The Great 9/11 Challenge.

One of the main impediments to discussion on 9/11 is the way threads and posts tends to snowball. One point leads to 5 questions which are then in turn answered with more points each leading to more questions and counter points. And then on top of this we get entire new points just throw in. Till eventually the thread becomes an impenetrable wall of quoted posts and youtube links.
And this is before the general bitching.
So I propose this: a more structured thread on a single point about 9/11 with a few simple rules.

Someone suggests a part of the conspiracy that they believe is the strongest and most irrefutable in a clear and structured way, outlining exactly the point, what there is to support it and why exactly it supports a conspiracy.

For example the point could be about the cellphone calls made from the planes.
The point would be that such calls are impossible from planes.
The evidence would be, say, this paper from a scientist showing it's impossible and/or inconsistencies in the official version's story about who exactly made call on cell phones.
And the reason it supports a conspiracy would be: since the calls are impossible, they must have been faked, therefore it must have been a conspiracy.
(BTW this is just an example I've come across before, I wouldn't recommend using it, it's easy to tear apart.)

So as for the rules:
1. One topic and one topic only.
2. All replies after the question must only contain a main point rebutting the previous post and at most only two questions about the previous post.
3. No youtube videos (unless there are to illustrate certain footage etc.) or copy pastas from sites. But of course both can be used as references.

Before anyone says it, I know one single point won't prove or disprove anything. This is really just to see if something like this can work.
Me and Meglome have been saying on here for a while that once you closely examine any claim in fine detail from the truthers, it crumbles apart. However threads get so infuriating snowballed, it's nigh impossible to pin down a claim to examine it. And of course if a claim here can withstand scrutiny we get to eat our words.

So any comments, ideas, suggestions? Any takers?

uprising2

Yeah I have one.

John J Farmer, senior council at the 911 commission report says its a pack of lies, which it is, yet you and meglome continue to lap it up as troof.

John J. Farmer, Jr., Senior Counsel, 9/11 Commission – Former Attorney General of the State of New Jersey. Former Chief Counsel to former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman. Former Commissioner of the State Commission of Investigations. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.

• Washington Post Article 8/2/06 - "Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate. ...
  
  "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. ... This is not spin. This is not true." http://www.washingtonpost

  
  9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
  Allegations Brought to Inspectors General
  Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.
  
  Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. 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.
  

  
  
• Editor's note: Despite the many public statements by 9/11 Commissioners and staff members acknowledging they were repeatedly lied to, not a single person has ever been charged, tried, or even reprimanded for lying to the 9/11 Commission.

So kingmob why do you and meglome and others continue to repeat a lie as evidence?, I know you can't handle the harsh reality that this revelation brings with it, but it's there in black and white, IT'S LIES, stop believing it.

The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies
In John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue...

The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september112009/911_truth_9-11-09.php

Senator Dayton: NORAD Lied About 9/11
Mark Dayton has become the first U.S. senator to challenge the rush to consensus that "The 9/11 Commission Report" settles the open questions of Sept. 11, 2001.

In hearings last Friday, Sen. Dayton (D-MN) raised an obvious point: if the timeline of air defense response as promoted in the Kean Commission's best-selling book is correct, then the timeline presented repeatedly by NORAD during the last two years was completely wrong. Yet now no one at NORAD is willing to comment on their own timeline!

When the official story of 9/11 can be changed repeatedly without anyone ever being held accountable, we have no right to ever again expect honest government. Please read the following story and do your part to support Sen. Dayton for highlighting the contradiction, and to encourage the media to follow up.

(See Transcript of Sen. Dayton's remarks of July 31.)

Death threats silence Sen Dayton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2KMkoKWPyk

uprising2

So it's established that the 9/11 commission report isn't worth the paper it's written on, it's lies, the official report is a pack of lies.

Nobody seems to motivated to right this wrong, sheeple all over the planet still take it as gospel truth, makes me wonder if people are capable of thinking for themselves.

Imagine for a minute that an inquest into a death or a court case were fed a pack of lies like this, they would be thrown out immediately and rightfully so, but this scam has been allowed continue with no one seems in too much of a hurry right the wrong.

Normally people lie when they have something to hide.........I rest my case.

The 911 commission report is a very bad attempted cover-up.

Ohh and I like "Rule 3, No youtube videos or copy and paste, but of course both can be used as reference", you should have continued with "Rule 4" no typing unless you need to, "Rule 5" No thinking, unless you have to.

Yitzhak Rabin

FFS, grow up will ya. If you want to discuss it within the parameters of the OP, do so. If you don't then ignore the thread.

uprising2

I'm very sorry kingmob for not following your rules, it won't happen again, honest.

Ok, I'd like to discuss why the very people entrusted to carry out the official commission into the events of 11th September 2001, the people working to get to all the facts of what happened that day, have come out and said it's "almost entirely lies/untrue".
How can that be, and if it's almost all lies, then what has been released to the public as the official account, is a whitewash.

Something John Farmer said makes me believe it's a lot worse than simply an ass covering exercise, he said "This is not spin. This is not true", that translates to me as a nice way of saying "This is not ONLY spin, this is damn out and out lies"
The commission even considered recommending criminal charges for false statements given as evidence.

And it's not only one commission member saying it openly either, theres
Thomas Keane, Lee Hamilton, Bob Kerrey,Timothy Roemer and Max Cleland.

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA "obstructed our investigation".

Lee Hamilton said "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access.

Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"

Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".

These are kinda strange words, especially "the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history".

Then something Bob Kerrey (http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=K000146) said about it being part of a 30 year conspiracy.

Here's the video here, take a listen:
Kerrey: "It's a 30 year old conspiracy"
Interviewer: "No I'm talking about 9/11"
Kerrey,nodding: "That's what I'm talking about"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDfm3NroVG8

So absolutely nothing from the 9/11 commission can be relied upon as truth.

This entire argument simply begs the question: if this was indeed the greatest crime ever reaching the highest levels of government, why are they saying these things at all in the first place?

Logic dictates that if there was a high level conspiracy then it simply makes sense to have a commissioner you can buy off or otherwise control. (And since the accused conspirators appointed the commissioners there is no reason at all they couldn't do so.)

But assuming for some strange reason that they couldn't do so, they would have had a water tight fictional sequence of events. Again there's no plausible reason why they shouldn't have had this, seeing as how they had total control of the record before during and after.

And assuming for some strange reason they couldn't do that, they would have killed the story, as the conspiracy no doubt has control over the media. There is no logical reason why they would allow the things they have said (if they were actually indicative of an inside job) to be published in the Washington Post (a link you provided)

And assuming for some strange reason they couldn't do that, they would have just killed the commissioners.

So ignoring the inherent logical flaws you're still left with the fact that none of the commissioners have outright stated what you believe they have uncovered.
In all those out of context They have not once said "It was an inside job."
Note how they have suggested criminal charges for people lying in court, yet for some reason not for mass murder?
The simple fact remains that when you take their quote in proper context it's clear that they are referring to either the usual political ass covering or the confusion that arises from genuine cock ups.
So if we assume for a moment that there the attack are what the official version says it is, we can see all those quotes are adequately explained by the above scenario and some generous helpings of taking quotes out of context.

So my two questions to you are: Have you read Farmer book? And did he conclude or even suggest in it that 9/11 was an inside job?

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

So my two questions to you are: Have you read Farmer book? And did he conclude or even suggest in it that 9/11 was an inside job?

No I havent read the book yet, so I cant say at the moment, but I haven't seen anything that would make me think that was wrote in the book, but what I have seen was
"At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened”.

He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”

And he said: “It’s almost a culture of concealment, for lack of a better word. There were interviews made at the FAA’s New York center the night of 9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations were destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened”

My point is only one here, the 9/11 commission report is not the truth, on this thread I havent mentioned any inside job, thats another topic, only one remember.

Nothing has been taken out of context, did you watch the video I posted in the last post?, Bob Kerrey saying it's a 30 year conspiracy, what do you make of that?

So don't be confused here, were only discussing whether the official report is true or not, if it's not then everything that came out of it should be disregarded. When we tackle this we can move onto whether it was an inside job or not.

Unfortunately uprising the point of the thread is pretty clear: providing your best, most irrefutable that it was a conspiracy. Saying that you're just trying to prove it's not true smacks of moving the goalposts.

But moving on: In all these quotes, he's very very vague on which bit aren't true, or for example what tapes he's talking about. If these quotes where in context however....

And another thing about the context, he could be referring to stuff that they where told, which was later found to be false then the actual truth was put in the report.
Take this example:

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html
Assume for a moment that there is no outside influence that you might believe is in play and that the commission was able to determine their above conclusion accurately
We can see how the commissioners could be told an untruth (as describe in the quotes you supply) yet still have a truth in the report.

As for the thirty years quote, it's the very definition of an out of context quote.
You have no more idea of what he meant than I do. For all we know he could have meant it could take thirty years for all the details to come out. Or he could have meant to say something else and had a slip of the tongue. Or he could just be messing with another one of those CTers who keep bugging him.
We don't know, because we don't have the context.

So given that Farmer likely has not said that it was an inside job, and he is one of your main players, wouldn't that not lead credence to the fact it was just general ass covering over an inside job?

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

Unfortunately uprising the point of the thread is pretty clear: providing your best, most irrefutable that it was a conspiracy. Saying that you're just trying to prove it's not true smacks of moving the goalposts.

I'm getting to that, but for now I'd like to establish whether the official report is true or false, theres no goalposts being moved on this side.
For the record, Do you still believe the 9/11 commission report to be truthful and an honest description of what happened that day?

King Mob wrote: »

But moving on: In all these quotes, he's very very vague on which bit aren't true, or for example what tapes he's talking about. If these quotes where in context however....

Well he said the report (the whole report) "almost entirely not true", so I take it at least 75% not true, and the tapes he's talking about he says "a radically different story", I'm sure he understands the word radical/extreme, so I believe it goes further than ass covering.

King Mob wrote: »

And another thing about the context, he could be referring to stuff that they where told, which was later found to be false then the actual truth was put in the report.
Take this example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html
Assume for a moment that there is no outside influence that you might believe is in play and that the commission was able to determine their above conclusion accurately
We can see how the commissioners could be told an untruth (as describe in the quotes you supply) yet still have a truth in the report.

This was the 911 commission hearings, it wasn't the time for untruths or as their better known lies. Of course there was truth in the report, there has to be, it can't be simply 100% lies, every liar knows to mix as much truth in as possible and still try keep the lie.

King Mob wrote: »

As for the thirty years quote, it's the very definition of an out of context quote.
You have no more idea of what he meant than I do. For all we know he could have meant it could take thirty years for all the details to come out. Or he could have meant to say something else and had a slip of the tongue. Or he could just be messing with another one of those CTers who keep bugging him.
We don't know, because we don't have the context.

He said "it's a 30 year "old" conspiracy" meaning he wasn't saying it will take 30 years for the facts to come out.
It wasn't a slip of tounge, he would have rectified it later if it was, he didn't.
And I don't think he would be messng playing a "joke" on the CT'ers considering what it is he's talking about.

King Mob wrote: »

So given that Farmer likely has not said that it was an inside job, and he is one of your main players, wouldn't that not lead credence to the fact it was just general ass covering over an inside job?

Farmer can't say it was an inside job or it wasn't because all he got were lies, if he knew the truth he could say that, but all he's said is it's lies.
Truth cannot be constructed from lies.

A general ass covering?,
"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," Farmer

"The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. ... This is not spin. This is not true." Farmer

Suspicion of "wrongdoing" ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation

Wrong-doing is not the sme as ineptness/incompentence.



Transcript of Sen. Dayton's remarks on NORAD
Friday, July 31, 2004 at Congressional hearings on "The 9/11 Commission Report"
LINK

uprising2

So now here we start seeing, that by taking the quotes out of context they start to oppose one another.

uprising2 wrote: »

Well he said the report (the whole report) "almost entirely not true",

uprising2 wrote: »

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," Farmer

So how can the report be entirely untrue and yet he knows that he was told untruths? Did he not discover the truth and put it in the report, as with the exact time the plane was hijacked?

And after a little digging I found that, with it's context the "almost entirely" quote isn't about the report at all. Nor are they Farmer's words.
The full quote from the blurb for his book is: "Ultimately Farmer builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version not only is almost entirely untrue but serves to create a false impression of order and security. ." http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/16/732116/-Official-story-of-9-11-almost-entirely-untrue

Now here let us suppose the "official story" isn't the commission report but what the report was told by Norad and the FAA and others who might want to cover their asses.
Does that make sense in the context? Yes.
Does that work as an explanation for the other quotes? Yes.
Can you take this meaning and at the same time have the commission report as accurate? Yes.

uprising2 wrote: »

Of course there was truth in the report, there has to be, it can't be simply 100% lies, every liar knows to mix as much truth in as possible and still try keep the lie.

So are you now saying that Farmer et al where also deliberately lying in the report, not just lied to?

uprising2 wrote: »

He said "it's a 30 year "old" conspiracy" meaning he wasn't saying it will take 30 years for the facts to come out.
It wasn't a slip of tounge, he would have rectified it later if it was, he didn't.
And I don't think he would be messng playing a "joke" on the CT'ers considering what it is he's talking about.

Still saying "a 30 Year old" makes some sense as a "it will take 30 years for the details to come out". Or as much sense as he both somehow knows it's a 30 year old conspiracy yet some how not an inside job as you are suggesting.
And it still could be a slip of a tongue, he rushed away quite quickly after the quote and I don't see why he would be bothered to clarify his statement later to a bunch of CTers on the internet.
And taking the piss is still a big possibility (at least as possible as what you're suggesting). Is case you haven't notice people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job aren't taken that seriously, and if you where this guy who likely gets hundreds of emails about 9/11 would be somewhat wary. So let's say he's acosted by the guy making the video, and you can plainly see that he's trying to lead the guy into saying something that would imply it's a CT. Frustrated and in a rush the guy drops the film maker a quote to mess with him just as he leaves. Giggles ensue.
I have nothing to support this is actually true, but it's at least as likely (and actually more likely) and just as supported as your interpretation.

uprising2 wrote: »

Suspicion of "wrongdoing" ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation

Wrong-doing is not the sme as ineptness/incompentence.

Yea, lying in a federal investigation is a big no-no. It is "wrongdoing" and something that could lead to criminal investigations. And if you were inept and incompetent in your job, which lead to huge failures you might be tempted to risk all that to keep your job by lying about you ineptness.
Are you suggesting that here they mean criminal charges for something else?

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

So now here we start seeing, that by taking the quotes out of context they start to oppose one another.

Those 2 statements in no way contradict one another, both say the same thing really.

King Mob wrote: »

So how can the report be entirely untrue and yet he knows that he was told untruths? Did he not discover the truth and put it in the report, as with the exact time the plane was hijacked?

Well aparently not, his book came out last year with these statements basically saying the report published a few years before that was a load of lies, what I've read about his book, the gist of it points to a report being published that was not the truth.
Here's the report that his book says is not the truth.
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

King Mob wrote: »

And after a little digging I found that, with it's context the "almost entirely" quote isn't about the report at all. Nor are they Farmer's words.
The full quote from the blurb for his book is: "Ultimately Farmer builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version not only is almost entirely untrue but serves to create a false impression of order and security. ." http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/16/732116/-Official-story-of-9-11-almost-entirely-untrue

This quote is from your link, read it carefully
"We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It’s one of those loose ends that never got tied.

ONE of those loose ends that never got tied, so according to the leader of the commission Th Kean, it was never rectified, do you understand that.

Ultimately Farmer builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version not only is almost entirely untrue

King Mob wrote: »

Now here let us suppose the "official story" isn't the commission report but what the report was told by Norad and the FAA and others who might want to cover their asses.
Does that make sense in the context? Yes.NO
Does that work as an explanation for the other quotes? Yes.NO
Can you take this meaning and at the same time have the commission report as accurate? Yes.NO

Read above, loose ends never got tied up, so your imagined situation above doesn't make sense outside your own imagination, and has no place outside your imagination, and especially not here, I could play your game and say, now suppose this and suppose that.

King Mob wrote: »

So are you now saying that Farmer et al where also deliberately lying in the report, not just lied to?

I'm saying they echoed the lies they were told, knowing at the time they were lies, but of course there has to be some truth in it. The WTC's fell, thats true, get it now?

King Mob wrote: »

Still saying "a 30 Year old" makes some sense as a "it will take 30 years for the details to come out". Or as much sense as he both somehow knows it's a 30 year old conspiracy yet some how not an inside job as you are suggesting.

No they are not the same thing. This is a 30 year conspiracy, maybe he was referring to 30 year old document thats hidden away somewhere stating that sooner or later the USA was going to have to take control of the oil reserves, then we have the "Project for the new American Century" possibly as part of the same conspiracy, but thats not what were discussing here and is me speculating.

King Mob wrote: »

And it still could be a slip of a tongue, he rushed away quite quickly after the quote and I don't see why he would be bothered to clarify his statement later to a bunch of CTers on the internet.

Look at the clip again will you, it was no slip of the tounge, he knows exactly what he is saying, and even if he had undeniable proof that it was an inside job, he knows not to be so daring as to mutter it, probably be the death bed confessor type.

King Mob wrote: »

And taking the piss is still a big possibility (at least as possible as what you're suggesting). Is case you haven't notice people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job aren't taken that seriously, and if you where this guy who likely gets hundreds of emails about 9/11 would be somewhat wary. So let's say he's acosted by the guy making the video, and you can plainly see that he's trying to lead the guy into saying something that would imply it's a CT. Frustrated and in a rush the guy drops the film maker a quote to mess with him just as he leaves. Giggles ensue.
I have nothing to support this is actually true, but it's at least as likely (and actually more likely) and just as supported as your interpretation.

(at least as possible as what you're suggesting)??, WTF is that?, I'm suggesting here that the 911 report is not a truthful piece of work, I am providing quotes from the commissioners that you say are being taken out of context, they're not.
I havent got a copy of the book, but I'll get a copy, maybe a .pdf and then I'll be a bit clearer when I'm quoting Farmer and what exactly he says.

King Mob wrote: »

Yea, lying in a federal investigation is a big no-no. It is "wrongdoing" and something that could lead to criminal investigations. And if you were inept and incompetent in your job, which lead to huge failures you might be tempted to risk all that to keep your job by lying about you ineptness.
Are you suggesting that here they mean criminal charges for something else?

What I'm saying is that officials from "agency x" for instance came along and said we did this and that that morning, then the commission realises that it wasn't possible they did what they said, so then "agency x" changes its story, the commission realises again that this new account is also not possible, so "agency x" fabricates another story that isn't as easy for the commission to prove wrong, yet they know in their hearts and souls that its just as much rubbish as the two previous stories, but they can't prove it or time means the commission must move on, leaving said "untied loose ends".

King Mob wrote: »

Uprising has pointed out that isn't the thrust of the argument, despite the point of the thread. He is making the argument that the report is unreliable.

However he seems to have some wires crossed as if the report contains lies made by the commissioners, rather than the commissioners were lied to, then none of the quote provided would make any sense. Why lie and falsify a report in the first place, then tell everyone that you did so?

If on the other hand it's the case that the commissioners were lied to this doesn't mean the report is false, or that the report didn't identify and dispel the lies/untruths. This seems to be consistent with the quotes provided, despite how out of context they are.

I'm not getting any wires crossed you are. The point of my argument here is to establish that the report is not an accurate account, that the commissioners were by either by pressure, time constraints or something else, forced to put half truths and lies into the report to be published, knowing full well that it was not the truth.

You're argument is becoming a bit self contradictory now....
You're saying that the report found some of the things told by the FAA etc where false, and reported that these things where false and yet somehow the report is also false? That's the prefect example of being self contradictory.

So far you've provided quotes that say the "official story" is untrue or "what we are told" was not true. However you haven't actually provided a quote where your would be whistle-blowers have explicitly said that the report is untrue or was lies. I have already pointed out that depending on the context "the official story" and "what we are told" could (and probably) mean "the official story from FAA/CIA/NORAD" etc. It's clear that if we are to use this interpretation that all the quotes make perfect sense while the report itself remains true.
I get the feeling that you are going to whip out the "this commission was set up to fail" quote. However failing and being untrue are separate issues.

(at least as possible as what you're suggesting)??, WTF is that?,

You are suggesting that he is eluding to the idea that 9/11 has been in the works for 30 years. This is total speculation on your part and has as much standing and evidence to my theory that he is taking the piss.
You say that he knows something more than he's letting on, yet are somehow saying that he's afraid to say what he knows. If this is the case why is he not afraid to dispute the commission report?

I am providing quotes from the commissioners that you say are being taken out of context, they're not.
I havent got a copy of the book, but I'll get a copy, maybe a .pdf and then I'll be a bit clearer when I'm quoting Farmer and what exactly he says.

I like this particular quote because it's so self contradictory.
You say you're not taking him out of context yet say in the exact same sentence that you don't actually know the context...

And here is an example of you plainly taking a quote out of context.

Well he said the report (the whole report) "almost entirely not true"

But I've shown that the quote doesn't refer to the report, nor was it made by Farmer.
It doesn't get more out of context than that.

What I'm saying is that officials from "agency x" for instance came along and said we did this and that that morning, then the commission realises that it wasn't possible they did what they said, so then "agency x" changes its story, the commission realises again that this new account is also not possible, so "agency x" fabricates another story that isn't as easy for the commission to prove wrong, yet they know in their hearts and souls that its just as much rubbish as the two previous stories, but they can't prove it or time means the commission must move on, leaving said "untied loose ends".

So then isn't this scenario also possible if the motive was ass covering of cock ups? If not why not exactly.

Yitzhak Rabin

Ok folks, I've deleted a few of the off topic/not sticking with the outline of OP posts. We have a ton of 9/11 threads that just seem to amble along moving from one topic from the next. However, in this one, you should only stick to one point. Its an interesting idea, so please stick to the rules in the first post.

Thanks.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

surely mossad would be more professional than jumping for joy in a public area after/during the attacks.

Yitzhak Rabin

I'd like to enter the fray here. I'll say off the bat that I don't believe in the demolitions, or the missile, or anything like that. I believe that essentially how the report said it happened is fairly close to what actually happened. However, I have suspicions that secret service agencies at least had solid evidence that an attack was going to happen and ignored it, so that is the point I will be arguing.

I'll start with one point, the 'dancing Israelis'. Basically what happened is New Jersey residents saw a group of Israelis dancing and celebrating the attack and had begun to film the attacks prior to attack occuring. They were arrested and detained for 71 days and then deprted.


Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the initial impact. Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot.oint, and that is the "dancing Israelis".

On the morning of September 11th, a group of "Middle Eastern looking men" were seen video taping the attacks as they occurred and were dancing and shouting with glee as the attacks occured. It was reported that they had set up their recording equipment prior to the attack occurring.

Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the initial impact. Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot.

Someone also rang the police and reported seeing "palestinians" making a bomb.

Dispatcher: Jersey City police.
Caller: Yes, we have a white van, 2 or 3 guys in there, they look like Palestinians and going around a building.
Caller: There's a minivan heading toward the Holland tunnel, I see the guy by Newark Airport mixing some junk and he has those sheikh uniform.
Dispatcher: He has what?
Caller: He's dressed like an Arab

The original source for the above is (http://www.wnbc.com/news/1315651/detail.html but that seems to not exist anymore)

The men in this white van were then arrested and were found with maps with certain places highlighted, box cutters, $4700 cash stuffed into a sock, and foreign passports.

This information came from a report on the thursday from the local New Jersey paper. Again the original source on their website has dissapeared, but you can view an image of the article here: http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/record_9-11.jpg .

The Israelis in question worked for a company called "Urban Moving Systems". The Israeli owner of this company Dominick Suter fled the country 3 days after 9/11 when his employees were arrested. http://www.state.nj.us/lps/ca/press/storage.htm

It is widely believed that Urban Moving Systems was a Mossad front for spying on possible Palestinian terrorists in the New York area.

The 5 Israelis who were arrested were detained for 71 days were then quietly released and deported back to Israel.

So while this isn't any kind of smoking gun it does raise some major suspicions in me and begs the question, how did these Israeli (imo mossad agents) know about the attack before hand?

Yitzhak Rabin

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

surely mossad would be more professional than jumping for joy in a public area after/during the attacks.

It appears they weren't.

yekahs

yekahs wrote: »

So while this isn't any kind of smoking gun it does raise some major suspicions in me and begs the question, how did these Israeli (imo mossad agents) know about the attack before hand?

Well the thing here is that foreknowledge hinges on the insistence that the had set up before hand. But as you can see that reports of them vary widely and are inconsistent, unless of course they are also "'palestinians' making a bomb."
It's entirely possible and probable that the reports of them having set up before the attacks were exaggerated or misquoted, or even the people making the calls were simply mistaken and in shock.

Without any solid evidence that they did set up before hand, all the rest of the stuff is unimportant and the dancing could be explained away by the fact they are just dicks.
They might not have even been celebrating like that. Given the inconsistency of the reports it's entirely possible that every loud and excited exclamations could be misheard as "celebrating", given a little racial profiling.
Or it even could be that they were being loud and excited as they watch explosions and **** blowing up, but not stopping to think about the people hurt and killed.

As for them actually being Mossad agents in the first place, again unlikely, as professional intelligence guys wouldn't draw attention to themselves like that, especially if doing so would might indicate they had foreknowledge.
Even if the company they worked for was a front, that doesn't mean that they are agents, they could have been just regular people who were hired as movers so the company could actually looking like a moving company.
And since the owner is Israeli it's not a stretch to imagine that he would be more likely to have Israeli employees, either through family members looking for work or even because he was a bit racist.
As for the map and box cutters found in the van: they were a moving company. I really don't see how those items are suspicious. As for the cash: suspicious but I don't see how it's related. it could be one or some of their customers that day paid in cash and they needed to stash it somewhere safeish. Or maybe one of them was dealing drugs out the back of the van, maybe that's why they were in the car park in the first place.

So my questions are: are do above scenarios make sense and adequately explain the facts? If not, why not?

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

Well the thing here is that foreknowledge hinges on the insistence that the had set up before hand. But as you can see that reports of them vary widely and are inconsistent, unless of course they are also "'palestinians' making a bomb."
It's entirely possible and probable that the reports of them having set up before the attacks were exaggerated or misquoted, or even the people making the calls were simply mistaken and in shock.

Without any solid evidence that they did set up before hand, all the rest of the stuff is unimportant and the dancing could be explained away by the fact they are just dicks.
They might not have even been celebrating like that. Given the inconsistency of the reports it's entirely possible that every loud and excited exclamations could be misheard as "celebrating", given a little racial profiling.
Or it even could be that they were being loud and excited as they watch explosions and **** blowing up, but not stopping to think about the people hurt and killed.

As for them actually being Mossad agents in the first place, again unlikely, as professional intelligence guys wouldn't draw attention to themselves like that, especially if doing so would might indicate they had foreknowledge.
Even if the company they worked for was a front, that doesn't mean that they are agents, they could have been just regular people who were hired as movers so the company could actually looking like a moving company.
And since the owner is Israeli it's not a stretch to imagine that he would be more likely to have Israeli employees, either through family members looking for work or even because he was a bit racist.
As for the map and box cutters found in the van: they were a moving company. I really don't see how those items are suspicious. As for the cash: suspicious but I don't see how it's related. it could be one or some of their customers that day paid in cash and they needed to stash it somewhere safeish. Or maybe one of them was dealing drugs out the back of the van, maybe that's why they were in the car park in the first place.

So my questions are: are do above scenarios make sense and adequately explain the facts? If not, why not?

Kingmob, with all due respect, I'll bow out of this thread for now, I suspect if myself, Bush, Bush Snr and Cheney knocked at your door and admitted it was an inside job, you'd still continue to deny it.

I've been debating/shouting/screaming every possible angle of 9/11 for a long time now and it gets frustrating when no matter how incriminating a certain point may be, its brushed aside as if it's nothing.

I'll get my hands on that book and maybe start a new thread about it.

uprising2

uprising2 wrote: »

Kingmob, with all due respect, I'll bow out of this thread for now, I suspect if myself, Bush, Bush Snr and Cheney knocked at your door and admitted it was an inside job, you'd still continue to deny it.

I've been debating/shouting/screaming every possible angle of 9/11 for a long time now and it gets frustrating when no matter how incriminating a certain point may be, its brushed aside as if it's nothing.

I'll get my hands on that book and maybe start a new thread about it.

But Uprising I'm not brushing it aside as if it's nothing, I'm specifically addressing and countering your claim in a structured and detailed manner.

It's clear that when you take the real quotes in context that the commissioners are referring to what they where told by the FAA, CIA, NORAD etc and that the report was able to conclude that those things where not true, though where unable to determine who exactly failed/cocked up.

And this is just on your premise that the report is simply untrue. You have not addressed to list of problems I posted which arise when you posit that the report is untrue because 9/11 was an inside job.
And even then you'd still have to actually point out what exactly in the report is wrong and why you know it's wrong before you can use these out of context quotes in the first.

Frankly by refusing to actually hold up your point to harsh scrutiny, you're proving the point I put forward in the OP.

....once you closely examine any claim in fine detail from the truthers, it crumbles apart.

uprising2

Ok we'll move on a little, the 911 commission report ommitted oral histories of 503 emergency services employee's.
Only after losing in court 3 times were they finally released and after the 911 cover-up commission had did its fine work.

in the months after 9/11 all of the surviving New York City Fire Department personnel who were on the scene were interviewed.
Those oral histories were recorded and withheld from the public until Aug. 15, 2005.
Only after losing in court three times did the city of New York finally release them. All 503 are now posted on The New York Times Web site.

Why did the city fight so hard to keep them from the public?

It turns out those oral histories reveal details about what was happening in the World Trade Center buildings that are completely inconsistent with the tale told by the commission.
Dozens of firefighters and medics reported hearing, seeing and feeling explosives going off in the buildings that collapsed. Why were there explosives, very powerful explosives by all accounts, going off in the buildings? More disturbing, why was the pattern of those explosives identical in some important ways with the pattern used in a planned implosion (or controlled demolition of a building)?

Richard Curtis, Ph.D., is an adjunct professor of philosophy at Seattle University

Here's a link to the statements that the city of New York tried so hard to supress.

The Sept. 11 Records
A rich vein of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, were made public on Aug. 12. The New York Times has published all of them.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

When I have a little more time I'll fish through them and address each point that goes against the official report.

Yitzhak Rabin

King Mob wrote: »

So my questions are: are do above scenarios make sense and adequately explain the facts? If not, why not?

Yes they could be true, but I think it is less likely than the Israelis being agents.

Well the thing here is that foreknowledge hinges on the insistence that the had set up before hand. But as you can see that reports of them vary widely and are inconsistent, unless of course they are also "'palestinians' making a bomb."
It's entirely possible and probable that the reports of them having set up before the attacks were exaggerated or misquoted, or even the people making the calls were simply mistaken and in shock.

Why is it probable? I understand, from my own first-hand knowledge, that witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. However, in this instance, they do not vary wildly. All of the witnesses corroborated each others stories. All of the key elements were there: a white van, middle eastern looking men, dancing and celebrating, videoing prior to it.

As for them actually being Mossad agents in the first place, again unlikely, as professional intelligence guys wouldn't draw attention to themselves like that, especially if doing so would might indicate they had foreknowledge.
Even if the company they worked for was a front, that doesn't mean that they are agents, they could have been just regular people who were hired as movers so the company could actually looking like a moving company.
And since the owner is Israeli it's not a stretch to imagine that he would be more likely to have Israeli employees, either through family members looking for work or even because he was a bit racist.

I think the likelihood that they are mossad agents is more likely than less likely. The coincidence is too great, imo. As for their behaviour meaning they couldn't be agents, I don't buy it. Int officers are people too, there are stupid ones, there are ones that will let their emotions (such as joy) show. There are no Jason Bournes out there.

As for the map and box cutters found in the van: they were a moving company. I really don't see how those items are suspicious. As for the cash: suspicious but I don't see how it's related. it could be one or some of their customers that day paid in cash and they needed to stash it somewhere safeish. Or maybe one of them was dealing drugs out the back of the van, maybe that's why they were in the car park in the first place.

Just speculation really. Maybe one of them was gonna put a deposit down on a house. But I think given the circumstances it is more likely that they had the money and passports because they were agents. We'll never know the truth unless someone releases what the investigators found out during the 71 day detention.

unless of course they are also "'palestinians' making a bomb."

Ok so to add a bit more information my thoughts and detail:

The call that the guy made to report the palestinians making a bomb, said that he saw them at the Holland Tunnel. But thats not where the police arrested them. They stopped them at the lincoln tunnel. There is no way you would think they were palestinians, and they weren't wearing "sheik gear" so I suspect that it was someone in on the op who rang in the op, to send the cops to the wrong place.

Also I neglected to mention that sniffer dogs acted as if there was explosives present when they got to the van.

What's really intriguing is that ABC's 20/20, the New York Post, and the New Jersey Bergen Record all clearly and unambiguously reported that a white van with Israelis was intercepted on a ramp near Route 3, which leads directly to the Lincoln Tunnel.

But the Jerusalem Post, Israeli National News (Arutz Sheva), and Yediot America, all reported, just as clearly and unambiguously, that a white van with Israelis was stopped on a ramp leading to the George Washington Bridge, which is several miles north of the Lincoln Tunnel.

It appears as if there may actually have been two white vans involved, one stopped on each crossing. This would not only explain the conflicting reports as to the actual location of the arrests, but would also explain how so many credible eye-witnesses all saw celebrating "middle-easterners" in a white van in so many different locations. It also explains why the New York Post and Steve Gordon (lawyer for the 5 Israelis) originally described how three Israelis were arrested but later increased the total to five.

Do you not think it was suspicious that Dominick Suter fled two days after the attacks? The company just packed up shop.

Suter's departure was abrupt, leaving behind coffee cups, sandwiches, cell phones and computers strewn on office tables and thousands of dollars of goods in storage. Suter was later placed on the same FBI suspect list as 9/11 lead hijacker Mohammed Atta and other hijackers and suspected al-Qaeda sympathizers, suggesting that U.S. authorities felt Suter may have known something about the attacks.

yekahs

yekahs wrote: »

Why is it probable? I understand, from my own first-hand knowledge, that witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. However, in this instance, they do not vary wildly. All of the witnesses corroborated each others stories. All of the key elements were there: a white van, middle eastern looking men, dancing and celebrating, videoing prior to it.

Now if memory serves there was only one witness who had said that they had set up before the attacks. But then I might be wrong that regard.

yekahs wrote: »

As for their behaviour meaning they couldn't be agents, I don't buy it. Int officers are people too, there are stupid ones, there are ones that will let their emotions (such as joy) show. There are no Jason Bournes out there.

True, but there's a difference between being a super-spy able to murder people with a pen and just sitting in a van resisting the urge to dance around and shout during a covert operation.

yekahs wrote: »

Just speculation really.

As is the speculation that the money and passports were there because they were agents.
Why would they keep a large amount of cash and fake passports in the van? Haven't they heard of deniablity?

yekahs wrote: »

Also I neglected to mention that sniffer dogs acted as if there was explosives present when they got to the van.

Well again if memory serves, there was only one news report that contained these factoid.
This point leads to another thing that doesn't make sense.
Why would they have explosives in the van if they were doing a surveillance mission?
In fact if you add all the things you are saying indicate they are spies it makes less sense.

Not jumping around and drawing attention to yourself, not having suspicious amounts of cash and passports and not using the explosives van all seem like very common sense things to keep in mind while on a covert mission.
So we have to conclude that these guys, if they were spies, were grossly incompetent. Are these the kind of guys you'd send on a mission, that if caught, would bust your operation wide open at best and at worst would implicate your country in the worst crime ever. (Or blow the entire worldwide conspiracy, depending on how deep you want to believe it goes.)

And then you have the question: why would the Mossad send people to do surveillance it at all?

yekahs wrote: »

Do you not think it was suspicious that Dominick Suter fled two days after the attacks? The company just packed up shop.

Well even assuming that he was indeed the head of a mossad cell, him fleeing doesn't imply he had foreknowledge.
Think about it, some of his men have just been arrested and are being questioned. Even if he didn't have foreknowledge, his real operation has been compromised, so running like hell seems to be a good plan.
But I think you'd agree that there are plenty of other explanations as to why he would leave in such a hurry without him being a mossad agent.
For example, he could fear further attacks in New York, he could fear attacks in Israel and feared for his family or maybe any number of other reasons...

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

You're argument is becoming a bit self contradictory now....
You're saying that the report found some of the things told by the FAA etc where false, and reported that these things where false and yet somehow the report is also false? That's the prefect example of being self contradictory.

Ok here goes nothing.
In my first post on this thread, post#2, in the 2nd quote box, had you read it properly you would have noticed it saying something exactly like:
"The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies
In John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue..."

I underlined the news headline "Rejects own report as based on govt lies", that means that the 911 commission released a report they knew to be based on govt lies, was the report released before the commission hearings?, or after?, think about it.
Had you clicked the link you would, had you read it correctly, read something exactly like:
"With the only "official" 9/11 report now totally false, where do we go from here?"

That word "report" again, the only "official 911 report",

So it's clear as day, the news article is referring to the book, the book is referring to the report, the report is the conclusion of everything, and the man who headed it says in his book the report is not true.

Yet, there are no plans that I'm aware of to re-open the whole web of lies and finally get to the bottom of it.

King Mob wrote: »

So far you've provided quotes that say the "official story" is untrue or "what we are told" was not true. However you haven't actually provided a quote where your would be whistle-blowers have explicitly said that the report is untrue or was lies. I have already pointed out that depending on the context "the official story" and "what we are told" could (and probably) mean "the official story from FAA/CIA/NORAD" etc. It's clear that if we are to use this interpretation that all the quotes make perfect sense while the report itself remains true.

As I've just pointed out, I have, in my very first post.
I question your observation and intuition abilities if you can't read what was plain for all to see, and directly directed to you.

King Mob wrote: »

I get the feeling that you are going to whip out the "this commission was set up to fail" quote. However failing and being untrue are separate issues.


You are suggesting that he is eluding to the idea that 9/11 has been in the works for 30 years. This is total speculation on your part and has as much standing and evidence to my theory that he is taking the piss.
You say that he knows something more than he's letting on, yet are somehow saying that he's afraid to say what he knows. If this is the case why is he not afraid to dispute the commission report?

Again my first post, 2nd quote box, blue link:
"9/11 Commission member and former US Senator, Bob Kerrey, says, "No one is more qualified to write the definitive book about the tragedy of 9/11 than John Farmer. Fortunately, he has done so. Even more fortunately the language is clear, alive and instructive for anyone who wants to make certain this never happens again."
With the only "official" 9/11 report now totally false, where do we go from here? Who is hurt by these lies? The families of the victims of 9/11 have fought, for years, to get to the truth. For years, our government has hidden behind lies and secrecy to deny them closure."

Bob Kerrey seem's to think Farmer is as good a man as can be to write about the events of Sept 11th, these men are not in dispute.

King Mob wrote: »

I like this particular quote because it's so self contradictory.
You say you're not taking him out of context yet say in the exact same sentence that you don't actually know the context...

And here is an example of you plainly taking a quote out of context.


But I've shown that the quote doesn't refer to the report, nor was it made by Farmer.
It doesn't get more out of context than that..

Again nothing is out of context, the quote does refer to the report, read it again.

King Mob wrote: »

So then isn't this scenario also possible if the motive was ass covering of cock ups? If not why not exactly.

Well again, in my first post, I added a video of Senator Mark Dayton, a 4 minute video, did you look at it?, did anything he said sink in?, did you research anything?

I'll help you along here:

The video was filmed 31 July 2004,

The report was issued 22 July 2004

So Sen Dayton was kicking up a fuss about the lies in the report, released 9 days previous, there are conflicts of information that remain unanswered.

He then goes on commenting on the 3 jets, established procedures were not followed, the fighter jets sent in the wrong direction, the "only 3 planes" were scrambled from Virginia, told to fly north to Baltimore, (which would almost certainly take them over Washington DC), then minutes later when "he" learned a plane was approaching Washington, the only 3 jets available were heading east over the Atlantic, 150 miles away from the pentagon when it was hit.
Who ordered these jets to fly out over the Atlantic?, this is not only a silly mistake, somebody did not want the plan upset.

Here's the video again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6oudwgT9Q

Map of Virgina, Washinton DC, Baltimore and the Atlantic Ocean.

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

But Uprising I'm not brushing it aside as if it's nothing, I'm specifically addressing and countering your claim in a structured and detailed manner.

It's clear that when you take the real quotes in context that the commissioners are referring to what they where told by the FAA, CIA, NORAD etc and that the report was able to conclude that those things where not true, though where unable to determine who exactly failed/cocked up.

And this is just on your premise that the report is simply untrue. You have not addressed to list of problems I posted which arise when you posit that the report is untrue because 9/11 was an inside job.
And even then you'd still have to actually point out what exactly in the report is wrong and why you know it's wrong before you can use these out of context quotes in the first.

Frankly by refusing to actually hold up your point to harsh scrutiny, you're proving the point I put forward in the OP.

Kingmob you posted this before I posted my last post, the reason I was about to give up on this thread was because I had already provided everything in my very first post and it went way over your head.

You still haven't replied to it, although you've been here today and no countering my claim from you, with all that harsh scrutiny I thought you would have actually read what was wrote and presented.

Please don't leave it too long to counter it or accept it, I'm not proving any point you put forward in the OP, one point of the OP I'd like to remind you of is this:

Me and Meglome have been saying on here for a while that once you closely examine any claim in fine detail from the truthers, it crumbles apart. However threads get so infuriating snowballed, it's nigh impossible to pin down a claim to examine it. And of course if a claim here can withstand scrutiny we get to eat our words.

Hopefully in the spirit of fairplay you will "step up to the plate", so to speak.

uprising2

I was unfortunately busy yesterday and couldn't write a full, detailed response. I'm sorry I kept you in suspense.

uprising2 wrote: »

Ok here goes nothing.
In my first post on this thread, post#2, in the 2nd quote box, had you read it properly you would have noticed it saying something exactly like:
"The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies
In John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue..."

I underlined the news headline "Rejects own report as based on govt lies", that means that the 911 commission released a report they knew to be based on govt lies, was the report released before the commission hearings?, or after?, think about it.
Had you clicked the link you would, had you read it correctly, read something exactly like:
"With the only "official" 9/11 report now totally false, where do we go from here?"

That word "report" again, the only "official 911 report",

So it's clear as day, the news article is referring to the book, the book is referring to the report, the report is the conclusion of everything, and the man who headed it says in his book the report is not true.

Yet, there are no plans that I'm aware of to re-open the whole web of lies and finally get to the bottom of it.

The bolded quote does not come from a senator or anyone on the commission, rather the author of the article.
Here's some other choice quotes:

"Does Farmer have cooperation and agreement from other members of the Commission? Yes. Did they say Bush ordered 9/11? No."

"What does Farmer's book tell us? Farmer offers no solutions, only a total and full rejection of what was told and his own his own ideas concerning the total failure of honesty on the part of the government, a government with something to hide."

So there is nothing at all in the about Farmer concluding that the commission report is false.

uprising2 wrote: »

Again my first post, 2nd quote box, blue link:
"9/11 Commission member and former US Senator, Bob Kerrey, says, "No one is more qualified to write the definitive book about the tragedy of 9/11 than John Farmer. Fortunately, he has done so. Even more fortunately the language is clear, alive and instructive for anyone who wants to make certain this never happens again."
With the only "official" 9/11 report now totally false, where do we go from here? Who is hurt by these lies? The families of the victims of 9/11 have fought, for years, to get to the truth. For years, our government has hidden behind lies and secrecy to deny them closure."

Bob Kerrey seem's to think Farmer is as good a man as can be to write about the events of Sept 11th, these men are not in dispute.

Actually that's from the same article as the above.
The underlined bit is from Kerrey, the italicised bit is form the author of the article.
Again not a quote from the senator directly saying the report specifically is untrue, contrary to what you claim.

uprising2 wrote: »

Again nothing is out of context, the quote does refer to the report, read it again.

What you claimed the quote said
"Well he (Farmer) said the report (the whole report) 'almost entirely not true'"

What the quote actually said:
"Ultimately Farmer builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version not only is almost entirely untrue but serves to create a false impression of order and security. "
So not by Farmer as you claimed, and referring to the "official Story" not the report. Can you not see the difference here?
Again not a quote from the senator directly saying the report specifically is untrue, contrary to what you claim.

uprising2 wrote: »

Well again, in my first post, I added a video of Senator Mark Dayton, a 4 minute video, did you look at it?, did anything he said sink in?, did you research anything?

I'll help you along here:

So Sen Dayton was kicking up a fuss about the lies in the report, released 9 days previous, there are conflicts of information that remain unanswered.

He then goes on commenting on the 3 jets, established procedures were not followed, the fighter jets sent in the wrong direction, the "only 3 planes" were scrambled from Virginia, told to fly north to Baltimore, (which would almost certainly take them over Washington DC), then minutes later when "he" learned a plane was approaching Washington, the only 3 jets available were heading east over the Atlantic, 150 miles away from the pentagon when it was hit.
Who ordered these jets to fly out over the Atlantic?, this is not only a silly mistake, somebody did not want the plan upset.

Here's the video again:

Again what's the problem here exactly?
He's clearly detailing the conclusions of the report, which you obviously think are true now that they suit your position. Specifically he's detailing how the report clashes with what they were told by NORAD and the FAA.
In fact the link you provided has this to say:

In hearings last Friday, Sen. Dayton (D-MN) raised an obvious point: if the timeline of air defense response as promoted in the Kean Commission's best-selling book is correct, then the timeline presented repeatedly by NORAD during the last two years was completely wrong. Yet now no one at NORAD is willing to comment on their own timeline!

Again not a quote from the senator directly saying the report specifically is untrue, contrary to what you claim.

Now if you had sent planes in the wrong direction and failed to effectively use them either because you failed to follow procedure or because you over stepped your bounds or because you went on "gut feeling", surely you can see why people might want to lie to the commission even though they aren't part of a vast global conspiracy.

And so uprising, by simply following up on the quotes you provide we can see that they are either not as clear cut as you present them to be or are totally out of context and misrepresented. So I think I'll be eating some burritos tonight instead. And maybe some French toast for lunch....

uprising2

This is why I was about to abandon this thread, but I'll press on.

Ok for a start I'd like to make a distintion between, and hope you also understand the difference between IS and WAS, because so far you have failed to grasp some basic english.
Is english your first language or is a foreign language your first language?
The reason I ask is because I now think you may be a foreign national and your native language is not english and doesn't distinguish between past and present tense.

In english the word "IS" is present tense. Simple Present

In english the word "WAS" is past tense. Simple Past
(I've added links to help you make a distinction)

Now try keep that in mind and read the thread again.

Ok I havent read the book, but I'll google "Book Review, The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America's Defense on 9/11".

I'll copy and paste the some of the reviews here, and highlight important segments.
Before people write reviews they need to actually read the book, they then form an opinion from the information gained from the book.

Most of the reviews of John Farmer's book miss its importance.
Farmer has no way of knowing what happened on 9/11 or who did it.
What he does know and has figured out is that the 9/11 Commission
was lied to by people who were supposed to be helping the Commission
deliver the truth to the public.
Whether the lies were big or little, whether the lies were told to coverup
a false flag operation or to cover the butts of agencies that had failed
in their responsibilities, whether Farmer's explanations for the lies are
correct or incorrect, the fact remains that the Commission was misled.
The conclusion to be drawn is that the Commission's report is unreliable
and, therefore, that we do not have the truth about 9/11.
That this conclusion comes from the legal counsel to the Commission is
compelling evidence that a new investigation is required.
Paul Craig Roberts

Most provocatively, Farmer presents his book as a rejection of the "official" account of 9/11, which was given by "the government," by which he means primarily the FAA and the Pentagon.

Farmer has written a book as paradoxical as the Government testimony which he picks to pieces: He details one incident after another, meticulously documenting the lies that high government officials told in testimony before his commission. But even after leaving our mouths agape at the mendacity and deception of the Administration (the word `perjury' appears nowhere in the book), he reports unskeptically other parts of the story for which this same Administration was the only source, as if he has no choice but to believe them.
And yet he chose to play softball, to settle for the testimony that he was offered, and base his conclusions on a partial and contradictory record. The Commission made no use of Congressional subpoena power or the Capitol Police. They did not recall witnesses whose testimony had been discredited.
The odd thing about this book is the way it breaches this divide. On the one hand, Farmer is the establishment. He was a Republican US Attorney, then Attorney General of New Jersey, before being tapped by the Kean Commission in 2002. In his capacity as Senior Council to the Commission, he wrote the 600-page 9-11 Commission Report that defines the official government version. On the other hand, Farmer tells us that the Report was falsified in some crucial respects. He charges a cover-up of exactly the kind that the mainstream has said is implausible on its face.

But then he tries to close Pandora's box without addressing the larger questions that loom in the realm of conspiracy theorists

Last year, writing on the Op Ed page of the New York Times, the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Kean and Hamilton warned us that the Commission's report was tainted. Now the attorney who actually composed the report tells us he was propagating lies.

Farmer's contention is that the government agreed to create a phony official version of events to cover-up the real story behind 9/11.

The publisher of the book states that, "Farmer builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version not only is almost entirely untrue but serves to create a false impression of order and security."

"In August 2006, the Washington Post reported, "Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate."

"The report revealed how the 10-member commission deeply suspected deception (@kingmob, they suspected!, this would indicate that it wasn't rectified) to the point where they considered referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

"Farmer himself is quoted in the Post article, stating, "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."

Kingmob if you continue to insist that the report is truthful, please support it with evidence showing how and when these lies were rectified before the report was published.

uprising2

uprising2 wrote: »

The reason I ask is because I now think you may be a foreign national and your native language is not english and doesn't distinguish between past and present tense.

Not it's not, I'm Irish.
But if you'd like to drag this thread into the usual pettiness, please don't bother posting.

uprising2 wrote: »

Ok I havent read the book, but I'll google "Book Review, The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America's Defense on 9/11".

I'll copy and paste the some of the reviews here, and highlight important segments.
Before people write reviews they need to actually read the book, they then form an opinion from the information gained from the book.

So now we've gone from "the commissioners have said that the report is false" to "here's some book reviews"...
Almost as if the claim is crumbling as we subject it to scrutiny.

Most of these reviews are giving other people's conclusions about his book, not Farmer's.
And since you have already misrepresented quotes about his book (claiming his publisher's words are his) there is no way I can accept you've not shown some bias in picking these.
Interestingly you've provided one quote which goes against what you've said and supports my point:

Most provocatively, Farmer presents his book as a rejection of the "official" account of 9/11, which was given by "the government," by which he means primarily the FAA and the Pentagon.

uprising2 wrote: »

Kingmob if you continue to insist that the report is truthful, please support it with evidence showing how and when these lies were rectified before the report was published.

Simple you've used an example yourself.

So Sen Dayton was kicking up a fuss about the lies in the report, released 9 days previous, there are conflicts of information that remain unanswered.

He then goes on commenting on the 3 jets, established procedures were not followed, the fighter jets sent in the wrong direction, the "only 3 planes" were scrambled from Virginia, told to fly north to Baltimore, (which would almost certainly take them over Washington DC), then minutes later when "he" learned a plane was approaching Washington, the only 3 jets available were heading east over the Atlantic, 150 miles away from the pentagon when it was hit.
Who ordered these jets to fly out over the Atlantic?, this is not only a silly mistake, somebody did not want the plan upset.

So do you believe that the timeline and facts quoted here are true?
Cause that's one in the report, which is at odds with NORAD's one.

So just a recap: You started off with a claim that these quotes show that the report is untrue. However when we looked in detail at the quotes, the ones that you didn't misrepresent and take out of context are not as clear cut as you seemed to think. So now you're forced to rely on third party opinions of a book you haven't read....

And this is before you have to explain the list of problems you run into if you posit that 9/11 is and inside job.

So just to drive the point home here's another quote.
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/transcript-john-farmer-on-malloy-show-with-brad-friedman-91109/

John Farmer- 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.

and this isn't a half of a quote, or someone else's quote, or someone's opinion of his quote.
It is literally the words out of his mouth.

uprising2

In this thread I am not claiming 911 was an inside job, I'm claiming one point and one point only, that the commission report is not 100% true.

Then when I've established that I'll take it further, but for now all I'm saying is the report is based on lies, I've included evidence, quotes, and even book reviews.
Now please if you can, show me why I should believe it to be true.

You've already done a little backtracking from your view not so long ago, ie: you now admit officials lied, NORAD and FAA lied, so were making some progress at least.

uprising2

uprising2 wrote: »

In this thread I am not claiming 911 was an inside job, I'm claiming one point and one point only, that the commission report is not 100% true.

Yes I know I was simply stating that even if your points stood up (which they don't), then there'd still be a gap for you to bridge.
I've already acknowledged that your main point has been to show the report is unreliable.
Though it should be noted that how unreliable has varied from "Almost entirely" to "at least 75%" and now to "not 100%"....

uprising2 wrote: »

Then when I've established that I'll take it further, but for now all I'm saying is the report is based on lies, I've included evidence, quotes, and even book reviews.

Well you haven't posted any evidence beyond quotes. The quotes, when examined closely and put into proper context, don't support your point and you're only using the book reviews because you are desperate for a quote to validate your point, regardless of what the book actually concludes.

uprising2 wrote: »

Now please if you can, show me why I should believe it to be true.

Erm... maybe the same reason you say people should doubt it.
Cause one of the commissioners said so:
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2009...riedman-91109/

John Farmer- 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.

uprising2 wrote: »

You've already done a little backtracking from your view not so long ago, ie: you now admit officials lied, NORAD and FAA lied, so were making some progress at least.

No I haven't, this is simply untrue.
From my first post in reply to you:

King Mob wrote: »

The simple fact remains that when you take their quote in proper context it's clear that they are referring to either the usual political ass covering or the confusion that arises from genuine cock ups.
So if we assume for a moment that there the attack are what the official version says it is, we can see all those quotes are adequately explained by the above scenario and some generous helpings of taking quotes out of context.

Second post:

King Mob wrote: »

And another thing about the context, he could be referring to stuff that they where told, which was later found to be false then the actual truth was put in the report.
Take this example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html
Assume for a moment that there is no outside influence that you might believe is in play and that the commission was able to determine their above conclusion accurately
We can see how the commissioners could be told an untruth (as describe in the quotes you supply) yet still have a truth in the report.

....

So given that Farmer likely has not said that it was an inside job, and he is one of your main players, wouldn't that not lead credence to the fact it was just general ass covering over an inside job?

And third post:

King Mob wrote: »

Now here let us suppose the "official story" isn't the commission report but what the report was told by Norad and the FAA and others who might want to cover their asses.
Does that make sense in the context? Yes.
Does that work as an explanation for the other quotes? Yes.
Can you take this meaning and at the same time have the commission report as accurate? Yes.

.....

Yea, lying in a federal investigation is a big no-no. It is "wrongdoing" and something that could lead to criminal investigations. And if you were inept and incompetent in your job, which lead to huge failures you might be tempted to risk all that to keep your job by lying about you ineptness.
Are you suggesting that here they mean criminal charges for something else?

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

Yes I know I was simply stating that even if your points stood up (which they don't), then there'd still be a gap for you to bridge.
I've already acknowledged that your main point has been to show the report is unreliable.
Though it should be noted that how unreliable has varied from "Almost entirely" to "at least 75%" and now to "not 100%"....

Varied from "almost entirely", "at least 75%" and "not 100%" though not specific could all refer to say 76% for example, and I must admit it made me laugh reading that from you considering all the many inconsistencies that you effortlessly brush aside.

King Mob wrote: »

Well you haven't posted any evidence beyond quotes. The quotes, when examined closely and put into proper context, don't support your point and you're only using the book reviews because you are desperate for a quote to validate your point, regardless of what the book actually concludes.

Book reviews give a general insight into the book, so without having a copy in my hand, reviews from people who had actually read it seemed like the next best thing.

King Mob wrote: »

Erm... maybe the same reason you say people should doubt it.
Cause one of the commissioners said so:
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2009...riedman-91109/




No I haven't, this is simply untrue.
From my first post in reply to you:


Second post:



And third post:

kingmob I was referring to your general 911 view.

The 911 commission had one official say one thing, then another official would come along say his thing, both cases could not be true, then the first official wasn't called back to give his version again.
Here's the quote/review again, this is from somebody who actually read the book, I've no reason to believe it's not accurate because it's very, very similar to all the other reviews I've read concerning the same book.

Farmer has written a book as paradoxical as the Government testimony which he picks to pieces: He details one incident after another, meticulously documenting the lies that high government officials told in testimony before his commission. But even after leaving our mouths agape at the mendacity and deception of the Administration (the word `perjury' appears nowhere in the book), he reports unskeptically other parts of the story for which this same Administration was the only source, as if he has no choice but to believe them.
And yet he chose to play softball, to settle for the testimony that he was offered, and base his conclusions on a partial and contradictory record. The Commission made no use of Congressional subpoena power or the Capitol Police. They did not recall witnesses whose testimony had been discredited.
The odd thing about this book is the way it breaches this divide. On the one hand, Farmer is the establishment. He was a Republican US Attorney, then Attorney General of New Jersey, before being tapped by the Kean Commission in 2002. In his capacity as Senior Council to the Commission, he wrote the 600-page 9-11 Commission Report that defines the official government version. On the other hand, Farmer tells us that the Report was falsified in some crucial respects. He charges a cover-up of exactly the kind that the mainstream has said is implausible on its face.

But then he tries to close Pandora's box without addressing the larger questions that loom in the realm of conspiracy theorists

Last year, writing on the Op Ed page of the New York Times, the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Kean and Hamilton warned us that the Commission's report was tainted. Now the attorney who actually composed the report tells us he was propagating lies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9AoaU7LlTk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USnxe7hxP4I

uprising2

Quote from the 911 commission report:

7.3 ASSEMBLING THE TEAMS

During the summer and early autumn of 2000, Bin Ladin and senior al Qaeda
leaders in Afghanistan started selecting the muscle hijackers—the operatives
who would storm the cockpits and control the passengers. Despite the phrase
widely used to describe them, the so-called muscle hijackers were not at all

physically imposing; most were between 5' 5" and 5' 7" in height.83




Another reason the 911 commission report is not to be believed because Ramzi Binalshibh, the 20th hijacker, the man whose admissions most of the commission relies on has been kept away from the commissioners, tenant told the commissioners they could not see him or any of the others. All his supposed evidence comes from documents, interview tapes were destroyed, why destroy tapes of a terrorist admitting his involvement?
Over 100 pages of the commission report evidence implicating Al qaeda,the hijackers, how they planned to carry it out rely on Ramzi Binalshibh's testimony, and almost all of the recordings were deliberately destroyed and lies were told that they didn't even exist in the first place.
If all thats said of him is true, I see no reason to destroy the taped 100 pages of evidence and deny their existance.

Detainee Interrogation Reports
Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members. A number of these "detainees" have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot.
Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses-sworn enemies of the United States-is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process. We have nonetheless decided to include information from captured 9/11 conspirators and al Qaeda members in our report. We have evaluated their statements carefully and have attempted to corroborate them with documents and statements of others. In this report, we indicate where such statements provide the foundation for our narrative. We have been authorized to identify by name only ten detainees whose custody has been confirmed officially by the U.S. government.2
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch5.htm

Binalshibh was among the most cooperative of the Sept. 11 plotters, according to a 2008 NBC News analysis of the number of references to his interrogations made in the 9-11 Commission Report. The al-Qaida operative is referenced 119 times, second only to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was cited 281 times.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38735351/ns/us_news-security/

uprising2

uprising2 wrote: »

Varied from "almost entirely", "at least 75%" and "not 100%" though not specific could all refer to say 76% for example, and I must admit it made me laugh reading that from you considering all the many inconsistencies that you effortlessly brush aside.

So can we lock you down for that ball park figure, to prevent moving the goalposts?
Cause 99% true is technically "not 100%".

uprising2 wrote: »

Book reviews give a general insight into the book, so without having a copy in my hand, reviews from people who had actually read it seemed like the next best thing.

And they can be also based on biased opinions.
And then the only reason you are using them is because the quotes to supplied form the commissioners, which you believed to be irrefutable proof the report is unreliable, are starting to crumb under scrutiny.

uprising2 wrote: »

kingmob I was referring to your general 911 view.

Unfortunately that's not what you were implying in your post:

uprising2 wrote: »

You've already done a little backtracking from your view not so long ago, ie: you now admit officials lied, NORAD and FAA lied, so were making some progress at least.

It can't exactly be backtracking when it's the first thing I post.
It really looks like you were trying to pretend you've scored some points, despite what I've clearly stated in most (if not all) of my posts in this thread.

uprising2 wrote: »

The 911 commission had one official say one thing, then another official would come along say his thing, both cases could not be true, then the first official wasn't called back to give his version again.

Or they could have constructed facts from various different sources and were able to find out the truth.

uprising2 wrote: »

Here's the quote/review again, this is from somebody who actually read the book, I've no reason to believe it's not accurate because it's very, very similar to all the other reviews I've read concerning the same book.

Yes, because there isn't a certain biased audience who might be disproportionally interested in buying the book and reviewing it...

And here's the quote I've been posting.
From the guy who actually wrote the book:
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/transcript-john-farmer-on-malloy-show-with-brad-friedman-91109/

John Farmer- 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.

You don't seem too interested in addressing this point.

Also you're straying from the rules of the thread.
Those two youtube videos add nothing to your points. Your other post is a different point to your original one.
Please try to stick to this one.

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

So can we lock you down for that ball park figure, to prevent moving the goalposts?
Cause 99% true is technically "not 100%".

No, I don't know the exact percentage of lies, nor have I claimed to, so no.

King Mob wrote: »

And they can be also based on biased opinions.
And then the only reason you are using them is because the quotes to supplied form the commissioners, which you believed to be irrefutable proof the report is unreliable, are starting to crumb under scrutiny.

Biased opinions?, but they cannot simply make it up as they go along like you do.
What scrutiny?, the report is very unreliable and you have done absolutely nothing here to change that or prove otherwise.

King Mob wrote: »

Unfortunately that's not what you were implying in your post:

I was talking about ALL your 911 posts, I believe this is the first thread that you've admitted officials have lied, when people have been telling you that for years.

King Mob wrote: »

It can't exactly be backtracking when it's the first thing I post.
It really looks like you were trying to pretend you've scored some points, despite what I've clearly stated in most (if not all) of my posts in this thread.

Until you prove that the report is true with some evidence you've done nothing, said nothing and shown nothing to prove me wrong.

King Mob wrote: »

Or they could have constructed facts from various different sources and were able to find out the truth.

Yes well then they would have went back to the commission and said "actually I was mistaken with that evidence I gave, let me rectify it and set the record straight, but they didn't, so their evidence remains bogus to this very day, unless you can show otherwise, but you cant coz you would have already.

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, because there isn't a certain biased audience who might be disproportionally interested in buying the book and reviewing it...

People looking for some truth in the web of lies maybe bought it looking for answers, they were only left with even more questions than before.

King Mob wrote: »

And here's the quote I've been posting.
From the guy who actually wrote the book:
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/transcript-john-farmer-on-malloy-show-with-brad-friedman-91109/

You don't seem too interested in addressing this point.

Also you're straying from the rules of the thread.
Those two youtube videos add nothing to your points. Your other post is a different point to your original one.
Please try to stick to this one.

Well you said you'll be eating your words and have failed to prove anything I've said wrong, you've also ignored the fact that the main sources of evidence in the report, "the captured terrorists" interviews were recorded then destroyed, the commission were not allowed access to them despite being told they would have, then tenent pulls their confessions from his ass, and straight thinking people are expected to swallow it, well I don't.

uprising2

uprising2 wrote: »

No, I don't know the exact percentage of lies, nor have I claimed to, so no.

That's why I said "in that ball park". But if you've no problem backtracking from "almost entirely" I'll just point it out if and when you do.

uprising2 wrote: »

Biased opinions?, but they cannot simply make it up as they go along like you do.

Well considering that Farmer believes (and has clearly stated that he believes) the report to be extremely accurate, the only conclusion is that the people writing the reviews that conclude the opposite must either be out and out wrong, or interpreting statements and arguments in a biased way.

uprising2 wrote: »

I was talking about ALL your 911 posts, I believe this is the first thread that you've admitted officials have lied, when people have been telling you that for years.

It's not the first time, nor have I ever held the belief that none of the officials told ever lies to cover their asses.
So there never was a back track on this thread or otherwise.

uprising2 wrote: »

Well you said you'll be eating your words and have failed to prove anything I've said wrong,

Well except for when I showed how you misrepresented a quote about Farmer's book. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69470573&postcount=10
And where I showed you a quote where he specifically and unambiguously says he believes the exact opposite of what you claim he believes.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69530228&postcount=27

And various other places where I've shown the quotes to be not a clear cut as you'd want us to believe.

uprising2 wrote: »

you've also ignored the fact that the main sources of evidence in the report, "the captured terrorists" interviews were recorded then destroyed, the commission were not allowed access to them despite being told they would have, then tenent pulls their confessions from his ass, and straight thinking people are expected to swallow it, well I don't.

Yes I am ignoring it. because the point of thread was to stick to one particular point.
The point in our discussion so far had been the quotes the commissioners for the last 3 pages. So for now we should stick to the "irrefutable" point that you originally chose.
Besides you still have an on topic point you've yet to actually address, or even acknowledge:
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/transcript-john-farmer-on-malloy-show-with-brad-friedman-91109/

John Farmer- 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.

uprising2

So since it's been a week Uprising, I can assume that you're no longer interested in defending your irrefutable evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

So one last honest question: do you still stand by your original comment?

uprising2 wrote: »

Yeah I have one.

John J Farmer, senior council at the 911 commission report says its a pack of lies, which it is, yet you and meglome continue to lap it up as troof.

And would Yehaks be interested in continuing to discuss his line of evidence?

Yitzhak Rabin

King Mob wrote: »

And would Yehaks be interested in continuing to discuss his line of evidence?

Yeah I suppose I'll give it a bash in the morning when I've a bit more time on my hands.

Hookah

Why did the Secret Service not feel the need to move George Bush to safety until about one hour after the first plane hit the Twin Tours, despite his appearance at the school having been announced days earlier, and with several airports within a short flying time of the school?

Di0genes

Hookah wrote: »

Why did the Secret Service not feel the need to move George Bush to safety until about one hour after the first plane hit the Twin Tours, despite his appearance at the school having been announced days earlier, and with several airports within a short flying time of the school?

The first plane could have been a tragic accident, there's no evidence it was a terrorist attack.

It was only after the 2nd plane had that it was clear it was a terrorist attack, and a route needed to be planed and secured for a emergency escape.

If George Bush had foreknowledge of the attack, why was he engaged in such gormless activity, giving such a trite sound bite as his immediate reaction, and then rushed to a secure location for over a day making him look terrified and ineffectual?

Hookah

Hookah wrote: »

Why did the Secret Service not feel the need to move George Bush to safety until about one hour after the first plane hit the Twin Tours, despite his appearance at the school having been announced days earlier, and with several airports within a short flying time of the school?

Ok, so can you explain how this is irrefutable proof of a conspiracy and offer something to support the claim?

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

The first plane could have been a tragic accident, there's no evidence it was a terrorist attack.

It was only after the 2nd plane had that it was clear it was a terrorist attack, and a route needed to be planed and secured for a emergency escape.

If George Bush had foreknowledge of the attack, why was he engaged in such gormless activity, giving such a trite sound bite as his immediate reaction, and then rushed to a secure location for over a day making him look terrified and ineffectual?

Bush claimed he seen the first plane hitting on TV before he ever went into the class.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/dec/05/september11.usa

What footage was he viewing?

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

The first plane could have been a tragic accident, there's no evidence it was a terrorist attack.

Then why were the dancing Israeli Mossad agents filming, dancing and celebrating a "tragic accident" when just one plane had hit?

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Bush claimed he seen the first plane hitting on TV before he ever went into the class.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/dec/05/september11.usa

What footage was he viewing?

He was mistaken? Because he never makes mistakes.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Then why were the dancing Israeli Mossad agents filming, dancing and celebrating a "tragic accident" when just one plane had hit?

Oh lord not this **** again.

Yes a team of mossad cameramen were filming the event because hey, no one else was going to be doing it, and being mossad agents they decided to start cheering, because thats what super secret agents really do.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

Oh lord not this **** again.

Yes a team of mossad cameramen were filming the event because hey, no one else was going to be doing it, and being mossad agents they decided to start cheering, because thats what super secret agents really do.

Perhaps you could answer the actual question.

Hookah

Di0genes wrote: »

The first plane could have been a tragic accident, there's no evidence it was a terrorist attack.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

8:40 a.m.: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) notifies NORAD that American Airlines Flight 11 has been hijacked. Even NORAD officially admitted that the FAA told them about the hijacking of American Airlines Flight 11 at 8:40.[/FONT]

Bush remained at the school until 9:45 a.m.

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so can you explain how this is irrefutable proof of a conspiracy and offer something to support the claim?

It is irrefutable proof of foreknowledge.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

He was mistaken? Because he never makes mistakes.

So you can't answer it then?

Hookah

Hookah wrote: »

It is irrefutable proof of foreknowledge.

Please explain how.
And would you mind providing a good source for the times you are quoting?

Also BB and Diogenes, any chance you'd stick to the rules on the first post?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Please explain how.
And would you mind providing a good source for the times you are quoting?

Also BB and Diogenes, any chance you'd stick to the rules on the first post?

Didn't know there was one, sorry.

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

Please explain how.

I'll spell it out for you.

It is the SS's job to protect the president. If there are an unknown number of planes, at an unknown number of locations, aiming to hit an unknown number of targets, why, after Bush's previously announced visit to the school, did the Secret Service deem it fit to leave him in situ for well over an hour after the first crash, 45 minutes after the second crash etc.

And would you mind providing a good source for the times you are quoting?

http://www.911timeline.net/

RGDATA!

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Bush claimed he seen the first plane hitting on TV before he ever went into the class.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/dec/05/september11.usa

What footage was he viewing?

interestingly, he repeated this claim in late 2001 - i.e. that he watched the first plane crashing into the tower on TV before entering the classroom.

I don't have a source offhand, but it was in a public 'town hall' style meeting, pretty sure it was in Florida, probably Dec 2001, and there was a full transcript of this meeting on CNN for years.

It bugged me at the time, still does in truth, because obviously it could be a mistake, but to repeat that same mistake, months later, a basic observational mistake about one of the key days of his life, always seemed...'odd' to me.

edited to add source:

QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well...

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html

RGDATA!

clarification:
I mistakenly referred to the same incident as Brown Bomber, but Bush definitely made this same claim quite publicly at a different time. will go through my "old notes" and dig it up later.