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.

 

Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7

page: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine
Actually, I have read the report, but I'm afraid I am not in a position to know specifically who is lying and about what. However, people far better qualified than I (and, I suspect, you), have claimed the report is based, at least in part, on lies or misleading statements from some government officials.

Take John Farmer, for example, Senior Counsel to the Commission... he is quoted as saying that the Commission...

"...discovered that...what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue."

And then there's the Chairman of the Commission, Thomas Kean, who said:

"We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth."


This is what I love so much about watching the 9/11 truthers- it's a perfect case study in propaganda and how to push an ulterior agenda at the expense of the truth. I don't know which one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites you got this from...and we both know you did get this from one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites...but THEY got this from the Washington post and are unrepentently quote mining it out of context. Here's the full Washington post story:

Washington Post story on the 9/11 commission

Here are some tidbits those damned fool conspiracy web sites are deliberately snipping off:

..."For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.

In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center."

..."Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not hijacked until 12 minutes later. The military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania."

"...Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said. "


So this "sinister secret conspiracy" the "gov't is lying about" is simply that they portrayed themselves as being professional and responsive when in reality they were slipping on banana peels and wetting their pants during the 9/11 attack and they don't want to admit it. No secret controlled demolitions in WTC 7, no staged events to instigate false wars, no fake al Qaida attacks, none of that. I've been saying from day one that an administration so incompetent to even hand out bottles of water to hurricane survivors in New Orleans could hardly pull off the most convoluted conspiracy in all of recorded human history with the perfection of a supernatural act, and it turns out the administration was so incompetent it couldn't even deal with a terrorist attack.

Of course, you're not going to believe the conspiracy is actually (according to YOUR OWN SOURCES) an attempts to "hide the bungled response to the hijackings" because it doesn't sound sinister enough for you. Am I incorrect?




posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I don't know which one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites you got this from...

Let me clear this up for you, since you are, once again, assuming 'we' are all the same. My quotes came from Wikipedia.

The rest of your post was irrelevant, since I made it clear in my earlier reply that I didn't know specifically who lied or misled the Commission, nor to what degree. Putting these quotes back into context doesn't change the FACT that the Commission was lied to, nor the FACT that the narrative of the final report - the official government version - was based, in part, on these lies.

Finally, Dave, if you reply, would you show me the respect of assuming that I am an individual, and that I don't necessarily share the exact same opinons as others who have doubts over the accuracy of the official account?



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 


from wiki Tenet testified before a public hearing of the Sept. 11 Commission investigating 9/11, that he did not meet with Bush in August 2001, the month before the September 11 attacks. The same evening after the hearings, a CIA spokesman corrected Tenet’s testimony, stating that Tenet did indeed meet with Bush twice in August.[19] Tenet in his memoir writes of his memorable visit to Bush at Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, August 2001.[20]

John Farmer, senior counsel to the Commission stated that the Commission "discovered that...what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue." Farmer continues: "At some level of the government, at some point in time … there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened...The (NORAD) tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public."[21] Thomas Kean, the head of the 9/11 Commission, concurred: "We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth.

******* Big tings in there, of course to some the world is flat, now tell me am I incorrect?!?
edit on 25-5-2011 by yyyyyyyyyy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine
You have no clue what I believe, Dave, and implying that everyone who questions the 'official account' believes in the same alternative theories is disingenous and lazy. Please quote a single instance where I claim to "have all the facts."


I'd love it if he could just show who in the hell is always talking about holograms and space beams every time he brings them up. I'm convinced he could talk to himself for hours the way he just pulls something out of nowhere and then rants on and on about it, when no one else is even talking about it.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I don't know which one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites you got this from...

Let me clear this up for you, since you are, once again, assuming 'we' are all the same. My quotes came from Wikipedia.

The rest of your post was irrelevant, since I made it clear in my earlier reply that I didn't know specifically who lied or misled the Commission, nor to what degree. Putting these quotes back into context doesn't change the FACT that the Commission was lied to, nor the FACT that the narrative of the final report - the official government version - was based, in part, on these lies.


You really don't get it, do you? Despite all the lies, extent of lying, the particular people who lied, or even ommissions which are construed as lies you're pointing out, at the end of the day your own sources are showing THERE IS NO INSIDE JOB OR EVEN A FALSE FLAG OPERATION. No controlled demolitions, no fake hijacking, no secret disinformation agents planted everywhere, no nothing. The conspiracy you're digging up is a coverup of gov't incompetence and bungling leading up to and during the 9/11 attack. It has always been my position that there had been more gov't incompetence than what was reported in itne 9/11 commission report so I don't need to be convinced of that.

When you said the 9/11 Commission report contained lies and ommissions I was under the impression you were tying to point out lies that supposedly covered up the stand down orders, shooting down of flight 93, Bin Laden dying of kidney failure, and other internet drivel the conspiracy people are circulating. The difference between "NORAD send the interceptors in a holding pattern until they could be vectored to the hijacked planes" and "NORAD sent the interceptors in a holding pattern because the Lieutenant-Colonel in charge of the office at the time suffered a nervous breakdown and didn't know what to do" is definitely a lie, but it doesn't help your conspiracy claims one iota.


Finally, Dave, if you reply, would you show me the respect of assuming that I am an individual, and that I don't necessarily share the exact same opinons as others who have doubts over the accuracy of the official account?


All right, I am always ready to admit when I may be wrong. Allow me to ask- are you using the "the gov't lied in the 9/11 commission report" bit to promote some sinister secret "inside job" conspiracy or are you using the "the gov't lied in the 9/11 commission report" bit to expose a near-criminal coverup of extreme gov't incompetence?



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

edit on 25-5-2011 by yyyyyyyyyy because: them!



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I won't reply in detail to the first part of your post, Dave... you know, the bit that starts,"You really don't get it, do you?" But, seriously, are you really arguing that, because wikipedia says it wasn't an inside job, then it wasn't an inside job?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All right, I am always ready to admit when I may be wrong. Allow me to ask- are you using the "the gov't lied in the 9/11 commission report" bit to promote some sinister secret "inside job" conspiracy or are you using the "the gov't lied in the 9/11 commission report" bit to expose a near-criminal coverup of extreme gov't incompetence?

I am not 'promoting' anything... I'm simply stating a fact: one of the official accounts of the events that took place on 911 - the 'Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Official Government Edition' - is based, in part, on lies, errors and/or omissions by elements within the government and its agencies.

I happen to think this is rather important.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   


Well, let me just say that I think the report is, uh, extremely accurate, and- and sets forth the facts of 9/11. And we actually did point out in the report the discrepancies between the accounts that were given and what we actually found. But what’s different is, you know, in this account is, I think, by telling it structurally differently- in other words, in the Commission Report we told it flight by flight, as much for the sake of clarity as anything else, so you could understand with each flight what happened. That’s not the way it was lived, though, by the people who had to respond, and that’s what this book does- it tells the story, uh, almost from their perspective- when everything’s flying at them at once. And I think the value of that is that you can see that, uh, taken as a whole, you can see that the real enemy of preparedness is bureaucracy, and that’s tough nut to crack but I think it’s the one we have to, if we’re gonna be better in the future.


The above quote is from none other than John Farmer.

911reports.wordpress.com...

For those that do not bother to actually do research, you wouldn't understand that Mr Farmer believes that the 9/11 Commission Report is accurate.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596

For those that do not bother to actually do research, you wouldn't understand that Mr Farmer believes that the 9/11 Commission Report is accurate.

So, John Farmer, quoted here during an interview to promote his book, "thinks" the Official Government Version of the 911 Commission's Report is "extremely accurate"... what is your point?

As a side note, I think it's much more interesting that one of the most senior members of the Commission, which was mandated to "conduct an investigation that... may include relevant facts and circumstances relating to... the flow of assets to terrorist organizations" knew absolutely nothing, in late 2009, about the allegations that "the Bush administration cover[ed] up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?"

Still, it is reassuring to know that this man thinks the report is "extremely accutate"..



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine
I am not 'promoting' anything... I'm simply stating a fact: one of the official accounts of the events that took place on 911 - the 'Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Official Government Edition' - is based, in part, on lies, errors and/or omissions by elements within the government and its agencies.

I happen to think this is rather important.



All right, I give credit where credit is due- you've proven your position that lies did in fact make their way into the 9/11 commission report. My point is that these lies make little impact to the 9/11 commission report's credibility as a whole because regardless of whether the interceptors were put in a holding pattern so they can be vectored to the planes or becuase the officer in charge was too busy watching internet porn, the end result is the same- the interceptors didn't reach the hijacked planes in time and therefore the hijacked planes made it to their targets.

If your goal isn't to grasp at every irregularity, coincidence and misspelling you can find in order to use them to give these "false flag" conspiracy claims a veneer of credibility, then what is your point with this? All you've managed to do is show my suspicions of a coverup of gross gov't bungling are right.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by coughymachine
You have no clue what I believe, Dave, and implying that everyone who questions the 'official account' believes in the same alternative theories is disingenous and lazy. Please quote a single instance where I claim to "have all the facts."


I'd love it if he could just show who in the hell is always talking about holograms and space beams every time he brings them up. I'm convinced he could talk to himself for hours the way he just pulls something out of nowhere and then rants on and on about it, when no one else is even talking about it.


All right, if you insist- here's a thread started by one of your fellow conspiracy theorists who insists secret gov't agents snuck out and staged a fake crash site out in the middle of nowhere to to fool us... and then turned around and covered up the fake crash site they staged to fool us. All on the strength of the material the OP is picking up off some damned fool conspiracy web site.

Fake crash site blah blah blah...

My point is that there really is no "sinister secret conspiracy" claim too ludicrious for someone or another in your ranks to subscribe to, and I invite you to show how I'm wrong.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
My point is that there really is no "sinister secret conspiracy" claim too ludicrious for someone or another in your ranks to subscribe to, and I invite you to show how I'm wrong.


But Dave that didn't happen in this thread, or by the posters in this thread.

Why do yo insist on painting us all with the same brush? Go pick on the people that actually say those things. All you are doing is trying to distract from the discussion., and I'm only typing this because there is nothing else worth replying to right now.

I can do the same you know, there are tons of stupid contradictory comments from OSers that could fill pages of text. Actually the fact that you admit the NIST report was only a hypothesis, but insist on treating it like fact, and pretend a real investigation wouldn't dig much deeper and actually create a theory that can tested and proved.

An hypothesis is an incomplete investigation. Hypothesis usually comes before the investigation, it's a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis the scientific method requires that it be tested, that is the investigation part. If it remains a hypothesis it either can not be tested, or it failed in the testing.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I can do the same you know, there are tons of stupid contradictory comments from OSers that could fill pages of text. Actually the fact that you admit the NIST report was only a hypothesis, but insist on treating it like fact, and pretend a real investigation wouldn't dig much deeper and actually create a theory that can tested and proved.


I have no objections to further investigations. Have all the investigations you want. My question is...and I've asked this more times than I can count and have yet to receive an honest answer...just what evidence would you honestly accept that would convince you conspiracy people it was a genuine terrorist attack? So far, all you people have done is create a cottage industry of excuses for why you shouldn't have to believe anything that disproves what you want to believe, usually revolving around armies of secret agents planted everywhere.


An hypothesis is an incomplete investigation. Hypothesis usually comes before the investigation, it's a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis the scientific method requires that it be tested, that is the investigation part. If it remains a hypothesis it either can not be tested, or it failed in the testing.


That is completely wrong and that is why I take exception to your conspiracy claims. A hypothesis never comes first. Examining the facts comes first and then a hypothesis is created that best explains how the facts came to be comes second. If facts appear later that contradict the hypothesis then the hypothesis is discarded and a new hypothesis is created that better fits the facts. Between the facts that...

-a) eyewitnesses saw that the fires were causing structural damage with their own eyes (NY police helicoper pilots, NY deputy fire chiefs, etc)
-b) eyewitnesses saw that there was extensive damage separate from the fires (William Rodriguez, Barry Jennings, etc)
-c) all the photographic evidence I've seen (ground zero documentation, photos of the steel kept in the hanger at JFK, etc) only shows mechanical damage typical to a collapse, with girders broken like twigs, bent in ghastly shapes, breaking at the welds, and ZERO damage from any explosives or sabotage
-d) not to mention, Islamic fundamentalists are known to hijack aircraft, kill innocent civilians, and commit suicide attacks,

...the best hypothesis that the planes genuinely and truly were hijacked, genuinely and truly did impact the towers and the Pentagon, and genuinely and truly did instigate a chain reaction that caused the towers to collapse. All the NIST, FEMA, 9/11 commission report, the PErdue study, Dr. Quintiere's report, etc etc etc do is make stabs at filling in the blanks in the hypothesis. I consider all of them potentially accurate becuase none of them can be completely discounted.

Then there's you people, who come up with the hypothesis there's some sinister secret plot to murder us all and then develop an agenda to accept or discard the facts entirely according to whether it fits your hypothesis. I've seen more than a few of you insist "eyewitness accounts cannot be refuted" when the eyewitnesses say they heard explosions, but when eyewitnesses say they saw a plane hit the Pentagon you say "eyewitnesses don't know what they're talking about" or you make up excuses that "they're all secret agents". Despite all the "overwhelming evidence" the conspiracy people keep insisting is there, not even two of you can sit down and even agree what this supposed "secret conspiracy" even is.

It's blatantly obvious you people don't even believe your own rhetoric so why should we?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
It is obvious that very few posters who defend the lies of the OS have a job to do and that is to insult and ridicule everyone who doesn’t believe in the OS lies.
I have yet to see any real evidence that supports the OS and science doesn’t support the garbage that a few of you defend.
Fact is NIST was proven a lie
911 Commission Report was proven a lie.
The official story of 911 was proven a lie.

Fact is hundreds of witness saw explosions and some saw bright flashes of light going around the towers in the WTC as they were being demolished from demolition.
There were many eyewitnesses who were at the Pentagon when the alleged plane struck the building who claim they did not see any plane hit the Pentagon.


That is completely wrong and that is why I take exception to your conspiracy claims. A hypothesis never comes first. Examining the facts comes first and then a hypothesis is created that best explains how the facts came to be comes second. If facts appear later that contradict the hypothesis then the hypothesis is discarded and a new hypothesis is created that better fits the facts. Between the facts that...


I completely disagree with you.
What facts are you talking about that allegedly support the OS lies?
Most people know the government lied about the OS, so you have no facts.
What facts we have is supported by science.


edit on 26-5-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It's blatantly obvious you people don't even believe your own rhetoric so why should we?


I don't think you even take your own posts seriously, and you're just playing an elaborate joke on us.

After all, you take a hundred different claims from a hundred completely different people and then act as if we are all saying all of those things.

You bring up holograms and space beams in virtually every post when no one else is saying a word about any of that stuff.

Basically all you do here is troll with straw-men.


Kind of like this:




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't think you even take your own posts seriously, and you're just playing an elaborate joke on us.

After all, you take a hundred different claims from a hundred completely different people and then act as if we are all saying all of those things.


Excuse me, Mr. Conspiracy theorist but that's the entire problem right there. You people keep insisting there's a conspiracy but you can't even agree among yourselves what thiis conspiracy even is. Is it controlled demolitions? Was it lasers from outer space? Was there a cruise missile at the Pentagon? Was the gov't behind it? Was Israel behind it? Were shape shifting alien lizards behind it? It's clear you're not reviewing the facts and attempting to derive a hypothesis from it. You're attempting to rewrite the whole 9/11 event to your own liking and force everything to conform to what you people openly admit is a preconcieved hypothesis.

Case in point- this whole "Engineers request permission to speak freely" thread. Now, it's either the case that we're living in a repressive society where intellectuals need to ask permission to "speak freely"...in which case, you'd have been sent to prison every time you clicked the REPLY button here on ATS...or, someone around here is polluting their commentary with unrealistic abject paranoia. You tell me which one you think it is.

There are myriad competitive (in your view) "official story" explanations for why the towers collapsed from the impacts and the fires, but at least they all do agree that it was the planes and the fires that instigated the collapse in some way. They don't need to resort to inventing weird crap like hologram planes to intentionally steer the investigation into bizarro world directions, as you conspiracy people do.


You bring up holograms and space beams in virtually every post when no one else is saying a word about any of that stuff.


Baloney. Former governor Jesse Ventura (the guy behind those 'conspiracy theory' television shows) is officially on board the "energy beams from otuer space" bandwagon, plus, materials engineer Dr. Judy Wood not only endorses it, she and Morgan Reynolds filed a lawsuit against NIST on the grounds there's a coverup. The fact of the matter is, it's the lasers from outer space bunch who are the only ones who have actually gotten off their butts to put words into deeds, while all you controlled demolitions people do is gripe incessantly on internet forums and shovel your money to a bunch of con artists. As far as I'm concerned, you're the ones who need to justify your theories to them, not the other way around.

Since you're so fond of cute graphics, you'll appreciate this: This is how you appear to me whenever I try to present information that shows why those conspiracy claims you people love so much are improbable:




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


It's clear you're not reviewing the facts and attempting to derive a hypothesis from it.


We are not here to dream up hypothesis to "entertain you," we are in here on a fact finding mission.


You're attempting to rewrite the whole 9/11 event to your own liking and force everything to conform to what you people openly admit is a preconcieved hypothesis.


Like you do in defending the OS, and by calling everyone else delusional conspiracy nut jobs, because no one will conform to your OS beliefs.


Case in point- this whole "Engineers request permission to speak freely" thread. Now, it's either the case that we're living in a repressive society where intellectuals need to ask permission to "speak freely"...in which case, you'd have been sent to prison every time you clicked the REPLY button here on ATS...or, someone around here is polluting their commentary with unrealistic abject paranoia. You tell me which one you think it is.


The fact is Dave, the only person I see” polluting commentary with unrealistic abject paranoia” is your drivel against everyone who will not conform to your way of thinking.


There are myriad competitive (in your view) "official story" explanations for why the towers collapsed from the impacts and the fires, but at least they all do agree that it was the planes and the fires that instigated the collapse in some way.


Science disagrees with you.
www.ae911truth.org...


They don't need to resort to inventing weird crap like hologram planes to intentionally steer the investigation into bizarro world directions, as you conspiracy people do.


Like you, everyone has the right to their own “opinions” and belief’s. I have yet to see any real scientist supporting Judy Woods insane hypotheses the” hologram planes” theories.

If any conspiracy people on ATS support the” hologram planes” theories out of the two millions people who come to ATS every month, it would only be a handful and not the majority. Why don’t you complain why so many conspiracy people including me support demolition of the WTC including scientists? Probably because you cannot argue against science.


You bring up holograms and space beams in virtually every post when no one else is saying a word about any of that stuff.

Baloney


No, it’s a fact.


while all you controlled demolitions people do is gripe incessantly on internet forums and shovel your money to a bunch of con artists. As far as I'm concerned, you're the ones who need to justify your theories to them, not the other way around.


You are wrong; where we spend our money is none of your business and the fact is you do not know what and where people spend their money on.
The fact is most people do not support Judy Woods’s hypotheses and it was not peer reviewed and no scientist support it. People do not need to justify their demolition beliefs to you or Judy Woods. The fact is there are many technical papers written by many scientists that support demolitions, there’s even a peer reviewed paper done on particles found in the WTC dust samples, and it was accepted by the scientific community and that is what most Truthers support.


This is how you appear to me whenever I try to present information that shows why those conspiracy claims you people love so much are improbable:


The fact is you have never disproved what scientists have found concerning demolition at the WTC.
The only thing you have proved is your dislike against people who do not agree with you.

From the OP:
Robert F. Marceau, with over 30 years of structural engineering experience:
Steven L. Faseler, structural engineer with over 20 years of experience in the design and construction industry:
Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, writes:
Graham John
Paul W.

Perhaps these people are all liars to, because they surly do not endorse the OS. Are they conspiracy nut job who get their opinions off of those dam fools conspiracy websites too?

edit on 27-5-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Excuse me, Mr. Conspiracy theorist but that's the entire problem right there. You people keep insisting there's a conspiracy but you can't even agree among yourselves what thiis conspiracy even is.


The one thing there is agreement on, is that the investigations done so far sucked total ass and we deserve something better. I don't particularly care if 100 different people coming up with 100 different theories confuses you so much. You're just going to have to keep struggling with that one.

As for me, I don't have 100 different theories. So I don't want to hear your "space beams" garbage. You still don't know what a straw-man is, apparently.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All right, I give credit where credit is due- you've proven your position that lies did in fact make their way into the 9/11 commission report.

This is a good start...

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
My point is that these lies make little impact to the 9/11 commission report's credibility as a whole...

Oh dear. And I really thought you and I could be buddies, Dave.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 





As a side note, I think it's much more interesting that one of the most senior members of the Commission, which was mandated to "conduct an investigation that... may include relevant facts and circumstances relating to... the flow of assets to terrorist organizations" knew absolutely nothing, in late 2009, about the allegations that "the Bush administration cover[ed] up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?"


In late 2009.......hmmmmmmm.



After the publication of its final report, the commission closed on August 21, 2004.


Little bit of a disconnect there.

I have never claimed that there was not some whitewashing going on to hide the incompetence shown by many members of the US Government. However, the issue would be malicious intent....of which there wasn't any. Having show trials (which is exactly what they would be) would not solve anything, nor would it make us any safer.

Did we have supposed friends (ISI) double dealing us? Certainly

Did we have situational allies sell us out? Of course

Did we have contacts with people that later did us great harm? Yep.

(sidenote...we also had contacts with V.I. Lenin, that were blown off prior to the Russian Revolution, we trained and supported Ho Chi Minh in World War II, we aided Fidel Castro in his early days.......in what were the supposed "best interests" of our country at the time, our government has done some really stupid things)

Does this mean we should start another witch hunt? No...because it would do nothing to bring back those 3,000 people nor would it do anything to make us safer.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join