And what mistakes would those be, Jerry_B?Jerry_B said:Well, I'm 10 minutes into the video, and he's already made the same mistakes that other theorists have made about the fires, etc.. This doesn't bode well for the rest of it...
Why are you always so quick to make unsubstantiated statements, yet so rarely prepared to back them up with a straight answer?Jerry_B said:All of the ones we've gone over in the thread(s) already. You must be able to see that if you've watched the video and read the threads. Let's not start rehashing again and again, please. If you want to compare and contrast, go back and read the threads.
...
Or - alternatively: should we believe the conspiracy? Does the conspiracy actually prove anything that it claims? Why should we believe a conspiracy, any more than we should believe the official story? As I've said before, what's wrong with questioning the questions?
waitew said:)A resonable open minded person questions both sides.
waitew said:Yes,we are trying to prove it.Unfortunitely the suspects have all the evidence & wont release it.That right there ought to be enough to cause any resonable person to question the government's version.
waitew said:We're trying to prove it.We are begging for samples of the steel to run our own tests.We asked for the release of the survallence tapes from the Pentagon.We are calling for a new INDEPENDENT investigation.
Pietro_Mercurios said:Why are you always so quick to make unsubstantiated statements, yet so rarely prepared to back them up with a straight answer?
You make fanciful claims knowing just how convoluted the discourse running through the Thread is, more like.Jerry_B said:Pietro_Mercurios said:Why are you always so quick to make unsubstantiated statements, yet so rarely prepared to back them up with a straight answer?
Because the answers have already been gone over, at least once. They're only 'unsubstantiated' because you perhaps can't be bothered to go back and read older sections of the thread(s)
Pietro_Mercurios said:You make fanciful claims knowing just how convoluted the discourse running through the Thread is, more like.
Still, saves actually having to defend you position with some real argument.
At least Monster_Magnet does try to provide some sort of counter argument, even if it does rely on the heavily weighted 9/11 Ommission Report, not just, "use the Search Engine!" :lol:Jerry_B said:Pietro_Mercurios said:You make fanciful claims knowing just how convoluted the discourse running through the Thread is, more like.
Still, saves actually having to defend you position with some real argument.
There is a search function for this board, and you can even search within threads. I've already said what I want to say, as have others. If you take some time to actually use that to look up various things, you can check the veracity about your claim that my claims (or any others you don't like) are 'fanciful'. This whole subject is becoming a rehash of a rehash of a rehash because people aren't bothering to read what's already been discussed. IMHO, if you'd actually taken some time to read the various threads, you wouldn't have posted the link to that video
Aside from that, if you really can't be bothered, monster's post above pretty much covers things.
We've been over all that before, earlier in the Thread. Use the Search Engine.Jerry_B said:...
And so how is the Commission report 'heavily weighted'?
Pietro_Mercurios said:...even if it does rely on the heavily weighted 9/11 Ommission (I see what you did there ) Report, not just, "use the Search Engine!" :lol:
Tsk! Tsk! You'll be capitalizing in green coloured fonts, next.monster_magnet said:Pietro_Mercurios said:...even if it does rely on the heavily weighted 9/11 Ommission (I see what you did there ) Report, not just, "use the Search Engine!" :lol:
To echo Jerrys post and to add a bit.
How is the report heavily weighted?
...
Philip D. Zelikow, the Executive Staff Director, is particularily interesting.Link;
Wikipedia: Claims of Bias Within the Commission
Some members of victims' families have claimed that the commission has numerous conflicts of interest. 9/11 CitizensWatch, in particular, called for the resignation of Philip D. Zelikow, the executive staff director. Zelikow is a Bush-appointee who served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. He spent three years on the President George H. W. Bush's National Security Council. Zelikow worked closely with Bush NSC advisor Condoleezza Rice and even co-wrote a book with her. Some worry that Zelikow may be using his power to deflect blame from himself and to protect Rice. Both the Family Steering Committee and 9-11 Citizens Watch demanded his resignation, without success.
In addition, many members had ties which could be viewed as conflicts of interest.
* Thomas Kean has served on the Board of Directors of the National Endowment for Democracy, a long-time conduit of CIA covert operations abroad. Kean also has a history of investments that link him to Saudi Arabian investors who have financially supported both George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden in the past. One example is his former business connections to Khalid bin Mahfouz, an alleged terrorist financier. He was also at one point or still is on the board of Pepsi Bottling, Amerada Hess, UnitedHealth Group, CIT Group and Aramark.
* Fred F. Fielding has done legal work for two of Bush's leading "Pioneer" fund-raisers. Fielding also works for a law firm lobbying for Spirit Airlines and United Airlines.
* Slade Gorton has close ties to Boeing, which built all the planes destroyed on 9/11, and his law firm represents several major airlines, including Delta Air Lines.
* James Thompson is the head of a law firm that lobbies for American Airlines, and he has previously represented United Airlines.
* Richard Ben-Veniste has represented Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe, and continues to represent Boeing and United Airlines.
* Max Cleland, former U.S. Senator, has received $300,000 from the airline industry. He has since resigned from the commission.
* Lee Hamilton sits on many advisory boards, including those to the CIA, the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council, and the US Army.
* Tim Roemer represents Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
* Jamie Gorelick's firm has agreed to represent Prince Mohammed al Faisal in the suit by the 9/11 families. The families contend that al Faisal has legal responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. According to Attorney General John Ashcroft in his testimony before the commission, Gorelick wrote a procedural memo that would have prevented communication between various government agencies (the wall memo[2]). She also is on the board of United Technologies.
The commission's defenders claim that these do not represent significant conflicts of interest, and that the commission maintained its neutrality.
...
My emphasisLink;
Wikipedia: Philip D. Zelikow
Prof. Zelikow's area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, “public myths” or “public presumptions,” which he defines as “beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community." In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene. In the United States, beliefs about the formation of the nation and the Constitution remain powerful today, as do beliefs about slavery and the Civil War. World War II, Vietnam, and the civil rights struggle are more recent examples.” He has noted that “a history’s narrative power is typically linked to how readers relate to the actions of individuals in the history; if readers cannot make a connection to their own lives, then a history may fail to engage them at all” ("Thinking about Political History," Miller Center Report [Winter 1999], pp. 5-7).
In the November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism,” in which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, “the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.”
...
The Commission's final report was a very lengthy book, based on extensive interviews and testimony. Its primary conclusion was that the failures of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) permitted the terrorist attacks to occur and that had these agencies acted more wisely and more aggressively, the attacks could potentially have been prevented.
I don't see why you should assume anything. You asked me to justify my assertation that the Report was "weighted". I think I did, as your, "what did you expect?" paragraph seems to suggest.monster_magnet said:Can we go back a step or two Pietro?
...
I'm assuming (correct me if i'm wrong) that you believe through all it's waffle, spin and ommission the 911CR (911 Commission Report) conclusions are wrong. And, having studied the evidence you can point to specific examples that can illustrate this point and its subsequent negative effect on 911CR conclusions?
With regard to the make up of the 911C, what did you expect? The American Political scene is a vile bidding war at best and downright corrupt at worst. The USs version of Democracy has turned into an ultra-diluted self-absorbed puppet of its original ideals. But, as i've said before the evidence is there for ALL to see.
Fair enough, but in the same post i also asked...Pietro_Mercurios said:You asked me to justify my assertation that the Report was "weighted". I think I did, as your, "what did you expect?" paragraph seems to suggest.
That doesn't give you the right to change the goalposts.
...which you've shed no light on.what is wrong with the evidence it refers to? and
Given all of the evidence, where does the 911 Omission (see, i did it too ) Report fall down, specifically?
Independent of what?Pietro_Mercurios said:Was the 9/11 Commission Report independent?...
As i said before in answering another question:Pietro_Mercurios said:...No. Why?
Independent is impossible. Free from governmental influence? Well thats removed all the Pentagon evidence and Norad, Whitehouse, US Airforce, NEADS, FAA etc etc. We also better include the fire and police dpts in that as well as they are controlled by local government, specifically that Giuliani fellow - we all know what he's like. And the security staff at the WTC were ALL under the influence of the Bush Clan. So that leaves....oh yes, expert testimony, which as far as you're concerned means nothing as everybody and their dog knows better.
Lets assume that Saudi interests were over represented, in your opinion how would this influence the 911C conclusions?Pietro_Mercurios said:And why were Saudi Arabian interests so well represented?
I've addressed your problem on the Website Issues thread you posted on the subject. It's all about how you use it.coldelephant said:That search facility is difficult to use.
coldelephant said:Back to topic though - the Saudi connection was mentioned..