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

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Explosions caused by two massive buildings collapsing after two planes flew into them

No. Explosions before the buildings collapsed. A couple of extra suicide bombers? yep, thats possible but it's conjecture - to find out what caused the explosions would require a further investigation than that which we have seen.

 

[editor]

No. Explosions before the buildings collapsed. A couple of extra suicide bombers? yep, thats possible but it's conjecture - to find out what caused the explosions would require a further investigation than that which we have seen.

So how come not a living soul saw these mysterious suicide bombers coming in and wandering around the building with what would must have been absolutely enormous bags of explosives and how come no one's taken the credit for their devilishly cunning, perfectly timed, explosive-tastic actions?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

No. Explosions before the buildings collapsed. A couple of extra suicide bombers? yep, thats possible but it's conjecture - to find out what caused the explosions would require a further investigation than that which we have seen.

Oh i suppose it is possible, just so unlikely it's less probable than the idea of CD.

Nor would it be possible/practical to prove the causes of such minor bangs and pops after the event.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

So how come not a living soul saw these mysterious suicide bombers coming in and wandering around the building with what would must have been absolutely enormous bags of explosives and how come no one's taken the credit for their devilishly cunning, perfectly timed, explosive-tastic actions?

I was being open minded. Most of any witnesses would be dead. It strikes me as very unlikely, but whatever caused the buildings to fall in that fashion was very unlikely.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I was being open minded. Most of any witnesses would be dead. It strikes me as very unlikely, but whatever caused the buildings to fall in that fashion was very unlikely.

That's an amazing assertion with nothing to support it and everything to contradict it but you're doing the ignoring thing...

Suicide bomber sets off his bomb, bomb does no structural damage (they really can't you know), but kills a lot of people. Some people would have been wounded, typically shrapnel wounds and in offices that had relatively soft partitions you'd get a lot of survivors, look at ANY suicide blast in Israel that was targeted on civilian targets, more wounded than dead. They might have set themselves off in the lifts i suppose, but how to time it, there was no tight coordination of timing shown in the attacks, hell attempting it would be the work of rank amateurs and idiots. Or perhaps in another more secluded area, which raises the question of why on earth they'd bother. Either way the idea that they set themselves off and did not leave witnesses is incredible.

Then there's the "what the fuck was that" factor. Hundreds of firemen in addition to other people in the building will have been scouring the place for people trapped. It's possible that they found the remains of an office full of people spread over the furniture and not reported it, but it's incredibly unlikely. Not one person going forward saying "i was in the basement and someone exploded!"

Perhaps it was an attack on the building's structure! But since they'd tried that with a sodding van full of explosives and failed you'd think they might have caught on that it wasn't going to work. Not to mention of the inconsistent points at which these explosions came from, to destroy a structure you take out the supports in an organised manner, not at random, buildings are designed for an element of load distribution that would negate the effect. Even if they were stupid enough to try it there's also no witnesses to this attack, no one going past the main structural elements noticed the new red decor?

Your mind is open but empty. Although your version of open is rather, selective, by the looks of things.

 

[editor]

Most of any witnesses would be dead. It strikes me as very unlikely, but whatever caused the buildings to fall in that fashion was very unlikely.

"Unlikely" in what sense?*

*this is a request for serious expert analysis and study, not your amateur opinion or the clueless wafflings from loon sites.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

That's an amazing assertion with nothing to support it and everything to contradict it but you're doing the ignoring thing...

Suicide bomber sets off his bomb, bomb does no structural damage (they really can't you know), but kills a lot of people. Some people would have been wounded, typically shrapnel wounds and in offices that had relatively soft partitions you'd get a lot of survivors, look at ANY suicide blast in Israel that was targeted on civilian targets, more wounded than dead. They might have set themselves off in the lifts i suppose, but how to time it, there was no tight coordination of timing shown in the attacks, hell attempting it would be the work of rank amateurs and idiots. Or perhaps in another more secluded area, which raises the question of why on earth they'd bother. Either way the idea that they set themselves off and did not leave witnesses is incredible.

Then there's the "what the fuck was that" factor. Hundreds of firemen in addition to other people in the building will have been scouring the place for people trapped. It's possible that they found the remains of an office full of people spread over the furniture and not reported it, but it's incredibly unlikely. Not one person going forward saying "i was in the basement and someone exploded!"

Perhaps it was an attack on the building's structure! But since they'd tried that with a sodding van full of explosives and failed you'd think they might have caught on that it wasn't going to work. Not to mention of the inconsistent points at which these explosions came from, to destroy a structure you take out the supports in an organised manner, not at random, buildings are designed for an element of load distribution that would negate the effect. Even if they were stupid enough to try it there's also no witnesses to this attack, no one going past the main structural elements noticed the new red decor?

Your mind is open but empty. Although your version of open is rather, selective, by the looks of things.

So, you suggest a bullshit idea as possible in a sarcastic way. I say its possible but unlikely and you call me a dipshit.

Like, people would have reacted in X way to such an event. Fair enough. But people did react in X way to the explosions. And we havent figured out what caused them, with or without your stunts. Great. How much further forward have we moved? not an inch.

Something caused the explosions. I dont know what. You dont know what and someone hasnt done too much investigating.

The official investigation was under the exec directorship of a guy who was in constant touch with the white house. he decided what was looked into and what wasnt. The credibility of that investigation is the prime matter of the thread.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Given that the standing rule here is "new 911 threads only when there's actually anything new", I would gently suggest that it might be best to stick to whatever is actually new rather than getting into the whole bomb-no-bomb thing again.

 

[editor]

Something caused the explosions. I dont know what.

I do. Two dirty great big planes hitting the towers. There is no independently verified proof of these supposed huge explosions going off before the planes hit.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

"Unlikely" in what sense?*

*this is a request for serious expert analysis and study, not your amateur opinion or the clueless wafflings from loon sites.

Unlikely in the sense of unpredictable and nearer to 0 in probability than 1.

Top down collapse of WTC 1 and 2 seems to me plausible but unlikely.
Still, I reckon it is the least unlikely of all the unlikely situations.

That is an opinion based on some serious expert analysis as it happens.

I am not saying the explosions caused the collapse. Im saying there were explosions and I dont know what caused them. neither do you seem to, neither does Bob_the_Lost and his imaginary kamikaze chums.

Edited to add (for clarification): http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=n593Hth8h9M

Maybe it doesnt matter, because the point is that no matter how amateur I am, the professional commission was rigged and unsatisfactory and the explosions are one issue among many that they decided not to look into. They decided the testimony of the senior janitor was not required, possibly after one of many calls to Karl Rove. Who knows? not us for sure, we are the little people.

Perhaps you disagree. Perhaps you think that a neocon lying about not keeping in touch with the white house doesnt matter. Perhaps you think the selection of commissioners for their conflicts of interest is hunky dory. Perhaps you too think the matter of who funded the whole nightmare is "insignificant". Perhaps you think the same people who brought us the stolen 2000 election and the Iraq war lies should be trusted 100% and the matter left just there. But I actually doubt you think that.

You still appear need to separate out reasoned skepticism of a rogue adminstration from conspirlunacy. It is the kneejerk reaction de la jour to confuse the 2 in regards to this whole case.

 

[editor]

Edited to add (for clarification): http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=n593Hth8h9M

I asked for independently verified proof, not some selectively edited YouTube fruitloopery posted up by a conspiracy-obsessed nutjob with zero relevent qualifications.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I asked for independently verified proof, not some selectively edited YouTube fruitloopery posted up by a conspiracy-obsessed nutjob with zero relevent qualifications.

That link was intended as clarification and evidence of the explosions having happened. Nothing more and nothing less.

I have said that from looking at expert analysis I conclude that Top down collapse is the least unlikely of the explanations. But never mind reading what I said, you can carry on with the namecalling instead.

It is of course a selectively editited clip. It is edited to put a number of eye witness statements on one matter in one place. I dont see why that itself is a problem.

Are you so far down the line of kneejerkism that you think that putting journalists, firefighters and members of the public etc., all giving their eye witness testement on the day, onto one link is some kind of "fruitloopery"?

The poster may be a fruitloop, s/he may not. That is no reflection on the evidence. So there is very strong evidence of explosions in the building. That is not a fruitloop statement. They havent been explained. That is not conspiracy obsession. That may or may not matter, and whether it does is probably not related to the "relevant qualifications" of me, you or someone who puts up an eye witness compliation up on the net.

btw: the central tennet of this thread is the credibility or otherwise of the commission report. Have you actually commented on that yet?

 

[editor]

That link was intended as clarification and evidence of the explosions having happened. Nothing more and nothing less.

A selectively edited YouTube clip put together by a conspiraloon with a clear nutjob agenda is.not.independently.verified.evidence.

The fact that you're linking to such wildly biased garbage speaks volumes of your own agenda.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Given that the standing rule here is "new 911 threads only when there's actually anything new", I would gently suggest that it might be best to stick to whatever is actually new rather than getting into the whole bomb-no-bomb thing again.

What is new is the increasing amount of evidence that the commission was somewhat nobbled and a former vice president saying more investigation was needed.

I agree there is a lot of repetition on the case overall. I generally find it as frustrating as you probably do. however, it is far from the only issue where such a level of repetition exists. Honest question: Does the same "standing rule" apply to threads on Israel / Palestine, Working class politics, the various failures of capitalism, interpretations of Marx, Baukinin etc. etc.?

I agree the whole bomb-no-bomb thing can be a pain and am not even sure how much it matters in the overall scheme of things.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Editor "A selectively edited YouTube clip put together by a conspiraloon with a clear nutjob agenda is.not.independently.verified.evidence."

Are you suggesting they are staged eyewitness accounts? I suppose they could be but Im pretty certain they are all culled from the TV coverage on the day. I remember some of them from the day myself.

Oh, and likewise you said the subsequent explosions (post impact) were caused (in some unstated way) by the impacts. Very Plausible. But plausible doesnt equal proof, as Im sure you will have no trouble reminding people.

By far the most qualified body for independent verification amounting to proof on all matters was the commission (one would think)

Which lines of enquirey they took were under the direction of a neo-con who, it now turns out, was in frequent touch with the Whitehouse.

My agenda overall is to discern what happened. That is something we should have been able to rely on the commission to substantially deal with. It now looks like our ability to do that is in doubt.

btw: The central tennet of this thread, the "something new" requested by FM is the increasing doubt on the full credibility of the commission report, as expressed by people with "relevant qualifications".

Do you have anything to say on that issue, or do you take it as read that all possible substantial lines of inquirey undertaken by a panel "selected for their conflicts of interest" were followed to a satisfactory conclusion?

 

[Jazzz]

I asked for independently verified proof

Funny how you never require that of the USG's assertions

 

[editor]

Funny how you never require that of the USG's assertions

Funny how I can produce page after page of credibly sourced material from suitably qualified scientists and experts, yet you have to rely on the barking drivel shunted out by DVD shoving nutcases who wouldn't know proper evidence if it came up to them, wagged its tail and pissed on their shoes.

A quick trio of some of Jazzz's wonderfully sourced conspiracy fantasies:
Pentawater. is better than water!
Huntley is Innocent!
Sci-Fi book set in 2014 proves existence of 9/11 holographic planes!

LOL.

 

[Jazzz]

God you're pathetic. If I reeled off lists your most inane posts from several years back every time you cropped up, we'd be here all millenium.

You do not require 'independent, verified proof' of anything the USG says, and indeed we do not have any pertaining to 9/11.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Official conjecture, plausible or otherwise: Verified proof which we question at pain of being ridiculed.

Skeptical conjecture, plausible or otherwise: The realm of the loon.

I personally doubt anyone knows the whole truth or is capable of demonstrating it.

The central tenet of the thread is the credibility of the commission. That it was unsatisfactory CAN be proved very simply to anyone who even thinks that the matter of where the funding came from is significant.

It can also be proved by anyone who doubts the credibility of an executive director with vested interests who said he would cut ties with the administration for the purposes of the investigation but in fact did not.

Lots and lots of non loons dont accept the commission report as a full account of the facts. Obviously, skeptics are bound to reject it. But official devotees and neutral people should be bound by reason and logic.

If reason and logic state that the funding issue and comprimised neturality of the exex director (2 reasons among perhaps many more) are significant then there is no reason for anyone of neutral pursuasion to be fully satisfied with the report. Few official-ites if any have said so on this thread yet, or any other I shouldnt wonder.

 

[Jazzz]

Well yes and anyone with a liking for 'independent proof' will surely see fit to reject the entire 9/11 Commission as seriously compromised investigation, as it was run by a White House insider.

 

[Yossarian]

God you're pathetic.

Well, yeah, but *anyone* who starts arguing about this 9/11 conspiracy stuff on the Internet is a bit pathetic - I feel as wretched as someone rummaging through bins for leftover chicken bones to gnaw on every time I get involved in one of these threads...

 

[Jazzz]

Well, yeah, but *anyone* who starts arguing about this 9/11 conspiracy stuff on the Internet is a bit pathetic - I feel as wretched as someone rummaging through bins for leftover chicken bones to gnaw on every time I get involved in one of these threads...

Well, that's progress for you. There is really so little reason for people to post on these threads if they aren't interested.

 

[Yossarian]

Well, that's progress for you. There is really so little reason for people to post on these threads if they aren't interested.

I do find them interesting - occasionally even compelling - but I'm aware that as a way to spend leisure time, they rank somewhere around the level of nose-picking in the 'usefulness' or 'things you'd want to admit to doing' stakes.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Well, yeah, but *anyone* who starts arguing about this 9/11 conspiracy stuff on the Internet is a bit pathetic - I feel as wretched as someone rummaging through bins for leftover chicken bones to gnaw on every time I get involved in one of these threads...

The central tenet of the thread is the alledged comprimised nature of the commission. That's not a neccessarily a conspiracy. Do you have any comments on it?

Do you have no problem with a commission run by a Whitehouse insider with a panel chosen for their "conflict of interest"?

Or do you agree with all their many findings including that the funding was "insignificant" and do you not mind things they overlooked at the behest of Zelicow?

 

[goldenecitrone]

Who would you like to see on the commission then? David Icke and Uri Geller?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

The central tenet of the thread is the credibility of the commission. That it was unsatisfactory CAN be proved very simply to anyone who even thinks that the matter of where the funding came from is significant.

The central tenet of this thread is that you don't want to believe.

I have no doubt that arse covering came into play on the report, i have no reason to believe in magical suicide bombers, drone aircraft, buildings with explosives built into them, incompetent CIA masterminds or any of the other guff that gets thrown around on these boards.

If the central tenet is about arse covering then please carry on with that, don't waste your time failing to think about issues that are beyond the level of education you are willing to gain.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Who would you like to see on the commission then? David Icke and Uri Geller?

I'd like to see a commission full in scope, transparent and independent with full powers to summon people to testify in open court under oath, including the President and Vice President.

The latter request is unlikely since the President has placed himself above the constitution in the years since 911.

David Icke and Uri Geller are hardly independent, still if its a chance for you to have a needless stereotyped dig you sure aint the first.

The central tenet of the thread is the alledged comprimised credibility of the commission. Do you have any comments on that?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

The central tenet of this thread is that you don't want to believe.

I have no doubt that arse covering came into play on the report, i have no reason to believe in magical suicide bombers, drone aircraft, buildings with explosives built into them, incompetent CIA masterminds or any of the other guff that gets thrown around on these boards.

If the central tenet is about arse covering then please carry on with that, don't waste your time failing to think about issues that are beyond the level of education you are willing to gain.

Its not a question of not wanting to believe Bob. Its more a question of not knowing what to believe. I find the magical suicide bombers...explosives in buildings etc. etc. highly implausible as well.

But I also find the administrations backtracking about warnings to be complete phooey. Google for the Paul Thompson timeline for strong evidence of that claim. I find the money transfer from the ISI general to Atta highly interesting. None of these points were interogated by the commission.

When it comes to the CIA I dont trust them as far as I could throw them. Neither should anyone else with a passing knowledge of history.

yes, there could well have been arse covering, and if so that needs investigating.

We need to know wheter there were normal "human" levels of incompetence, criminal levels or perhaps LIHOP levels on the part of some individuals. We dont know. There are quite a lot of reasonable lines of inquirey the investigation didnt undertake. That it was under the directorship of a whitehouse insider is probably not a coincidence. That is why further official investigation is needed. Thats what a former US vice president thinks.

Do you agree?

 

[fela fan]

The central tenet of this thread is that you don't want to believe.

I have no doubt that arse covering came into play on the report, i have no reason to believe in magical suicide bombers, drone aircraft, buildings with explosives built into them, incompetent CIA masterminds or any of the other guff that gets thrown around on these boards.

Are you actually aware of what you're doing here?

The central tenet is plain enough, and well described by the thread title. All those other ridiculous things are only being mentioned by you or others who want to drown out anything on this topic. All those ridiculous things are only on this thread because you write about them bob.

And there should be doubts, plenty of doubts about a commission that was originally intended to be headed by henry kissinger, prime american killer of overseas people. And it's absolutely right that finally people in the US are realising this.

Furthermore, for whatever reason, mondale is correct in asking for the 'why' question to be explored. The 'answer' was of course spread by those in power: the terrorists are jealous of our freedom and democracy and wealth.

I just wonder why those in power in the US felt it so necessary to spout this guff, to get the public to believe this guff? And amazingly how the media happily printed this total bullshit and lies.

Blowback. Get this explored. Ask the CIA, they know all about it, they coined the term.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Yep felafan - a very small % of posts here have addressed the central theme of the thread.

The cul de sac of bombs - no bombs was started 3 posts in by some sarcastic wibbling about "mini nukes". I responded to that and probably shouldnt have because it took the thread off course for a couple of pages.

But I was victim of a move as predictable as E2-E4 at the start of a chess game: The move that picks 1 of a random collection of the more far out theories and conflates skepticism with belief in that specific theory. its a basic variation on our old friend Mr Strawman.

Now, skeptics can be just as predictable, annoying, stubborn and irrational I know. But anyone vaguely rational who has read up on this subject knows like you that the commission has not satisfactorily answered substantive questions, or even dealt with them in some cases.

"SHOW US THE PROOF" they scream - as I've said, proof of anything much beyond mundane negligence cant be established without a solid enquirey by an independent body like a court or commission.

But for proof that the US administration is mendacious and obfuscates, lies and spins habitually one need do little more than read the newspapers. The patterns concerning this case seem to be depressingly similar to other carry-ons by this administration.

Does it follow that the adminstration and security services, or elements within them, colluded in the attacks? No.

But it does follow that anything they say in relation to the events ought not to be meekly accepted at face value and without careful scrutiny. It now transpires that the findings of the commission fall into this category, wuite possibly to the extent that further formal investigations, and more formal evidence gathering on matters the Whitehouse insider avoided, are required.

Posters are welcome to agree or disagree, or show any discomfort with the issue through further digression.