So the 9/11 commission was in no way compromised.

Not to start a thread off on a heated bump,

But it is hard to read this and not get a little bit anxious.

No matter what side you take in this debate.

I will not tell you in the OP where I stand, but the many good people on this board probably already know.

Here is teaser.

Senior Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, according to a document recently obtained by the ACLU.

Link to the source.


Edit 1:

Sorry if this article has already been posted mods. Please delete.

My anxiety got the best of me.

Edit 2:

Now that I have the article posted I can settle down from my intense fury driven by the likings of a thermite covered zeppelin scorching the insides of the Mythbusters, because as much as I like those guys.
They annoy me (only because I like 'em).


This quote from the article is soooooo choice.

9/11 Commission members Thomas Kean and Lee H. Hamilton wrote that although US President George W. Bush had ordered all executive branch agencies to cooperate with the probe, "recent revelations that the CIA destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot."

"Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation." They continued: “There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the CIA — or the White House — of the commission’s interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot. "Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations," Kean and Hamilton wrote.

Smells like a rat, looks like a bush, and cackles like a cheney.

[edit on 3/17/2010 by Josephus23]

[edit on 3/17/2010 by Josephus23]

[edit on 3/17/2010 by Josephus23]

[edit on 3/17/2010 by Josephus23]

[edit on 3/17/2010 by Josephus23]

reply to post by Josephus23


Okay....

So I kind of hinted in the OP where I stand. I couldn't help myself.

Sorry guys and girls.

Originally posted by Josephus23
Not to start a thread off on a heated bump,

But it is hard to read this and not get a little bit anxious.

No matter what side you take in this debate.

I will not tell you in the OP where I stand, but the many good people on this board probably already know.

Here is teaser.

All right, here's the rub- No matter what side you take in this debate, this article isn't going to make any difference becuase...

a) If you're a conspriacy theorist, you're going to see this as "proof of a secret plot" just liek they see pretty much everythign else as "proof of a secret plot". Conspriacy theorists ALSO think Bush staying in the Forida classroom as long as he did is "proof of a secret plot". If Bush simply coughed at the wrong time, that would be "proof of a secret plot" to them, too.

b) if you're a truther...and I mean a REAL truther who wants to learn the facts, and not the conspiracy theorists who pretend to be truthers...you'll have to accept the fact that in wartime, some secrecy is necessary. Eisenhower necessarily needed to keep the names of the French resistance members reporting on conditions of Normandy secret, Churchill necessarily needed to keep the fact they were reading German coded messages secret, and the gov't necessarily needs to keep information on Al Qaida interrogations restricted to protect the methods it's using to eavesdrop on AL Qaida. Remember, the 9/11 commission was a PUBLIC hearing, and such things do need to be kept secret.

So in short, no matter where you stand, people are still going to see what they want to see in this report.

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Josephus23

 

Okay....

So I kind of hinted in the OP where I stand. I couldn't help myself.

Sorry guys and girls.

So you should be.
It's very evil to have an opinion about these things.



Have you looked into the background of the guy chosen to lead that commission?
It's an enlightening bit of info.

Smells like a rat, looks like a bush, and cackles like a cheney.

Yes, Silverstein, Bush and Cheney had to be in on it.

However I doubt Bush Junior knew much. According to my sources he was slated to be another sacrifice, along with the children at that school he was at. This is why he stayed so long at that school, his security guys had orders from higher up. Of course they had no idea of the plan.
- No, the President is not the most powerful man in America, far from it.

The opening day production America put on for the following Olympics was written out before 9/11, as part of the propaganda to be used, which is why it referred to the deaths of many children.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

b) if you're a truther...and I mean a REAL truther who wants to learn the facts, and not the conspiracy theorists who pretend to be truthers...you'll have to accept the fact that in wartime, some secrecy is necessary. Eisenhower necessarily needed to keep the names of the French resistance members reporting on conditions of Normandy secret, Churchill necessarily needed to keep the fact they were reading German coded messages secret, and the gov't necessarily needs to keep information on Al Qaida interrogations restricted to protect the methods it's using to eavesdrop on AL Qaida. Remember, the 9/11 commission was a PUBLIC hearing, and such things do need to be kept secret.

Certainly, just as the facts behind the Reichstag had to be kept secret from most of the Germans.

There's no point in putting on a false flag if you then reveal how you did it.
Since when do magicians explain how they saw the woman in half?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

if you're a truther...and I mean a REAL truther who wants to learn the facts, and not the conspiracy theorists who pretend to be truthers...you'll have to accept the fact that in wartime, some secrecy is necessary. Eisenhower necessarily needed to keep the names of the French resistance members reporting on conditions of Normandy secret, Churchill necessarily needed to keep the fact they were reading German coded messages secret, and the gov't necessarily needs to keep information on Al Qaida interrogations restricted to protect the methods it's using to eavesdrop on AL Qaida. Remember, the 9/11 commission was a PUBLIC hearing, and such things do need to be kept secret.

I consider myself a "real truther" and I do not think that secrets should be kept in government for any reason.

That seems to contradict the idea of becoming a "real truther".

So...
Truth = Secrets
Freedom = Slavery
War = Peace

I am of the opinion that once someone sees the lunacy of war, then all of this secret nonsense will cease to exist in government.

The entire reason that we have secrecy in government is due to the illustrious Harry S. Truman, who also happened to be a 33rd degree Freemason.

He decided to take it upon himself to create the National Security Act.

Even though we had managed as a country really, really well until then.
In several wars.

Supposedly the 33rd degree of Freemasonry is an honorary degree given to those who have completed some type of field work for the craft that involved the further creation of the "Great Work of the Ages".

Secrecy is repugnant according to JFK, and it is the obvious reason that we have no idea what really happened on 9/11.

We need a new investigation right now.

TODAY. WE CANNOT WAIT ANY LONGER.

Originally posted by Josephus23

I consider myself a "real truther" and I do not think that secrets should be kept in government for any reason.

So you're saying it was wrong for the US gov't to keep secret the time and place for the Normandy landings? So you're sayign that it was wrong for the British Gov't to keep secret the fact they had broken the German codes and were reading everything the Nazis were sending out? You're essentially saying that it's immoral for the gov't to try and save lives by keeping critical details from the enemy so that they can't counterreact. Come on now, if the OSS published the names of all the French resistance members who were blowing up German railroads, what do YOU think would have happened?

Once you get past the selective cherry picking the conspriacy mongers are employing in this report, we see right away they specifically said the rationale for the warning was to protect the sensitive information the US was collecting against Al Qaida. If they had interviewed Achmed the Al Qaidsa bomb maker, they would almost certainly would have asked his how he was caught, and no matter what he would say, from his cell phone calls being intercepted to his neighbor being a CIA informant, Al Qaida would have used it to close off the leak. I wouldn't doubt it in the least if this is the very reason why we can't find bin Laden- some dope spilled the beans we could listen in to his cell phone transmissions so now they're using runners.

Saying that it's wrong for the gov't to keep secrets during wartime is like saying it's wrong for a poker player to keep his cards concealed from his opponents. If you still object, fine, let's you and I play some poker.

I am of the opinion that once someone sees the lunacy of war, then all of this secret nonsense will cease to exist in government.

...and I am of the opinion that you can have all the tie dye shirts and all the purple haired, idealistic "alternatives" linking arm in arm singing John Lennon Songs that you want. Natural laws still dictate there will still be some predator in the world somewhere who'll want to start trouble. You saw for yourself how the whole Muslim world went ballistic when that newspaper in Denmark published cartoons of Mohammed. How the heck can you reason with the unreasonable and expect rational thought from the irrational?

Supposedly the 33rd degree of Freemasonry is an honorary degree given to those who have completed some type of field work for the craft that involved the further creation of the "Great Work of the Ages".

Well, if you makes you feel any better, it is absolutely impossible for the masons to have been involved in any way with the 9/11 attack. I have it on good authority here from your other conspiracy mongers here that the Jewish World Order wouldn't allow it.

Sheesh, where do all you people come from?


[edit on 18-3-2010 by GoodOlDave]

reply to post by GoodOlDave

I am of the opinion that you can have all the tie dye shirts and all the purple haired, idealistic "alternatives" linking arm in arm singing John Lennon Songs that you want.

Sheesh, where do all you people come from?

I would watch the argument ad hominems. I suppose that I could hit the alert for the mods, but I am a big boy and I can tell that you didn't really mean to REALLY insult me, but just kind of insult me.

I have it on good authority here from your other conspiracy mongers here that the Jewish World Order wouldn't allow it.

I am not sure where you got Jewish out of any of my comment, but the non-sequitur, straw man fallacies are not the best to use.
Well...
A straw man is a good one, but I would recommend something that is more likely to get me angry so as to goad me into responding to the tangential argument.
The Jewish thing is also a red-herring, but it was a valiant effort.

So you're saying it was wrong for the US gov't to keep secret the time and place for the Normandy landings? So you're sayign that it was wrong for the British Gov't to keep secret the fact they had broken the German codes and were reading everything the Nazis were sending out? You're essentially saying that it's immoral for the gov't to try and save lives by keeping critical details from the enemy so that they can't counterreact. Come on now, if the OSS published the names of all the French resistance members who were blowing up German railroads, what do YOU think would have happened?

I will say that you tried to formulate a valid argument in this part of your reply. So I will respond to this.

If you keep posting on this thread, I would ask you to not engage in anymore ad hominems. I like posting in this section and the mods are very serious about cleaning this up, so please keep all the posts, at least in this thread, similar to the one above. Now let's answer your post.

I do not know what would have happened, and in my opinion it is not the best idea to promote current strategies for dealing with current "enemies" based on isolated events in the past.

So are you saying that secrecy in all levels of government is acceptable because it was supposedly good these times?
Because it is impossible to know if it was "good".
We can only, at best, judge resolutions of these certain incidents based upon what occurred.
We cannot deal with hypothetical what ifs, on either side of the debate.

What about the Bay of Pigs?
I suppose that you will reply that "more secrecy would have solved that problem."

Are you using these isolated incidents to justify secrecy, at will, in government?
If so, then that is a slippery slope fallacy.

Once you get past the selective cherry picking the conspiracy mongers are employing in this report...

Are you accusing me of cherry picking?
Because if so, could you please point to where i did this.

If not, then please do not attack me by way of triangulation.

But let's look at the rest of the statement.

we see right away they specifically said the rationale for the warning was to protect the sensitive information the US was collecting against Al Qaida.

This seems somewhat out of place if one was to read the article.

Found in the article are references to the papers turned up by the ACLU by way of the Freedom of Information Act, which states in no uncertain terms that even the head of the 9/11 commission stated that they felt that their investigation was hampered by individuals in the CIA covering up systematic torture of detainees.

it is absolutely impossible for the masons to have been involved in any way with the 9/11 attack.

Are you trying to pull out another straw man or what here?
I am a bit vexed, because once again, you have attributed an idea to me that I have in no way proposed.

Secrecy is the M.O. for Masons, and the reason that we have it in government is because of Harry Truman, dropper of TWO atomic weapons and a 33rd degree Freemason.

Secrecy is the problem in government. It will eat at the soul of the American people and their government until we are no more, and you want to know why we can't stop this....

Because it is all secret.

I would love a reply, but please stay away from the logical fallacies.

Especially the argument against the man.

Cheers Dave.




[edit on 3/18/2010 by Josephus23]

The 911 Report is a lie. Thats already been established and verified. The docs only support this fact.


911 report is a lie

Originally posted by Josephus23
I would watch the argument ad hominems. I suppose that I could hit the alert for the mods, but I am a big boy and I can tell that you didn't really mean to REALLY insult me, but just kind of insult me.

In truth, my intentions are not to come here to insult you or anyone else. You forget that I am also a poster here with the samerights are you, and I have every right to vent my frustration at how the conspiracy mongers who are so sure there's "blatantly a conspiracy to murder 3000 people" and yet you're all but getting into fist fights among yourselves over what the "blatantly a conspiracy to murder 3000 people" even is.

Some here believe it's the work of the Jews. Others think it's some grand conspiracy pulled off by the Masons. Others still think it's the work of the Bushies...though they've since disappeared and are now claiming it's the work of the Obamiites now that Bush is gone and Obama isn't going along with the "secret conspriacy" accusations. Occasionally I see someone saying it's the work of a secret cult of Satan worshipping numerologists. How the heck many "secret organizations bent on controlling the world" are there, anyway?

It's patently obvious to me that you conspriacy people are NOT here to learn the truth behind anything, but rather, to embellish the facts to justify whatever predetermined antiestablishment angst it is you have, and your post does nothign to contest the observation.

So are you saying that secrecy in all levels of government is acceptable because it was supposedly good these times?
Because it is impossible to know if it was "good".

No, actually, I think it was quite blatant that keeping the location of the Normandy landings secret from the Germans was a good thing. The same goes for our being able to read the Japanese and German codes. You certainly aren't stupid, so you have to know why yourself.

What about the Bay of Pigs?
I suppose that you will reply that "more secrecy would have solved that problem."

You just destroyed your own argument by bringing this in. It was released in 2000 that the KGB had learned of the operation and they warned the Cuban government of the plan. The Cubans were waiting for the 1500 invaders with 25,000 soldiers and 200,000 militia.

Are you accusing me of cherry picking?
Because if so, could you please point to where i did this.

You were quite blatant in advertising the "they told the commission to not to cross the line" but you neglected to say the "line" was interviewing captured Al Qaida operatives, as well as the reason for the "line" being that the only way they could control what information the operatives were going to release was to restrict access to them. The reason why this was ommitted is obvious- you wanted to drop innuendo that the gov't was strongarming the commission into sayign what they wantedthe commisison to say, without actually comign out and saying it.

Your side is quite notorious for dropping innuendo in order to make an accusation without coming out and saying it, andI will give you as many examples of this as you'd like.

Found in the article are references to the papers turned up by the ACLU by way of the Freedom of Information Act, which states in no uncertain terms that even the head of the 9/11 commission stated that they felt that their investigation was hampered by individuals in the CIA covering up systematic torture of detainees.

*Another* cherry picking on your end, becuase nowhere does this even remotely mean that Lee Hamilton subscribes to any of your conspiracy claims. The coverup of torture would impede the investigation of the Al Qaida order of battle, perhaps, but there were many additional witnesses (NORAD pilots, police and firefighters, WTC tenants, FAA officials, etc) they interviewed to fully document the US order of battle.

Secrecy is the M.O. for Masons, and the reason that we have it in government is because of Harry Truman, dropper of TWO atomic weapons and a 33rd degree Freemason.

There's too much innuendo dropping entirely for innuendo dropping's sake on your part here. What do the atomic bombs have anything to do with anything,and if the masons are so secret, how is it you know every single nut and bolt about their organization to the point where you even know what level of masonry Truman was?

I would love a reply, but please stay away from the logical fallacies.

Especially the argument against the man.

My argument is not against the man. My argument is against the damned fool conspiracy web sites filling the man's head with complete rubbish. If the man cannot separate himself emotionally from said rubbish so that an attack on one is perceived as an attack on both, I cannot help that.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Why do you neglect to address the actual meat of the article in the OP?

Several individuals in the 9/11 commission feel as if their investigation was hampered due CIA operatives destroying evidence that could have demonstrated the systematic torture of detainees.

You can type a million different words, but you are doing nothing but addressing straw man arguments at your own leisure.

Let's forget everything else. Let's just focus on that one aspect of the article, because in all honesty, that was my point in posting the article.

This is a quote from Hamilton & Keen.

9/11 Commission members Thomas Kean and Lee H. Hamilton wrote that although US President George W. Bush had ordered all executive branch agencies to cooperate with the probe, "recent revelations that the CIA destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot."
"Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation." They continued: “There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the CIA — or the White House — of the commission’s interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot. "Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations," Kean and Hamilton wrote.

Could you explain to me how the 9/11 commission could have put forth an accurate conclusion if.....

"Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation."

If an investigation is obstructed, then please tell me how it is possible to formulate an accurate premise to reach an accurate conclusion.

Let's just stick to this one point, okay?

Nothing against either truthers or official storyliners, no ad hominems, at all, and if you even go that way I will alert the mods.

I am trying to engage you in debate, but in a civilized manner.

I would expect the same from you.

Just this topic and that is all.

It was the focus of the OP anyway.

In my opinion, this situation falls under the umbarella, ella, ella, ella of deductive reasoning.

If the initial premise is not valid then it is not possible to formulate a valid conclusion.

If the investigation was hampered and certain information kept secret, then how can anyone form an accurate premise?

And if an accurate premise is not formed, then it is impossible to come to an accurate conclusion.

[edit on 3/19/2010 by Josephus23]

[edit on 3/19/2010 by Josephus23]

reply to post by GoodOlDave


So you're pretty much advocating what they've done and the secrecy they are using to hide it? If there is no conspiracy, why does not a single thing add up? In no way is destroying evidence acceptable and furthermore that's like saying going against the law is fine. Which I do agree with going against the law is fine, but when the government does it to hide something it wreaks of, you guessed it, CONSPIRACY , dun dun dun...

reply to post by agentofchaos


You know what.....
I guess that I freak out about logic on this board, but what most point out concerning this issue is invalid and inconclusive, and that type of evidence does not make a conclusion valid.

And if any evidence is purposefully left out of the investigation, even it does not hurt the supposed integrity of the case at hand and appears seemingly benign, it will naturally invalidate all of the evidence. That is....

Until an accurate investigation is done into the anomalies in the evidence at hand.
And that is never the case due to resources.
The 9/11 investigators should have UNLIMITED power of subpoena. PERIOD.

UNDER OATH.

Money should no longer buy freedom in the USA.