9/11 Commission Report

Noone would have imagined that Daniel Ellsberg would have unmasked the entire blueprint of lies that formed our Vietnam escapade, but he did. As long as we "conspiracy theorists" keep up the advocacy for a truly public and thorough no holds barred investigation worthy of those who died, the possibility for a whistleblower remains.

Noone ever said getting at the truth would be easy.

 

The sheep indeed are wrapped up in believing the actual conspiracy theory, you are ample proof of that. We you call conspiracy theorists consider the ongoing advocacy for a real investigation merely one facet of a roster of points for which we endeavour to oust the "current regime". You on the other hand and those of your dismissive ilk gladly support the groupthink with which they have successfully banketed the nation (with the help of the good ol reliable corporate media to make it all sound so ridiculous to consider any other explanation of the events).

 

Real American, I too saw the special about 9/11, twin towers collapse on Discovery. I believe it was a two hour special. To me it seemed about as technical as you can get, and while I'm no Architectual Engineer or Structural Analyst, the conclusions they came up with make sense. I would think you could ask any fireman if they believe enough heat could be created with all the accelerants provided and they would agree.


A friend of mine was torching some front suspension components off his car when it started on fire. There was no time to get it off the lift or put out the blaze but the entire steel building burned and everything in it. There was enough heat created to allow the bucket of a skid-steer to drop to the ground due to the arms folding in under their own weight. Now surely there were accelerants, as in any garage, but there were hardly thousands of gallons of jet fuel. Now imagine how thick the steel is on a skid-steer bucket and imagine the heat from a garage fire was enough to cause it to fold under its own weight. Now imagine the thousands of gallons of jet fuel igniting tons of paper products and tons of plastics (carpet, furniture, office equipment), as well as the weight of thousands of tons of concrete and steel, and you think there is no way they would fall under their own weight. You don't need much education to figure that one out. I suppose if you're still not convinced, go talk to a couple fireman and ask them what the effects of fire and heat can do to a structure.

Lick, you're point of the second tower hit being the first to collapse hardly holds water. You don't know the conditions those building were under. Perhaps if both planes hit a the same elevation, at the same speed, holding the same amount of fuel, and the same approach angle, then maybe your theory might be more than irrelevant.

I do not doubt that the government would or could create a self-inflicted disaster for personal gain, but this involves too many people for such a plan to be execute flawlessly. Do you think everybody involved from Globe Security, Huntleigh USA, American Airlines, United Airlines, Herndon Command Center, Cleveland Center, Boston Center, New York Center, NORAD, NEADS, FAA, Army National Guard, FEMA, NTSB, CIA, FBI, NYPD, NYFD, Bush Administration, as well as all of the survivors that made it out of the towers, were all involved in this conspiracy??? I just don't buy that. Of course I'm sure you have some explanation, because no sane person would believe it otherwise.

 

And yet you believe it was pulled off by a limited group of cave dwelling fugitives in afghanistan, sorry, that's far more a lunatic conspiracy theory than suspecting our top notch MIC aparatus being behind it.

I will laud the day when once again, as with claims of "conspiracy theories" past, a whistleblower emerges to force the dismissive minds to swallow their ridicule once again. Until then laugh on boys, he who laughs last as they say.

 

Guess its our boys over seas pulling off all these car bombings as well right? Of all people I would never expect to see you discredit the little guy. You seem to be the type of person that says "don't judge a book by it's cover" yet you point an laugh at and I quote "limited group of cave dwelling fugitives in afghanistan". Aren't you taking them for granted here? Come on. I refuse to believe with your intelect that you are this dumb. Seriously. Look, you can believe that we never landed on the moon, or that there were a lot more shooters in the Kenedy Assasination, or that our government secretly created a scheme within a year of Bush being in power to destroy the wtc buildings, parts of the pentagon, take over Iraq and win the electiojn over again in 04, but come on at you thinking a little guy can't hit hard. Please tell me you are smarter than this. Even in my disgreement with your theories, I refuse to believe you can be this shallow. Then again, I could be wrong.

 

No RA, your exaggerations of what i have claimed might suit your dismissive attitude, but nowhere did I make any reference to moonlandings, or the Kennedy assassination, or that this plan sprang up in the first year of the Dubyah admin. If you bothered to actually read what people right instead of what you wish to see written, you recognise that I consider these plans to have been sitting dormant for quite some time given that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, et al. - the central core of our defence establishment going back to the Reagan era - Established the PNAC agenda itself in the late 80's-early 90's and were frustrated by Bush Sr.'s refusal to go full out according to their original intentions.

Its obvious that you rabid little neo-cons will heap whatever unrelated nonsense you can think of to deride any call for deeper scrutiny into something as serious as a patently inconsistent official coverstory and the highly suspect repeated stonewalling of this admin over necessary investigations themselves.

 

As for your willingness to so readily swallow a group of talking heads on one discovery channel program, I find it laughable how easily youll avoid consideration just how easily a group of willing "experts" could be assembled to reinforce the groupthink line, hell CNN does it constantly with far more neo-con pundits regularly appearing to "explain" matters" than any contradicting opinion.

Of course its on TV so it must be so! That, far more than digging into the inconsistencies themselves, is evidence of naivete and gullibility at its finest (and what the beneficiaries of the present MIC status quo fully intend to keep the sheep dazzled and unquestioning).

Once again for any truly questioning minds out there...

Seismic Data refutes official WTC claim

 

I have been reading it. If it was written by one person I might have some serious doubt but ALOT of people researched and reported to this commission. I also don't think it was meant to BLAME anyone but to explain how it happened, how we failed to react fast enough, hand how our dealings with hijackings can be improved. If you haven't read it. Please do.

 

Thank you JohnnyX for posting something actually relevant to the original topic. But I assure you it won't last long. Lick will surely post his usually spouts on how the "talking head group thinking PNAC MIC status quo neo-con pundit right-wing Bushies" conspired 9/11 so we can go to Iraq to steal the oil. It is amazing how people like Lick can turn just about any thread into the same argument.

"limited group of cave dwelling fugitives in afghanistan"-LickHERish
Yeah, whos only purpose in life is to make you DIE. You know 9/11 happened because of people thinking EXACTLY like you. Underestimating your enemy will surely lead to your demise.

"We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets."-Osama Bin Laden, May 1998.

Does this sound like a threat you wouldn't take seriously from a "limited group of cave dwelling fugitives in afghanistan"?

 

Holy guacamole Batman, you just paraphrased every single post LickHERish ever posted.

And your willingness to swallow what some crackjob websites post about the government planning the 9/11 attacks is any different? Don't forget that a group of "experts" could also fabricate a conspiracy theory that "explains matters" by putting all the blame on the political figures whom the authors don't like.

Well it's on a website so it must be so! Any theories conjured up (or just pulled out of the asses of) by the conspiracy theorists on the websites you posted show just as many inconsistencies as "official versions" of the right-wing-fascist-PNAC-MIC-Bushloving-warmongering-groupthinking corporate media.

 

Max, couldn't have said it better myself. It's nice when you don't have to prove Lick wrong by posting objective information. He discredits himself by posting those flimsy links. Of course that's just my group-thinking neo-con opinion.

 

Indeed it is, but no matter, don't dare question, we all know how unAmerican that is!

Max, if you think you can demonstrate equal inconsistencies in the copious research forced to be undertaken by independent researchers thanks to the clear failure of mainstream media to ask any true investigatory questions since this admin took office, I'd be most interested to read them. And no, simply because its on a website has no bearing on the plausibility of the matter, the content of the reports which speak directly to the laughable facets of the "official" line are what provide the basis for very needed calls for further public investigation. I guess that ongoing point of the matter continues to escape you and the rest of your happy band of dismissal junkies in your desperation to stay on the bandwagon.

Im content to wait as long as it takes for the bandwagon to be shown once again to have been racing in the wrong direction and laughing at those who dared suggest they open their eyes and notice the sign posts. Just as it was supposedly "conspiracy theory" when questioning the lies of Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc. in their day, so too once again, the true conspiratorial nature of Washington's pursuit of its own hegemonic agenda at all costs will leave the hecklers gaping like idiots and scrambling to claim they suspected it all along when the whistle is blown or a paper trail emerges.

As was said in the Nixon era, if you wish to find the truth of who was behind it, follow the money.

 

What the comission reported is, in fact, that we were not ready to defend against an unprecedented attack like the one on 9/11. Air traffic controllers, FAA leaders and personnel at NEADS were not in aposition to react fast enough due to the bureaucracy involved and lack of a procedure to deal with such an attack. The only people that are to blame is ourselves. We had been forewarned of an attack but no effort was made to ensure that IF such an event occured flight controllers and the FAA could be able to reach NEADS or NORAD more quickly. 9/11 was a horrrible tragedy. I was living and working in North Jersey and the WTC was a sight I would admire every single day on my morning commute. 9/11 changed my life. I had known many who died that day and it still haunts me to this day. So, Lick, I ask you, what kind of proof do you have of any conspiracy (and I don't mean some website I mean hard evidence)? I would not like my friends' death to be so trivialized. They are not a joke nor are they forgotten in all of this "discussion" I've read for these past 3 years. Remeber these people...they paid the ultimate sacrifice for YOU, my friend. Just as the soldiers in Afghanistan (yes we are still fighting over there) are fighting for YOU. OK I have my own issues on Iraq. This is not right. I see it and understand the importance of having solid proof. Bush lied about WMD. This is true. Saddam couldn't have taken a crap without us knowing, he was certainly no threat to us. Hans Blix had repeatedly stated that there were none and Blix is a highly repected member of he UN. Why wouldn't we believe him? We had had no-fly zones established in Iraq since the end of the first gulf war...If Saddam actually had WMDs wouldnt we have found them by now, a year later? I feel sorry for Saddam that we have made him into some sort of scapegoat. The real terror lies within al-qeda.

 

Im sorry for your friends loss as much as I lament the loss of all the vicitms of that day and their loved ones left behind, however scrutinising the glaring and quite demonstrably shown inconsistencies of the official line (which clearly protects subsequent transparently witnessed Big Money interests and the geo-political strategies clearly set forth in the PNAC agenda - which is quite real and quite knowingly authored by the powermongers returned to official capacity once again in THIS administration) is not "trivialising" their deaths (nor did they "sacrifice" (connoting voluntary surrender) anything for me or you, but were rather "sacrificed" to serve what power politics routinely categorises as "the greater good" (meaning the furtherance of insider interests) but seeking to ensure their deaths are accorded greater value than the politicos have so far allowed.

The long and arduous collation of suspicious indicators conducted by many researchers - who share equally the questioning scrutiny over a patently implausible set of consecutive occurrences - has always (and by the admission of the many researchers themselves) been intended as a starting point for hard questioning which to date has been ignored by any "official" enquiry and by the corporate media (liberal, indeed!).

Yet the prevailing groupthink bolstered by the all too commonly held myth of Washington representing the "good guys who would never so abuse its own citizenry" questions the scrutinisers and ridicules them despite the fact (to cite a few examples):

1. A roster of "supposed" perpetrators was ready with mere days, depsite there having been "no idea" that such a scenario could take place (as the official line has claimed) and the fact that more than once that roster has been forced to undergo revision as "alleged" hijackers have turned up alive and well around the globe with no connection to the events or extremist groups.

2. That the alleged pilots themselves, by the admission of their own flight instructors, were incapable of flying even a single engine fixed wing piper cub without the presence of a flight instructor, yet could handle a jumbo jet with a demonstrated ability requiring considerable military or commercial flight experience.

3. This admin has repeatedly balked and stonewalled early attempts to establish a thorough and fully transparent investigation into the broad range of issues surrounding that day's events and only agreed once its caveats on sworn testimonies, closed door questioning, extremely limited investigatory remit and the choice selection of a plausibly bi-partisan Congressional Committee (which later revealed key members equally tied to oil and MIC interests on both "sides") were met without question or forced accountable objection.

But you go right ahead and join the chorus of bandwagoneers who dare not think it possible that we could have been fundamentally betrayed to serve long awaited agenda imperatives of the cabal who previously had their hands in the Iran Contra lies of the Reagan era. That, certainly to mind of many, is far more trivialising of the victims than widespread demand for more than a whitewash effort to claim it was all nebulous "insititutional failure" rather than a concerted and precise plan with quite demonstrable beneficiaries in the aftermath.

I shall continue to call for that necessary FULL (no holds barred and no caveats permitted) invesitgation along with the rest who recognise a whitewash, however many pages they choose to paint it with.

Further Reading on the 911 Commission and its "official" agenda

 

First I would like to begin by saying that I am so glad to be involved with this conversation in contrast to other sophomoric threads elsewhere in this Forum. Thank You.

I have read the material at the link you provided and it was rather interesting. The censorship involved in the release of this report is assumed as far as I am concerned. I understand that ANY document that leaves the capitol will be censored. Even though this article you refer me to is from a credible source, he still offers no hard evidence of proof that 9/11 was, in fact, orchestrated by someone other than al-qeda. I am a reasonable person and I find it very hard indeed to believe that our government would sacrifice thousands of lives to give us a reason to go to war. Furthermore, it would also implicate that the previous WTC bombing, the attack on the USS Cole, attacks against the US embassies in Africa in addition to the operations in Somalia were also conspired by someone other than al-qeda. I have been reading about Bin Laden since the early nineties well before the 9/11 attacks and his threat was a matter of US security for more than a decade now. These attacks were planned well before George Bush even begun to campaign for President of the United States. So for conspiracy theorists to suddenly jump out of their chairs on that September 11th screaming foul play is just natural to them. I read this article and some good points are made and are very well a possibility but I really am having a hard time subscribing to these views on speculation alone. Larry Chin offers no evidence, even though the relations of some of these staff members to the Oil Industry and the Bush Administration are dubiously ethical choices. In addition there were many, many other non-partisan and independant researchers that worked on this comission as well. Speculation is not proof. If you have ever worked on a comission or a fact finding panel or research team you would know how extremely difficult it is to fudge on the facts of the findings even if you are the President of the United States.

 

Not necessarily Johnny, I never said Al Qaeda doesnt exist or that Osama never orchestrated hits on US foreign installations. But do consider the vast difference between the attacks on The USS Cole and the Embassies in Africa (US Military/Government targets, not private civilian targets by the operational definition of "terrorism" (which is a tactic not an ideology or a personal characteristic as it has been blurred into meaning in the mainstream thought process by the corporate media) compared with the attacks on the WTC (with a Pentagon hit thrown in to rile the ants nest and give the DoD sufficient PR to further blur distinctions in the public mind in the runup to the inauguration of the long awaited PNAC agenda of perpetual war) which WAS a civilian target pure andd simple.

Consider also that in fact no formal direct and unimpeachable declaration of responsibility was ever made by Osama. In fact (as disingenuous as it is in itself), he actually condemned the attacks immediately after in a Pakistani interview. ( http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=2392&TagID=2 ). Of course the crucial element here isn't what Osama goes on to claim, but that - as any student of ideologically inspired terrorism (and its historic application around the globe) would recognise - If Al Qaeda had carried out the attacks to advance its agenda and make a point, Osama would have pontificated upon it and claimed the immeidate oneupmanship that it would have brought him in the eyes of his followers and potential new recruits.

What we got instead was a reporting blackout of this interview by Western media and some time later (a subsequently repeated practice) at a particularly difficult moment of questioning and scrutiny of the administration and its emerging intent for war in Iraq a sudden astounding "find" of a video tape in an abandoned hut that miraculously claimed responsibility. Yet under scrutiny it becomes all too apparent it was a contrivance. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

One has to assess the timeline of events and the inconsistencies in the official story in conjunction with known geo-political planning and the big money interests that have come to be seen as the essential beneficiaries of the launch of the PNAC perpetual war doctrine (along with the reconstructionists awaiting the gold mine that Iraq would soon provide) to appreciate the reason why we "lunatic fringe conspiracy theorists" maintain our call for a fully public COMPREHENSIVE investigation which follows the standard starting premises of any investigatory effort "motive", "capability", and "opportunity". All of which Osama, on the run for years and requiring dialysis simply doesnt meet, however often they claim it was his doing.

Until we get that comprehensive investigation, the victims of 911 receive no true justice and the MIC driven status quo continues on happily pulling the wool over the eyes of the sheep and profiting to the tune of billions from our tax dollars through the now institutionalised mechanism of fearmongering. Orwell's Emmanuel Goldstein has been birthed!

 

And yes, As a foreign policy researcher I have indeed worked on panels, both in the EU insitutions as well as over at NATO HQ here in Brussels, and I can tell you that it is not a matter of "fudging" facts as it is suppressing those facts which might dissuade from the political agenda governing the findings. Sadly, we who do the legwork are not the ones ultimately in control of what is "officially" released or not released in the end.

 

http://www.yes-minister.com/ymseas2b.htm#YM%202.4


I always like watching this programe.. 23 years old .. but the same kind of thing happens now. Wich is scarey , but maybe reassuring . The end of civilisation has not happened yet.

 

in the interview...Usama says "...nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act."

yet when interviewed by ABC in 1998 he said "We do not differentiate between military or civillian. As far as we are concerned they are all targets."

the first of the WTC attacks were proven to be funded by Usama Bin Laden and al-qeda cells operating from within a mosque in Jersey City.

I appreciate your knowledge of the situation and it is of our benefit that we have your experience to refer to. However these quotes are contradictory.

 

There is much that is contradictory, indeed Johnny. And the US corporate owned media has done much to blur or ignore key elements of the record further (more by refusal to actually investigate or quite plausibly by order from the corporate ownership level, than by direct complicity for their part). Again, the necessity for a thorough broadly mandated investigation is paramount.

As for your "proof" that it was funded by Al Qaeda, I suspect you refer to another ABC report which (as our corporate media has been doing all along) passed along the claim from "federal officials" (notably unnamed of course) that Gen Mahmoud Ahmad, then Pakistan's ISI Chief and alleged "bagman" for Mohammed Atta, had wired $100,000 to a Florida account just days prior to the attacks (why so much money to men destined to die, noone bothered to ask).

Yet how surprising then, knowing this in advance, that Gen. Ahmad was also known to have had close connections with this administration and even met and breakfasted with the two joint Chairman of the 911 Commission itself (prior to their appointment to the Commission of course) where they (according to both Goss and Graham in the report) were discussing "terrorism specifically from Afghanistan, ON THE VERY MORNING OF THE ATTACK. How clairvoyant of both men to know this on the very day (when no previous "terrorism" had eminated from Afghanistan)!

If the official line is true then, such a conversation would have been even more indicative of backroom plans already in motion since, even according to the official story, none of the alleged hijackers were in fact Afghanis.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0208/S00045.htm

Do you begin to see how blurred a picture was being crafted to be foisted onto a subsequently traumatised, unquestioning, and angered public ready to lash out at whomever our "good guy" leaders told us was responsible?

When you pull one thread of the media bolstered fiction, however unpopular and gutwrenching consideration of the the alternative possibility of outright betrayal by our own leaders might be, the coverstory begins to unravel into a very dirty picture indeed.