Investigation of the 9/11 Commission

reply to post by Bilk22


The Commission, was charged at looking at the history/events/intelligence failures connected to that day. It was not supposed to investigate why the buildings fell. In fact, it was prohibited from duplicating the investigations being done by other agencies.

reply to post by vipertech0596


Bingo, it would be easier and shorter to list what they do know than what they don't.... That much is intuitively obvious.. Unfortunately, the rules here indicate one should post at least two lines!

Why so? Why only look at something that was presupposed? How would they conclude that there were failures if the events didn't happen as they were claimed to have happened?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Bilk22

 

The Commission, was charged at looking at the history/events/intelligence failures connected to that day. It was not supposed to investigate why the buildings fell. In fact, it was prohibited from duplicating the investigations being done by other agencies.

reply to post by Bilk22


Why would the Commission need to repeat the investigations being done by the FBI? Why would the Commission need to study the collapses since NIST(and others) were already doing it?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Bilk22

 

Why would the Commission need to repeat the investigations being done by the FBI? Why would the Commission need to study the collapses since NIST(and others) were already doing it?

Well, can we really trust the FBI to tell us who all the people were behind the attacks?

9/11 terrorists’ connection to Saudis is being hidden, says former commission chief

Former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who co-chaired the 9/11 commission, claims there is more to the hijacker’s so-called Sarasota connection than the FBI is letting on.

Graham says classified FBI documents he’s seen contradict the agency’s public pronouncement that there was no sinister link between the terrorists and a Saudi couple that mysteriously fled the U.S. just weeks before the terror attacks.

Covering up for people who are complicit in the deaths of 3,000 people doesn't make you a reliable government agency, just saying.

Originally posted by homervb

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Bilk22

 

Why would the Commission need to repeat the investigations being done by the FBI? Why would the Commission need to study the collapses since NIST(and others) were already doing it?

Well, can we really trust the FBI to tell us who all the people were behind the attacks?

9/11 terrorists’ connection to Saudis is being hidden, says former commission chief

Former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who co-chaired the 9/11 commission, claims there is more to the hijacker’s so-called Sarasota connection than the FBI is letting on.

Graham says classified FBI documents he’s seen contradict the agency’s public pronouncement that there was no sinister link between the terrorists and a Saudi couple that mysteriously fled the U.S. just weeks before the terror attacks.

Covering up for people who are complicit in the deaths of 3,000 people doesn't make you a reliable government agency, just saying.

Yes, by all means hang the guilty bastards. Never mind nothing has been proven, but in your world allegations based on suspicion means guilty.

You know it's a fact that the Saudi involvement was redacted from the report right? You do know it a fact that the Saudi involvement is being covered up, right? The FBI is covering for those who took part in funding the murder of 3,000 innocent peopl, whether you'd like to be ignorant to it or not.

Originally posted by homervb
You know it's a fact that the Saudi involvement was redacted from the report right? You do know it a fact that the Saudi involvement is being covered up, right? The FBI is covering for those who took part in funding the murder of 3,000 innocent peopl, whether you'd like to be ignorant to it or not.

I'm not denying or ignoring a damn thing. I'm glad you know why that part was redacted, I don't. I don't doubt that some of the numerous Princes from Saudi Arabia provided funds to Al- Queada. That does not necessarily mean the Saudi Government was supporting it. Based on History and Saudi interests I seriously doubt it.

The vast majority of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, so why wouldn't one think there was Saudi involvement.

Do you want to go to War with Saudi Arabia? Is that your objective? Do you want to hang the guilty bastards based on your paranoid conspiracy suspicions? If the FBI redacted it, why do you have a beef with the Commission? I really don't care what you think. These are simply rhetorical questions that come to mind. You seem to think everyone under the sun is involved in the conspiracy, so I've lost count.

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by homervb
You know it's a fact that the Saudi involvement was redacted from the report right? You do know it a fact that the Saudi involvement is being covered up, right? The FBI is covering for those who took part in funding the murder of 3,000 innocent peopl, whether you'd like to be ignorant to it or not.

I'm not denying or ignoring a damn thing. I'm glad you know why that part was redacted, I don't. I don't doubt that some of the numerous Princes from Saudi Arabia provided funds to Al- Queada. That does not necessarily mean the Saudi Government was supporting it. Based on History and Saudi interests I seriously doubt it.

The vast majority of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, so why wouldn't one think there was Saudi involvement.

Do you want to go to War with Saudi Arabia? Is that your objective? Do you want to hang the guilty bastards based on your paranoid conspiracy suspicions? If the FBI redacted it, why do you have a beef with the Commission? I really don't care what you think. These are simply rhetorical questions that come to mind. You seem to think everyone under the sun is involved in the conspiracy, so I've lost count.

edit on 18-6-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

Um no, I don't think everyone is in on the conspiracy, actually as repeated to you for the 80th time on this forum, I'm one of the FEW skeptics who don't think everyone's in on it. The poster above me asked why we should reopen investigation done by the FBI, and this is my reason why...THEY'RE COVERING IT UP. Have your doubts bro. I really don't care, because I have my suspicions.

Omar al-Bayoumi
At this time, Omar al-Bayoumi was paid about $3,000 per month by Dallah Avco, a Saudi company closely tied to the Saudi Ministry of Defense and Aviation, al-Bayoumi's former employer. The salary was officially for a project in Saudi Arabia, although he was living in the United States at the time and apparently did no work for them. For five years, the Saudi ministry reimbursed Dallah Avco for al-Bayoumi's salary, and he was considered a civil servant. When the company tried to fire al-Bayoumi in 1999, a Saudi government official replied with a letter marked "extremely urgent" that the government wanted al-Bayoumi's contract renewed "as quickly as possible."[4] Al-Bayoumi was quickly rehired. Dallah Avco is currently[when?] being investigated by the FBI for ties to al-Qaida.

Some time in late 1999 or early 2000, Omar al-Bayoumi began receiving another monthly payment–this one from Princess Haifa bint Faisal, the wife of Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. Checks for between $2,000 and $3,000 were sent monthly from the princess, through two or three intermediaries, to al-Bayoumi.[5] The payments continued for several years, totaling between $50,000 and $75,000.

Seriously Reheat you come into every thread and label me this hardcore truther who's bent on finding an inside job. I have repeatedly told you I am not one of those people. Its is more than obvious that your goal is to not find the truth, but to label & criticize those that do seek it.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Why would the Commission need to repeat the investigations being done by the FBI?

Why should investigations done by the FBI be redone? Because their investigations are covering for those who were co conspirators in the events of 9/11. Do I want to goto war with Saudi Arabia? Well I wanted to go to war with Iraq but that's when we, the US citizens, were told that Iraq was behind 9/11. If we were told the TRUTH about the Saudi involvement then YES, I would have wished war upon them. Is that so illogical Reheat? I don't think so. And I don't see anywhere on this thread where I've implicated anyone else in a cover up.

Oh wait, you're the guy who doesn't get enjoyment out of talking about 9/11 conspiracies but you use your free time to do so. ILLOGICAL.

reply to post by homervb


Did you ever think that there might be other reasons why they don't just disclose everything? We rolled up a lot of terrorist bank accounts and prevented other attacks in the days and weeks following 9/11, mainly because we had certain Saudis giving us information. Disclosing all the information damages other investigations.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by homervb

 

Did you ever think that there might be other reasons why they don't just disclose everything? We rolled up a lot of terrorist bank accounts and prevented other attacks in the days and weeks following 9/11, mainly because we had certain Saudis giving us information. Disclosing all the information damages other investigations.

Because EVERYthing a parnoid conspiracy theorist suspects is a conspiracy, don't you know.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by homervb

 

Did you ever think that there might be other reasons why they don't just disclose everything? We rolled up a lot of terrorist bank accounts and prevented other attacks in the days and weeks following 9/11, mainly because we had certain Saudis giving us information. Disclosing all the information damages other investigations.

Of course I thought of that. Did you ever think to continue questioning? Because Senator Bob Graham continues to question it. This is from last year, 10 years after the attacks took place.

Graham asks Obama for answers on Saudi 9/11 role; FBI denies Sarasota probe found ties to plot
SEPTEMBER 10, 2011

Graham asks Obama for answers on Saudi 9/11 role; FBI denies Sarasota probe found ties to plot

Former U.S. Senator Bob Graham has called on President Obama to use his authority to get answers to long-lingering questions about possible Saudi involvement in 9/11.

“If we are truly going to be respectful of the victims of 9/11 one of the things the president and this administration must do is get to the bottom of these questions,” said Graham, who co-chaired Congress’s bi-partisan Joint Inquiry into the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

Graham’s remarks followed a Thursday story in Broward Bulldog about a 2001 investigation by the FBI that reportedly found direct ties between the hijackers and a Saudi family who abruptly abandoned their luxury home near Sarasota two weeks before the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. Sources on and off the record said agents found the home was visited by vehicles used by the hijackers, including leader Mohamed Atta.

Phone calls were also linked between the home and the hijackers, the sources said.

That “significant” information was not reported to Congress as it should have been, Graham said.

Friday night, the FBI in Miami issued its first public statement on the matter. It confirmed the existence of the investigation, but said it was “resolved and determined not to be related to any threat nor connected to the 9/11 plot.” No details were provided.

The statement released by Special Agent Michael D. Leverock added, “All of the documentation pertaining to the 9/11 investigation was made available to the 9/11 commission and the (Joint Inquiry).”

Reached Saturday afternoon, Graham said the FBI’s assertion that it had made all of its 9/11 information available to Congress was not credible.

“Nobody I’ve spoken to with the Joint Inquiry says we got any information on this,” Graham said. “It’s total B.S. It’s the same thing we’ve been getting from the FBI for the past 10 years.”

Let me guess, Senator Bob Graham is just as illogical as I am for questioning it. right? Bob Graham is now nothing more than a truther to you who believes in lasers from space and holograms, right? Bob Graham should not have any questions in his mind regarding the investigation, right?

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by homervb

 

Did you ever think that there might be other reasons why they don't just disclose everything? We rolled up a lot of terrorist bank accounts and prevented other attacks in the days and weeks following 9/11, mainly because we had certain Saudis giving us information. Disclosing all the information damages other investigations.

Because EVERYthing a parnoid conspiracy theorist suspects is a conspiracy, don't you know.

So you're telling me if someone killed your family and the police covered up all evidence implicating the murderer, you would totally rely on the police to serve and protect you as promised? And I'm illogical? Really? Reheat, please get a life. You flat out said you don't enjoy debating 9/11 conspiracies with skeptics but you continue to logon to this forum. I called you out on it and all you could respond with was some "I don't have to answer to you" crap. Why don't you go find something you ENJOY doing, and live a happy life? It's evident you really do not get enjoyment out of this which is even more evident that you use your spare time to take part in something you don't enjoy. Start thinking logically, then we can talk.

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1
If there was any type of conspiracy to cover-up anything, the 9/11 Commission would be where to begin the research. So far it seems that the 9/11 Commission was filled with career government bureaucrats with self-interests that were in direct conflict with an unbiased investigation.

Not a good way to begin a legitimate investigation, in my opinion.

What you say is technically true...but then again the 9/11 Commission report wasn't created by a bunch of guys barricaded away like they were electing a pope. They were open hearings which were televised, and their findings were based upon the testimony from the eyewitnesses they received.

That actually brings up a valis question- Norm Mineta, for example, stated to the 9/11 commission that he heard someone ask Cheney "Did the orders still stand", which he confirmed ten seconds later that the order he heard was a shoot down order. These conspiracy theorists then come along, snip off the video where he acknowledged it was a shoot down order, present the "does the order still stand" section of testimony by itself, and then use it to declare there was a stand down order. Do a search on Youtube and you'll see plenty of BEFORE and AFTER versions of that video of the 9/11 commission report. There is literally no way this stunt could be accidental; it's an intentional act of lying to deliberately trick people into believing there was a stand down order which never happened.

How then can there be any "investigation of the 9/11 commission" when the ones attempting to investigate it are being as shady as a street vendor selling knockoff Louis Vuitton handbags on a NYC sidewalk?

reply to post by homervb

So you're telling me if someone killed your family and the police covered up all evidence implicating the murderer, you would totally rely on the police to serve and protect you as promised? And I'm illogical?

So 911 Commission was in on it....?

In fact several of the members had a personal stake

The chairman, former NJ governor Tom Kean, knew some of the people on United 93, Donald and Jean Peterson
were personal friends of him . Used to play tennis together

John Azzerello was one of commison counsels - he lost his 2 brothers-in-law who worked for Cantor Fitzgerald

Originally posted by thedman
So 911 Commission was in on it....?

In fact several of the members had a personal stake

The chairman, former NJ governor Tom Kean, knew some of the people on United 93, Donald and Jean Peterson
were personal friends of him . Used to play tennis together

John Azzerello was one of commison counsels - he lost his 2 brothers-in-law who worked for Cantor Fitzgerald

You OSers are making me LMAO.

Here's how it went down:

vipertech0596:
Why would the Commission need to repeat the investigations being done by the FBI? Why would the Commission need to study the collapses since NIST(and others) were already doing it?


ME:

Well, can we really trust the FBI to tell us who all the people were behind the attacks?

9/11 terrorists’ connection to Saudis is being hidden, says former commission chief

Covering up for people who are complicit in the deaths of 3,000 people doesn't make you a reliable government agency, just saying.

So, after directly saying the FBI is hard to trust, and after I posted an article based on a 9/11 Commission member questioning the FBI, you managed to turn all that around and make it look like I'm saying the 9/11 Commission is in on it?

Are you serious right now, or just joking? Cause if you're serious then I know you're:

a.) looking to put words in my mouth and start a fight

or

b.)your reading comprehension is at an all time low

or

c.) Both A & B.

Pick one bro. Because I'm here to debate/discuss, not to have words be put in my mouth so you can start a false argument here.

Well, can we really trust the FBI to tell us who all the people were behind the attacks?

9/11 terrorists’ connection to Saudis is being hidden, says former commission chief

Please explain to me how you managed to turn that into "So the 9/11 Commission was in on it?" Please. I need another good laugh.

Originally posted by samkent
It's quiet because some threads derail themselves.

Schlumberger's stock went from under $25 a share in Aug. 2001 to over $107 a share in Sept. 2008, just before the housing crisis.

So if these people are part of 'TPTB' why did they let the crash happen? They lost more money than the average joe did.

You can sit there all day and draw lines between businessmen and politicians. That's just the way humanity works. But that doesn't mean they are ALL doing something wrong.

Can you name one big name company CEO that could not be framed into being part of some conspiracy? But simple logic would dictate that at some point person 'A's interest would conflict with person 'B's. At that point this whole house of cards of TPTB would start to fall apart.

I could make an argument that mother Teresa was part of some conspiracy. But that doesn't mean it's true any more than these charts.

If you don't understand how the financial system works them best leave it to those that know what they are talking about?

You never did tell us how you thought the thread derailed itself? You made that strange remark only after a few comments had been made, how can a thread derail itself just after it has started?

It's a few pages in now, and I don't see any signs of it, 'derailing itself'.

The mind boggles!

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

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 statement drenched in urine. bravo

Yeah bruno, waypastvne for some reason thinks he knows a lot about 9/11 but yet does not understand that a 'truther' is a made up entity created to deliberately stereotype people researching 9/11.

It's a well known fact by 9/11 researchers, and just goes to show waypastvne has no idea whatsoever about 9/11, either that or they do, and use the word deliberately for what it was initially designed for!

This is why anything written waypastvne should not be taken seriously. Waypastvne posts on many 9/11 sites, but mainly posts pictures/videos, spending years presenting a case to uphold the 'official' story, and in all this time he hasn't learnt what the true meaning of the term 'truther' is?!

When I say waypastvne posts pictures and videos on other sites, I mean just that, not really interacting like here, just posting what he perceives as 'evidence' to support the OS. Just google waypastvne and you'll find him in a few 9/11 places.

I personally think waypastvne knows what the term 'truther' means, the real story behind the term, and why he uses the term in a deliberate derogatory manner.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
You really will say and do anything to deny any type of collusion by the Power Elite whatsoever. You call us crazy, but that's only because you are either woefully ignorant, or deliberately trying to mislead. As usual, I suspect the latter. Your user name is most appropriate.

edit on 13-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

No it's not that anyone is trying to mislead you. Just that you espouse crazy ideas. Everyone and everything is in on it if you need them to be. You believe in conspiracies so huge and vast that they encompass practically everyone even posters here.

That is a crazy belief. You can't blame others for it.

You obviously do not realise just how ridiculous your comment is exponent! You have taken the word exaggeration to the extreme with this reply.

Simon has always presented a good case, and Simon has never said that 9/11 encompasses everyone, even posters on ATS! That is utterly absurd, and you know that statement is completely false!

How can you make a comment about someone believing that 9/11 was an inside job, and try to make out Simon is making wild unbelievable remarks, which Simon is not, but your reply exponent, really is a really wild unbelievable remark!

It's like you're accusing someone of something they are not doing, and in turn doing the thing you are accusing someone of yourself!

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

With all due respect, this entire debate about the towers is entirely off topic.

The thread is about the investigation of the 9/11 Commission, not repeating and/or debunking 10-year old arguments.

Back on topic:

If there was any type of conspiracy to cover-up anything, the 9/11 Commission would be where to begin the research. So far it seems that the 9/11 Commission was filled with career government bureaucrats with self-interests that were in direct conflict with an unbiased investigation.

Not a good way to begin a legitimate investigation, in my opinion.

Yep, goldoldave and his merry band of deflunkers do love to try take threads off topic, and derail them!

They are not really interested in the content of a thread, they just comment to either to enlarge their e-penis, or to deliberately cancel anything out that anyone says that is remotely close to the truth.

I have posted damning stuff before and they have deliberately ignored what I have posted, Like videos for example, and choose to ignore them because it will prove them wrong and deflate their e-penis, or it will prove them wrong and expose the OS even more.

Let's see if they do actually stay on topic, or if they lose interest in the real topic, and just derail/troll their way through the thread...