Split Thread Criticisms of 9/11 Commission Report

Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
20,632
Location
Ivory Tower
Split from recent tv show
Posted By: Agatha
I recently saw a tv show, who's basic premise was that the inquiry into the twin towers collapse, was that the commission failed to take into account the massive amounts of aluminium injected into the buildings in the form of the two planes.

apart from the fact that I was totally ignorant of the fact that aluminium is explosive under the right conditions, it appeared to provide a logical explanation

hiw likely is this to be at least a partial explanation?


"The commission"? They didn't look into any collapses. It was just myth making based on "evidence" derived from torture and a vivid fantasy sharpened by earlier projects.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why don't you take a look at the 9/11 commission report itself (you obviously haven't)? Technical analysis (and in the case of WTC7 even mentioning) of building collapses were done by NIST, not the 9/11 commission.

Small detail. It was mentioned, in the part were the site destruction detail was documented.
 
I'm also too lazy at this point to look it up. It was mentioned along with the other buildings and damage done on 9/11. I believe the reference came from the fema damage assessment.


Ok, let's settle on "was not investigated but maybe mentioned in passing" in the 9/11 commission report.
 
total nonsense.

Correct

The primary heat source for the WTC towers was office fires - equal to over 2,700 tons of TNT, they were many time more than the jet fuel heat.
The NIST reports on the WTC, and FEMA did a report.
 
Last edited:
Of course not. It falls into a black hole.

Silly press, focusing on the thousands of people that died instead of some obscure collateral damage that con artists use over a decade later to prey on the gullible.

WTC 4 was destroyed too! Inside jobbity job!
 
Did you ever watch Press for Truth, Chris? I know, I know, you don't want to get "political", right? ;):)

What was the conclusion? And how does that conclusion get close to the OP thread topic?

Press for Truth is still the authoritative film about the work of the 9/11 commission:
The authoritative work about the 9/11 commission, the 9/11 commission report. If you want a filer to it, then youtube will have the filtered versions.
 
Last edited:
Split from recent tv show
Posted By: Agatha



"The commission"? They didn't look into any collapses. It was just myth making based on "evidence" derived from torture and a vivid fantasy sharpened by earlier projects.
Without delving into the first part, I think the second part of your claim (highlighted) is highly inaccurate. The commission report cites lots of sources, none of them includes torture. Can you cite just one passage where evidence was derived from torture?

ETA: Just for the sake of example, recently, Commission member Miles Kara published an interview with Lt.Col. O'Brien, the pilot of the C-130 that looked for AA77 before it crashed. http://www.oredigger61.org/?p=6314 - does it look like that evidence was derived from torture to you?
 
Last edited:
Without delving into the first part, I think the second part of your claim (highlighted) is highly inaccurate. The commission report cites lots of sources, none of them includes torture. Can you cite just one passage where evidence was derived from torture?

ETA: Just for the sake of example, recently, Commission member Miles Kara published an interview with Lt.Col. O'Brien, the pilot of the C-130 that looked for AA77 before it crashed. http://www.oredigger61.org/?p=6314 - does it look like that evidence was derived from torture to you?

Maybe CE was referring to these (wiki lifted):

* Airport security footage of the hijackers as they passed through airport security.
* Excerpts from the United Airlines Flight 93 cockpit voice recording, which recorded the sounds of the hijackers in the cockpit and the passengers' attempts to regain control.
* Eyewitness testimony of passengers as they described their own final moments to family members and authorities on airphones and cellphones from the cabins of doomed airliners

Oh wait, none were fantasy or provided via torture. CE wouldn't lie, no, couldn't.
 
Which is?


Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Here are some more letters about the Commission Report and what we only quite recently learned about torture:

Forgetting Torture: Lee Hamilton, John Brennan, and Abu Zubaydah

Kevin Ryan said:
The pervasive news surrounding the confirmation hearing of John Brennan, Obama’s nominee for CIA director, is paralleled by another, related story that has been largely ignored by the U.S. media. That is the story of the man called Abu Zubaydah, whose alleged torture testimony, obtained by the CIA while Brennan was the head of the agency’s Terrorist Threat Center, built the foundation for the official account of 9/11. This week I spoke to Lee Hamilton, former vice-chairman of the 9/11 Commission, about the serious problems that the government’s new stance on Zubaydah creates for the 9/11 Commission Report.

As stated in my last article on the subject, Zubaydah is at the center of an unraveling of the official account of the 9/11 attacks.[1] His extensive torture at the hands of the CIA during Brennan’s tenure, which included at least 83 water-boarding sessions, hanging the man naked from the ceiling, slamming him against a concrete wall, and other atrocious experimental techniques, was said to produce valuable evidence about al Qaeda. However, the government now claims that Zubaydah was never a member or associate of al Qaeda and therefore he could not have known any of the information that the 9/11 Commission attributed to him. [...]

In our talk, I reminded Hamilton that Zubaydah was mentioned over 50 times in the 9/11 Commission Report, and that his alleged torture testimony, along with that of KSM and Ramsi bin Alshibh (both of whom Zubaydah identified as being involved in the attacks), produced the foundation of the official account of 9/11. Creating the background for the official myth about al Qaeda, Hamilton’s report called Zubaydah an “Al Qaeda associate,” a “long-time ally of Bin Ladin,” a “Bin Ladin lieutenant,” and an “al Qaeda lieutenant.”[9] Despite these important references, Hamilton told me that he just couldn’t remember Zubaydah, saying “my recollection is really quite vague with regard to him.”

To refresh his memory further, I reminded Hamilton that nine separate dates of Zubaydah’s interrogation were referenced in his report. After these reminders, Hamilton said that he still had to “stretch his imagination to remember” him. It seems that if Hamilton had read my article on Zubaydah, which I had sent to him over a week before he agreed to meet and eleven days before we talked, his memory would have returned easily. Instead, Hamilton’s inability to stretch his imagination on the subject was reminiscent of the “failure of imagination” excuse used by the 9/11 Commission when it proposed an overall explanation for the events of 9/11.

Because the government no longer contends that Zubaydah was in any way associated with al Qaeda and now says that he had no knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, I asked Hamilton if he had an opinion on how Zubaydah could have known so much about al Qaeda as stated in his report. Bluntly stating “No,” Hamilton suggested that he was not concerned with these contradictions. [...]
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Which items are myths?

From the Commission report:

To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.

The most important failure was one of imagination.

Ten Commissioners-five Republicans and five Democrats chosen by elected leaders from our nation's capital at a time of great partisan division-have come together to present this report without dissent.
 
Split from recent tv show
Posted By: Agatha



"The commission"? They didn't look into any collapses. It was just myth making based on "evidence" derived from torture and a vivid fantasy sharpened by earlier projects.

Here's some criticism of the 9/11 Commission:

* Henry Kissinger was initially chosen to lead the inquiry.
* President Bush and Vice President Cheney opposed the creation of an inquiry.
* President Bush and Vice President Cheney spoke to the 9/11 Commission in private together without being putting under oath and without what they said being electronically recorded or transcribed and that the few notes allowed would not be made public.
* Philip Zelikow (who was on Bush's transition team) was the executive director.
* Zelikow and Jamie Gorelick (President Clinton's Deputy Attorney General) were the only two allowed to see the most sensitive material.
* When government employees were interviewed by the commission, they were joined by "minders".
* The funding for the commission was an embarrassment.
 
Here's some criticism of the 9/11 Commission:

* Henry Kissinger was initially chosen to lead the inquiry.
* President Bush and Vice President Cheney opposed the creation of an inquiry.
* President Bush and Vice President Cheney spoke to the 9/11 Commission in private together without being putting under oath and without what they said being electronically recorded or transcribed and that the few notes allowed would not be made public.
* Philip Zelikow (who was on Bush's transition team) was the executive director.
* Zelikow and Jamie Gorelick (President Clinton's Deputy Attorney General) were the only two allowed to see the most sensitive material.
* When government employees were interviewed by the commission, they were joined by "minders".
* The funding for the commission was an embarrassment.
You are aware that despite this the members of the commission claimed they succeeded in reaching their goal?

So, what is your real concern?
 
... Which items are myths?
From the Commission report:

Quote:
To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.
Quote:
The most important failure was one of imagination.
Quote:
Ten Commissioners-five Republicans and five Democrats chosen by elected leaders from our nation's capital at a time of great partisan division-have come together to present this report without dissent.
Today 10:11 AM

What money? To buy the knives, or what? You do remember they took the planes, they did not pay cash to have 4 aircraft. What would be the big money smoking gun? Uncle Atta sending Atta to flight school?

Imagination? It is hard for me to imagine idiots killing themselves in perfect aircraft. Not hard to write fiction, but I never imagined 19 terrorists taking cockpit, cutting the pilots throats, pulling them out of the seats, and taking the planes. I guess you and 911 truth are so into BS stories, this kind of stuff is reality to you; as you can't figure out 175 hit and made the smoke in the other WTC building move. You lack the imagination to not post a dumb "tag-line quote-mined BS statement" like this and fail to realize it is not a myth, but BS.

What myth? How can congress say anything, they chair the intelligence committee, they fund everything, they are responsible for the money; now you call them putting out a report a myth.

The FBI funding was the real investigation, and it appears the 911 commission myths are BS to fuel the 911 truth political needs.

You have not presented any items that are myths.
 
Last edited:
What about the rest of the report? ETA: It's 13 chapters, you know. How do you derive 'myth making based on "evidence" derived from torture and a vivid fantasy sharpened by earlier projects' from that?


I know indeed. Chapters 5-7 are the core of the narrative. Before and after are tales of history and recommendations of how to proceed. The wonderful institution of Heimatschutz, ehm, no, Staatssicherheit, jeez, sorry, "Homeland Security" was proposed in that "report" to a great length.
 
Are there members of the commission that have disputed the conclusions?


The two apparatchiks Kean and Hamilton have expressed discontent to an unusual degree, not only in the interview Hamilton granted to "idiot" Ryan linked above. They''re certainly far away from claiming that they succeeded in their mission, which was your claim Jango picked up.
 
Last edited:
The two apparatchiks Kean and Hamilton have expressed discontent to an unusual degree, not only in the interview Hamilton granted to "idiot" Ryan linked above. They''re certainly far away from claiming that they succeeded in their mission, which was your claim Jango picked up.

Ryan can't figure out 911 after 13 years, he makes up BS like the linked BS above. Like you fell for idiotic claims of an NoC by CIT, you fall for BS you can't support from Ryan. By using Ryan to support anything, is like using CIT for anything; failure. Have you finally figured out CIT was based on BS.

What myths? got a list or what
 

Back
Top Bottom