Investigation of the 9/11 Commission

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1
To OSer's, I'm not claiming a conspiracy. I'm claiming if there was a conspiracy this is where one would start to look.

OSer's: Do you believe it's impossible that there was a conspiracy of some sort by the 9/11 Commission to cover anything up?

You have things backwards. The fact that this 9/11 conspiracy is implausible isn't dependent on whether the 9/11 commission could cover it up or not. The fact that this 9/11 conspiracy is implausible is dependent on it being impossible to cover up every single component of this enormous conspiracy everywhere and by everything, from the FAA to New York City firefighters to ground zero workers to even the Red Cross.

Heck, they can't even cover up Clinton's sex life or Bush outing a CIA agent. What makes you think they can turn around and cover up a vast conspiracy as monstrous as this?

You are creating an imaginary conspiracy in your mind then concluding a conspiracy of such magnitude would be impossible to cover up.

I have no horse in this race. I'm not positing that 9/11 was a monstrous conspiracy.

What I am saying is that if there were a conspiracy the 9/11 Commission would be who had to cover it up, no matter how large or small the magnitude of the conspiracy.

Jamie Gorelick was placed on the 9/11 Commission, and didn't resign even when there was an admitted conflict of interest involving the investigation of her own involvement in the events leading up to 9/11.

Jamie Gorelick was also on the board of Schlumberger, whose market cap increased 400% after 9/11.

Have we read any reports on the stock holdings of those on the 9/11 Commission?

Do you honestly believe that because you can't imagine something being true that means it can't be true?

Originally posted by homervb


If there was any evidence I don't think it would be declassified. That does not mean there wasn't any involvement and it definitely doesn't mean it's impossible. Why participate in a conspiracy forum if you intend on having a narrow mind?

Ironically that's precisely the argument that Rumsfeld made for the existence of Soviet super-subs during the cold war. The Russians were so good at hiding them that the lack of evidence for them actually became evidence of their existence. Of course they were an invention of his feverish mind.

You can keep a mind so open that it admits anything - that's your business. But looking at the whole picture, and the lack of any solid circumstantial evidence (this is the evidence you probably think is solid, but I don't) my best guess for there being no direct evidence is that it doesn't exist.

There's an assumed logical inconsistency in what you say anyway. I imagine that you think there is some evidence for an inside job. How come they haven't kept that secret?

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1

One interesting member of the 9/11 Commission is Jamie Gorelick.

Yes, very interesting.

Gorelick was a U.S. Deputy Attorney General during the Clinton administration, and accused of strengthening the infamous "wall" between intelligence agencies and law enforcement.

She wasn't responsible for that policy. Clinton was. And the reason for it becomes clear when you factor in who Clinton was - a lawyer.

His goal was clear and had an altruistic prupose, however misguided it may have turned out IF you are of the mindset that this "wall" indeed prohibited free exchange of info between agencies:

1- Clinton was a lawyer, and believes in the integrity of the court systems.
2- he wanted terrorist acts to be tried in the courts
3- info given to the FBI by the CIA couldn't be used in the courts during a trial of terrorists

What is curious is that Gorelick's "wall" became an issue during the 9/11 investigation, even being cited as a possible cause of the intelligence failures of 9/11, and yet Gorelick remained on the 9/11 Commission instead of stepping down.

Yes, it's curious, isn't it? She should of removed herself, but didn't.

In most legal situations, just an "appearance" of a conflict of interest is usually all that's required for an officer of the court to recuse themselves from a case.

Indeed. To make a long story short, she was there to protect Clinton's legacy. I am of the mindset that this "wall" resulted in the intelligence failures that allowed 9/11 to happen. Sandy Berger also was caught trying to smuggle papers out of an archive (in his underwear and socks, and then claimed to have "forgotten" that he had them) that would damage Clinton's legacy.

So why was Gorelick chosen to be on the 9/11 Commission, and why didn't she step down when the investigation turned towards her?

She was chosen by Dems to protect Clinton's legacy. SHe remanined cuz Republicans were too weak to request her removal and/or made a deal to let her remain to protect Clinton's legacy in exchange for Democrat support for the upcoming was against terrorism. Evidence of this false support can be seen everywhere in records - many prominent Democrats were seen to support the war, only to months later change their support, etc...

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1
To OSer's, I'm not claiming a conspiracy. I'm claiming if there was a conspiracy this is where one would start to look.

OSer's: Do you believe it's impossible that there was a conspiracy of some sort by the 9/11 Commission to cover anything up?

You have things backwards. The fact that this 9/11 conspiracy is implausible isn't dependent on whether the 9/11 commission could cover it up or not. The fact that this 9/11 conspiracy is implausible is dependent on it being impossible to cover up every single component of this enormous conspiracy everywhere and by everything, from the FAA to New York City firefighters to ground zero workers to even the Red Cross.

Heck, they can't even cover up Clinton's sex life or Bush outing a CIA agent. What makes you think they can turn around and cover up a vast conspiracy as monstrous as this?

So I assume my signature is also implausible?

reply to post by GiodanoBruno


If it's contention is that mass is the only variable that decides whether something can destroy something else, then yes, it's ridiculous.

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1


Jamie Gorelick was also on the board of Schlumberger, whose market cap increased 400% after 9/11.

Shouldn't that read "increased 400% because of 9/11" and be backed up by some evidence ?

Otherwise it's just unsupported innuendo.

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1
You are creating an imaginary conspiracy in your mind then concluding a conspiracy of such magnitude would be impossible to cover up.

I have no horse in this race. I'm not positing that 9/11 was a monstrous conspiracy.

What I am saying is that if there were a conspiracy the 9/11 Commission would be who had to cover it up, no matter how large or small the magnitude of the conspiracy.

What you're overlooking is that if there was a conspiracy it would be a lot more than just the 9/11 commission who'd be covering it up. There's also NIST, there's also FEMA, there's also Purdue university, there's also all the eyewitnesses those people interviewed, there's also all the ground zero workers, there's also the NY fire department, there's also NYPD helicopter pilots, there's also NATO, there's also the family members who talked to the passengers, and there's also about five gazillion other organizations and individuals who directly or indirectly support the findings of the 9/11 commission report. Even the woman who worked in the south tower I personally spoke with would have to be helping cover it up.

So which is the more likely scenario; that thousands and thousands of sinister secret agents are working to cover up this supposedly "secret" conspiracy, or there really is no coverup because there really isn't any conspiracy?

Jamie Gorelick was placed on the 9/11 Commission, and didn't resign even when there was an admitted conflict of interest involving the investigation of her own involvement in the events leading up to 9/11.

...to which I will ask again- why is having connections to New York Lawyers and college loan agencies a conflict of interest? I'm only going by your own six degrees of separation "Kevin Bacon" flowchart you posted here, after all.

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
So I assume my signature is also implausible?

If you're saying that it's impossible for a one ounce domino to knock over fifty pounds of dominos, then yes, your signature is impausible.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
So I assume my signature is also implausible?

If you're saying that it's impossible for a one ounce domino to knock over fifty pounds of dominos, then yes, your signature is impausible.

Don't twist it Dave. The formula below is there to help you understand. It doesn't say one ounce vs 50 pounds.

This is why , just like your avatar , you can't understand physics. And which is why the Elitist are betting there are more Dave's than Bruno's.

reply to post by GiodanoBruno

2 ALUMINUM JETLINERS WEIGHING 392TONS(fuel included) CANNOT PULVERIZE 3 STEEL/CONCRETE TOWERS WEIGHING 1 200 000TONS...swallow that OSers

So are saying that, what ever it was that destroyed the world trade centers. Weighed more than
1 200 000 tons and was stronger than steel/concrete.

What do you think it was ? Why didn't anyone see it ? Where is it at now ? How did they move it ?

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by GiodanoBruno

 

2 ALUMINUM JETLINERS WEIGHING 392TONS(fuel included) CANNOT PULVERIZE 3 STEEL/CONCRETE TOWERS WEIGHING 1 200 000TONS...swallow that OSers

So are saying that, what ever it was that destroyed the world trade centers. Weighed more than
1 200 000 tons and was stronger than steel/concrete.

What do you think it was ? Why didn't anyone see it ? Where is it at now ? How did they move it ?

edit on 12-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

Its in English(caps), so you should understand it and try to answer it without a question. Says a lot about your education and self esteem.

-I don't care what it was

-I don't care who saw or who didn't, nor who is "they"; and I don't care about videos or testimonies from anyone. That's why I have never posted a single freakin link. I don't believe in pissing matches. But you sure adore them.


But what I do know ,as a freakin FACT, is my signature is logical proof that cannot be twisted by you OSers or anyone else.


Just stare at my signature until you get teary eyed.


Say hello to boss for me, will ya.

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

But what I do know ,as a freakin FACT, is my signature is logical proof that cannot be twisted by you OSers or anyone else.

Well I for one wholeheartedly concur.

It's too bad Boeing hadn't developed the 757 by 1945. They could have saved the US all that money developing the A-Bomb and just sent a few of them fully loaded with fuel into Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It would have had the same fear effect on the rest of the planet.

The real terrorists on 911 were in Washington and Sarasota.

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
I don't believe in pissing matches.

Thats because you have nothing to piss with. Your evidence is just a generic absurd truther claim.

Just did some research on 9/11 Co-Chairman Lee Hamilton.

Turns on Hamilton is a member of both the Trilateral Commission and The Council on Foreign Relations.

More interesting is this:

Hamilton is also on the board of the Bretton Woods Committe. Also part of Bretton Woods are Richard Holbrooke and Frank Pearl, both principals of Perseus, LLC, along with James Johnson.



So far we are 2 to 2 on 9/11 Commission members being part of the Council on Foreign Relations. So is Henry Kissinger, originally chosen to head the 9/11 Commission.

Turns out Thomas Kean, the other co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, is also a member of the Bretton Woods Committe, and the Council on Foreign Relations. And he's on the board of Hess, a large international oil company.



Question: why were career politicians with so many close ties to the CFR and possible conflicts of interest chosen to investigate 9/11?

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
I don't believe in pissing matches.

Thats because you have nothing to piss with. Your evidence is just a generic absurd truther claim.

Right there is a perfect example of a staement drenched in urine. bravo

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1
Question: why were career politicians with so many close ties to the CFR and possible conflicts of interest chosen to investigate 9/11?

Do you know how many people are members of the CFR? And do you know what it does? You can look it up on the internet, they're not especially secretive.

Bingo

We can connect Mika Brzezinski with Kevin Bacon in five steps:
Mika Brzezinski → New Yorker Christmas Poem 2009 →
Penelope Cruz → Tom Cruise →
A Few Good Men → Kevin Bacon

www.muckety.com...

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1



You have no idea how much money they made in 2008-2009.

I do. And the answer is that most bankers lost money. The examples of people who made cash in the crisis are few and none of them is a Wall Street insider, perhaps with the exception of a guy at Deutsche Bank whose name I can't remember.

There are always examples of people who do well in crises. But overall the powers that be in banking did very badly in 08 and to think that they wanted what happened is crazy. If you think that there is some shadowy "power behind the power" in finance that actually did very well then it must be operating without the knowledge of all the biggest banks and bankers, and without a market to trade in. Its existence is basically impossible.

reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1


I agree that tracking the money is where you will find snakes. But not throw everything at the commission...they were stonewalled on many occasions, from the CIA to the president's office.

An interesting article in NY times...

NY times

reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1


I didn't see . . . links . . . in the graphic . . .

'gritchy, slick operating, manipulative, controlling, globalist, Marxist, tyrannical monopolistic capitalist, demonized corrupt political creature from hell.'