June 25, 200620 yr lets both stop personal insultes and just debate this. ill go over most of those in a second.
June 25, 200620 yr Nick, I was obviously using a hyperbole in that situation. OBVIOUSLY not every post you make on these boards is going to be ignorant. I believe that's highly improbable. And the times I get upset with you are when you 1) completely disregard evidence and make blind claims, or 2) dodge the questions. And unfortunately, that happens quite a bit. It has little to do with what the topic of argument is about. It has more to do with the fact that ignorance upsets me. I'm a Republican, and you're not always uninformed. Anyway, back on topic. I just listed 115 reasons why the 9/11 Commission Report is bogus. I don't actually expect you to read all of them - hell, I've only made it through about 80 or so. I get headaches if I read a wall of text for too long.
June 25, 200620 yr ill read ALL of them and debate them. its gonna take awhile seeing as how there are so many.
June 25, 200620 yr Okay, on topic now - the hijackers have been reported alive. It's pretty old news, though.
June 25, 200620 yr Oh and the second one... the evidence was that after his alleged "commitment" to suicide bomb the WTCs, he was still doing these things. Now, one who is about to give his life for Allah must have a pure life before he dies.
June 25, 200620 yr Oh and just so you know: all of those came from The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.
June 25, 200620 yr Okay, on topic now - the hijackers have been reported alive. It's pretty old news, though. interesting. but that doesnt prove the goverment was behind the attack, it only shows there was a mess up with 4 names.
June 25, 200620 yr And seeing as how it's 2:30AM, I'm going to go to bed. We can continue this tomorrow.
June 25, 200620 yr we'll ill be up late ill go over the other stuff with and post on that, and you can respond to it tomorrow. goodnight
June 25, 200620 yr 5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25). just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean its not possible. no plane ever flew into the twin towers before, does that mean it never happened? experts have said the fire was hot enough to cause the towers to collapse. im gonna side with them on that. 6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26). experts have said they were hot enough to melt the steel enough to cause a collapse. 7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26). experts have also said that the one tower that fell first played a major role in the other one collapsing. 8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26). that still proves nothing. 9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27). im still siding with the experts who say the planes brought it down. 11. The omission of Larry Silverstein’s statement that he and the fire department commander decided to “pull” Building 7 (28). im not sure what "pull" the building means? does it mean he had the fire fighters leave? 12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30). i'd like so see some evidence of that. 13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30). well when a plane hits a building people tend to evacuated the building.... 14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani’s statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31). i'd really like to see more on this one. a source and more about it. 16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34). and they would know this how? 17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34). because the experts proved a plane did that. no need to discuss that fact. 18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing’s façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34). "appears" being the key word. 19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36). because it was already proven a plane had hit and done the damage to the pentagon. 20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36). this is inconclusive to the whole debate. proves nothing at all, does not further the theory. 21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38). the question has already been answered. 22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s reference to “the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]” (39). mis·sile n. 1. An object or weapon that is fired, thrown, dropped, or otherwise projected at a target; a projectile. a plane can be a missile....so can a pencil being thrown at someone....a missile was used to damage the pentagon...a plane. 23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44). something called RADAR!!! they'd know to look for a plane coming close to that school and if it were to happen they'd have time to evacuate bush....but seeing as how that a very safe place to be for the president, there wouldnt be a need to move him yet. 24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46). because the terrorist didnt have fighter planes or missiles....fighter jets would only be of use to stop a plane or missile...and theres not a real chance of a plane flying into airforce one once its in the air, specialy when they do not know where it is since it is in the air and its position would be top secret. there would no need for a fighter plane escort unless the terrorist had missiles or fighter planes. it would be like calling up a knight to escort the presidents limo...waste of money and time. 25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48). soo......???? how does this prove anything... 26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50). well its not safe for a person that high in goverment to go anywhere in public transportation. kinda like how bush doesnt ride a cap to places..... 27. The omission of David Schippers’ claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51). thanks to laws, and stupid politics alot of information was not given to the right people. that is nothing more then a failure of policy. too many people in too many different departments of the goverment. 28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52). KEY WORD "CLAIMED" not prove, not a fact just a CLAIM. you see why most people do not believe this, too much hearsay and not enough substantial evidence to prove it 30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57). please link a source for this. quite interesting. 31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America’s “most wanted” criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59). is this a fact? is there any substantial evidence to back this claim up? 32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60). is this a proven fact? or a opinion or a theory? please explain further. EVEN IF he was alowd to escape, thats not anything major, the goverment needs the enemy out there. 34. The omission of Gerald Posner’s account of Abu Zubaydah’s testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65). yeah....this like most of this is hearsay, and lets say its true for this time...the sadi royal family, not the american goverment. this has no effect on the issue that the american goverment was behind this. its quite possibly osama had friends still within his family who knew what his plans were....but that has nothing to do with the us goverment. thats like saying the brother of the japanese emporer knew they were going to attack pearl harbor...it changes nothing if true. 35. The Commission’s denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68). is there any evidence of the saudi's funding alqueada? i wouldnt be suprised, we turn a blind eye to the suad's because we need their oil and land for bases. but this does not affect the theory of the goverment being behind 911. 36. The Commission’s denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar’s wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70). again prove nothing or has nothing to do with the theory of 911 being done by the US goverment....this is very inconclusive to the whole arguement. 37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76). yeah....so? they were already cleared by the cia and they played no role in 911 and were not a threat to america and their were royal family of another nation. the cia cleared them for flying. still this does not affect the case in any way about the us goverment being behind 911. this is another pointless tidbit of info. 38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82). the cia cleared the saudi's that left. and just because their brother attacked a nation doesnt mean they were to blame for it. kinda like we dont make family members of murders go to jail, or stay in the state during the investigation of their family.... 39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86). yeah so? they were cleared by the goverment and not a threat. 40. The omission of Coleen Rowley’s claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90). again CLAIM being the key word here, no proof, no evidence. 41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright’s charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91). hearsay with no evidence to back it up. 42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s computer (91-94). still not a fact not proven, just a theory. nothing more then hearsay 43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds—-testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101). hearsay by one person. 44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan’s intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04). again this has nothing to do with 911 or terrorism or the claim that the us govermetn was behind 911.....inconclusive to the whole arguement. 45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07). What is the ISI? 46. The Commission’s claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106). well if theres no evidence to prove it....then its not a fact... 47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09). well of course, if people think an "allie" is working with the enemy or they think the public thinks that they would want him to be gone. just like if we found out tony blair was killing american, we'd want the UK to have him step down as their leader... 48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112). has nothing to do with 911 or the theory of the goverment being behind it. 49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113). i'd very much like to hear more about this. this could be interesting. but does not pertain to 911 or theories of it...... 50. The omission of Gerald Posner’s report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114). yes but this means nothing. just because he possibly knew about it does not mean he would tell anyone about it. and this is a claim nota fact. but lets say its true, it has nothing to do with the american goverment or the us being behind the attacks. if anything it furthers the that islamic terrorist did the attacks. since he was in connection to terrorist and thats how he would know about the plan. so this not only hurts the theory about american goverment, it does nothing to prove it. it only helps to disprove it by inffering terrorist and alqeada did 911. 51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be “coming down” (114). again this furthers that terrorist did the 911 attacks. but there are alot of predictions by people. y2k, jesus coming back on a certain day, the world ending...but again this only furthers the fact that terrorist did this. 52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as “opportunities” (116-17). they were...they were opportunities to attack the attackers...just like pearl harbor was an opportunity to attack the germans and japanese, just like german U-boats were an opportunity to wage war on germany in ww1. whenver a enemy attacks a nation that is a opportunity. 53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that “a new Pearl Harbor” would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18). it didnt take a rocket scientist to realize the terrorist were going to attack again. they attacked american soil 3 times before, our goverment knew it would happen again. but this time they could use it as a reason to fight back. 54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22). so...when you're attacked by an enemy you fund your military and science to attack back. this does not mean anything about the theory's. this happened after pearl harbor, and after the british attacked in 1812 and after the uboats kept attacking in ww1. the goverment spends more time and money on science and war and such after being attacked. AS DOES EVERY GOVERMENT. 55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks—-Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122). they saw an opportunity to have their budged increased because of a terrorist attack. like i said this happens in every goverment IN EVERY WAR. its happened for hundreds of years. it is nothing new or evil, or suspicious. 56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25). some evidence please? 57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26). and this has nothing to do with 911..... 58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28). smart man. but doesnt prove the goverment had anything to do with the attack. 59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33). yeah, so did good ole clinton...he was a threat even before 911. 60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld’s conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32). yeah, and so? its nothing more then the goverment milking the attack for all its worth. happened after pearl harbor, after the british attacked in 1812, after the uboat's attack before ww1...it'll happen again and happens in every nation when attacked. every country will milk an attack for all its worth. 63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD’s Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162). fighters wouldnt have helped......so this evidence is inconclusive to the arguement. because by the time they knew was going on, the scrambling of the jets would take too long and the attack would be over. the jets are ready because they have enough time to attack a military target coming in from far away, not from a hijacked plane nearby. they would need alot of advanced warning to be able to take down a hijacked plane. 64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64). just because its a air force base doesnt mean it always keeps fighters on alert. im very tired so im off to bed. but so far there is nothing to prove the theories, if anything these things help to disprove it.
June 25, 200620 yr I didn't post those as proof of the conspiracy theory - I posted them to prove that the 9/11 Commission Report is incomplete and therefore cannot be used as "evidence", because it proves nothing.
June 25, 200620 yr You know I agree with that statement: "In another bizarre example of Tony Blair's government playing with the politics of fear, a discredited terror plot concerning Al-Qaeda plans to fly planes into London skyscrapers, an admitted fairy tale manufactured by government lobbyists, resurfaced today as a new story." Tony releases fake stories to get everybody scaried so they vote for ID cards, you can't prove it wrong because the infomation is locked up.
June 25, 200620 yr Author Yeah, that's exactly what it is. We need to keep our eyes and ears on the government at all times since they continually prove that they can't be trusted.
June 25, 200620 yr I didn't post those as proof of the conspiracy theory - I posted them to prove that the 9/11 Commission Report is incomplete and therefore cannot be used as "evidence"' date=' because it proves nothing.[/quote'] the report is very complete and is concrete evidence. what you posted didnt hurt the report at all. all those thing were left out because they didnt have to do with the report.....like i said there is more evidence proving the terrorist did this then the goverment
June 25, 200620 yr Author the report is very complete and is concrete evidence. what you posted didnt hurt the report at all. all those thing were left out because they didnt have to do with the report.....like i said there is more evidence proving the terrorist did this then the goverment 100% untrue there. "the report is very complete and is concrete evidence" WRONG. "there is more evidence proving the terrorist did this then the goverment" EVEN MORE WRONG. You gotta have some sort of mental problems to not see what really happend. AND I will give you your response before you write it......hmmm..lets see..... ______________________________________________________________________ Soon to be posted by mrcool011 "You are the one who has mental problems, with your whacky, far out theories" ______________________________________________________________________ Haha, about right I think, yes? Anyway, keep believing buddy. Haha.
June 26, 200620 yr Hey, i just follow the evidence. ive researched it and the facts and evidence prove it was terrorist who did it..... there is a huge amount of evidence to show terrorist were behind the attacks, thats why most of america believes that. there are only a small few who believe as you because they are willing to believe anything agaisnt the goverment, no matter how weak the theory's are and the lack of evidence.
June 26, 200620 yr Author oh, you never going to get it. there is a huge amount of evidence to show terrorist were behind the attacks' date=' thats why most of america believes that[/quote'] That's not true. Most Americans don't believe the cover-up because they either haven't had means of looking into all the evidence which proves Government involvement or they have had the mainstream media force the Bush regime's lies down their throat for so long that any other explanation is called "whacky"..... And you are a perfect example of someone who can't see the truth as the lies have been 'drummed' into you every day as you lap up the sickening spin and propaganda which Fox News has lodged in your brain.
June 26, 200620 yr That's not true. Most Americans don't believe the cover-up because they either haven't had means of looking into all the evidence which proves Government involvement or they have had the mainstream media force the Bush regime's lies down their throat for so long that any other explanation is called "whacky"..... And you are a perfect example of someone who can't see the truth as the lies have been 'drummed' into you every day as you lap up the sickening spin and propaganda which Fox News has lodged in your brain. sorry, no propaganda just pure research and looking at the facts. and its true most americans dont buy this bullshit, every poll points towards that. there are more in europe but as far as americans its a small crowd...and im glad it is. im sorry but FACTS and EVIDENCE and RESEARCH prove it was terrorist behind this.....you're the one who is brainwashed....its sad but true. i rely on facts and research for my beliefs.
June 29, 200620 yr Nick... I really really really want you to pull some concrete evidence out. No, don't just throw an entire book at me about what happened. I'm not going to sit down and read the whole thing, just like you're not going to either. I want you to pull facts out of the book and point me directly to this "100% concrete evidence" you keep referencing. And if you want to get technical: the 9/11 Commission Report is just another account of what happened. There is no "evidence" in the book. No pictures, no videos, nothing. It's just words written by some people accounting what happened. It's a story, Nick. Have you even read one page of the book? It's told in a narrative-style, almost. It's not a reference book, per ce. I want to be able to prove it was terrorists - I hate the fact of seeing the evidence and knowing that our own government did this to us. It sickens me. I honestly would be relieved if I saw undisputable evidence that proved it was just what the media/government says it was. But I have yet to see this evidence. Please, please, please show it to me. PLEASE. I really really want to see it.
Create an account or sign in to comment