FOXNEWS: 9/11 Report Is A Cover Up From Start To Finish!

TMoreno

It's official:
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=12846&title=9-11-report-is-a-cover-up-from-start-to-finish
Now that "TV says so" do you still believe the official story?
Make no mistake, FOX NEWS can't say the truth: 9/11 was a Zionist Inside Job, they just can't hide the facts anymore. However we are moving in the right direction:).

longshanks

TV also says ' it could be you' but I've never won the lotto. Something dodgy there....

meglome

It's funny that we're listening to Fox news.

gizmo

I lost interest after "FOXNEWS".

I rolled my eyes after "Zionist Inside Job".

:rolleyes:

meglome wrote: »

It's funny that we're listening to Fox news.

I'd consider it more tragic tbh.

Boo Radley

Forgetting for a second that this is Fox News - an infamous scaremongering, propaganda machine - all that is being said here is that there was incompetence of the highest order before 9/11 which lead to the events of that day. All people involved in the report, according to these interviews, went out of their way to ensure that failings in communication and the like were not disclosed to the public in full. Thus covering their arses.

If all of that is true it only supports that there was no CT to make 9/11 happen but perhaps there is a CT to prevent the public finding out exactly who failed to protect them through incompetence.

This actually discredits the 9/11 CTs often preached on this forum.

TMoreno

Boo Radley wrote: »

Forgetting for a second that this is Fox News - an infamous scaremongering, propaganda machine - all that is being said here is that there was incompetence of the highest order before 9/11 which lead to the events of that day. All people involved in the report, according to these interviews, went out of their way to ensure that failings in communication and the like were not disclosed to the public in full. Thus covering their arses.

If all of that is true it only supports that there was no CT to make 9/11 happen but perhaps there is a CT to prevent the public finding out exactly who failed to protect them through incompetence.

This actually discredits the 9/11 CTs often preached on this forum.

No. It discredits the people who say that the 9/11 official report is true.
I think this is an attempt to divert the attention about the real questions: Building 7, what did hit the Pentagon, what were those Mossad agents arrested during 9/11 were doing etc...

Brown Bomber

Boo Radley wrote: »

Forgetting for a second that this is Fox News - an infamous scaremongering, propaganda machine - all that is being said here is that there was incompetence of the highest order before 9/11 which lead to the events of that day. All people involved in the report, according to these interviews, went out of their way to ensure that failings in communication and the like were not disclosed to the public in full. Thus covering their arses.

If all of that is true it only supports that there was no CT to make 9/11 happen but perhaps there is a CT to prevent the public finding out exactly who failed to protect them through incompetence.

This actually discredits the 9/11 CTs often preached on this forum.

The bit in bold you haven't provided any reason at all why this is the case; just danced around the subject.

So how does a coverup and lies support the fact that there isn't a coverup?

Boo Radley

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The bit in bold you haven't provided any reason at all why this is the case; just danced around the subject.

So how does a coverup and lies support the fact that there isn't a coverup?

Apparently you didn't read the bit where I pointed out that the video suggests they were covering up the fact that communication failings were what lead to 9/11 and not a massive conspiracy by the government.

If there was a massive government agenda to make 9/11 happen wouldn't they just use incompetence between agencies as the perfect excuse? That is what the video here suggests is being covered up, incompetence.

So to answer your question if people are lieing and covering up information that highlights failings in agencies with regard competence and communication it only supports that there were these failings and that they were ultimately responsible for the events. So one kind of cover up can in fact help debunk another kind of cover up.

TMoreno

Boo Radley wrote: »

Apparently you didn't read the bit where I pointed out that the video suggests they were covering up the fact that communication failings were what lead to 9/11 and not a massive conspiracy by the government.

If there was a massive government agenda to make 9/11 happen wouldn't they just use incompetence between agencies as the perfect excuse? That is what the video here suggests is being covered up, incompetence.

So to answer your question if people are lieing and covering up information that highlights failings in agencies with regard competence and communication it only supports that there were these failings and that they were ultimately responsible for the events. So one kind of cover up can in fact help debunk another kind of cover up.

They did use incompetence as an excuse. Like for the non existing Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. They said they had bad intelligence. We could also suggest that they lied. They can't use the same excuse all the time. They get away it with too easily and too many people die because of that:mad:

Black Swan

The GW Bush administration was the ultimate in "incompetence" that led America into the worst recession since the Great Depression; so what else is new? Further, Fox News is known to be biased in its reporting, primarily interested in providing entertainment for its dedicated viewers, which in turn impacts on ratings and advertising revenue; not a credible news source for 9/11.

Boo Radley

TMoreno wrote: »

They did use incompetence as an excuse. Like for the non existing Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. They said they had bad intelligence. We could also suggest that they lied. They can't use the same excuse all the time. They get away it with too easily and too many people die because of that:mad:

Agreed on the Iraq point, but all the OP video does is show that there was possibly even more incompetence in agencies than was included in the report. That’s assuming the video is accurate of course, which is debatable considering that it was put out by Fox who often misquote and put incredible spin on things.

If the information in the video is accurate there would be a legitimate call for a new independent inquiry into what degree of incompetence there was, and what agencies were responsible. This video does nothing to further the CT that 9/11 was an inside job.

fontanalis

Oh my god, I odn't believe it. Fox has a news station.
Anyway aren't they the main stream media?

Brown Bomber

Boo Radley wrote: »

Apparently you didn't read the bit where I pointed out that the video suggests they were covering up the fact that communication failings were what lead to 9/11 and not a massive conspiracy by the government.

If there was a massive government agenda to make 9/11 happen wouldn't they just use incompetence between agencies as the perfect excuse? That is what the video here suggests is being covered up, incompetence.

So to answer your question if people are lieing and covering up information that highlights failings in agencies with regard competence and communication it only supports that there were these failings and that they were ultimately responsible for the events. So one kind of cover up can in fact help debunk another kind of cover up.

Your not making any sense.

Lies and coverup = no coverup

Boo Radley

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Your not making any sense.

Lies and coverup = no coverup

That looks like an old Fox news trick right there. I didn't say that lies and a cover up = no cover up. I said that one type of cover up can disprove a theory of a different cover up by default. Really, it isn't that confusing.

Brown Bomber

Boo Radley wrote: »

That looks like an old Fox news trick right there. I didn't say that lies and a cover up = no cover up. I said that one type of cover up can disprove a theory of a different cover up by default. Really, it isn't that confusing.

"can" or does?

And how?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I swear. I just don't understand you.

Boo Radley

Brown Bomber wrote: »

"can" or does?

And how?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I swear. I just don't understand you.

Okay, maybe I wasn't articulating myself well (not being sarcastic).

So, here's how I see it. The 9/11 CT has it that the report is completely fabricated etc. because the shadowy figures in the government colluded to cause the attacks on NY and pentagon etc. The report in this case is supposed to cover up this master plan.

So, along comes another CT as highlighted in the OP. This says the authors of the report covered up the extent to which the agencies involved messed up, were incompetent and how badly they communicated. This is a very different cover up to that proposed by the first CT above.

If the second CT cover up is true, it would discredit the first CT cover up because it would prove that in fact the events of 9/11 were caused by incompetence - since the degree of incompetence is what is being covered up - among agencies and NOT caused by people colluding to create the attack.

Therefore, a cover up (the second) CAN disprove another cover up theory (the first).

TMoreno

meglome wrote: »

It's funny that we're listening to Fox news.

Foxnews has been against the Truth movement from the beginning. Now they say 9/11 report was a cover up. Don't you find this interesting? The so called debunkers should be more humble. They only rely on Jewish main stream media before believing anything. TV tell them that the offical story is a pack of lies and yet they still claim that the official story is true. That is denial:mad:.

gizmo

TMoreno wrote: »

Foxnews has been against the Truth movement from the beginning. Now they say 9/11 report was a cover up. Don't you find this interesting? The so called debunkers should be more humble. They only rely on Jewish main stream media before believing anything. TV tell them that the offical story is a pack of lies and yet they still claim that the official story is true. That is denial:mad:.

So we're not meant to believe TV when it gives the "official" report on 9/11 but we are meant to listen to it when it says it was a cover-up? Did Fox News suddenly grow a conscience that I'm not aware of or maybe, just maybe, they're using a sensationalist story to get more viewers?

uprising2

I didn't see this video till now, explosive admissions.

Do any of the people who STILL believe the commission report is truth ever think why so many AMERICAN'S are speaking out, these aren't people on a street in the middle east somewhere, saying some disturbing things about their own countrymen, leaders, rulers etc, what would they get from lying.
I wonder how the other whitewash in london will go, thats another thread.........

U.S. Army Lt. Col Anthony Shaffer, "Everybody on the 9/11 Commission was covering for someone".

Former CIA Intelligence Officer Michael F. Scheuer, "It was a whitewash and a lie from top to bottom".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUiBOGOs2Nc

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=anthony_shaffer

Barnacles

In fairness and with respect, It was FOX who were first to scream "this is definitely a concerted terrorist attack" !!
People who are skeptical of the 911 truth movement have stuck to to that for 10 years.
Now FOX are suggesting that their previous statement (above) might not be entirely true... And those who were previously skeptic of anything other than FOX, are now skeptical of only FOX.

meglome

uprising2 wrote: »

I didn't see this video till now, explosive admissions.

Do any of the people who STILL believe the commission report is truth ever think why so many AMERICAN'S are speaking out, these aren't people on a street in the middle east somewhere, saying some disturbing things about their own countrymen, leaders, rulers etc, what would they get from lying.
I wonder how the other whitewash in london will go, thats another thread.........[

U.S. Army Lt. Col Anthony Shaffer, "Everybody on the 9/11 Commission was covering for someone".

Former CIA Intelligence Officer Michael F. Scheuer, "It was a whitewash and a lie from top to bottom".

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=anthony_shaffer

See I think Boo Radley hits the nail on the head here

Boo Radley wrote: »

Okay, maybe I wasn't articulating myself well (not being sarcastic).

So, here's how I see it. The 9/11 CT has it that the report is completely fabricated etc. because the shadowy figures in the government colluded to cause the attacks on NY and pentagon etc. The report in this case is supposed to cover up this master plan.

So, along comes another CT as highlighted in the OP. This says the authors of the report covered up the extent to which the agencies involved messed up, were incompetent and how badly they communicated. This is a very different cover up to that proposed by the first CT above.

If the second CT cover up is true, it would discredit the first CT cover up because it would prove that in fact the events of 9/11 were caused by incompetence - since the degree of incompetence is what is being covered up - among agencies and NOT caused by people colluding to create the attack.

Therefore, a cover up (the second) CAN disprove another cover up theory (the first).

You'll probably recall that most of us 'debunkers' have said all along that it's possible (and probably likely) that individuals in the US were covering up incompetence and ineptitude, i.e. covering their asses. The report suggests this is exactly what they did. It's one thing covering your ass so you don't look stupid and quite another to cover up the mass murder of your own people.

Athlone_Bhoy

Do people actually still believe this wasn't an inside job?

meglome

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Do people actually still believe this wasn't an inside job?

Yup or at least I've seen no evidence for it. Why do you think it was an inside job?

K-9

gizmo wrote: »

So we're not meant to believe TV when it gives the "official" report on 9/11 but we are meant to listen to it when it says it was a cover-up? Did Fox News suddenly grow a conscience that I'm not aware of or maybe, just maybe, they're using a sensationalist story to get more viewers?

Blaming big Government is the in thing on Fox at the minute. Even though they supported that particular big Government, maybe it's a subliminal thing?

gizmo

K-9 wrote: »

Blaming big Government is the in thing on Fox at the minute. Even though they supported that particular big Government, maybe it's a subliminal thing?

Or maybe they realise that the Republican party, despite threatening the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives and Senate, still don't have a credibly Presidential candidate and that those politicians who are leading the charge on the above two houses are complete fruit and nuts? :pac:

--Kaiser--

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Do people actually still believe this wasn't an inside job?

I think you'll find that most rational thinking people have no reason to believe it's an inside job. People that are easily influenced by poor, unsubstantiated arguments and grainy Youtube videos are another story.

Brown Bomber

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I think you'll find that most rational thinking people have no reason to believe it's an inside job. People that are easily influenced by poor, unsubstantiated arguments and grainy Youtube videos are another story.

:pac:

Think your in the wrong forum mate - Sleeping and Dreaming is here '
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=827

--Kaiser--

Brown Bomber wrote: »

:pac:

Think your in the wrong forum mate - Sleeping and Dreaming is here '
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=827

Wrong forum for rational arguments

Well, forgive my insolence so far in the last two days I've read posts by people saying;
i) The Holocaust was a hoax.
ii) No planes hit the WTC.
iii) US Government masterminded 9/11.
iv) Chilean miner story was a hoax.

Athlone_Bhoy

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I think you'll find that most rational thinking people have no reason to believe it's an inside job. People that are easily influenced by poor, unsubstantiated arguments and grainy Youtube videos are another story.

So why did the CIA meet Bin Laden in Dubai hospital weeks before the attack? You might not find out about it but I seen the doctor who was treating Bin Laden and he swore they did meet him.

How many cameras does the Pentagon have outside? Why is it they never showed the video of the plane hitting straight away. I think they released some type of video which I'm sure you'll admit looks nothing like a plane.

I'm not saying the US government were behind it but they certainly could have stopped it. Bin Laden determined to attack USA using planes ring any bells?

A terrorist attack happened that day but it was by state terrorism. The people in the US deserve to know the truth. You tell a lie long enough you'll convince yourself that it's real.

I'd rather watch youtube any day than Fox news that's for sure.

humanji

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

So why did the CIA meet Bin Laden in Dubai hospital weeks before the attack? You might not find out about it but I seen the doctor who was treating Bin Laden and he swore they did meet him.

Did they? Because I met the doctor and he told me it was all a lie. See how this doesn't really constitute evidence?

How many cameras does the Pentagon have outside? Why is it they never showed the video of the plane hitting straight away. I think they released some type of video which I'm sure you'll admit looks nothing like a plane.

They've plenty of cameras looking at the ground and the building. They don't have cameras looking up at the skies. There doesn't seem to be any point since it's beside an airport.

And why wouldn't they use a plane? Do you not realise it's easier to rig a plane so that it can be remotely controlled and all communication blocked, than it would be to hijack a plane, land it, kill the passengers, launch a missile, have it hit the pentagon, pay hundreds of people to say it was a plane, plant plane parts int he area and sneak some of the passenger remains into the crash site? Does it honestly sound like a likely explanation?

I'm not saying the US government were behind it but they certainly could have stopped it. Bin Laden determined to attack USA using planes ring any bells?

How many planes travel around america each day? How many likely targets could there be? How many times a day does the US recieve some sort of threat? Nothing like 9/11 had happened before, so it's hardly surprising that no one expected it to happen like that.

A terrorist attack happened that day but it was by state terrorism. The people in the US deserve to know the truth. You tell a lie long enough you'll convince yourself that it's real.

Thought you weren't saying the US government were behind it?

I'd rather watch youtube any day than Fox news that's for sure.

You'd be a fool to blindly believe either, tbh.

Brown Bomber

humanji wrote: »

They've plenty of cameras looking at the ground and the building. They don't have cameras looking up at the skies. There doesn't seem to be any point since it's beside an airport.

There really was a point on 9/11 though. The Pentagon was hit 90 mins after the twin towers. There was a real possibility that there was more hijacked planes in the air at the time and the Pentagon was an obvious target. In fact Cheney had foreknowldge that the Pentagon was to be hit according to then Transport Secretary Norman Minetta.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

If I'm not mistaken the plane was cutting daisies on the Pentagon lawn before it hit. How did all the cameras miss this?