It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What did the 9/11 Commission get wrong?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I frequently read other members stating that the 9/11 Commission is a "joke" or that is a "whitewash". It is commonly referred to as the "9/11 Omission Report".

What exactly did the commission get wrong?




posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


The co-chairs of the committee, Kean and Hamilton, publicly stated that report got it wrong. If anyone would know that for a fact, it would be one or both co-chairs.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   
My personal belief-

The report was a coverup for Clinton's admin erecting the famous "Intelligence Wall" that prevented Able Danger from speaking to the FBI and revealing their findings about possible terrorists in the US. Jamie Gorelick was an instrumental person in erecting that wall, and yet was on the Commission. She was there to protect Clinton's rep.

Bush also knew he would need to have the intelligence community on his side in order to get into these fiascoes, so part of the deal would include NOT coming down too hard on the FBI, CIA, etc. He needed them in his corner.

Remember when the Dem commission head ststed that they hadn't heard anything about Able Danger, and then had to retract his statement a few days later? Weak.

The Bush admin let Clinton cover his tracks, as long as Dems voted to fund any war that he wanted to get into. Why do you think that all the Dem promises, especially from new members, to stop funding the wars during the '06 elections went nowhere? I think it's because they were told to toe the party strategy by the more senior members.

And the same thing continues to this day. Dems harp about the war, about getting out.... and yet still continue to fund it, even though they could end it right now if they cared to.

But that ain't part of the deal.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Originally posted by Boone 870



I frequently read other members stating that the 9/11 Commission is a "joke" or that is a "whitewash". It is commonly referred to as the "9/11 Omission Report".

What exactly did the commission get wrong?




The commission thought that 4 airplanes crashed on 911.

None did.

It was an illusion. There were no planes. Or hijackers. I don't know where the real planes went. 2 of them did not take off at all. I don't know where all the passengers went.

But the commission made a mistake in determining that 4 airplanes crashed on 911.

Thanks for the thread.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


When did they say it was wrong? I know that Hamilton stated that it wasn't the "final draft", but I don't recall him saying that it was wrong.

Do you have any links backing up your statement?



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


When I think of "Government backscratching", the first name that comes to me is Sandy Berger. Also referred to as "Sandy 'pants' Berger" or "Sandy Burgular".

The guy admitted to stealing documents from the National Archive and all he received was a slap on the wrist.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was sentenced Thursday to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them. CNN.com



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Some of the findings of the US Congress per testimony from Co-chairmen Kean and Hamilton regarding the 9/11 Commission report:

www.fas.org...

"• In July 2003, the Commission’s Republican chairman Thomas Kean and Democratic chairman Lee Hamilton issued a joint statement that the
executive branch, and in particular the Departments of Defense and Justice, were hampering the inquiry by failing to provide requested information. They also objected to the Administration’s insistence that “minders” from the Administration be present at all interviews with intelligence officials.417

• In October 2003, the Commission was forced to subpoena records about air traffic on September 11, 2001, from the Federal Aviation Administration.

• In November 2003, the Commission had to issue a second subpoena for similar information from the Defense Department.418 The Commission stated that it “has encountered some serious delays in obtaining needed documents from the Department of Defense” and that “records of importance to our investigation had not been produced.”419

• From the fall of 2003 until April 2004, the White House blocked repeated
attempts by the Commission to obtain access to key presidential intelligence briefing documents, including the August 6, 2001, President’s Daily Brief, which had warned of the al-Qaeda threat in August 2001. After the Commission threatened to subpoena the documents, the White House agreed in November 2003 to allow a few members of the Commission to review the documents and prepare a summary for the other commission members.420

In January 2004, the White House refused to allow the commissioners who...."


The co-chairs co-authored a book, in which they detail, the entire committee was hampered by the Bush Administration, until the day they could no longer more foreward, due to direct and indirect continued hampering by the Bush adminstration. That shut down the committee hearings without any proved final resolution whatsoever.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


In your opinion, what did they get wrong?



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   
With all due respect Mr.John Lear,
I must ask,why do you present the hardest to prove stance in order to prove 9/11 was a cover-up?
Why do you present the most out ragious sounding senario?
If you want the American public to look into what happened on 9/11,there are plenty of other glaring instances that could be presented.
Things that are more plausible and are likely to get people interested.
Things like.....
1.Insider trading
2.WTC 7
3.The lack of tapes being relaesed from the Pentagon
4.Flight 93
5.The collapse of towers 1 and 2
6.Operation Northwoods
7.The Cheany stand down order
My apologies for straying from the topic,but arguing 9/11 and using the most difficult to prove evidence is what I thinkis wrong with the 9/11 movement.



[edit on 30-12-2007 by Black_Fox]



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 



2 of them did not take off at all.


Are you referring to the BTS records regarding Flight 11 and Flight 77? I've seen this claim before, do you have any links?



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


A link? I gave you the link to the congressional record, in which Co-Chairs Kean and Hamilton specifically stated the fallacies of the publicly released 9/11 Commission report. You cannot get much more validation than that, except from the public interviews (horses' own mouths so to speak) done with Co-chairs Kean and Hamilton. Plus, their co-authored book stating again, the 9/11 Commission Report was a serious waste of taxpayer dollars and proved nothing.

When investigations are hampered by the president and adminstration, how can any report be of any value? People do not hide things unless they are guilty of something. Innocent people have nothing to hide.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Can you honestly say you read the Congressional Record excerpt, and see nothing was wrong with the 9/11 Commission report?

I am flabbergasted anyone, particularly anyone with ethical integrity, would even ask what was wrong with the 9/11 Commission Report.

The wrong is self-evident, as reports presented and recorded from Co-chairs Kean and Hamilton in the Congressional Record, transcripts from interviews with Co-chairs Kean and Hamilton, and in Co-chairs Kean and Hamilton's co-authored book. All three give details of what was drastically lacking in the 9/11 Commission Report. What was drastically lacking was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Hi Orion ~

The lack of cooperation does not mean that there were things that were wrong about the report. The OP asked what did the 911 Report get wrong.

Your links stated there were issues with obtaining information. I believe all the information was gathered through subpoena.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 08:56 AM
link   
What did they get wrong??? I dont know what they got wrong but I do know that they failed to tell the whole story and thats where the problem lies. They interviewed countless fireman and policeman who said explosions were going off in the building and they never put that in the report!!! What about William Rodriguez and the 14 people that witnessed a bomb in the basement go off slightly before the first plane hit?

It is obvious these individuals that were hand picked to do the report were told what it would say and what it wouldnt say.

All of the unanswered questions about thhat day were not answered in the report. I read it and it was very vague. The report only adds more fuel to the fire that is was a coverup.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
They also refused to answer many crucial questions that some of the familieshad...its really sad

A great video is "9-11 Press for Truth"

[edit on 31-12-2007 by Jeff Riff]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Jeff Riff
 


What questions weren't answered? What was wrong?

I'm still curious.

Yes firefighters did hear explosions. Didn't mean they were bombs. The 911 report was not to determine if it was a CD that brought down the twin towers. IT was not a report to find out why wtc -7 collapsed. It was not an engineering report.

The NIST report actually does that. Willie Rodrequez was actually interviewed by NIST and gave his story. HE mentions the explosions as fireballs. Not bombs.

Still the OP has not be faced with one thing that the 911 report got wrong.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


How could any ethical person of integrity declare there was nothing wrong with the 9/11 Commission report? Congress and the co-chairs said there were definitely serious deficiencies . Who would be in a better knowledgeable positions to make that assessment than them? Certainly not ordinary laypeople depending on hearsay. That is for certain.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



How could any ethical person of integrity declare there was nothing wrong with the 9/11 Commission report?


Instead of questioning people's integrity, tell me what you think the commission got wrong.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
What exactly did the commission get wrong?


According to NIST at least, they apparently got some times wrong as to when the planes hit the buildings, and when they collapsed, and how long it took them to collapse. But the Commission probably actually had those more correct than NIST.


They state that one of the buildings fell in 11 seconds if I'm not mistaken. Is that not wrong? They don't even reference WTC7 once. There have been disagreements between federal/military agencies as to when exactly Flight 93 hit the ground on seismic charts. Those are some of the fuzzy areas as far as the technical info goes in that report.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Orion,

You have still failed to state to the OP what was wrong in the 911 report.

After you prove some errors they made. Then and only then will you have the right to question someones integrity.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join