David Ray Griffin, pillar of the 9/11 Truth Movement

Originally posted by jthomas
I can only remind ipsedixit that he has yet to address this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Congratulations on your graphic arts skills.

As your avatar reminds us, the people who faked the Pentagon video released by the Bush administration weren't as skilfull. They couldn't even get the date right.

As for the rest of you, I'm shocked and appalled. mmiichael, with all due respect, I am not going to U2U you to get your credentials straightened out. A U2U wouldn't do it. The content of your posts already speaks volumes.

GoodOlDave, I'm sure your re-education camps would be kinder and gentler than those of the Chinese communists. I'd go so far as to say that even the Chinese food you served would be better. (But still bad, of course.)


[edit on 3-11-2009 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by jthomas
I can only remind ipsedixit that he has yet to address this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Congratulations on your graphic arts skills.

As your avatar reminds us, the people who faked the Pentagon video released by the Bush administration weren't as skilfull. They couldn't even get the date right.

As for the rest of you, I'm shocked and appalled. mmiichael, with all due respect, I am not going to U2U you to get your credentials straightened out. A U2U wouldn't do it. The content of your posts already speaks volumes.

GoodOlDave, I'm sure your re-education camps would be kinder and gentler than those of the Chinese communists. I'd go so far as to say that even the Chinese food you served would be better. (But still bad, of course.)


[edit on 3-11-2009 by ipsedixit]

Your evasion is noted and duly recorded, ipsedixit. Maybe you need a lot more time to figure out who the fraud and charlatan, David Ray Griffin, meant by "they", eh?

Originally posted by ipsedixit
As for the rest of you, I'm shocked and appalled. mmiichael, with all due respect, I am not going to U2U you to get your credentials straightened out. A U2U wouldn't do it. The content of your posts already speaks volumes.

What a relief. I've had exchanges with enough self-declared experts and armchair authorities in my life.

Funny thing is I'm the most critical person as far as the US govt goes, so it's a laugh being called a govt disinformation agent.

So enlighten us all, who actually planned and executed 9/11. Getting out the real truth is vital. Please provide any supportable proof you have.


Agent M

Originally posted by mmiichael
So enlighten us all, who actually planned and executed 9/11. Getting out the real truth is vital. Please provide any supportable proof you have.

What would constitute proof of who actually planned and executed 9/11, for you?

Originally posted by ipsedixit
What would constitute proof of who actually planned and executed 9/11, for you?

A substantiable scenario of who actually financed and implemented the plan. It would have to have consistency with what has been documented - i.e. the Saudi royals and Middle East bankers channeling funds, the bin Laden infrastructure activities, Pakistan's ISI direct involvement and training, etc.

An analytical correlation of CIA, NSA, FBI, State Dept, etc reports of the period before and after.

Details of involvement by any new or unacknowledged organizations, perpetrators, facilitators.

As to what constitutes evidence -

paraphrasing another source on required proof of WTC controlled demolition:

"- how, when and by whom it was planned - dates, places, a paper trail

-who supplied the explosive charges, when, what types, how much

- plus paper trail & documents

- ditto detonation charges

- ditto cabling & control devices

- someone, ANYONE in fact, going on record who fitted out any of these buildings for demolition, describing how, when and by whom it was done

- POs, invoices, memos, any type of taped or recorded communication of any kind to support any of this obviously huge operation, which must have involved dozens if not hundreds of people over a long period of time

- any evidence of any kind, or corroborative testimony of any kind, from any witnesses - even one - who can and will attest on record to having seen any of this, or having any reliable information about it all"


We're talking about accusations of a series of premeditated mass murders. No court will consider a case without demonstrable evidence.

Incriminating paperwork, untamperable recorded conversations, multiple corroborated testimonies, would be required. At the very least one credible witness providing unambiguous testimony is needed.

Otherwise we're dealing with hearsay, linkage, rumour, speculation.


M

Originally posted by mmiichael
A substantiable scenario of who actually financed and implemented the plan. It would have to have consistency with what has been documented - i.e. the Saudi royals and Middle East bankers channeling funds, the bin Laden infrastructure activities, Pakistan's ISI direct involvement and training, etc.

If the documentation you refer to exists, why hasn't Saudi Arabia been declared a state sponsor of terrorism? Why hasn't General Ahmad, of the ISI been extradited or kidnapped, since there is evidence to say that he wired Mohammed Atta $100,000 just prior to 9/11.

An analytical correlation of CIA, NSA, FBI, State Dept, etc reports of the period before and after.

What do you make of allegations that military officers conducting operation "Able Danger" were told by a superior officer to stay away from Mohammed Atta?

Details of involvement by any new or unacknowledged organizations, perpetrators, facilitators.

How about the Israeli connections? The "dancing Israelis" and Larry "Pull it" Silverstein's connections to Israel and those of his business partner, former Israeli paratrooper, Frank Lowy?

As to what constitutes evidence -

paraphrasing another source on required proof of WTC controlled demolition:

"- how, when and by whom it was planned - dates, places, a paper trail

-who supplied the explosive charges, when, what types, how much

- plus paper trail & documents

- ditto detonation charges

- ditto cabling & control devices

People planning mass murder don't generally leave paper trails.

The image below is of a list of Jews in Europe that Eichmann is alleged to have brought to the Wannsee conference, the meeting alleged to have been held to plan the "final solution" to the "jewish problem".

en.wikipedia.org...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c13303c7e56c.jpg[/atsimg]

It is very hard to tell that it is even a list of Jews. One can only infer that by noticing that it reports "Estland" (I'm assuming Estonia here) is "judenfrei", i.e., that there are no Jews in Estonia.

That's how careful the planners of 9/11 could be expected to be.

- someone, ANYONE in fact, going on record who fitted out any of these buildings for demolition, describing how, when and by whom it was done

That would be excellent to have. Who is going to run the witness protection program for that person? Do you see the problem with "turning state's evidence" when the state is alleged to be the perp in a mass murder case? In actual fact, huge numbers of people have "turned state's evidence", but for the defense.

That is where the betting money has gone with their shoddy science and phony computer animations, etc., their "wings that folded like an accordion" and other nonsense.

- POs, invoices, memos, any type of taped or recorded communication of any kind to support any of this obviously huge operation, which must have involved dozens if not hundreds of people over a long period of time

This is a naive statement.

9/11 is not a reality show about the world's dumbest bank robbers, but there actually have been some pretty dumb moments, whether it was Bush talking about seeing the first tower hit on TV the morning of 9/11, a day before everyone else saw it, or Rumsfeld's slip about the "the missile (inaudible) that did the damage at the Pentagon."

- any evidence of any kind, or corroborative testimony of any kind, from any witnesses - even one - who can and will attest on record to having seen any of this, or having any reliable information about it all"

The CIT guys have come pretty close to that in their conversations with Lloyd England, the taxi driver who got the light standard through the windshield of his cab at the Pentagon, but Lloyd knows he's not bullet proof and never quite states the truth baldly with his hand on the Bible.

What witness protection program can protect people from the state? You need an organized underground for that.

We're talking about accusations of a series of premeditated mass murders. No court will consider a case without demonstrable evidence.

Incriminating paperwork, untamperable recorded conversations, multiple corroborated testimonies, would be required. At the very least one credible witness providing unambiguous testimony is needed.

Otherwise we're dealing with hearsay, linkage, rumour, speculation.

Don't underestimate hearsay, linkage, rumour, and speculation. When you don't have reliable media, reliable law enforcement, reliable courts, you have to rely on yourselves. That is what the truth movement is doing and will continue to do.


[edit on 3-11-2009 by ipsedixit]

This is getting a bit derailed. Eichmann's list?

Even knowing they'd lost the war and with making efforts to destory incriminating evidence warehouses full of documentation of the Nazis survived WWII.

And then there's the reality that you can't stop one time collaborators and facilitators from talking.

Something on the magnitude of a 9/11 conspiracy which would have involved hundreds if not thousands of people, and cost many millions of dollars, innumerable transactions and communications, and would leave a paper trail. You can destroy your copy but not the duplicates of those you interface with.

The real perpetrators in the Middle East and their accessories in the US, despite attempts to conceal their actions and cover their tracks, left all sorts of notes, receipts, communications, witnesses, etc.

They have tracked the call from Yemen on Sept 10 telling them to go ahead as planned. Even have a record of bin Laden phoning his mother to tell her to go somewhere safe.

Don't underestimate hearsay, linkage, rumour, and speculation. When you don't have reliable media, reliable law enforcement, reliable courts, you have to rely on yourselves. That is what the truth movement is doing and will continue to do.

This used to be called witch hunting. I will get a group of people together and we will say you are abducting children. Our word against yours. You're guilty. There's a reason the practice is illegal and universally condemned now.

As you seem to take witch hunter like CIT seriously you should be aware Ranke and Marquis, operating as a corporation, have been exposed for the fraudulent comedy team they are.

911review.com...

To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT's PentaCon 'Magic Show

"... what CIT has really created from the witness accounts is an elaborate historical fictional drama focused around the narrow theme of witnesses appearing to describe a different flightpath for the plane that day."

arabesque911.blogspot.com...

CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy

"The CIT researchers frequently and falsely interpret criticism of their theory as a personal attack along with accusations of government sponsored “neutralization”. As the flyover theory is clearly unsupported by any credible evidence, the CIT theorists frequently rely on vicious, slanderous, and libelous ad hominem attacks and antagonism to those who dare to question their flyover theory. Any disagreement with the “smoking gun” evidence is derided with hostility on internet forums, while any criticism of the theory is largely interpreted as an “attack” or “spook operation”.

Pentagon researchers in particular, are highlighted for accusations including “treason”, “supporting the official story”, “COINTELPRO”, and “brainwashed”. Similarly, any witnesses who contradict the north claim are called “propaganda”, “agents”, and in the case of a taxi cab driver, “the devil”. Aside from the weakly supported flyover hypothesis, whether intentional or not, the ridiculous antics and outrageous behavior of the CIT researchers are damaging and destructive to the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement."

M

[edit on 3-11-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael

All I can say is that this controversy is not going away. I think we'll just have to leave it at that.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by mmiichael

 

All I can say is that this controversy is not going away. I think we'll just have to leave it at that.

There is no controversy. But yes, 9/11 Denial will not go away any more than Holocaust Denial has. It will just fester in the trash bin of history.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

GoodOlDave, I'm sure your re-education camps would be kinder and gentler than those of the Chinese communists. I'd go so far as to say that even the Chinese food you served would be better. (But still bad, of course.)

I'm not certain what your intentions were by posting this bit, ipsedixit, but what you only wound up doing is PROVING everything I've said on this forum from day one: the 9/11 conspiracy movement is motivated NOT by any desire to research the truth, and NOT by any findings they've seen which points to any particular answer, but from an unfounded sense of abject paranoia they've had before the 9/11 attack ever even occurred. I told you already that this re-education camp bit is entirely in your own head, but if you have some overpowering phobia of re-education camps that you need to keep bringing them up, then my telling you five hundred more times won't make any further difference. All I can say is, if you don't believe anything else I tell you, then at least believe this- you're only damaging your own credibility and the credibility of your fellow conspiracy theorists with these antics, not mine.

I've a question, in all seriousness, ipsedixit. Without any insults, or criticism, or attitude, tell me, what other conspiracies are out there that you subscribe to, as I'm sincerely curious. In no particular order, here are some claims which I've seen other people make in my travels...

-FDR knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor
-the holocaust never really happened
-captured UFOs are stored in area 51
-the CIA (or LBJ, your choice) assassinated JFK
-the FBI killed Robert Kennedy and Sirhan Sirhan is just a patsy
-The Israelis deliberately attacked the USS Liberty
-The moon landing was faked
-Bush rigged the election
-the SAS murdered Princess Diana
-the FBI sabotaged JFK Jr's plane and made it crash
-Passenger jets are secretly spreading sterilization gas in their vapor trails
-AIDS was invented by the US to kill off all the black people in Africa
-The world is secretly controlled by the Jews
-The world is secretly controlled by the Masons
-The world is secretly controlled by the Illuminati
-There are secret numerological meanings hidden in the 9/11 attack

...or is there one that I've overlooked?


[edit on 4-11-2009 by GoodOlDave]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I've a question, in all seriousness, ipsedixit. Without any insults, or criticism, or attitude, tell me, what other conspiracies are out there that you subscribe to, as I'm sincerely curious. In no particular order, here are some claims which I've seen other people make in my travels...

Nobody ever asks me my opinion. Are you hatching a conspiracy?

-FDR knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor

I have not researched this one, but I think there may be something to it. I think American code-breakers had broken Japanese naval codes by then. Also, I believe an Australian patrol plane sighted the Japanese taskforce enroute to Hawaii. Keep in mind that Churchill ordered a stand down when the city of Coventry was bombed because he wanted to keep secret the fact that the UK had broken the Enigma coding machine, in use by the Germans.

Finally, Franklin Rooseveldt himself, once said words to the effect that, "if anything significant happens in politics, you can bet it was planned".

-the holocaust never really happened

I think the holocaust happened but I think there is a resistance to telling the accurate historical story of how it unfolded, particularly the complicity of countries like Canada, the US and the UK, who refused to accept Jews that the Nazis wanted to deport.

Also there is a lot of quibbling out there about the numbers of people killed. You have to be a real scholar to discuss this intelligently, but I accept a figure somewhere between 4 and 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis either directly or by maltreatment.

Hitler killed a lot of people in WW2, and even before it started. He intended to kill substantial numbers more. The Jews, although much reviled by the Nazis, were only one small ethnic group they intended to wipe out or turn into slaves. The Slav death totals would have dwarfed the numbers of deaths in the jewish holocaust if the Nazis had been able to carry out their plans in the east. Very interesting subject, but yes there was a holocaust

-captured UFOs are stored in area 51

A lot of people say so. Jackie Gleason was insanely funny at times, but he wasn't insane. He said that Richard Nixon had shown him alien bodies. Was tricky Dick playing a little joke on Jackie? Maybe.

Bob Lazar and others have said so. Their stories are difficult to verify. George Knapp believes Lazar or at least parts of his story.

David Adair tells an interesting story of his rocket building youth and a trip to Area 51. I don't know if he is telling the truth. There are a lot of crazies and mountebanks in this field.

Bottom line, I think it is possible but I don't have a strong conviction about it one way or the other.

-the CIA (or LBJ, your choice) assassinated JFK

This one is a real can of worms. One thing we know for sure is that there was a Secret Service stand down during the parade through Dallas. There is film of it on YouTube.



I think he was killed by a conspiracy and that Oswald was a patsy.

-the FBI killed Robert Kennedy and Sirhan Sirhan is just a patsy

I don't know who killed Robert Kennedy but the ballistics studies of the crime scene, the body, etc. seem to indicate that Sirhan wasn't the only shooter and that he didn't fire the fatal shot.

-The Israelis deliberately attacked the USS Liberty

That's what the sailors aboard the Liberty believe and I take them at their word.

-The moon landing was faked

Another tricky question to answer. Bottom line, I don't know. Why haven't we been back?

-Bush rigged the election

You are referring to Jeb Bush here I presume. There is fraud in elections. There was probably fraud on both sides of both of Dubya's elections. Was Bush's fraud more efficacious than Gore's or Kerry's. I think so. What do Americans say? "He stole it fair and square."

-the SAS murdered Princess Diana

Don't know. She was a lily playing among the lawnmowers.

-the FBI sabotaged JFK Jr's plane and made it crash

A very strange story. Too many rumors about what happened and what did not happen. No firm opinion about it.

-Passenger jets are secretly spreading sterilization gas in their vapor trails

They could be just doing trials. Chemtrails exist, I believe. I've seen them in the air over Toronto, lingering for hours. There are numerous theories about them. I don't have a favorite.

-AIDS was invented by the US to kill off all the black people in Africa

I haven't researched enough about AIDS and its origins and spread to have any opinions about it.

-The world is secretly controlled by the Jews

Howard Stern used to tease guests on his program by asking some of them if they thought there were too many Jews in Hollywood. There is no doubt that as an ethnic group, Jews punch way above their weight class. You could say the same about some other groups, like the British or even the Irish (in terms of poetry and song).

By the way, Is the world under control? I hadn't noticed.

-The world is secretly controlled by the Masons

Same as above.

-The world is secretly controlled by the Illuminati

Same as above.

-There are secret numerological meanings hidden in the 9/11 attack

Haven't looked into it. Not concerned about it.

...or is there one that I've overlooked?

There are always new conspiracies arising. That's what police departments look into, what intelligence agencies look into, what jealous spouses look into. But everybody knows that.


[edit on 4-11-2009 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Nobody ever asks me my opinion. Are you hatching a conspiracy?

First, I do thank you for your honest answers. Just to let you know, we *are* going back to the moon, once the space shuttle program finishes up next year. It's called the Constellation project. You will see a manned lunar mission in your lifetime.


Second, the reason I asked this is becuase it is my belief that the bulk of the people who subscribe to one conspiracy likewise subscribe to one or more other conspiracies. They range from the plausible ones (the JFK assassination) to the unrealistic (the moon landing was faked) to the outright absurd (a secret Satan worshipping cult is in control of the world). You'll see where I'm going with this in the next question.

I think the holocaust happened but I think there is a resistance to telling the accurate historical story of how it unfolded, particularly the complicity of countries like Canada, the US and the UK, who refused to accept Jews that the Nazis wanted to deport.

My point in asking this is that there are people who will naturally view certain claims not with critical analysis, but with a pre existing personal agenda. Neo-Nazis who believe in Hitler's racial extremism, for example, are going to claim the holocaust is faked NOT becuase it really was faked, but becuase they have a political agenda that makes them *want* to believe it's faked. Thus, when we quote war criminals like Rudolf Hoss (commadant of Auschwitz) who admitted he murdered millions, they simply use the conspiracy to explain itself and say he was coerced to admit it by the allies.

They're not lying when they say this- they truly and honestly believe this, or I should say, becuase they want to believe it's true, they kept telling themselves it's true to the point where they begin believing it's true. Once they develop that sort of mechanism of rationalization for themselves, they find it easier to apply it to *other* conspiracies they happen to come across (I.E. the Jewish World order secretly controls the world, which they use in turn to go back and explain why the supposed hoaxed holocaust claims are being spread). This is the definition of circular logic.

Now, for the $64,000 question- do you agree or disagree that people who think like this are, in fact, out there?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Now, for the $64,000 question- do you agree or disagree that people who think like this are, in fact, out there?

I think that a lot of people who aren't careful thinkers may fall into traps involving circular logic or reductio ad absurdum fallacies and that phenomenon can be found on both sides of the 9/11 question.

When one starts from the unshakable axiom that "George Bush is a klutz" for example, that leads to the assumption that because he is a klutz he couldn't plan something like 9/11.

And when klutzy George lets slip something that indicates that he might have been in on the plan, like seeing the first tower hit on TV the day before the footage everyone else saw came to light. That example of klutziness gets cited not as klutzy George giving the perp's game away, but instead, of super klutzy George who doesn't even know what day it was when he saw the first tower hit.

A lot of people would and do buy that amount of klutziness from klutzy George.

Other believers in the klutzy George theory think that he just got the towers mixed up and was actually talking about seeing the second tower hit and believing it to be the first tower. They don't even attempt to account for klutzy George's not noticing all the smoke rising from the first tower.

The fact of the matter is that if one saw a tower hit on 9/11, i.e., on that day, then there was another tower in the picture that had already been hit.

But George Bush is klutzy. It don't matter. He was jest makin' a speech and started ta wing it a little, make sumpin' up. It don't matter. Yeah, it's a lie, what he said, but it's not a lie, lie. It's just klutzy George, ya know, gotta make a dumb speech and starts ta wing it. He gets mixed up. It don't matter.

The "Klutzy George Theory" is really the "incompetence theory" of 9/11, which is used to explain away every systemic failure, every missed opportunity and every monkey wrench thrown into the system right up to "the order still stands" out of Cheney's mouth and then, in the aftermath, the rush to clean up the crime scene, the air quality in Manhattan fiasco, the WMDs fiasco, the relentless efforts to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the hunt for bin Laden and on and on.

It's like "drunken monkey kung fu". Klutzy George puts the entire country in hospital, in traction, and it's written off as just a slip up.

That sort of thinking can be very damaging to truth, on any side of the case. There is no doubt of the rhetorical power of circular logic and various sorts of logical fallacies and absurdities.

The video "Core of Corruption" is instructive when watched from the point of view of the "incompetance theory of 9/11" and also from the point of view of the LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) theory, which is closely allied to the incompetance theory.



[edit on 5-11-2009 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I think that a lot of people who aren't careful thinkers may fall into traps involving circular logic or reductio ad absurdum fallacies and that phenomenon can be found on both sides of the 9/11 question.

When one starts from the unshakable axiom that "George Bush is a klutz" for example, that leads to the assumption that because he is a klutz he couldn't plan something like 9/11.

But unlike the case of the neo-nazi who imagines the Holocaust is a hoax perpetuated by the Jewish World order, which is based really on nothing tangible, there are documented cases that show Bush actually was an atrocious public speaker-


"I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009

"The economy is growing, productivity is high, trade is up, people are working. It's not as good as we'd like, but -- and to the extent that we find weakness, we'll move." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., July 15, 2008

"I think it was in the Rose Garden where I issued this brilliant statement: If I had a magic wand -- but the president doesn't have a magic wand. You just can't say, 'low gas.'" --George W. Bush, Washington D.C., July 15, 2008

"We've got a lot of relations with countries in our neighborhood." --George W. Bush, Kranj, Slovenia, June 10, 2008

"I have a record in office, as well. And all Americans have seen that record. September the 4th, 2001, I stood in the ruins of the Twin Towers. It's a day I will never forget." --George W. Bush, Marlton, New Jersey, Oct. 18, 2004

...and I'm sure you have a few choice examples of your own. The point is, we don't need to suppose whether or not he's klutzy. He IS klutzy. Thus, it's more logical to conclude that he merely misspoke what he meant to say (I.E. he saw the plane HAD hit) than it being any slip of the tongue exposing some secret plot. This is becuase we have more proof from his past behavior that he is a bad public speaker than we have proof that the WTC really was in ruins five days before they were destroyed.

The "Klutzy George Theory" is really the "incompetence theory" of 9/11, which is used to explain away every systemic failure, every missed opportunity and every monkey wrench thrown into the system right up to "the order still stands" out of Cheney's mouth and then, in the aftermath, the rush to clean up the crime scene, the air quality in Manhattan fiasco, the WMDs fiasco, the relentless efforts to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the hunt for bin Laden and on and on.

I suppose, but in the 9/11 commission report, not only do they document the political failures, they likewise document the chain of decisions that led to the environment that created the political failures I.E. why the CIA wasn't able to share critical information with the FBI and vice versa. One only needs a precursory understanding of how gov't works to see that it is at least plausible.

If the critics of the 9/11 commission report believe these are falsehoods, fine, I merely ask that it be explained to me why they're falsehoods, but rare is the critic who actually ever read the report. Simply saying that the gov't always lies so it must be a lie as well, is the exact same circular logic I'm seeing coming from the aforementioned people using conspiracies as an outlet to pursue their own personal agenda, and whose credibility is suspect.

You do see where I'm going with this?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I suppose, but in the 9/11 commission report, not only do they document the political failures, they likewise document the chain of decisions that led to the environment that created the political failures I.E. why the CIA wasn't able to share critical information with the FBI and vice versa. One only needs a precursory understanding of how gov't works to see that it is at least plausible.

There are probably worthwhile items of information in the 9/11 Commission report. (I haven't read it myself.) One doesn't have to read it to research 9/11. The people who wrote it didn't get their understanding of the 9/11 events by reading the 9/11 Commission Report.

Critics of the report claim that it is a whitewash and that it wasn't intended to "assign blame". Many investigators and armchair conspiracy theorists are interested in assigning blame so they find the report inadequate to their purposes.

There is also a concern that witnesses with stories that called the generally accepted version of events into question were either given short shrift or not heard at all. Willie Rodrugues. Sibel Edmunds and Col. Anthony Shaffer are in this category.

en.wikipedia.org...

Shaffer claimed that he alerted the FBI in September 2000 about the information uncovered by the secret military unit "Able Danger," but he alleges three meetings he set up with bureau officials were blocked by military lawyers. Shaffer, who at the time worked for the Defense Intelligence Agency, claims he communicated to members of the 9/11 Commission that Able Danger had identified two of the three cells responsible for 9/11 prior to the attacks, but the Commission did not include this information in their final report.[20]

This kind of thing raise questions of just what the purpose of the Commission was. Could it have been a way to let people vent but to suppress embarassing information from becoming widely known.

The most damning condemnation of the 9/11 Commission Report, with all due respect to Dr. Griffin, comes from the mouth of one of the commissioners. Lee Hamilton said that the commission had considered charging some of the military officers who testified, with perjury, but then decided against it.

If the critics of the 9/11 commission report believe these are falsehoods, fine, I merely ask that it be explained to me why they're falsehoods, but rare is the critic who actually ever read the report.

I think that is fair. On forums like this most posts are simply relaying information and opinions dug up elswhere in research. People repeat the criticisms they have heard others make of the 9/11 Commission Report without having read it.

Most people on ATS are more interested in the events of 9/11 themselves. People don't believe the Bush administration's statements about 9/11 and want to come to their own conclusions. They are suspicious from the get go of the 9/11 Commission Report.

Simply saying that the gov't always lies so it must be a lie as well, is the exact same circular logic I'm seeing coming from the aforementioned people using conspiracies as an outlet to pursue their own personal agenda, and whose credibility is suspect.

You do see where I'm going with this?

I think so. Statements (including commission reports) should be considered on their own merits and not be condemned based on a negative opinion of the statement's source. Both sides of the 9/11 debate fall prey to this error from time to time. People who expect their statements to be examined on merit should extend the same courtesy.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

There are probably worthwhile items of information in the 9/11 Commission report. (I haven't read it myself.) One doesn't have to read it to research 9/11. The people who wrote it didn't get their understanding of the 9/11 events by reading the 9/11 Commission Report.

I disagree. If someone identifies themselves as someone wanting to "find the truth behind the 9/11 attack" and especially those who "want to expose the lies of the gov't" then it becomes their obligation to be familiar with what the report says in order to identify what the lies even are. It's akin to someone claiming they're an expert on Lincoln without ever reading the Gettysburg Address.

When people make statements and attribute them to the commission report, and then we learn later that the report never says any such thing, how can it NOT degrade their credibility?

Critics of the report claim that it is a whitewash and that it wasn't intended to "assign blame". Many investigators and armchair conspiracy theorists are interested in assigning blame so they find the report inadequate to their purposes.

True, it doesn't assign blame for the attack on the US side (I.E. who's incompetence ultimately was it that let the attack succeed), but it most definitely does assign blame on the attacker's side (Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mohammed Atta, etc). Just becuase ot doesn't go into enough detail in one area it doesn't necessarily mean the material it presented in all areas is flawed.

There is also a concern that witnesses with stories that called the generally accepted version of events into question were either given short shrift or not heard at all. Willie Rodrugues. Sibel Edmunds and Col. Anthony Shaffer are in this category.

William Rodriguez did testify to the 9/11 commission. I know becuase he's angry that the testimony they're leaving out is that he swears on his ancestors' graves that he saw one of the hijackers tresspassing in the WTC a few months before the attack.

www.nydailynews.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">William Rodriguez and the tresspassing hijacker

...so it seems to me the material the commission is leaving out only CONFIRMS that the personalities declared to be behind the attack were in fact real, or at least, I don't see how it would contradict it.

I think so. Statements (including commission reports) should be considered on their own merits and not be condemned based on a negative opinion of the statement's source. Both sides of the 9/11 debate fall prey to this error from time to time. People who expect their statements to be examined on merit should extend the same courtesy.

There, you see? You're starting to think independently now, and in new directions you've never encountered before on those conspiracy web sites you frequent...and with nary a concentration camp in sight.