An inquiry into the 9/11 commission's 10th anniversary report:How to read a government commission r

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   


As an inquiry into the complex subject of international terrorism, the 9/11 Commission's 10th anniversary reprise is a slipshod farrago of circular argumentation, faulty reasoning and naïve gullibility about the claims of senior officials - but it does serve official Washington's purpose.One of the many things I learned in government is that the investigative commissions which inquire into a scandal, disaster or atrocity are usually intended to bury the real causes of the incident and trumpet other circumstantial or irrelevant details as if they are shocking or novel.

An inquiry into the 9/11 commission's 10th anniversary report:How to read a government commission report.

I didn't see this posted and I used search.This past week saw the 10th anniversary of the Kean/Zelikow report aka:The 9/ll report.Hamilton and Kean and the rest issued a review and just like the original report it sings the phrases of senior officials and continues to omit and distort facts that do not jive with their agenda.For those who want to read their review here's the link:Kean/Zelikow 10 year report.




posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: mike dangerously

. . . just like the original report it sings the phrases of senior officials . . .
The "senior officials" were the actual perpetrators of 911, not the 19 Arab patsies.

edit on 30-7-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60

And you base this declaration on what actual evidence? And give me something solid that does not start with David Ray, Steven, Theirrey or A/E911 Mistruth.....



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596




give me something solid that does not start with David Ray, Steven, Theirrey or A/E911 Mistruth.....




since the 2008 NIST are the sole authors of the PUSHED official claims.....give me something supporting them that does not start with the words..."we refuse".......

Presenting a claim within a scientific context by using NOTHING to validate the claim, is called BULL#!

...no matter WHOM says it.

Soooo...is this the only reason you joined ATS?????

...to leave nonsense drive-by postings on the 9-11 threads....



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob

The thread, is about the 9/11 Commission. NOT just the NIST reports. And, to date, there is still more evidence supporting that 19 Islamic hijackers flew four aircraft, hit three buildings and killed almost 3,000 people than there is to support ANY conspiracy theory.

As for the NIST reports, ANY report into the collapse of the three buildings is going to be an educated guess. For there to be ANY definitive reports, the buildings would have to have been loaded with data collection devices.

And, my question to JMDewey is designed to facilitate a discussion. He thinks the government was behind, I would be interested to hear what EVIDENCE leads him to that conclusion.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

And you base this declaration on what actual evidence?
I live where at least three of the alleged 19 Arab hijackers lived, including Mohamed Atta, in southwest Florida.
One of my friends was a teller at the bank where Atta had his account in Venice Fl.
She saw Atta at the bank and served him, at 3:30 PM, on Sep. 10, at the drive-thru window, in a car with his two friends who were also implicated in the mainstream media, and Dekkers, the Belgian national who was the owner of the flight school at the Venice airport.
After the events of the next day, she was interviewed at her work 5 times by FBI agents who were examining documents with his signature and her teller number, and security tapes from the bank.
Despite that evidence, an FBI agent presented evidence at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the supposed 20th hijacker, from usage of a credit card, that Atta was at that time flying to Portland Maine from the Ft. Lauderdale airport.
edit on 1-8-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 07:22 AM
link   
My other evidence is anecdotal, also having to do with where I live, in the Sarasota County area of Florida.
On September 11, I was at home when the planes hit the World Trade Center towers.
I was watching the events on my TV, using an antenna, picking up a local Sarasota station.
The studio announcer broke in while they were showing the network feed from NYC, saying, "I am being told that someone has a camera set up in Battery Park, south of the towers, and that we will be cutting over to the feed from there."
It cut to that camera at the south end of Battery Park, about a quarter mile south of the towers, and there was no one in front of the camera, or anyone talking except for the same person who had made the earlier announcement (a female, joined by her male co-host, who were filling in the dead air with chat about what they were seeing in the feed).
Instead, it was pointed out over the water from on top of the sea wall, scanning in a direction other than towards the burning north tower.
Eventually the camera field matched up with a plane approaching, and zoomed in on it and followed it until it hit the south tower and exploded.
The explanation for my seeing this live video, that I later realized was not in the released network archives, was that at that very moment of impact, W. Bush was watching the same feed on the Library TV set at Booker Elementary in Sarasota.
What I figured is that for W. to watch it live, he had to have a satellite feed from NYC, that was being downloaded at a local TV station, then fed to a transmitting tower to broadcast it over the air, to be picked up by an ordinary roof antenna at the school.
edit on 1-8-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596




is about the 9/11 Commission. NOT just the NIST reports.


the Omission report has NO science involved...
the 2005 NIST found NO scientific reason why these three buildings failed on 9-11...
the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew claims new physics occurred ONLY on 9-11 where low temp thermal expansion SOMEHOW creates ZERO RESISTANCE for a 2.3 second interval of global unified acceleration EQUAL to g. in WTC7

which they refuse to prove through science.

just telling ya how to read a Gov. report!






For there to be ANY definitive reports, the buildings would have to have been loaded with data collection devices.


so says the one whom knows NOTHING!!!!


yer 100% wrong...it's called INVESTIGATION......so I guess there is no validity in Forensic SCIENCE!!!!!!

all those investigations throughout the Country over the last 50 years are now void because NO pre-analysis boxes were inserted BEFORE the catastrophe occurred for them to find a reason for failure...OMG!!!!!...what will we do now?!?!?!?!?

uhm.....btw...how old are you?...sorry, I don't chat with a 12 year old.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 02:30 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob

I see you like to use big words. Normally when someone does that on forums like this, its because they are trying to impress people, not that they actually understand what they are posting about. Goes back to things being an educated guess.

As for the comment about knowing nothing, no, its a matter of being involved with engineering investigations and listening to engineers when they say that their results are going to be educated guesses.

Then you slip off the tracks about your history of investigations being void. Nice try. Completely wrong, but, nice try.

Oh, and most likely older than you.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60


There is a reason why Czech Intelligence still insists Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague, when the FBI and CIA swears he was still in the States. Think about it.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 04:19 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596




I see you like to use big words.


and I think your pathetically stalking me!

now, look at the post you left......DELIBERATE attack AGAINST me and not even ONE mention about the FACTS I PRESENT!





Then you slip off the tracks about your history of investigations being void. Nice try. Completely wrong, but, nice try.



lol....yea....I know.....you, TELLING, instead of SHOWING....why is it all you wanna-be's can do is is post content COMPLAINING and 'WHY'gning..

how about ........lol....never mind!


nice job





listening to engineers when they say that their results are going to be educated guesses.


ALL science states mass accelerating equal to gravity can DO NO WORK...that is an AGREED upon TAUGHT premise.....except on 9-11.
well, you want to claim that NEW physics phenomenon occurred to do all this work, NEVER to be seen again, then SUPPORT IT..



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 05:24 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob

If you would present something actually resembling facts, that would be different. Using "truther" physics, isn't presenting facts.


As for the stalking you....nope, you have been the one to consistently reply to MY posts.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

There is a reason why Czech Intelligence still insists Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague, when the FBI and CIA swears he was still in the States. Think about it.
The " Mohammed Atta" who my friend knew was the one who the Media presented.
There could be another person who operated as a double, using the name, Mohammed Atta, like there was in the Oswald case where one went to the Soviet embassy in Mexico City.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60

Or, your friend is wrong. No...that cannot be.....



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 02:33 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Or, your friend is wrong. No...that cannot be.....
Care to suggest how she could be wrong in identifying Atta, when she had FBI agents coming to her bank and interviewing her on the transactions being made by him, with her serving as the teller?
She knew exactly who he was, which was her job.
Have you ever walked into your bank and been greeted by name?
They do that for a reason, to know their customers.
She recognized him on TV the next day when they started showing photos of him.
Anyway, she was very familiar with him and was able to fill me in on what sort of transactions were being carried out, that she handled.
And, again, she had to review those at the behest of the investigators, so had even more opportunity to familiarize herself with them.
edit on 5-8-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 04:02 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596




If you would present something actually resembling facts,


I am the ONLY one doing that


I am the only one quoting the 2005 NIST scientific findings.....why can't you?

I am the only one quoting TAUGHT agreed upon science.......why can't YOU?

....and YOU are the only one refuse to provide support for the bullsh*t you spew as truth.





Using "truther" physics, isn't presenting facts.



typical duhbunking tactic......why don't YOU show this 'misrepresentation' of mine......why is it you...'people' ... NEVER seem to be able to show this.....only TELL of it....you seem to use it to slander rather than show.


like here.....straight from a science text...


The significance of FREEFALL is NONE of the gravitational energy was available to destroy the supporting structures, ALL converted to MOTION!


meaning duhbunker, any bending, crushing, breaking connections, REMOVAL of structural RESISTANCE, BELOW the mass ACCELERATING, is occurring WITHOUT the assistance of energy from the mass accelerating. Zero resistance.

now where else ON EARTH do we see those SAME numbers as we see in that global unified acceleration rate of a STEEL FRAME @ 9.8m/s^2 ????
open ANY science/physics text...."rate of acceleration seen by ALL mass REGARDLESS of weight toward the earth, at sea level, WITHIN a VACUUM is 9.8m/s^2.

hmm.....the SAME numbers we see under 'CONTROLLED conditions, WE SEE occurring globally and UNIFIED in a 47 story steel frame @ 1.75 SECONDS, when kink forms, to 4.0s of the collapse....2.5 seconds later, it's done....6.5 second building collapse from FIRE we can't really see from the windows.

NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"


now you are more than welcome to pull this apart and show it to be the bull YOU claim it is.......so please do!!!!!!



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 04:22 AM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60

She is recalling the wrong day. Maybe her "Atta" was a double. Could be several things.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 04:24 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob

Only you can 1. Claim that NIST report is correct. 2. Claim that the NIST report is wrong. Then, you labor under falsehoods on the time of collapse. But, I will let you discover your own errors.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 06:18 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

She is recalling the wrong day. Maybe her "Atta" was a double. Could be several things.
If there was a "double", then it would be an unknown person.
The person presented by the media was the person who my friend knew, and others in the Venice, Florida area.
He was the person who's picture was shown, and his background, including his association with the flight school at the Venice airport, and as I mentioned earlier, was seen regularly, by my friend, with the person who owned the school, someone who also had an account at that bank branch office.

The point is that the actual person who was pointed out in the media as the "ringleader" of the alleged hijackers was a patsy.
That is regardless of how many other persons may, or may not, have been going by that same name and doing things like contacting known terrorist organizations.

The trial of the events of 911 is in the court of public opinion, conducted by the mainstream media.
The correct results cannot be expected if we are being given disinformation.
edit on 5-8-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 06:23 AM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60

So, the gate agent who checked in Atta onto his flight on 9/11/01, and correctly identified him, was wrong. And your friend is right?





new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join