911 Commission Senior Counsel: Report is a lie

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

 

I didn't realize you were a Repub , this is not about Party lines to me.

Bush was in charge at the time, so his admin is taking the bad rap.

Probably was in the works before he sat in the WH.

This isnt a party issue, despite the valiant attempts of many members of the "truth" movement to turn it into one. And trying to hang blame on just one administration doesnt help in regards to fixing what is wrong. It smacks of the same politics as usual that has screwed our country up badly.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


We have talked a lot lately , only in your last 2 post have you brought up the
timeline of 71/2 months.
It means nothing to me politically , But the Captain of the Titanic takes the
shot, as Bush will.

reply to post by Sean48


Bush became President on January 20, 2001, about 7 1/2 months later we were attacked. And yes, he does share some of the blame. However, trying to hang all the blame on him is the same as all of the blame for Pearl Harbor being hung on Short and Kimmel....and just as wrong.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Which is why it will never turn into a one "upance" from the Dems against the

Repubs. The blame will go back a long way .

Again, making it harder on us Truther's , neither party can gain from this

being aired out.

I believe that anyone who defends the OS or, 911 Report is basing their beliefs in a shaky game of smoke & mirrors designed to cover up lies, misdirect inquirys and hide the genuine motivations of the politicos involved. The 911 Report is NOT any evidence as to the incidents on 911. This much has been made clear by not only the panel itself but by various government figures and the media.

While I do respect the opinions of others who do not jive with my own and sometimes the topic gets heated, I always question those who claim to be skeptical of anyone who seeks the truth. To me that not only pulls those into question regarding their integrity but poses a serious question as to one's very comprehension to grasp the reality when its presented to them as in the case of a flawed report such as the one the 911 Commission developed.

There are Senators, Congressmen & Women, Military personnel, Attorneys, Experts in various related fields of the events & related actions/consequences of 911 and many others who have proved beyond a shadow of any doubt that the OS is based in deciept on the part of those questioned about their roles on that day. For me this is closed. The 911 report is a lie. Its bogus and incomplete.

Want sources & proof? Go look it up as I did. I'm not doing anyone's research any longer.

[edit on 18-1-2010 by mikelee]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

Still stuck on the words of the FBI PR flack? I think I will stick with the words of the FBI director who said there was no doubt of Osama being involved before the Congress. I think his information might be a little more exact than the PR department.

That "PR flack" was explaining why Osama bin Laden isn't wanted by the FBI for 9/11. Very simple -- there's more evidence against the dancing Israelis than America's favorite global boogeyman.

If what you're saying is true, then Osama bin Laden would be wanted by the FBI for 9/11, dontcha think? But as you can see from his FBI poster, he's not.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And trying to hang blame on just one administration doesnt help in regards to fixing what is wrong. It smacks of the same politics as usual that has screwed our country up badly.

Thanks for doing your part.

An object lesson for the Truthers:



A rich family is murdered as the stumble onto a drug deal.

Two drug dealers shoot and kill the husband, wife and kid.

The first person to respond is an off duty cop that lives near the murder and heard the struggle.

When he arrives the family is dead and the murders are gone. He calls 911. As he's waiting for the rest of the cops he finds a large quantity of drugs, which he steals

In the murder investigation the cops find DNA, bullet casings and fingerprints all leading to the drug dealers. They are arrested and confess. They are jailed for murder.

The only funny part of the trial us that the first cop, the one that found the bodies, was missing from the scene when the other cops showed up. He claimed he had simply been freaked out by the whole gruesome scene and went for a walk to clear his head.

The defence pounced on this claim and try, unsuccessfully, to use it as a alternate theory for the murders.

The jury however found that all of the hard evidence pointed ONLY at the drug dealers.

6 months after the trial, a internal investigation revels that the cop had stolen the drugs.

The defence gets wind of this development, but only as a rumour. They try and reopen the case, but the cops bosses lie about the internal investigation, to protect one o their own and the case is not reopened.

A few years later a lawyer involved in the DA's office writes a book about the case and says:

"At some level there was a conspiracy. We'll may never know why these police lied, but we know we did not get the truth. Still, regarding the murders, everyone involved, the judge, the lawyers and the jury all believe the guilty parties were caught and punished."


Now, in this scenario the rational amongst us would say:

The evidence points tithe drug dealers
The cops lied to protect their own and themselves
Justice was done for the dead family
The cop who lied should be investigated, but as long as his colleagues defend him nothing will happen

The Truthers, however would claim:

The bodies weren't of the rich family, but were switched after the fact
The cop murdered the family
The police all conspired to cover up his murders
The book about the murders claims that the murders were commited by the cops


Now, none of the Truther claims would be accurate, but because there had been a government conspiracy they could, especially to people that are too lazy to examine the facts and who were already suspicious o government, sound true.

In fact, if people made hundreds of hours of documentaries about the murders and website, etc., people interested the case would probably eventually fall almost exclusively in to one group, people that believed the conspiracy theory about the cop being the murderer.

Also, in this scenario, the cops would fight releasing video footage which showed the cop with the drugs or evidence which let the actual murders have a retrial. After all, they did do the murders.

Honestly, there's many of us in the Reality camp that think some government agencies lied to cover their asses. They should be investigated. There's some that think we haven't gotten ALL of the facts, so let's get them all.

But none of us think that those two things, a desire for facts and justice is PROOF that 9/11 was an inside job. There's plenty of examples where lying cops put ACTUAL bad guys in jail. The two don't have to be at odds.

And, really, what's more likely, thousands of people around the world lying in unison to protect one 100 iterations of a conspiracy theory OR some political and military hacks lying to keep their jobs/keep their offices from looking like #?

We've seen AMPLE evidence that people are willing to lie to cover their own asses. We've seen much less actual evidence that there's a global conspiracy, led by the US government, to plan launch 9/11.

Conjecture might be fun, but it's not evidence.

Lying might temporarily help you convince a sucker of some non-fact, but in the long run it hurts your own credibility.

Those are the main two things Truthers need to learn if they're ever going to come close to convincing people like me.

---

I'm sure though, they won't read this, they'll exaggerate or twist my words and they'll attack me instead of being reasonable.

This is the way of the Truther.





[edit on 18-1-2010 by seethelight]

reply to post by seethelight

Here's a much better analogy.

BTW, your profile says you're from Ireland, you claim to be American, but you spell "rumour" and "defence" like the British?

Anything else you want us to seethelight about?

P.S. I've got a question for the mods/admin -- why did this #1 rated thread with 59 flags drop off ATS' front page after a little more than 2 days?

When ATS says "IMPORTANT TOPICS (3 DAYS)", they really mean 2 days.



[edit on 18-1-2010 by GoldenFleece]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
If what you're saying is true, then Osama bin Laden would be wanted by the FBI for 9/11, dontcha think? But as you can see from his FBI poster, he's not.

Don't worry about this:

en.wikipedia.org...

and this:

www.rewardsforjustice.net...

and this:

search.fbi.gov... tylesheet=my_collection&oe=UTF-8

In other words:

The indictment against UBL is sealed, which is why 9/11 isn't on the poster. However, the State Department does list his as responsible for 9/11 and a cursory search of the FBI website shows that the FBI has repeatedly stated he's responsible.

--

All in all another ridiculous Truther lie.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


yeah, no # I do, because, though I AM AMERICAN I live in Dublin and have for 3 years, before that I lived in London.

I have adapted my spelling to my environment and my spell checker is set to UK English.

Glad to see you're still trying to call me a foreigner though. What proof do you have that YOU are American? Considering how much you hate my Government, well, let's just say you sound more foreign and anti-American than I do.

Or is this all just another attempt to smear people you disagree with.

I was born in Colorado, grew up in Arkansas, went to College in Ohio, and lived 10 years in Boston.

American enough for you?

My wife is Irish though.

Starting to get it?

Another exciting example of Truther's world class investigation skills.

"He spells color with a "u" --- get 'em."

As far as your better "analogy" is concerned:

First, it's not an analogy, it's someone talking about finding a way for the Government to ensure that people are not confused by lies and misinformation spread by people like yourself.

And guess what... it's talking about doing that IN THE FUTURE.

So that certainly doesn't exaplin things, IN THE PAST.

And, I would note that you in NO WAY responded to my post which clearly explained how a conspiracy could exist that doesn't change who's responsible for a crime.

Something you refuse to acknowledge.

And again, you refuse to acknowledge that the book in question aggressively disagrees with your position.

Aggressively.

So far I've been accused of being a foreigner and a government disinfo agent.

Just how paranoid are you people?


[edit on 18-1-2010 by seethelight]

Originally posted by seethelight
The indictment against UBL is sealed, which is why 9/11 isn't on the poster. However, the State Department does list his as responsible for 9/11 and a cursory search of the FBI website shows that the FBI has repeatedly stated he's responsible.

"The indictment against UBL is sealed." How ridiculous. Now you're just making %$#& up:

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

P.S. Since you claim to have lived in London, 7/7 was also a false flag.


[edit on 18-1-2010 by GoldenFleece]

reply to post by GoldenFleece


I'm not making # up:

explain why numerous FBI officials have claimed UBL was behind 9/11. It's on their site.

Explain why the State Department publicly states on his wanted page he was responsible, and offer a reward for his capture.

Can you?

If the US Govt had no evidence would they be doing these things?

And by the way 7/7 wasn't a false flag. Another claim with NO proof.

And show me the original article which contains the above quote... not a blog reprint.

The original one. Give me a link.

I should also add:

Truthers believe that the fact the FBI Wanted List doesn't specifically list UBL as being responsible for 9/11 PROVES he wasn't.

These same people ALSO believe that the FBI is Lying about what they know about 9/11.

So which is it?

Is the FBI lying get us all to believe UBL was behind 9/11?

Or are they for some reason omitting his role in 9/11 on the Wanted list to somehow tell us the truth?

--


Or, like I said, are they not putting that info in that ONE PLACE for a legal reason?

My explanation is the ONLY one that explains their seemingly contradictory behaviour (claiming publicly and repeatedly he's responsible, while not including it in ONE place).

Originally posted by seethelight
Explain why the State Department publicly states on his wanted page he was responsible, and offer a reward for his capture.

Sorry but both the FBI and Department of Justice has officially stated many times that there is not enough evidence to charge OBL with being behind 9/11.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by seethelight
Explain why the State Department publicly states on his wanted page he was responsible, and offer a reward for his capture.

Sorry but both the FBI and Department of Justice has officially stated many times that there is not enough evidence to charge OBL with being behind 9/11.

Sorry, but the State Department claims it right here:

www.rewardsforjustice.net...

"Usama bin Ladin is wanted in connection with the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center "

www.washingtonpost.com...

More actual info ^^^^^^^^^^

If you spend ANY TIME looking at this you'll find two things:

1) The DOJ and the FBI have publicy stated that UBL was behind 9/11
2) The only source for the ridiculous and contradictory conspiracy theory is a Muckraker report which can not been found on their site. In fact, all the links to the Muckraker report seem to lead to other blogs. One big echo chamber.

Why hasn't a single Truther bothered to call or email the FBI, if their so honest and trustworthy why not ask them directly?



[edit on 18-1-2010 by seethelight]

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

I'm not making # up:

explain why numerous FBI officials have claimed UBL was behind 9/11. It's on their site.

Explain why the State Department publicly states on his wanted page he was responsible, and offer a reward for his capture.

You make lots of claims, but fail to back them up. Here's the FBI page on OBL. Where is there any mention of 9/11 by anyone? And no, it's not because it's a "sealed indictment." That's ridiculous and yes, you're making it up.

Ever hear of Project Censored? They've been around for 35 years and are regularly featured on ATS.

Originally posted by seethelight
If the US Govt had no evidence would they be doing these things?

Doing what things? Starting endless trillion-dollar wars that have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians? Perhaps you forgot about the totally false (as admitted in the NSA archives) Gulf of Tonkin incident? Operation Northwoods? USS Liberty? Waco? Oklahoma City? How about those infamous Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction?"

C'mon, don't be naive. The PNAC "New Pearl Harbor" neocons had this planned for a long time.


[edit on 18-1-2010 by GoldenFleece]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

I'm not making # up:

explain why numerous FBI officials have claimed UBL was behind 9/11. It's on their site.

Explain why the State Department publicly states on his wanted page he was responsible, and offer a reward for his capture.

You make lots of claims, but fail to back them up. Here's the FBI page on OBL. Where is there any mention of 9/11 by anyone? And no, it's not because it's a "sealed indictment." That's ridiculous and yes, you are making it up.

Ever hear of Project Censored? They've been around for 35 years and are regularly featured on ATS.

Originally posted by seethelight
If the US Govt had no evidence would they be doing these things?

Doing what things? Starting endless trillion-dollar wars that have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians? Perhaps you forgot about the totally false (as admitted in the NSA archives) Gulf of Tonkin incident? Operation Northwoods? USS Liberty? Waco? Oklahoma City? How about those infamous Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction?"

C'mon, don't be naive. The "New Pearl Harbor" PNAC neocons had this planned for a long time.


[edit on 18-1-2010 by GoldenFleece]

You're the one being naive.

You think the FBI, the one you accuse of being behind 9/11, wouldn't put UBLs name on a wanted list for what reason?

Because they have no proof?

Does that even come close to making sense?

Why would they lie and cover up their lies, except on a Wanted website?

Can you explain that?

Neocons are scum, horrible horrible #ers. but they didn't run 9/11. They were just happy it happened.

I have also showed you the JDs webpage where they do BLAME UBL.

Is that a lie? But the FBI's isn't, even though they publicly lie?

Originally posted by seethelight
www.washingtonpost.com...

More actual info ^^^^^^^^^^

I LOVE this article:

The curious omission underscores the Justice Department's decision, so far, to not seek formal criminal charges against bin Laden for approving al-Qaeda's most notorious and successful terrorist attack.

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they haven't because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.

Not seeking formal criminal charges against Osama bin Laden is "logical?" "Legal restrictions?" "A need to be fair?" Too rich!

Sorry dewd, you've lost all credibility with your "sealed indictment" BS that also violates ATS' rules of posting about making knowingly false statements.


[edit on 18-1-2010 by GoldenFleece]

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Blaming Cheney/bush for incompetence is NOT the point.
How about we CREDIT them with a successful false flag op.That better?