400+ Medical Professionals Question the 9/11 Commission Report

Originally posted by hooper
The simple fact that you say most of the report is a conglomeration of "scientific" reports proves, beyond a doubt, that you never read the report and have no clue what is in it or what it is about.

I have read the 9/11 commission report and it is not a investigation, it is a collection of reports from other agencies such as NIST, FEMA, and the FBI.

The 9/11 commission did not have the time or money to do an investigation.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
The simple fact that you say most of the report is a conglomeration of "scientific" reports proves, beyond a doubt, that you never read the report and have no clue what is in it or what it is about.

I have read the 9/11 commission report and it is not a investigation, it is a collection of reports from other agencies such as NIST, FEMA, and the FBI.

The 9/11 commission did not have the time or money to do an investigation.

Well, now wait a minute. You said it was "mostly" scientific reports? Now its FEMA (7 references) NIST (2 references) and now all of a sudden you're including FBI? Since when do they issue "scientific" reports?

And to a limited extent, you are correct, it is not an investigation except to the extent that they were investigating rules, practises, policies, and performances of the national security, intelligence and law enforcement communities to the purposes of making recommendations for improvements to those agencies and in general, national security practises.

The Commission was not tasked (and for good reason) to see if the crater in Shanksville was the right size, or if more of the windows at the Pentagon should have broken, or if the WTC towers fell at near, semi-near, almost near, sorta near free-fall speed.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed.

These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Sure they can. Having a M.D. next to your name does not make your 9/11 opinions any more valid. That being said, the report comes from government and by that fact alone will be flawed. But the appeal to authority carries no weight in establishing credibility of the 911 conspiracy theories.

Neither do credentials lend credibility to NIST, popular mechanics and the official story of ineptitude.

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed.

These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Sure they can. Having a M.D. next to your name does not make your 9/11 opinions any more valid. That being said, the report comes from government and by that fact alone will be flawed. But the appeal to authority carries no weight in establishing credibility of the 911 conspiracy theories.

Neither do credentials lend credibility to NIST, popular mechanics and the official story of ineptitude.

Perhaps not, but I tend to find those trying to provide rational explanations for the events that day more compelling and interesting than a bunch of doctors poopoo-ing a government report and conspiracy theorists using them to establish credibility for conspiracy.

TA
while I applaud your efforts
please note we are no closer to getting
a noose around someone's neck than we were
before you posted this thread. Yes, there are millions
who state the same thing these folks are saying.
But in this case numbers don't mean diddly squat
as long as the system perpetuates itself. Even
the commissioners have admitted it was a flawed
investigation, but it was one that was obstructed
by the Bush regime. So nothing new has been produced
by this thread to help our cause.

I am on your side, believe me
but there is no need to rehash the same old
argument over and over, when the rules surrounding
9/11 stay in place.

reply to post by SmokeandShadow

Neither do credentials lend credibility to NIST, popular mechanics and the official story of ineptitude.

Well, actually in those cases it does. When someone is writing extensivley on issue like fire safety then yes, credentials do matter quite a bit. When someone is doing structural load calculations, then yes, credentials are very important.

But just because you are "credentialed" in one area does not, by and stretch of the imagination mean that your opinion should be given any more weight then someone who is not.

In this case I can't even imagine why having an RN or MD or EMT would make any difference at all.

Originally posted by hooper
Well, now wait a minute. You said it was "mostly" scientific reports? Now its FEMA (7 references) NIST (2 references) and now all of a sudden you're including FBI? Since when do they issue "scientific" reports?

Gee you still do not know thaat the FBI are the lead investigating agency for 9/11?

The Commission was not tasked (and for good reason) to see if the crater in Shanksville was the right size, or if more of the windows at the Pentagon should have broken, or if the WTC towers fell at near, semi-near, almost near, sorta near free-fall speed.

Yes that why there had to be a scientific investigations done by agencies like NIST, FEMA and mainly the FBI.

Then the 9/11 commssion posted information from all of these reports.

Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by hooper


Gee you still do not know thaat the FBI are the lead investigating agency for 9/11?

Huh? The OP states that, according to these medical professionals there was not enough or insufficient or improper "scientific rigor" applied to the 9/11 Commission Report. I responded that the 9/11 Commission report was not intended to be a scientific examination of the events of 9/11 but more of a detailed debriefing of the events, policies, procedures that led up to 9/11, therefore making the critique moot. To me it is kind of like saying the report failed because it was printed in the wrong font. And yes, I know that the FBI was a lead agency in the investigation, but as far as the OP is concerned, it is a moot point.

Yes that why there had to be a scientific investigations done by agencies like NIST, FEMA and mainly the FBI.

Then the 9/11 commssion posted information from all of these reports.

Please refer me to the page(s) in the 9/11 commission report that refers to all the NIST reports. This should be fun since all the NIST reports were not finalized until after the 9/11 commission report was issued. And then explain how this is all relevant to the OP.

Originally posted by hooper
Please refer me to the page(s) in the 9/11 commission report that refers to all the NIST reports.

Emergency Preparedness and Response
Staff Statement No. 13

Much of this work was conducted in conjunction with the National Institute of Standardsand Technology (NIST), which is studying the building performance issues. We are indebted to NIST for its cooperation.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Please refer me to the page(s) in the 9/11 commission report that refers to all the NIST reports.

Emergency Preparedness and Response
Staff Statement No. 13

Much of this work was conducted in conjunction with the National Institute of Standardsand Technology (NIST), which is studying the building performance issues. We are indebted to NIST for its cooperation.

Thank you for clearing that up. So now we know that none of the NIST reports were included in the 9/11 Commission Report. Please note the use of the term "is studying".

Originally posted by hooper
Thank you for clearing that up. So now we know that none of the NIST reports were included in the 9/11 Commission Report. Please note the use of the term "is studying".

Please reread the following line untill you can understand it then reply.

Much of this work was conducted in conjunction with the National Institute of Standardsand Technology (NIST),

Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by hooper

Much of this work was conducted in conjunction with the National Institute of Standardsand Technology (NIST), which is studying the building performance issues. We are indebted to NIST for its cooperation.

There, fixed that for ya. The NIST reports which you keep claiming are part of the 9/11 Commission Report, were not even complete when the report was issued. The "work" refered to had to do with advice on building safety and preparedness, particurlay and understanding of how many people were occupying the building that day. It is one of only two references in the document to the NIST.

Originally posted by hooper
There, fixed that for ya.

Now all you have to do is admit that the 9/11 commission is just a collection of reports form other agencies like NIST.

If not you cnoncede that you cannot accept or admit to facts and evidence shown.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
There, fixed that for ya.

Now all you have to do is admit that the 9/11 commission is just a collection of reports form other agencies like NIST.

If not you cnoncede that you cannot accept or admit to facts and evidence shown.

Sorry, the 9/11 commission report is far from just a collection of reports from agencies like NIST (I like how you slipped in that little qualifier after you figured out that, in fact, the NIST reports were not included in the 911 commission report). Your opinion about the nature of the content of the report is not "fact and evidence". Just your opinion. And I do not agree with your opinion.

Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, the 9/11 commission report is far from just a collection of reports from agencies

The 9/11 commission bsically used collected reports from other agnecies. As stated in the commisson report.


Executive branch agencies have searched records and produced a multitude of documents for us. We thank officials, past and present, who were generous with their time and provided us with insight. The PENTTBOM team at the FBI, the Director's Review Group at the CIA, and Inspectors General at the Department of Justice and the CIA provided great assistance. We owe a huge debt to their investigative labors, painstaking attention to detail, and readiness to share what they have learned. We have built on the work of several previous Commissions, and we thank the Congressional Joint Inquiry, whose fine work helped us get started. We thank the City of New York for assistance with documents and witnesses, and the Government Printing Office and W.W. Norton & Company for helping to get this report to the broad public.



We use the following abbreviations for the agencies and entities that produced the bulk of these documents: AAL-American Airlines; CIA-Central Intelligence Agency; DCI-Director of Central Intelligence; DHS-Department of Homeland Security; DOD-Department of Defense; DOJ-Department of Justice; DOS-Department of State; DOT-Department of Transportation; EPA-Environmental Protection Agency; FAA-Federal Aviation Administration; FBI-Federal Bureau of Investigation; FDNY-Fire Department of New York; GAO-General Accounting Office; INS-Immigration and Naturalization Service; NEADS-Northeast Air Defense Sector; NSA-National Security Agency; NSC-National Security Council; NTSB-National Transportation Safety Board; NYPD-New York Police Department; OEM-Office of Emergency Management, City of New York; PANYNJ or Port Authority-Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; PAPD-Port Authority Police Department; SEC-Securities and Exchange Commission; Treasury-Department of Treasury; TSA-Transportation Security Administration; UAL-United Air Lines; USSS-United States Secret Service.


[edit on 25-3-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE

The 9/11 commission bsically used collected reports from other agnecies. As stated in the commisson report.

You must really get tired moving those goalposts around. Wasn't it just a few posts ago that you were telling us that the 9/11 Commission was just a collection of reports from other agencies?

Really, we all know the commission refered to reports and had help from other agencies, however, this does not make the commission report just a collection of reports. And, getting back to the original OP, the report does not deal with a plethora of scientific material. It is primarily a history of AG and a critique of the national security, intelligence and law enforcement communtities as well as a blueprint for going forward.

Originally posted by hooper
Really, we all know the commission refered to reports and had help from other agencies, however, this does not make the commission report just a collection of reports.

Well they did not do any real investigations did they?

Thanks for agreeing they mainly relied on reports from other agencies. In fact they mainly requested reports from other agencies.



[edit on 25-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Really, we all know the commission refered to reports and had help from other agencies, however, this does not make the commission report just a collection of reports.

Well they did not do any real investigations did they?

Thanks for agreeing they mainly relied on reports from other agencies. In fact they mainly requested reports from other agencies.
[edit on 25-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Oh, your welcome. Now please show me some "facts or evidence" that the 9/11 Commission Report is JUST a collection of reports from other agencies as you previosuly stated.

Originally posted by hooper
Oh, your welcome. Now please show me some "facts or evidence" that the 9/11 Commission Report is JUST a collection of reports from other agencies as you previosuly stated.

Already showed the listing of agencies that did reports for the commisison as listed by the commission.

NOW PROVE ME WRONG...

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Oh, your welcome. Now please show me some "facts or evidence" that the 9/11 Commission Report is JUST a collection of reports from other agencies as you previosuly stated.

Already showed the listing of agencies that did reports for the commisison as listed by the commission.

NOW PROVE ME WRONG...

Easy - you said "just a collection of reports". JUST. Meaning only or nearly. Just a collection of reports. Now you are saying that the Commission report includes references to other reports and agencies, no problem with that. But it is more than "just" a collection of reports. Words have meanings and give meaning to other words depending on the context and situation. Try and choose them carefully.