9/11 Commission Report

Has anybody read the 9/11 Commission Report?? I picked the book up a couple days ago and have just gotten a couple pages in. It seems pretty thorough and the facts have already proven to be eye opening.

 

Again, how is it thorough?

It was a total whitewash - the entire commission.

People should be walking away in handcuffs as a result of these findings, and they're not.

What key officials does the report place blame on?

Nobody. The report does nothing but PROTECT such people.

Why can't you see that it's all a sham. I mean, you seem to be fairly intelligent. Why do you believe such crap?

 

I think the 9/11 commission report was bullshit, and they were just put in place to save the Bush Administrations ass by saying that the attack was "unavoidable". Read some REAL facts about what happened on 9/11.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html
http://www.infowars.com/resources.html
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

Well............????


I don't want to get off topic, as I am sure this has been covered numerous times in the forums, but what key officials do you think should have been charged?

Again, who should be walking away in handcuffs as a result of the findings?

I agree with you to some extent, though I am not sure to what extent those indirectly responsible should be reprimanded. There was such a vast degree of failures from the very top to the very bottom that I think the first step is to find out what the failures were and how to correct them, which I believe is the intent of the report.

 

Dan, honestly, are you kidding me with those links?? It's okay if you want to read those but I don't think you should read INTO those. At best that information should be taken with a block of salt. One hates to use the word "conspiracy theory", but come, where's your head?

 

I have to agree with Silkyway here.Those sites are such full of shit...it isnt even funny.

the basic realities...4 planes hijacked....2 flew into trade center and exploded on impact do to highly flammable fuel(these planes are like flying bombs themselves)..1 flown in pentagon..again exploding do to fuel...last plane was ditched in a field..many people accredit it to passengers retaking the plane.

those are the realities...3000 dead.

how anyone could debate those facts are beyond me and prove the stupidity of some people.

Now if these same people would just focus on the actual questionable material..that would be nice.

such as....did the government know about the plans and did nothing to stop it? and why?

I'm a firm believer that the government was warned, they knew they would happen, they failed to stop it, they then get the go ahead to launch war against countries who put a damper on oil profit margins. also, countries whom are signaficant in controlling the middle east.

I have yet to read the report...and I'd rather read it myself then take the words of people arguing on a forum.

But I'd thought I'd be obnoxious and pop in here to blast the supporters of such nonsense as those sites that actually claim that 1)bombs were pre-planted and then detonated in the towers 2)the planes were remote-controled by Bush or one of his flunkies...gimme a friggin break.

 

Sorry to call you out on your call for actual facts Otter, but perhaps if you researched how lame the coverstory's claim that the WTC buildings were brought down by burning jet fuel is (when in FACT, Jet fuel can in no way reach the temperatures necessary to melt steel girders even under optimum controlled conditions) you might begin to understand why a true investigation into EVERY facet of the official line is required if we are ever to get at the truth and (as I will forever contend) the actual culprits behind that day.

 

Where are your links to credentialed sources that say that jet fuel cannot produce a flame hot enough to melt steel?

because, all the Physicists and Chemists and "fuel experts" from MIT and whatnot have backed the explanation that it was extreme heat from the fires caused by burning jet fuel that melted and weakened the beams, substantial enough to cause collapse. Jet fuel is one of hottest and fastest flammables on earth.

The beams were not strong enough as is to withstand the attacks alone..do to shoddy built beams that had to support the weights of millions of tons of concrete, metal, water, wood, people, ect...

The buildings were not built to optimum safety.even without the jet fuel, many say that the buildings would have crumbled.

they were too tall and too heavy and their skeletons had the construction-equivalent to osteoporosis.

I remember the panic from '93...they were worried the building was gonna fall after that bomb went off. They had the whole area evacuated for hours and hours..just in case.


My husband refueled jets at our airport while going to EMT school. He came home reeking of jet fuel...I asked what would happen if someone lit a match...he said..

"I dont know...no one has ever survived..they burn up too quickly."

 

http://www.rense.com/general39/points.htm

All the rest of your rambling post and (ahem) unsubstantiated claims about "all the Physicists and Chemists and "fuel experts" from MIT and whatnot" (which quite frankly is rubbish) aside, the simple and known FACT of the matter is that steel girders must reach temperatures of approx 2000 F to even turn red and soften let alone MELT (at 2800 F).

Sorry to say, the WTC was not constructed shoddily, it was constructed with a plethora of centralised columns purposely to withstand a direct hit from a jumbo jet. Further, unless you were asleep on the day (and anytime subsequently as the recorded incident was replayed over and over) you would have seen all too clearly that:

1. The vast bulk of this jet fuel itself was expelled OUTSIDE the towers in a giant fireball over the city.

2. That the towers were engulfed in BLACK SMOKE (which any firefighter can tell you indicates smoldering, not raging fire). Thus even if Jet fuel COULD reach such ungodly temperatures (which it cannot with a peak (controlled) burn of approx 1500 F) it DID NOT do so in the towers under the conditions on that day.

3. That given the "official" story, the first tower struck (which had been "burning" (smoldering actually) for approx an hour longer than the first tower should have fallen first, but it did not.

Plain and simple, I find it utterly astounding how readily the American public will swallow the official line even after three years of repeated revelations of lie after lie after lie from this administration and will not so much as bother to truly investigate the glaring inconsistencies nor consider logically who stood to (and indeed DID) gain the most from the this attack.

Screaming conspiracy theory might keep you in good graces with the general prevailing "groupthink" that has come to rule our public debate, but it does not square with known scientific fact regardless of how many MIT scientists might have claimed it so.

I would also remind you that the argument used by most to dismiss all the scrutiny made by independent researchers in the past 3 years, namely "that the sources arent from mainstream journals", says more about what our corporate press and its support for the corporate-controlled political status quo wishes NOT to discuss, than it does about the veracity of the research conducted by private concerned individuals around the globe.

http://serendipity.911review.org/wtc2.htm

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html

 

Well Otter, if you want to be continuously insulted for the next ten pages as a raging tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist provides links to anonymous websites detailing the "certainty" than the CIA and Mossad planted explosive in the WTC and then guided remote control airplanes into the towers and a field in Pennsylvania (the Pentagon was hit by a missile, donchaknow, flight 77 simply disappeared into thin air...), proceed!

Otherwise I can't see the point.

 

Just read in a newspaper article this morning - the commission basically admitted that they had to edit out any findings that would create "controversy" because they wanted the report to be unanimous - so basically what you have is a bare bones assessment of what happened, with nothing to indict higher-ups in government. A flaming piece of garbage, if you ask me.


As for 9/11, I've been trying to point out for months that the government had already approved a plan in the 60's to attack US military and civilian targets and blame it on Cuba, thus providing justification to invade there (reference "Operation Northwoods") - the only reason it didn't happen was because Kennedy vetoed the idea at the last minute (any suprise they killed him later?), so it wouldn't suprise me one bit if the entire 9/11 fiasco was completely planned and executed by the US and its CIA trainees in Al Quaida.

 

And by approved you mean didn't approve, and this is now the basis for believing every conspiracy theory from now until the end of time.

 

Look PB, youve made your snide point repeatedly and you are certainly free to swallow the laughably implausible and (indeed) scientifically impossible coverstory if that helps you avoid confronting the much more plausible and indeed technologically possible analysis of those who spent years researching matters whilst the corporate media and the MIC interests vested in the maintenance of the political status quo would gladly bury it.

However, you were neither party to this thread nor the person to whom my post was directed, so kindly keep your shout out of it and go believe what you wish. Until you can concretely respond to every glaring inconsistency in the official explanation with equal research effort as is presented and linked to in these reviews, your opinion isn't worth any more than that of we who dare question until a full investigation worthy of those whose lives were callously sacrificed is forthcoming.

 

LOL. and if you trust a report from a group of handpicked career politicos, whose own oil vested interests have been revealed and whose remit for "investigation" was also disingenuously limited to nebulous "institutional" failures, as being the end all and be all of the issues surrounding 911 you are utterly naive.

Yes, everything which the corporate media wont touch for purposes as plain as day to any rational independent thinker (as opposed to the vast majority of "groupthink" zombies), must of course be "conspiracy theory". How many past backroom government activities were cloaked with the "conspiracy theory" mantra before someone finally blew the whistle or bothered to undertake a real investigation showing the "theorists" to have been correct all along? One could fill an encyclopedia.

By all means, don't dare to question the status quo, don't bother to connect the dots. Keep the news duly sanitised for easy public consumption regardless of how wide the gulf grows between US public perception of government activites and the real fallout of those policies seen all too clearly by the rest of world. No, the neo-con spin machine and its corporate taskmasters prefer you to stay glued to the rantings of O'Reilly and Hannity and damn global opinion, we have a war machine to fuel and elite offshore bank accounts to fill at the tax payers' expense.

Anonymous websites! LOL. The excuses and dismissals of the head in the sand crowd grow more lame with each passing day.

 

Alright Lick, then how do you see the whole thing going down? You seem to always make allusions and references to possible scenarios involving Bush and co. setting up 9/11 as an excuse to go to war, but you never come out and say it. I'm just curious, what DO you think happened and who do you think is responsible? I'll give you the jet fuel argument, but don't you think that the impact force of a 747 filled with tons of people, cargo and steel might weaken the support beams and central columns enough to allow the flame to take care of the rest?

 

Tell you what Max, instead of asking me every technical question you can think of, why dont you bother to take the time to read thoroughly the links and sub links duly provided.

Its a wonder i or anyone even bother to post and provide any further stepping stones for further research when every response amounts to "oh god, 'conspiracy theory', explain every last question i might be able to imagine to avoid taking any time on my own to read and consider the inconsistencies".

If i held multiple degrees in physics, chemistry, and every other science along with the political science degrees I DO hold, I wouldnt need to cite any sources or further analysis now would I?

If you dont want to believe that our Military Industrial Complex under prolonged internal redirection by the neo-con hawks since the Reagan administration (Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, et al) is fully capable of having engineered such a tactically complex series of attacks but that a group of hithertofore unimportant radicals in caves in Afghanistan could pull it off, fine. Believe what you will and don't waste your time or mine.

I've said all I care to on this matter. Let the neo-cons hijack the entire country and destroy the planet with their wars and lies. Maybe when theyve destroyed the remaining shreds of respectability our nation once possessed on the global stage, the sheep might just wake up and ralise how willfully blind theyve been. Until then, i've run out energy to bother caring what happens to anyone back home.

 

You're right Lick, we don't know why you bother to post here. But I'll tell you what, I'll give you the satisfaction you so long for....

Wow, I can't believe I was so ignorant, you're right. I read the information on the websites you posted and I'm convinced. You're a genius. Now you can go away now. You made your point and there is no further reason for you to post in this thread.

 

I don't need you to tell me that I am free to my own opinion.

Nor do I need your permission to be here.

So we're supposed to respond to every technical issue raised by your vast tomes of conspiracy theories, but you refuse to respond to any of them. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Are you seriously trying to impress us with your political science degrees? That is truly hilarious!

First of all, the attacks were not breathtakingly complex by any standard. This is made up logic. Secondly, hithertofore is not a word, I hope you didn't use it in any of your poli sci papers. Probably you meant "heretofore". However I understand your inability to resist pompous verbiage and as a result these accidents are bound to happen. Thirdly, if you find listening to other peoples opinions to be a waste of time, I'm not exactly sure what you are doing in this forum.

Now lets just cut to the chase and see what your serendipity website is proposing happened. Basically, the CIA and Mossad hatched a plot whereby

And if you don't believe this you are letting the neocons "hijack the entire country and destroy the planet with their wars and lies".

All this courtesy of LickHERish's high level contacts from working at a Brussels Starbucks. And don't you dare say "conspiracy theory"!

 

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

From the mouth of arch-hypocrite himself such an indictment both misses the point of my statement and is singularly lacking in any integrity.

Max is perfectly capable of reading what is provided and deciding for himself where the glaring inconsistencies are indeed worthy of further research without the PB dismissal filter chiming in at every opportunity to offer further substanceless neo-con derision. Simply because you have demonstrated your penchant for swallowing without question anything claimed by US officials time and again in no way suggests that others should follow suit.

Are you seriously trying to impress us with your political science degrees? That is truly hilarious!

No, actually. The comment was made in response to the previous poster's suggestion that a host of scientific degree holders' claims must perforce be both accurate and truthful. I don't give a rats ass what YOU choose to find hilarious, I find you most pathetic to be honest.

First of all, the attacks were not breathtakingly complex by any standard

And of course we have your word on this as legitimate substantiated expert opinion. Go sell it to the head in the sand crowd.

Four simulataneous flights hijacked by supposed terrorists who were incapable of flying so much as a piper cub by the testimony of their own flight instructors coupled with air maneuvres requiring military training, the delay of standard FAA intercept protocols which have been in force for decades (yet youll believe nebulous and shadowy islamic radicals in Afghani caves could order our air guard to delay - you're more the conspiracy theorist than i ever could hope to be), and controlled destruction of the WTC which could only have come from standard building demolition dynamics. Nah not complex at all!

hithertofore is not a word, I hope you didn't use it in any of your poli sci papers

I suggest you do a google search on hithertofore before spouting off your typical bs and making a fool of yourself yet again. It is very much a word and (lo and behold) used fairly commonly in political papers. Imagine that!

Brussels Starbucks.

Sorry no Starbucks in Brussels.

Do tell us for general interest though your sterling record of academic and professional achievements that gives you such braggadocious basis for lambasting others. Enquiring minds want to know.