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: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Though I feel they have left out important details and did not leave every stone unturned, which is important for any investigation, I would not say there are any major factual inaccuracies.

Good to hear about Bush though. Off topic (maybe you can slide it int he next post so as to not appear thead derailing) - who are you voting for in the upcoming election?




posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


Sub,

I will be voting Democrat. Not sure yet who...I am leaning toward Edwards though.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Considering the diversity of mutually exclusive ideas and theories to be satisfied it's impossible for any report to acceptable to everyone. What's right & wrong will vary greatly depending on the viewer.

The best approach for a producer of any such report is to target it at the majority that will agree with bulk of their findings and that's exactly what you will get. To them it's too bad if you're in the minority that has the most disagreement with it but would you really expect it to be targetted for acceptance by a minority?

The only alternative would be to produce no report at all (not a satisfactory outcome either)

Barring some huge revelation (it would have to be on a biblical scale) all reports will reference each other and I'm afraid that what you see now is all you'll ever get. Sad but true however it will be interesting to see what the wikipedia entry will have to say about the whole affair 100 years from now.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
If people would present specifics of reports, rather than asking such questions as "What do you see wrong?" related to nothing specific, I would be most willing to review and critique any cited parts, concerning any specifics presented, which some people deem to be facts but are assumptions based on opinion only in the 9/11 Commission Report.

There seems to be a great deal of detail aversion in the course of many discussions. Details are highly important during any investigation. Without defined proof of details, there are no facts. They become nothing more than general opinion.

The 9/11 Commission's purpose was to investigate every detail involving 9/11. Such is specifically stated in the Congressional Record, of which I placed that in excerpt, in at least one post in these discussion. The committee members were deliberately hindered and prevented by the Bush Administration from doing exactly that, as also evidenced by the Congressional Record. That is why there are no facts in the 9/11 Commission Report.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
That is why there are no facts in the 9/11 Commission Report.


I will give you the benifit of the doubt that you typed this in error. Or, are you saying that there are no facts at all in the 911 report? Therfore the entire report is a lie?

Please elaborate.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


It was not an error, and is a statement I have consistently made throughout discussions pertaining to the 9/11 Commission Report. I have elaborated in several posts in this discussion and in others. Do you have any specifics to present you wish to have critiqued at this time?



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Can I ask you. Have you read the report? I will admit to have only read a total of about 250 pages of it. (not in order)

I ask that you read section 9 "Herosim and Horror." And please point out the errors that were made in this section. I wont ask you to find errors in the entire document, but the Analysis section would be a good place. (Page 315 - 322)

Thanks.

C.O.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


What has that section to do with the criminal circumstances involved on 9/11?

Regarding the section you picked out, heroism is determined by the subjective opinions of people based on what they see or are told, and may not have all the details which say differently. That is NOT to be misconstrued as a declaration that at least some people, particularly fire fighters, police and others, were not acting in heroic manner on 9/11. That is hardly the specifics of the 9/11 Commission Report to which I was referring.

Since I was not there to witness the heroism of others, I cannot say I know it to be true as fact for every specific individual called a hero. Others witnessing may well be able to do that, but not I because I was not there to witness it myself.

I am well aware people, such as fire fighters, behave heroically doing their jobs. Is that the type of fact concentration you chose to pull out of all those pages? The 9/11 Commission's job was not to include testimonials to heroes, which can be highly subjective and thus not fact. The committe's job was to thoroughly investigate the criminal events of 9/11.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



You obviously have not read a single page of the report. Im done with you on this subject Orion. You have been doing a lot of dancing and spinning, but unable to show one error in the entire document.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


That is another tangent.

I think fire fighters are heroes for the jobs they chose to do. However, when I have said that to firemen, this is the response or very similar response I have gotten so often, "No, I am not a hero. It is my job, and what I get paid to do." If the firemen do not see themselves as heroes, how is it a fact they are heroes? They do not think so even if others do.
Anytime there is subjective disagreement, there is no fact of the matter at all.

If you are going to present any information for my critique, I want to be viewing criminal investigation supposedly covered in the 9/11 Commission Report. Which part or parts of subjectively determined criminal investigation do you believe to be facts rather than useless non-facts?



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
You obviously have not read a single page of the report. Im done with you on this subject Orion. You have been doing a lot of dancing and spinning, but unable to show one error in the entire document.


What's so hard when I just stated a couple of pages back that they state one of the towers fell in 11 seconds?

They also give times for the impacts and collapses that do not match several other federal authorities (NIST, FAA, NTSB, etc.), so clearly several of these sources (at least all but 1) are also inaccurate.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 09:32 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".


What is your opinion of the report Boone 870? Do you think it was correct?

You can count me as one of the "whitewashers".

As far as what it got wrong, well if all you do is spout what was essentially the version we were told in the first ten days after 911 by the main stream media and leave out any and all contradictory evidence and testimony, as well as presidential and vice presidential testimony, then I think you got it wrong!



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by infinityoreilly
 



Actually, I haven't read it myself. I've read the parts that were relative to the topics that I was discussing with other members at various times.

Like I stated in the OP, a lot of people say that it is wrong and I would like to know, exactly, what parts are wrong.

How about you, what do you think the commission got wrong?



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


How about the real reason we had 9/11???

Here is a Govt. doc from a Govt. website. This oil company was in talks with the Taliban to run pipelines..when Taliban changed their mind..9/11 and we were bombing Afghanistan..and running pipelines..

commdocs.house.gov...



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by gingerly
 



Here is a Govt. doc from a Govt. website. This oil company was in talks with the Taliban to run pipelines..when Taliban changed their mind..9/11 and we were bombing Afghanistan..and running pipelines..
Your accusation is a little off-topic, but I will respond.

Since, in your opinion, 9/11 was made to happen so that we could run oil and gas pipelines through Afghanistan, they would be done by now. Correct?

Would you like to inform everyone on how well the project is progressing?



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


They are not done...the US (as with Iraq) has underestimated the Afghani people...not everyone taked kindly to their civilians being blown to bits when they have done no wrong...we have made alot of innocent people hate us over there. Im not speaking against ANY US soldier..but alot of innocent people in Afghanistan who were/are terrorized by Taliban are also harmed by our bombs.
Here is some info. on the lines though.

www.afghanmagazine.com...
abcnews.go.com...
www.informationclearinghouse.info...



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Also..I wouldnt say they were absolutly MADE to happen..but I do feel they could have been prevented...and as far as the commissions report..their were people (first responders included) who reported bombs going off inside...those were disregarded by the commission.
And the whole "STAND DOWN" order of the Fighter Jets and the war gamesthat day..too many little things that just dont mesh up.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by infinityoreilly
 

Actually, I haven't read it myself. I've read the parts that were relative to the topics that I was discussing with other members at various times.


Well I'm not going to read it again to pick out its problems so you and Captain Obvious can shoot back at me.

Suffice to say in general I think it was a waste of my time, like a really long book report that glosses over facts and leaves out important negatives.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by gingerly
 


Six years later and still no pipeline. I'm surprised Unocal and Halliburton have not fired the Bush Administration. The Military Industrial Complex is a rather incompetent lot!



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by gingerly
 



And the whole "STAND DOWN" order of the Fighter Jets and the war gamesthat day..too many little things that just dont mesh up.


I have a thread for this subject here, if you would like to discuss it.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join