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

[taffboy gwyrdd]

For absolutely the last time. Unless you bother to research who made that video, what their sources were and if they have any credibility as an independent, impartial documentary maker, then it deserves to be taken as seriously as an episode of Bill and Ben.

Any idiot with a TV package on their PC can selectively quote interviews and edit film footage and statements to presented a grotesquely twisted version of what actually happened.

In fact it 's what the conspiraloon movement is famous for, and sadly there's no end of gullible fools ready to swallow such wildly dubious material without question.

Ive seen those clips individually and montaged elsewhere. I remember some of them from the day itself. There are plenty of such accounts written and in video clips. Thats why I personally have no reason to doubt the basics that there were explosions, though I have not once said they were "bombs", visible or invisible. Im sorry if you doubt the credibility of the testement in the clips. Yes, anything anytime can be easily fictionalised nowdays and its very worrying. We do indeed have to take stuff on t'web with a large pinch of salt, but on the other hand I think it is unreasonable for everything anyone sources to be expected to be demonstrably professional and neutral. We know that much of what is out there is biased, still more is amateur. I still reasonably conclude from this and other stuff that I have read and seen that there were explsions in the building. We havent got past my response to post 3 yet have we.

Probably not for the last time I fear: Do you have any thoughts on the comments and observations of the qualified persons quoted in the OP?

My thinking on the events has changed a great deal as a result of threads like this, has your thinking on the credibility of the commission altered in the light of what the former VP and NYT journo are saying?

 

[fela fan]

Did you miss his repeated posts in this very thread referencing the invisibly planted invisible bombs going off before the planes hit then? It's all here!Silly boy. Try reading the thread before delivering your next clueless lecture.

I'd still like you to point these posts out, coz i can't find them. The only posts that talk about invisibly planted bombs are yours!

 

[editor]

I'd still like you to point these posts out, coz i can't find them. The only posts that talk about invisibly planted bombs are yours!

Here's his quote:

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.

So what do you think was making these "almighty explosions" if it wasn't non-visible explosives that not a living soul saw beforehand fela?

Any ideas? Or are you going to play dumb all night?

 

[fela fan]

Of course it does, you fool! Videos clips can be easily swapped around, cut up, selectively edited and made to totally misrepresent what the person was actually saying, so it's vital to know the aims, background, impartiality and credibility of the person assembling the videos.

If we attribute your words to those in high office in the US government, then that is one of the problems that many of us have over their version of events. Their aims, background, impartiality, and credibility are not exactly transparent.

And the same can be said of the 911 commission that came out with its 'findings'. First off they tried to install an ultra war criminal by the name of henry kissinger as the head man. Then failing that they put in a chap that eddy black has uncovered as being no more objective than kissinger.

You see, the problem is that everything about 911 is cover up. What an independent commission, or a second one that mondale is calling for, might uncover is the reason for this grand, constant, never-ending cover-up.

It can only be incompetence or complicity. But when one looks at the actions of the CIA and US foreign policy in general, then complicity, at least indirectly, is unarguable.

I think what 911 has done has taken the wider american general public closer to the reality of what their leaders do in the name of foreign policy. I think americans are waking up in greater numbers to what their governments do in their name. And since it's deeply criminal, terrorist, and anti-human rights, they do indeed wish to continue with the grand cover-up.

 

[fela fan]

Here's his quote:So what do you think was making these "almighty explosions" if it wasn't non-visible explosives that not a living soul saw beforehand fela?

Any ideas? Or are you going to play dumb all night?

I've just had a nice breakfast and it's a lovely sunny day outside...

All taffboy has done is relate that witnesses heard explosions. As i recall, he has simply used this as an example of why we cannot trust the commission's findings. He's not conjectured how they came about.

You're just adding your own 'bombs narrative' that you often do. Which, amongst other words, always includes 'invisible'.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I've just had a nice breakfast and it's a lovely sunny day outside...

All taffboy has done is relate that witnesses heard explosions. As i recall, he has simply used this as an example of why we cannot trust the commission's findings.

Its even more innocuous than that. it was a response to post 3 which wibbled about "mini nukes". It was the standard move of portraying skeptics as loons with a straw man. In response I said that there did happen to be witness accounts of explosions. That was a mistake. I took the bait. People were then able to derail the thread with a relative red-herring issue (sorry for the mixed metaphor) and thus, deliberately or otherwise avoid the theme of the thread. They scream for PROOF or STRONG SOURCES. But when the strong sources and evidence are there in the OP they have to decide to ignore that and set up a straw man instead.

So editor has yet to speak to the OP, the new book by a NYT journalist and the comments by a former Vice President. Im a patient guy though.

 

[fela fan]

So editor has yet to speak to the OP, the new book by a NYT journalist and the comments by a former Vice President. Im a patient guy though.

You'll need to be mate.

What's happening on this thread is entirely normal for 911 threads, as i'm sure you know by now.

I'd like people to explore this idea of walter mondale's... that there needs to be a second phase that will explore the reasons for the 911 attacks. Either the bloke is the most naive politician ever, or he's politicking, or, well, i don't know. But the answer to 'why' is already out there, and known by all powerful people in the states.

That is why i mentioned 'blowback' earlier on in the thread. Accepting this notion requires readers to accept that attacks on the US are in retaliation for the US attacks on innocent citizens all over the world, and retaliation against a country that has army bases in over 30 sovereign nations, and a military presence in over half the nations of the world.

And then the link can be made: US leaders commit crimes against humanity, which in turn breeds other terrorists, who in turn attack innocent citizens in the US. All citizens should be united against all terrorists. That means all of us united against the likes of al qaida and the USG.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Sorry fela fan

Ive been misunderstanding "blowback". I always thought it meant that the terrorists and tyrants the US sponsors could turn around to bite them on the arse one day.

I think this is actually a more interesting argument than blowback being just retaliatory attacks. Such arguments are easily put down by the apologists. They just say "thats no excuse" and it isnt an excuse, its an explanation. They often aint stupid enough to confuse "excuse" and "explanation" but it suits their agenda better to conflate the 2 words.

"HOW DARE YOU MAKE EXCUSES FOR TERRORISM!!" then you cant discuss anything for the distraction caused by their strawman. Takes me back to the days of the endless Northern Ireland arguments.

Now on this thread we have

- "What do you think of the credible critique of the commission and the VP saying we need more investigation?"

- "Hah, you probably think there were mini nukes"

- "no I dont, but there did happen to explosions" (MISTAKE - I TOOK THE BAIT. LESSON LEARNED)

- scores and scores of posts about "you think there were bombs"

- "No I dont, What do you think of the credible critique of the commission and the VP saying we need more investigation?"

- Ha ha you think there were bombs you are a loon.

-"What do people think of the credible critique of the commission and the people saying we need more investigation?"

- Repeat ad nauseum

Its classic stuff, but better left in the 4th form debating society. I agree about uniting against the common enemies of the USG and AQ, not forgetting that the one begat the other.

The Clash of Civilisations is a false construct. The % of global population that really identities with either side is probably about 5% each. The rest of us are expected to get sucked into their nightmare and risk the future of the species into the bargain. What a crock. In fairness, I think a lot of people who accept the official 911 story lock stock and barrel would agree.

 

[fela fan]

The thing is taffboy, americans as well as anyone understand the concept of revenge: they have the christian eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, they have capital punishment, they have heroes and villains, they have mafia, and the so on.

It is vital to those in power in the US to ensure the american public think that 'muslims', 'al qaida', 'obl', 'saddam', whoever, are attacking them because they hate US freedom, democracy, wealth, and way of life. This way blame can happily and easily be pointed to them for their terrorist actions. Way of life and jealousy of it becomes the cause. (I know you know this, but i'm supporting my contention that disseminating what blowback is, is a major step in the direction of reducing USG crimes.)

Coming to understand and accept blowback, both the notion and the reality of it would prick this belief in rather horrible ways, with outcomes that US leaders would find distinctly unpalatable. The public in general would wake up to the crimes their government leaders are committing against humanity. They would make the connection that citizen terrorism is a reaction to state terrorism.

They couldn't just blame saddam or obl any more, they'd have to start facing the fact that it is their leaders who are creating and dishing out all this death and destruction in far-flung lands.

 

[fela fan]

And...

consider posting on this topic on this forum an exercise in rigourous training for water-tight debating! If you have the 'wrong' beliefs, or even if you just question the official version of events, then you face a barrage of assorted ammunition designed to stop you talking about the topic, most notably strawmen, and attacks on the messenger.

Meanwhile, back to mondale's request...

 

[editor]

All taffboy has done is relate that witnesses heard explosions.

...via a YouTube video made by, err, someone or another on a page stuffed to the brim with loon-tastic, wild conspiracy claims about invisible demolition charges etc etc.

 

[fela fan]

...via a YouTube video made by, err, someone or another on a page stuffed to the brim with loon-tastic, wild conspiracy claims about invisible demolition charges etc etc.

And he's mentioned more than once that he remembers some of the footage on those clips from watching the tv himself on the day of the attacks.

 

[fela fan]

From the link in the OP:

"The bottom line is that the most deadly attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor remains dangerously unexamined. This can only be remedied with an investigation guided by the facts and conducted outside the reach of those with a vested interest in suppressing the truth."

This indeed is a fair call. The wonder of it all is that the commission as it was set up was acceptable to the media at large.

For a nation that likes to exact revenge, and to ensure justice prevails against common criminals, it seems so bloody odd why nobody is being made to pay for the apparent incompetence that allowed over 3000 american citizens to perish.

 

[editor]

And he's mentioned more than once that he remembers some of the footage on those clips from watching the tv himself on the day of the attacks.

And? So? I don't recall anyone with an overview of the situation claiming that bombs were going off before the planes hit. However, in the supreme confusion of the event, I'm sure people would have said all things, much of it which may have been completely inaccurate - and that's the sort of stuff lying DVD-shifting conspiraloons like to manipulate as 'proof,' while ignoring further clarifications.

There is not a single scrap of hard evidence that massive explosions were going off before the planes hit. Nothing.

 

[fela fan]

There is not a single scrap of hard evidence that massive explosions were going off before the planes hit. Nothing.

Either way (and you're certainly not wrong with this claim), this is not to do with the thread topic, nor is it any new ground, which is one of the conditions you and the mods came up with for further 911 threads.

What the likes of walter mondale are calling for is new ground, as is this new book coming out that uncovers the links that the head of the commission had directly with the white house.

This is what the thread's about, so what do you reckon to mondale calling for another commission that seeks to find out why the attacks happened? What do your reckon about a government that first seeks to put kissinger in charge of the investigation, and when that can't happen they install a friendly man to the neo-cons?

After all, commenting on this would be relevant to the topic at hand...

 

[MikeMcc]

I can't see how ANY chairman of the commission could have been found tat iddn't have some sort of link to the White House. It was a political appointment after all. It's like trying to say the New Testament is dodgy because Jesus had links with God. (Now I've probably upset everyone with THAT metaphor! )

 

[fela fan]

I can't see how ANY chairman of the commission could have been found tat iddn't have some sort of link to the White House. It was a political appointment after all. It's like trying to say the New Testament is dodgy because Jesus had links with God. (Now I've probably upset everyone with THAT metaphor! )

Are you telling me that in the country that proclaims loudly to the whole world that it is the biggest and best democracy, they can't find an independent man to head an independent inquiry?? Now that would be a most weird and shocking state of affairs.

In any case, this chap zelicow didn't just have 'some sort of link', he was in their bloody pockets!!

And where were the media? How come they didn't do any scrutinising?

 

[EddyBlack]

That the government acted to cover up how inept they were is far more believeable than some super-secret conspiracy to initate the acts.

The USG acted to cover up and protect those who perpetrated the crimes. In some instances this was because they got paid to do so, to stop the truth from coming out. In the other, the tapes, this was I believe because the evidence showed that their Saudi partners where funding it and helping to organise it.

So, maybe in the first case you can argue that these state department officials acted as rogue agents. And in the latter you could argue that they where simply embarrassed that the Saudi royalty had their hands in this.

Either way, this is at least complicity, insofar as they protected and hid the perpetrators.

You argue that a 'super secret conspiracy' to initiate the attacks is unlikely. I wouldn't go that far.

I think the points I have made show.
1. Certain complcity after the fact. For money (Edmonds) and protection of the Saudis, (tapes).
2. Possible complicity before the attack. I don't see how this can be dismissed as unlikely, given the above.

The likes of Keane being connected to Delta Oil, whose main man was was a key funder of Al-Quaeda, can be filed under co-incidence for now maybe. Likewise Kissinger's connections to Unocal, and his decision to step down rather than follow the order to release his business interests, demanded by congress, which the White House tried to oppose. But I do feel that these are rather strange co-incidences given the designs of the Unocal/ Delta Oil consortium prior to the attacks.

 

[MikeMcc]

Are you telling me that in the country that proclaims loudly to the whole world that it is the biggest and best democracy, they can't find an independent man to head an independent inquiry?? Now that would be a most weird and shocking state of affairs.

In any case, this chap zelicow didn't just have 'some sort of link', he was in their bloody pockets!!

And where were the media? How come they didn't do any scrutinising?

In a city as politically incestuous as Washington? The only way you get noticed for positions like that is to suck up to every politician going. The chances of finding an 'independent' in Washington is about the same as finding a virgin over 14 in Slough.

 

[EddyBlack]

The USG acted to cover up and protect those who perpetrated the crimes. In some instances this was because they got paid to do so, to stop the truth from coming out. In the other, the tapes, this was I believe because the evidence showed that their Saudi partners where funding it and helping to organise it.

So, maybe in the first case you can argue that these state department officials acted as rogue agents. And in the latter you could argue that they where simply embarrassed that the Saudi royalty had their hands in this.

Either way, this is at least complicity, insofar as they protected and hid the perpetrators.

You argue that a 'super secret conspiracy' to initiate the attacks is unlikely. I wouldn't go that far.

I think the points I have made show.
1. Certain complcity after the fact. For money (Edmonds) and protection of the Saudis, (tapes).
2. Possible complicity before the attack. I don't see how this can be dismissed as unlikely, given the above.

Editor, Kyser Soze, MikeMCC, and everyone else, would you agree or disagree with that?

 

[8den]

The USG acted to cover up and protect those who perpetrated the crimes. In some instances this was because they got paid to do so, to stop the truth from coming out. In the other, the tapes, this was I believe because the evidence showed that their Saudi partners where funding it and helping to organise it.

Supposition you've no evidence to support this assertion, you just have decided this is the underlying motivation for the USG.

So, maybe in the first case you can argue that these state department officials acted as rogue agents. And in the latter you could argue that they where simply embarrassed that the Saudi royalty had their hands in this.

Wheres your evidence that the Saudi royal family had their hands "in this"

Either way, this is at least complicity, insofar as they protected and hid the perpetrators.

You argue that a 'super secret conspiracy' to initiate the attacks is unlikely. I wouldn't go that far.

I think the points I have made show.
1. Certain complcity after the fact. For money (Edmonds) and protection of the Saudis, (tapes).
2. Possible complicity before the attack. I don't see how this can be dismissed as unlikely, given the above.

Seeing as you don't have evidence for either it is pure lurid fantasy.

The likes of Keane being connected to Delta Oil, whose main man was was a key funder of Al-Quaeda, can be filed under co-incidence for now maybe. Likewise Kissinger's connections to Unocal, and his decision to step down rather than follow the order to release his business interests, demanded by congress, which the White House tried to oppose. But I do feel that these are rather strange co-incidences given the designs of the Unocal/ Delta Oil consortium prior to the attacks.

Jesus it must be like a bad John Grisham novel in your mind.

Might I suggest you catch yourself on and read a decent book on the middle east. Currently on my bedside table is Al Qaeda it's very good.

The Saudi Royal family did not fund or organise 911.

You're talking pure fucking bullshit Eddy.

 

[editor]

Editor, Kyser Soze, MikeMCC, and everyone else, would you agree or disagree with that?

It's mainly evidence-free speculation.

 

[EddyBlack]

Supposition you've no evidence to support this assertion, you just have decided this is the underlying motivation for the USG.

Wheres your evidence that the Saudi royal family had their hands "in this"

Seeing as you don't have evidence for either it is pure lurid fantasy.

Jesus it must be like a bad John Grisham novel in your mind.

Might I suggest you catch yourself on and read a decent book on the middle east. Currently on my bedside table is Al Qaeda it's very good.

The Saudi Royal family did not fund or organise 911.

You're talking pure fucking bullshit Eddy.

I gave the sources earlier, posts 30 and 74. You haven't refferred to them. Neither has Editor.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

I gave the sources earlier, posts 30 and 74. You haven't refferred to them. Neither has Editor.

A Times Online article does not proof make young fellow m'lad.

 

[8den]

I gave the sources earlier, posts 30 and 74. You haven't refferred to them. Neither has Editor.

Oh do fuck, the first two are times articles the third is an substantiated report from Posner, from which you are drawing 100% pure speculation that because of Posner's claims the US could have been behind 911.

You have. NO. I repeat NO EVIDENCE this is pure conjecture on your part, even if Posner's story is true and it begs the question, how did this journalist get access to the behaviour of US agents in a prison cell in Saudi Arabia.

In fact while we're at it, lets look at some of Posner's claims in detail, shall we you conspiracy guff swallowing loon?

t would be nice to further investigate the men named by Zubaydah, but that is not possible. All four identified by Zubaydah are now dead. As for the three Saudi princes, the King's 43-year-old nephew, Prince Ahmed, died of either a heart attack or blood clot, depending on which report you believe, after having liposuction in Riyadh's top hospital; the second, 41-year-old Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud, died the following day in a one car accident, on his way to the funeral of Prince Ahmed; and one week later, the third Saudi prince named by Zubaydah, 25-year-old Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, died, according to the Saudi Royal Court, "of thirst." The head of Pakistan's Air Force, Mushaf Ali Mir, was the last to go. He died, together with his wife and fifteen of his top aides, when his plane blew up -- suspected as sabotage -- in February 2003. Pakistan's investigation of the explosion -- if one was even done -- has never been made public.

Like all fuckwit conspiracy bullshit it contains a grain of truth Prince Ahmed did die, however, for example bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud is still alive and didn't die one week after this, and instead was ambassador to American till 2006.

Posner's an incompetent liar, the Saudi royal family is incredibly large, in any large family there would be any number of deaths, all Posner has done has picked four people, not proven they are connected, announced their deaths as suspicious, and invented a conspiracy.

I need more than an unsupported claim from a journalist who will not reveal his sources for his incredible story, and your phenominally tenious reaching that you believe Posner is telling the truth, which allows you to believe that the US commited 911.

Your pathetic fantasy scrambling exposes a weak mind incapable of coping with reality.

 

[fela fan]

It's mainly evidence-free speculation.

I don't think so. If you've been following the world politics forum on urban75 recently you'll've seen substantially more than than, most notably by the whistleblower edmonds.

But in any event that is exactly what the official version of incompetence is which you've apparently swallowed hook line and sinker.

Now then, do you have any on-topic comments about the new calls for a further investigation, and the reasons for these calls?

 

[MikeMcc]

I don't think so. If you've been following the world politics forum on urban75 recently you'll've seen substantially more than than, most notably by the whistleblower edmonds.

But in any event that is exactly what the official version of incompetence is which you've apparently swallowed hook line and sinker.

Now then, do you have any on-topic comments about the new calls for a further investigation, and the reasons for these calls?

Probably because it WON'T turn over any new evidence. Do you think the 'establishment' has any real desire to see any change in the present situation? The mainstream media don't seem to be too keen to win Pulitzers either for uncovering any 'dramatic new evidence'. It just seems pointless to worry about given the present state of affairs.

 

[editor]

But in any event that is exactly what the official version of incompetence is which you've apparently swallowed hook line and sinker.

My opinion of events is based purely on evidence, scientific study and expert analysis, not YouTube videos promoted by anonymous conspiracy-nuts.

I believe there are people who were guilty of letting 9/11 happen through a mixture of incompetence, arrogance and stupidity, and I believe there are many equally guilty of subsequently trying to cover up their failure to serve and protect the American people.

But only a fucking idiot links to, and pays attention to, conspiraloon sites stuffed full of hopelessly wild, ill-informed speculation. They do nothing to help people to get to The Troof. In fact, they actively make it harder.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

My opinion of events is based purely on evidence, scientific study and expert analysis, not YouTube videos promoted by anonymous conspiracy-nuts.

I believe there are people who were guilty of letting 9/11 happen through a mixture of incompetence, arrogance and stupidity, and I believe there are many equally guilty of subsequently trying to cover up their failure to serve and protect the American people.

But only a fucking idiot links to, and pays attention to, conspiraloon sites stuffed full of hopelessly wild, ill-informed speculation. They do nothing to help people to get to The Troof. In fact, they actively make it harder.

What do you think of the evidence and expert analysis of Philip Shenon and Walter Mondale?

The link I gave to witnesses was not itself conspirilunacy. It was a compilation of witness accounts that you have failed to accuse of being staged. I have stated why I find that link to be reasonably credible, it doesnt follow that I find everything on its page credible. Only a fucking idiot would think so.

But you seem to be avoiding something. Only a fucking idiot would post screeds and screeds on a side issue, not once adressing the central theme of the thread and think folk wouldnt notice and find it a little odd.

Are you such a person?

If you think there has been incompetence and cover-up I assume you would like to see some form of other body look into the scale of them and whether they constitute criminal levels.

 

[editor]

The link I gave to witnesses was not itself conspirilunacy. It was a compilation of witness accounts that you have failed to accuse of being staged. I have stated why I find that link to be reasonably credible, it doesnt follow that I find everything on its page credible.

Who authored the video please? What's their journalistic background? Are they seen as a credible independent film maker?

Only a fucking idiot - and I mean a real fucking idiot - would blindly accept a video clip shoved up on YouTube clip as evidence of anything meaningful without knowing a single thing about its provenance, and then go on to use it to back up wild claims of a colossal conspiracy.

Any idiot can selectively edit footage to provide a completely misleading view of what really happened, so where's your real evidence?