't do any real investigation. No dirt digging. No door banging finding out facts. As I recall they didn't even get all of the hijacker's names right at first - which has since been cleared up.

It wasn't a great investigation that's all. And yes, there were some conflicts of interest with the people running that show.

reply to post by Sublime620

They didn't discuss lack of defense. Why there was no jet fighter coverage. How could those flights not have been intercepted?

Yes they did. 1.2 IMPROVISING A HOMELAND DEFENSE

reply to post by Sublime620


Calling the twin towers "hollow steel shafts" is misinformation at its lowest level and disinformation at its highest. That term displays naïvety, regarding the materials and construction of the twin towers.

reply to post by CaptainObvious


What is it that you do not understand were the duties of the 9/11 Commission, as expressed in the Congressional Record I cited in this discussion? Which specific concepts need to be clarified for you?

You see nothing wrong with the 9/11 Commission Report? Since that is the case as you have told us at least twice, you are in no legitimate learned position to objectively judge anyone's else's opposition opinion and/or facts.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by CaptainObvious

 

What is it that you do not understand were the duties of the 9/11 Commission, as expressed in the Congressional Record I cited in this discussion? Which specific concepts need to be clarified for you?

Your kidding right? You my friend are the one that does not understand. You are the one pointing to NIST and the report they filed AFTER the 911 commission report was completed. Again, try moving the goal posts. Point to us please the facts of the investigation that were not accurate.

You see nothing wrong with the 9/11 Commission Report? Since that is the case as you have told us at least twice, you are in no legitimate learned position to objectively judge anyone's else's opposition opinion and/or facts.

I said I do not have ALL the answers. I can however do my best to get them for you if so desired. However, you have not pointed out one factual error that had an effect on the investigation or the outcome of it.

[edit on 31-12-2007 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by Sublime620
I did. What they got wrong is they didn't do any real investigation. No dirt digging. No door banging finding out facts. As I recall they didn't even get all of the hijacker's names right at first - which has since been cleared up.

It wasn't a great investigation that's all. And yes, there were some conflicts of interest with the people running that show.

Look, I am a Bush HATER. I do not hate a person on this earth more than him. He tried his best to stop an investigation. Why? Not because he was involved, but because he didn't want the world to see how much of an idiot he is. ( we figured that out for ourselves anyway)

At the get go the investigation was underfunded and the time table was too limited.

This changed as more money was alloted and time was extended. This was the largest criminal investigation in the history of the United States.

Again...opinions aside, what in the report is a facutal inaccuracy?

[edit on 31-12-2007 by CaptainObvious]

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Anyone, with reading comprehension skills, knows you twisted what I wrote completely out of proportion. Do not attribute to me implications I did not make in complete context.

Since I have to spell it out, the fact is there were no facts. Assertions but no proved facts. Only with opposition presentation and comparison can facts be established beyond any reasonable doubt.

reply to post by OrionStars



Stop looking for your minions for support. I am not twisting anything. You are unable to present any factual errors. That is what I believe this thread was created for.

Please present a fact that was wrong.

reply to post by OrionStars



Stop looking for your minions for support. I am not twisting anything. You are unable to present any factual errors. That is what I believe this thread was created for.

Please present a fact that was wrong.

reply to post by CaptainObvious


That comment, posted not once but twice, is a certain indication of a highly desperate individual losing every point point of argument.

As far as the NIST report is concerned, the report was final when it was presented to the 9/11 Committee concerning the twin towers. There have been no addendums of further analysis, correction, or retraction of anything presented to the 9/11 Commission, restricted to what they presented concerning the twin towers. That means final report, concerning the twin towers, even if they do not write the words on the cover saying something to this effect: "Final report on World Trade Center Buildings 1 and 2 only".

The 9/11 Commission was supposed to cover WTC complex, the Pentagon,and Shanksville. NIST had nothing to present in any report but WTC 1 and 2 at the time. WTC complex was NIST's complete assignment.

reply to post by OrionStars



Orion... please get your facts straight, and stop trying to put me down by your playground antics. You have failed to state one factual error in the report. I am not arguing with you, just trying to stay on topic.

The 9/11 Commission Report, is the official report of the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks. And "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks", Do you understand what leading up to means? "Circumstances surrounding?"

NIST was mandated by the by the National Construction Safety Team Act to conduct an investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center, as well as the 47-story 7 World Trade Center. The 911 Commission was not.

I was unaware that the NIST report was presented to the 911 Commission. Is this true?

I am sorry if my request seems to appear like I am perseverating, I would just like to know where the errors are located in the report.

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Perhaps you can explain how someone points out "factual errors" when there are no facts to point at?

The following is an excellent guideline in separating fact from fiction. From Webster's:

Fact definition -

"3: the quality of being actual : actuality

4 a: something that has actual existence b: an actual occurrence

5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
— in fact : in truth"