Latest doubts about 911 commission: Former Vice President calls for "Phase 2"

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Account of book and Interview with Philip Shenon, New York Times journo and author of 'The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11Investigation'.

The book claims that the commission were selected for their "conflicts of interest", and that neocon exec-director of the hearings, Phillip Zelicow, was in constant touch with the Whitehouse during the hearings despite saying he'd cut his ties. Cheney didnt want the investigation at all of course.

Account of book:

http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/2008/02/september-11th-advocates-on-philip.html


Interview with author. Click on "listen now"

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18660248&ft=1&f=13

Former Vice President, Walter Mondale says a "2nd phase is needed" after a Clinton rally earlier this week. He is joined by former Senator Dayton, who critically scrutinised the hearings at the time.

http://tinyurl.com/3dazcj

 

[A Dashing Blade]

Last in?

 

[Jografer]

... last in ...

 

[skyscraper101]

But what did he have to say about the mini nukes that were used on the towers?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Well, I must remember to be as sarcastic next time someone starts another thread on Israel / Palestine, the "working class", the BNP etc. etc.

There are plenty of subjects that get discussed repeatedly without being treated with such disdain.

The recent news in the header is relevant and cast serious doubt on the credibility and genuine scope of the commissions findings.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

But what did he have to say about the mini nukes that were used on the towers?

Dont know about mini-nukes. The majority of skeptics dont use that line. But alot of anti-skeptics act like they do in order to characterise skeptics as loonies.

But lots and lots of people heard explosions in the building before and after the plane hit. Perhaps most notably this guy, William Rodriguez - a senior caretaker hailed as a hero for saving many lives that day and one of the last non-emergency people out of the tower he was in. He heard an almighty explosion in the basement before the plane hit. Now, we can analyse and discard his story - you can say its bollocks and that we believe in alien holograms from venus and all the rest.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wIZtqKiidlo


Whether we accept his version of events is one thing. Why he wasnt asked to give testimony to the commission is another. The amount of witnesses testifying to explosions and horrifying injuries at ground level is very large. There may be reasons that tie in perfectly well with the official version, but the commission selected for its "conflicts of interest" doesnt bother to look into that.

Then again, these are the people who think that the issue of who funded the events is "insignificant". Not an inspiring level of competence.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Whether we accept his version of events is one thing. Why he wasnt asked to give testimony to the commission is another.

He did give evidence....

wiki

Rodriguez states that he was one of the last people to testify[citation needed] to the Commission. Like the vast majority of the more than 1200 witnesses who gave evidence to the Commission, Rodriguez's evidence was not given in public, and was not specifically itemized in the final report. Of the 1200+ witnesses whose testimony was taken by the Commission, only approximately 155 were conducted publicly.

 

[editor]

But lots and lots of people heard explosions in the building before and after the plane hit.

FFS: not this 'invisible explosives invisibly installed by invisible people' bullshit all over again.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Shouldn't this go in the kompendium of ker-azzy Konspiracies forum?

The book is about the links between Zelicow and the Bush administration; hmmm, well, anyone familiar with political inquiries should not be surprised by the appointment of what the administration would no doubt consider a 'safe pair of hands' when dealing with such a hot subject. One of the most explosive issues was whether warnings about Bin Laden and Al Q were given sufficient weight by the Bush and Clinton administrations.

As to Mondale, he says, quite sensibly at a period of impending political change and soul searching about foreign policy in the US and the advent of a new administration, that there needs to be an investigation into WHY it happened - from your own link

When asked the question, “Do you support a new investigation of 9/11?,” former vice president Walter Mondale replied, “Yeah. Why did it happen? We need that ‘phase two’. They never did it.”—identifying the insufficiency of the official findings and calling for a subsequent phase of investigation.

I don't see why this is an excuse to go through all the buildings wired with explosives stuff yet again, it is not as if it hasn't been done to death x million times already.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

FFS: not this 'invisible explosives invisibly installed by invisible people' bullshit all over again.

I never heard anyone advance the idea that invisible explosives were used or that invisible people placed them. Then again, there are a whole load of strawman ideas out there that I have never or rarely heard actually advanced by "lunatics" such as the former vice president who found the commission to be insufficient.

I only know there are many witnesses to explosions including news reporters on live TV. Plenty of people saying stuff like "there was another massive explosion" that you can easily find online yourself. To my knowledge, these things werent looked into by the commission.

For the explosions after the plane hit there is the theory that kerosene fell down the lift shafts and caused the explosions in the lobby (again there are witnesses to these explosions). This is something the official story folk say and it sounds plausible. But I dont think the commission goes into it, and the officialites are so keen on screaming "wheres the proof?" all the time that they ought to accept that this theory is itself just conjecture.

However, it does not explain the explosion Rodriguez testifies to before the plane hit. I dont know what caused that (or other explosions). I would think that would be for the commission to figure out.

They didnt look into it. It strikes me as another aspect of their incompetence or being rigged by a guy who was in constant touch with the Whitehouse during the hearings when he said he wouldnt be.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Shouldn't this go in the kompendium of ker-azzy Konspiracies forum?

I don't see why this is an excuse to go through all the buildings wired with explosives stuff yet again, it is not as if it hasn't been done to death x million times already.

I would rather look into the dry stuff Mondale alludes to myself. My response on explosions is well evidenced but was in itself a response to a sarky looking post (3) - the type that, like editors contribution, appears to seek to characterise genuine inquirey as akin to talk of lasers, holograms, joooz and mini-nukes.

 

[Jografer]

There are plenty of subjects that get discussed repeatedly without being treated with such disdain..

But repeated fruitloop 'evidence' does.....

 

[editor]

I would rather look into the dry stuff Mondale alludes to myself. My response on explosions is well evidenced but was in itself a response to a sarky looking post (3) - the type that, like editors contribution, appears to seek to characterise genuine inquirey as akin to talk of lasers, holograms, joooz and mini-nukes.

So do you really think it really likely that The Man decided to install invisible explosives in the basement as well as coordinate plane crashes (and, according to some, more invisible explosives higher up)?

And do you think it even remotely plausible that not a single person out of the tens of thousands of workers regularly using the building failed to notice tons of explosives being installed by people they'd never seen before?

Or are you going to suggest that all the security staff, door staff, lift operators, admin staff, office managers and even Mr Rodriguez himself were all in on it and pretended not to notice the vast amounts of equipment being shipped in, holes being drilled, beams exposed and miles of wiring all over the place?

 

[Jazzz]

The book is about the links between Zelicow and the Bush administration; hmmm, well, anyone familiar with political inquiries should not be surprised by the appointment of what the administration would no doubt consider a 'safe pair of hands' when dealing with such a hot subject. One of the most explosive issues was whether warnings about Bin Laden and Al Q were given sufficient weight by the Bush and Clinton administrations.

No, corruption and compromised inquiries are unfortunately not surprising especially from the Bush administration. Of course, Zelikow was the second choice. The first was Henry Kissinger, who resigned when he was asked by the Jersey girls if his clients included the Bin Laden family!

 

[Badger Kitten]

Eye witnesses do get things wrong/remember things wrong. He ( Rodriguez) says he felt an explosion below seconds before he heard an explosion above. I can imagine any number of explanations: confusion, retrospective trying to make sense of it, the force of the plane slamming into the building being felt first, then heard later, the walls and foundations of the Tower conducting the impact so it was ''felt'' at ground level as it slammed in, then ''hearing'' the explosion above as the aircraft sheared into the building, smashing through walls and exploding and causing ceilings and floors to collapse and fall... I dunno. He's just one man. Who's now gone on to make a career out of talking about it. He is rewarded by remembering a controversial account, isn't he? I expect he believes what he says, especially after saying it so many times, but it doesn't mean he is 100% accurate in his recollection.

My own memories of being caught up in a frightening situation are very vivid, but also faulty because I got the time completely wrong. It felt like 20-30 minutes, between one thing happening and another thing happening, it was in fact more like 12. In a shocking and dangerous situation, time and the order in which you see and hear things is one of the most common things to get wrong, and this is because your experience of time passing, with heightened shocked senses is very different to how you normally experience time passing and events taking place.

Anyway, we'll never know about Roderiguez. It does make me smile when some people's stories are given such unquestioning prominence and other people's stories, which agree with mainstream version are routinely shredded and challenged.

I'm listening to the interview, and it is interesting, but not surprising, to find out that the administration had ''friendly faces'' and ''safe hands''' investigating something so potentially explosive for the Bush and Clinton administration, particularly at a time of war.

 

[kyser_soze]

taffboy - go to the website controlleddemolitioninc.com and see how much fucking prep work, kms of cabling and incredibly sensitive equipment has to be used in setting up any kind of controlled demolition takes and then come back and say that someone who has been hawking their story FOR CASH (Mr Robriguez) is still making sense.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/

If I could be arsed I'd dig out a couple of papers, one peer reviewed, one not, that point out the complete impossibility of there being a CD on the towers (for example, how do you wire a building with tons of explosives WHILE IT'S STILL OCCUPIED?). But hey, don't let paranoia get in the way of actually thinking about something for 5 minutes.

If you want to talk about genuine inquiry, take a look at Eddy Blacks' posts on the last page of the last big 9/11 thread, the same poster on the Valerie Sibel nuke secret leakings-for-cash to Pakistan, and finally take a gander at Bob Woodwards last book on the Bush administration, with specific reference to a briefing given by George Tenet during which he allegedly presented a CIA report, endorsed by the FBI and NSA, with contributions from MI6, Mossad, DGSE and others) that there was a clear and present danger of a substantive terrorist attack at some point in September.

There is a paper trail growing on 9/11 that points to individual points of collusion at several levels of US & Saudi govts, as well as their respective intel agencies, and the ISI, but nothing conclusive, and as yet nothing that points toward what many seem to want - a line to the White House for all this...

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

kyser_soze

that's a good post which I aint got time to respond to now. Will later. Tx.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

Like I said . . . last in

 

[subversplat]

Isn't Phase 2 a weight loss supplement?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

taffboy - go to the website controlleddemolitioninc.com and see how much fucking prep work, kms of cabling and incredibly sensitive equipment has to be used in setting up any kind of controlled demolition takes and then come back and say that someone who has been hawking their story FOR CASH (Mr Robriguez) is still making sense.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/

CD seems to me very unlikely. But I guess whatever happened that day was very unlikely. Just because countless people on TV at the time talked about explosions, doesnt mean CD - it means explosions.

Someone upthread slurred Rodriguez saying he was selling his story for money. He was offered the chance of political power by the repugs, such was his "hero" status. He could have sold his story for money anyway. Doesnt mean he is lying. He is not the only witness to such events, though he is probably the most credible and notorious. He wasnt asked to testify.

- "If I could be arsed I'd dig out a couple of papers, one peer reviewed, one not, that point out the complete impossibility of there being a CD on the towers (for example, how do you wire a building with tons of explosives WHILE IT'S STILL OCCUPIED?). But hey, don't let paranoia get in the way of actually thinking about something for 5 minutes."

I have looked into all of this and "thought" about it a great deal. Threads on U75 and elsewhere have informed me greatly and changed my thinking, but I try not to bandy petty insults about and I continue to research.

I believe top down collapse is an entirely plausible explanation for WTC 1 and 2, doesnt mean I am certain and it is only one of many issues. WTC7 is another matter again. I have read theories to explain that collapse, but they are conjecture. Conjecture is fine with me, but people fall over themselves to say conjecture from one "side" is lunacy - conjecture for their own side is too often taken as solid truth.

Building collapse for me can be something of a redherring issue and a fetish for many skeptics, like the Pentegon hole. There are drier and more demonstrable truths that you allude to below:

"If you want to talk about genuine inquiry, take a look at Eddy Blacks' posts on the last page of the last big 9/11 thread, the same poster on the Valerie Sibel nuke secret leakings-for-cash to Pakistan, and finally take a gander at Bob Woodwards last book on the Bush administration, with specific reference to a briefing given by George Tenet during which he allegedly presented a CIA report, endorsed by the FBI and NSA, with contributions from MI6, Mossad, DGSE and others) that there was a clear and present danger of a substantive terrorist attack at some point in September."


This details the warnings

http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

it is taken from a bias website but is documented, verified and actually culled from the "Thompson Timeline" - a neutral study of all those warnings. I took that link because the layout is clearer.
Despite all these warnings the administration ran around saying how unpredictable all this was. Then they had to backtrack, just as on so many other issues. These warnings point to a degree of neglience at least.

Question: Was it the sort of negligence any government can be guilty of, or was it at the level of criminal negligence?

Following from those questions some people extrapolate into LIHOP theory.

I have an open mind. Something for which I am routinely scorned and attributed with no end of straw man arguments.

"There is a paper trail growing on 9/11 that points to individual points of collusion at several levels of US & Saudi govts, as well as their respective intel agencies, and the ISI, but nothing conclusive, and as yet nothing that points toward what many seem to want - a line to the White House for all this..."

Yes, there is the seeming involvement of Saudis and the wiring of money from the Pakistani General to Atta. Curiously, that General (Mahmoud) visited senior US administration officials the week before 911. File under: small world.

ISI was a standard transition organisation for money between CIA and Mujahideen. File under: small world (again)

A curious aside: I dont go along with the "jewish" connection stuff, I admit it is one area I havent looked into as much - that sort of accussation makes me queezy. But when people mention that IF there was involvement from somewhere within US organisations, that Israelis might have known or assited, all hell breaks loose - its anti-semite (a clumsy term for relating to Israelis as any fule kno) and its blaming the jooooooooz.

However, when people point out ascertained Saudi and Pakistani connections there aint half the fuss. Not making a big point here, it just strikes me as weird.

Anyway, you are right - there is "nothing conclusive" (either way). Like so much else related to this case that is because it probably hasnt been investigated very well. Mondale agrees, Shenon agrees. Lots of people agree.

Anti-skeptics scream "show us the proof" often with eyes swivelling every bit as much as they accuse skeptics of. There can be no proof without thorough investigation, it obviously doesnt help when so much evidence has been disposed of.

It is not for skeptics to prove anything beyond that the investigations thus far have not been good enough. Deeming the funding issue "insignificant" is good enough to demonstrate that to me if nothing else.

Skepticism can range from wondering about the level of possible negligence to full blown MIHOP stuff, some of which is very very far fetched as we know.

The milder end of this spectrum, and an instinct to cover up have already been demonstrated. We must remember that the administration did all they could to stop any investigation at all. Now we also know that commissioners were selected for "conflicts of interest"

So, is official investigation thus far satisfactory? No.

I challenge anyone to say it is. To start with they will be agreeing that the funding of the operation is an "insignificant" issue.

People should stop equating the questioning of the competency and scope of the investigation with any specific allegations against the administration, beyond perhaps negligence.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Badger Kitten

You are right that Rodriguez account could be confused by the stress of the situation, but if you youtube one of his talks it is clear he saw injuries at ground level very shortly after what he says was the first blast. There are other eyewitness accounts to the aftermath of massive explosions downstairs. I'll dig them out over the next couple of days.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Of course, Zelikow was the second choice. The first was Henry Kissinger, who resigned when he was asked by the Jersey girls if his clients included the Bin Laden family!

Indeed. Indeed. But only swivel eyed loons would be suspicious of that.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

So do you really think it really likely that The Man decided to install invisible explosives in the basement as well as coordinate plane crashes (and, according to some, more invisible explosives higher up)?

And do you think it even remotely plausible that not a single person out of the tens of thousands of workers regularly using the building failed to notice tons of explosives being installed by people they'd never seen before?

Or are you going to suggest that all the security staff, door staff, lift operators, admin staff, office managers and even Mr Rodriguez himself were all in on it and pretended not to notice the vast amounts of equipment being shipped in, holes being drilled, beams exposed and miles of wiring all over the place?

No. I think there is substantial evidence to suggest there were explosions. Is that the same thing as arguing CD? No.

Have explosions lower down in the building been explained? no. Though there has been conjecture.

TBH I used to think it might well have been CD on WTC1&2, now I am not at all as sure. This shift has been the product of an open mind. I hope that approach is shared by people on all sides.

Oh, co-ordinating plane crashes - that would be quite easy. Doesnt mean it happened. Doesnt mean Im saying it happened. But neither does it mean you can get all sarcastic at the very idea.

 

[fela fan]

As to Mondale, he says, quite sensibly at a period of impending political change and soul searching about foreign policy in the US and the advent of a new administration, that there needs to be an investigation into WHY it happened - from your own link

When asked the question, “Do you support a new investigation of 9/11?,” former vice president Walter Mondale replied, “Yeah. Why did it happen? We need that ‘phase two’. They never did it.”—identifying the insufficiency of the official findings and calling for a subsequent phase of investigation.

If mondale means that the american public should be given answers as to WHY it happened, then fine. But he, along with the US government and all of those involved in foreign policy, know exactly why it happened. In a word, 'blowback' as written about by chalmers johnson just before 911, a huge act of blowback. The timing of the book was a delicious irony at the time. The term 'blowback' (coined by the CIA themselves) is really just a fancy word for retaliation.

I've tried to find a link for this book, for it clearly demonstrates why peoples from countries around the world would want to strike at america. I found the following interesting link which i've begun reading. It looks salient and informative thus far.

The interesting thing is why those in power in america choose to fool the american people into thinking that these terrorists are attacking them because they're jealous of american freedom and democracy and wealth. The second interesting thing is how easily nearly all of those american people got fooled into believing the bullshit rhetoric of their leaders.

The third interesting things is why the media in general faithfully reported all this bullshit and lies that emanated from the american elites.

http://www.ecclectica.ca/issues/2003/1/baker.asp

 

[fela fan]

So, blowback is an easy and correct answer as to why the attacks on 911 occurred.

As to whether this act of blowback was an original idea by powerful americans, that also needs investigating. It may or may not happen after the criminal bush is out of power.

Mondale's call for 'phase 2' is fine if it's to be for the public's benefit. But what will the public think or do when they find out how complicit their leaders are in attracting such attacks on their own nation?

I think they would become very angry, firstly because they'll realise they allowed themselves to be duped by their leaders, and secondly because they will see connections between their leaders' foreign policy actions and the attacks on themselves, that day in new york.

And that anger will be the spark that forces a new investigation into finding out if any americans were complicit in the actual planning of the 911 attacks.

 

[fela fan]

Here's a more direct link to the blowback book that posters may find informative.

http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Blowback_CJohnson/Blowback_CJohnson.html

 

[fela fan]

I am still left wondering about mondale's motives however, unless he's a very naive man.

" How, then, does Washington manage to persuade the public to let it conduct such indecent operations?

One major factor is undoubtedly the media. According to award-winning journalist John Pilger, the American Empire's greatest victory has been in the field of media management, which ensures that the Western media never mention U.S. terrorism. Pilger quotes George Orwell, who described how censorship in "free" societies was far more sophisticated and thorough than in dictatorships because "unpopular ideas can be silenced and inconvenient facts kept in the dark without any need for an official ban." [21] Thus, if those in charge of society -- politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television -- can dominate the public's ideas, they will be secure in their power and will not need soldiers patrolling the streets because the public will control themselves. Noam Chomsky has elaborated further on this point: "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum -- even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate." [22] Indeed, John Pilger recalls a story from the Cold War about a group of Russian writers touring the United States. They were astonished to find, after reading the newspapers and watching television, that almost all the opinions on all the vital issues were the same. "In our country," said one of them, "to get that result we have a dictatorship. We imprison people. We torture them. Here you have none of that. How do you do it? What's the secret?" [23] "

http://www.ecclectica.ca/issues/2003/1/baker.asp

 

[goldenecitrone]

No. I think there is substantial evidence to suggest there were explosions. Is that the same thing as arguing CD? No.

Have explosions lower down in the building been explained? no. Though there has been conjecture.

TBH I used to think it might well have been CD on WTC1&2, now I am not at all as sure. This shift has been the product of an open mind. I hope that approach is shared by people on all sides.

Oh, co-ordinating plane crashes - that would be quite easy. Doesnt mean it happened. Doesnt mean Im saying it happened. But neither does it mean you can get all sarcastic at the very idea.

Explosions caused by two massive buildings collapsing after two planes flew into them. Maybe there were a couple of suicide bombers in there, too, just to make sure.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

taffboy gwyrdd:

That you're not sure is a sign that you still don't understand the impracticality of demolishing the two towers. That you question is good, that you're unable to come to conclusions without absolute proof is not. It is possible that the twin towers could have been demolished in a manner that fits with the way shown on video, however doing it would be so difficult as to be practically impossible and there is a complete lack of anything supporting the theory (if it were done you'd have shedloads of bits and pieces of evidence that were not found).

Some of the CD theories out like thermite etc. are nothing more than utterly bonkers btw.

Also explosions do not mean explosives. Puncture a CO2 fire extinguisher and tell me what it sounds like.

 

[EddyBlack]

The CIA covered up the existence of taped interrogations of Abu Zubaydah, a senior Al quaeda figure.

The orders to destroy these tapes likely came from the White House, according to the Sunday Times. Not only where the tapes concealed from the '911 Commission' investigation, despite requests for information of this kind, they where witheld from the judge in the trial of the '20th hijacker', conspirator Zacarias Moussouri.
Link

The destruction of this taped interview has been controversial. The CIA was criticised for this by '911 Comission' chairmen, Kean, Hamilton and Zelikow.

The focus of the controversy has been on whether the destruction and cover up of this evidence occured becasue they contained 'harsh interrogation' that would embarrass the CIA. In fact, it has been revealed by a credible author that Zubaydah revealed under interrogation that his boss was a prominent Saudi royal. The same royal was the leader of the group of Saudis who where allowed by the White House to fly home during the general flight ban after 911. I think in fact that this was the reason that the tapes where covered up. The author, Gerald Posner, is not a consiraloon, he has previously written books debunking the conspiracy theories behind the assasinations of JFK and MLK for example.
link link

I am not in doubt that the USG, including the White House, and various arms of govt. and intelligence services are complicit. There are many questions but this much is clear to me. Despite the fact that the interrogation tapes where covered up and destroyed, their content was revealed.



Kyser Soze questioned how high up in govt. all this leads. Dick Cheney has his hands on the destruction of these tapes as this Sunday Times article shows, as does George Bush.
'The Justice Department has launched its own inquiry into the destruction of the tapes. It emerged yesterday that the CIA had misled members of the 9-11 Commission by not disclosing the existence of the tapes, in potential violation of the law. President George W Bush said last week he could not recall learning about the tapes before being briefed about them on December 6 by Michael Hayden, the CIA director.

“It looks increasingly as though the decision was made by the White House,” said Johnson. He believes it is “highly likely” that Bush saw one of the videos, as he was interested in Zubaydah’s case and received frequent updates on his interrogation from George Tenet, the CIA director at the time.'


The testimony of former CIA agent Sibel Edmonds shows very clearly how widespread the corruption is. It goes to the very highest levels and spans all the departments. What kind of corruption are we talking about? How about selling of nuclear secrets information and equipment to foreign interests, to the likes of people who could well be supposed to pass this on to Al Quaeda and hostile states. Surely treason and corruption doesn't get much worse. Neither does lunatic, reckless greed and corruption. The crimes that Sibel Edmonds has been speaking about have been comitted by the likes of Richard Pearle, a very senior Neo Con and State Dept official. There are others too. What she shows is how these people sell out the country for money, and 'favours'. Again, see how the perprators have been shielded and covered up, this time by the FBI ffs:

‘Following 9/11, a number of the foreign operatives were taken in for questioning by the FBI on suspicion that they knew about or somehow aided the attacks.
Edmonds said the State Department official once again proved useful. “A primary target would call the official and point to names on the list and say, ‘We need to get them out of the US because we can’t afford for them to spill the beans’,” she said. “The official said that he would ‘take care of it’.”
link

This was for money. It is all about money in fact. The question for me is whether they decided to protect the perpetrators and get rich after the attack, or whether they went along with it before the attacks ... to get rich. Either way they are complicit.