Highly-Credible People Question 9/11

[Twist_U_Up]

http://www.911summary.com/

The following people question the government's version of 9/11, or the government's openness in providing information about the September 11 attacks.

9/11 COMMISSIONERS
CONGRESS
MILITARY LEADERS
INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS
SCIENTISTS
LEGAL SCHOLARS
FAMILY MEMBERS AND HEROIC FIRST RESPONDERS
PSYCHIATRISTS AND PSYCHOLOGISTS
THOUSANDS OF OTHERS

names and links found here
http://www.911summary.com/

[SDuderstadt]

1. I see...

"Congress" questions 9/11? Did they pass some sort of resolution endorsing the "9/11 was an inside job" folks?

[Cheap_Trick]

2. Why not go read the list and see? nt

[SDuderstadt]

3. Why not represent the list honestly?

Look down the list of people who comprise the "congress" contingent and look to see how many of those people actually believe "9/11 was an inside job".

For example, if you go down the list of "1060 Architects and and Engineers" you'll find that a large number of them are not actually architects or engineers but, rather, sometthing euphemistically referred to as "architectural or engineering professionals" (hint: that means they are not actual architects or engineers).

What I find really troubling about all this is that people supposedly concerned about the "truth" are willfully misrepresenting signatories to the petition as something they aren't. But, it sure helps pump up the list, right?

[Twist_U_Up]

4. Do you mean kinda like you on here?

You know pretending your something your not?

[SDuderstadt]

5. Do tell, TuuTuu...

what am I "pretending" to be? What are you yammering about now?

Again, dude...anytime you want to join in the actual debate, rather than snipe from the sidelines, let us know.

[Twist_U_Up]

6. Studders, Im pretty sure you know.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[travis80]

7. disgusting skeptic calls Ed Asner a "drooling old actor" and a "kook"

how despicable some skeptics are.

Drooling Old Actors in Their Dotage for 9-11 Troof
"Ed Asner has recorded a radio spot..."
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2010/03/drooling-old-actors-in-their-dotage-for.html

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KDLarsen]

10. You're new to SLC, aren't you?

The tone has always been like that, hardly surprising given some of the things truthers have said about James & Pat, the two guys that run it.

[apocalypsehow]

12. Anyone who believes what he claims to believe is the very definition of a kook. Period. n/t.

[LARED]

18. Just out of curiosity do you think Ed Anser

is highly credible regarding 9/11?

If yes, why?

[defendandprotect]

11. ... and highly credible people also see Cheney's hand in 9/11 ... at the controls . . .

[apocalypsehow]

13. Interesting definition of "credible" you got there...

1. Not a single peer-reviewed "scholar" among the bunch - the very links that web-page send one to are either other loony 9-11 conspiracy sewers, or to a generic bio page. Not a single link to a peer-reviewed scholarly journal or professional, accredited engineering/scientific community website. Not one.

Indeed, it appears Prof. Jones - who is not even a structural engineer but a guy who fiddles around with solar panels - did submit such a paper but it was later yanked from the BYU website. And why would that be, I wonder? I'll tell you why: Jones was laughed off campus by his own colleagues.

Very telling, that.

2. Over and over and over again this smarmy little "compilation" says of the people it names that they "question" or have "questioned" the factual account of the events of 9/11. But when one runs some of these "questions" to earth, one often finds that there are less to these "questions" than is implied.

For instance, it quotes a Russian Air Force general who says that "generally" such an attack would be impossible - but it does not include the context in which he made those remarks.

And what would that be, pray tell? That would be that he was the officer who ordered KAL 007 to be shot down in 1983. Sheer dishonesty.

How about this charming fellow Col. Ronald D. Ray? What is his expertise to opine on this matter? The extent of his claim to fame is that he wrote a report in the 1990's excoriating homosexuals, a report that said gays and lesbians were "incompatible" with military service and to let them serve would be to, and I quote, "the subversion of a moral principle." Such fine outstanding chums the CT'er "community" always manages to find itself filled up with!

3. The tactic abounds of pretending some "credible" public figure believes the 9-11 CT'er nonsense, when, in fact, they don't believe a word of it. This tactic abounds because the CT'ers do not have the facts on their side. For instance, claiming Louis Freeh, former FBI director, believes there was a "cover-up" in the same sense that nuts like Alex Jones believe there is a "cover-up" borders on being an outright falsehood. Yet this is what this dubious website pretends. In fact, what Freeh believes is that "responsibility for the intelligence failure would squarely fall on the Clinton administration as Able Danger's information was uncovered before George Bush became president."

Some conspiracy theorist he makes!

One could go on and on in this vein, but the bottom line is that this is the same old dishonest CT'er game: exaggerate marginal claims and the flimsiest of evidentiary material that "supports" the CT narrative, and downplay evidence/facts/witness statements, etc., etc. that hinder the CT'er fantasy scenario. In other words, it's just another pile of phony piffle, reeking of innuendo, half-truths, and outright falsehoods.

Edit: spelling.

[BeFree]

15. Going on...

One could go on and on in this vein, but the bottom line is that this is the same old dishonest OCT'er game: exaggerate marginal claims and the flimsiest of evidentiary material that "supports" the OCT narrative, and downplay evidence/facts/witness statements, etc., etc. that hinder the OCT'er fantasy scenario. In other words, it's just another pile of phony piffle, reeking of innuendo, half-truths, and outright falsehoods.

And I might add, one hell of a double standard you got going there.

[apocalypsehow]

58. Simply stating something doesn't make it true, though I've long noted that those marinated in CT'er

"logic" often seem to think so.

For a "double standard" on my part to exist, it would be necessary to show that I use one standard when responding to people who deal in facts, and another when responding to people who deal in fantasies, i.e., the typical CT'er.

The record shows I consistently use a common standard when dealing with both: the reason the latter may believe there is a "double standard" at work is because the latter hates being shown where they are consistently wrong, consistently, while the former and I often come to a common, reasonable interpretation of any given set of facts we may be discussing.

People who believe in the intellectual equivalent of the tooth fairy are rarely correct in their basic facts about anything when it comes to matters such as 9-11, JFK assassination, etc., etc., and I know that must smart to have it consistently pointed out. But it's not a double-standard - indeed, it is a remarkably consistent and rigorous standard.

[MrMickeysMom]

14. Most credible, are the co-chairs of the commission

I'd prefer to listen to Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton's admission of the commission. Look at how long it took for Bush to be drug kicking and screaming to putting together the first one. We weren't allowed the same courtesy of a investigation. History will repeat itself.

It's not a first in history to have evidence of high level obstruction of an investigation. President Kennedy's death has never been properly investigated. I have no tolerance for apologists of the Warren Commission either.

[William Seger]

16. Good. Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton think the "truth movement" is a bunch of crackpots

And FYI, Earl Warren was the most significant and influential progressive Chief Justice in history. Nobody needs to apologize for the Warren Commission, especially to a bunch of irrational crackpots. The Warren Commission did exactly what juries are asked to do every day: they evaluated the evidence and arrived at the most rational conclusion. The people who are still pissed off about that simply don't understand the concept. They think you should start with the conclusion then work your way backwards through the the evidence, discarding anything that doesn't fit as being faked by the conspirators, give credence to extremely dubious evidence if it does fit, fill in the gaps with your own imagination, then measure your success by how many people buy the bullshit.

[MrMickeysMom]

19. Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton think the 911 Commission was flawed...

If you aren't aware of that, then you just wasted your post, which was off topic.

Nothing changes here much, but frankly, I posted this for those who wanted to understand what Keane and Hamilton thought of the 911 Commission.

Fail.

[William Seger]

20. Neither Kean nor Hamilton...

... believe that hijackings or plane crashes were faked, or that buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. or that there was a "stand down" order, or that anyone in the government was involved in any way in the planning or execution of the attack, or had specific advance knowledge of it. In 180-degree contradiction of the entire substance of the "truth movement" cult, they both firmly believe that we were attacked by radical Islamic suicide terrorists. And I dare say that they are both far, far more familiar with the evidence that leads to that conclusion than you are, or ever will be. You are the one who appears to be completely unaware of what they actually say in their book -- no doubt thanks to misleading quote mining like this OP, courtesy of the "truth movement" -- so why do you put on a pretense of wanting people to "understand" anything? You are the one who fails, yet again.

[MrMickeysMom]

22. Snarky reply from a upset person failing to understand...

Don't you just love it when responses like this show up? It's so mature. Silly people love getting their panties in a wad over something they read into. Stay on topic? No. Instead it's time to launch into a red knuckle display of not reading/processing what it means when I express KEANE and HAMILTON not being happy with the commission. They were not.

Is it asking too much to please hold the snarky responses reflex? Yeah... It's more interesting and exciting to miss the entire point, which is, KEANE AND HAMILTON felt they should have had a different commission altogether, one that would have been more balanced, asked the questions as they should have been asked, which was early advice. Perhaps THAT commission would have accomplished some goals and we might have some evidence worthy of dungeon dialog.

BUT.... I guess I still can't risk that kind of post here without snarky responses from peop0le who don't get it... but DO get red in the face and type in bold face as their blood pressure rises, all the while clearly NOT understanding how to even converse about that one little point.

Fail x 2

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrMickeysMom]

24. That just doesn't makes sense.

It has nothing to do with what I've said, and more to do with your flame, which I've had enough of.

Fail x 3

[William Seger]

25. LOL, I simply suggested...

... that you might learn a lot about 9/11 from Kean and Hamilton, since you said they are "most credible." I thought they could disabuse you of a lot of nonsense you've picked up from "truthers" if you'd quit taking their statements out of context and dig into what they actually have to say. If "that just doesn't make sense" to you... well, apparently that's the root of the problem.

[MrMickeysMom]

26. ...

yes, you sure simply did...

[William Seger]

28. You're welcome (n/t)

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. wait, do you disagree with the substance of the post you replied to, or not?

Because, on its own, "snarky responses from peop0le who don't get it" isn't a very impressive rebuttal. And the rest of the comment doesn't add much.

[MrMickeysMom]

31. You want a rebuttal?

About what?

I made it perfectly clear that the co-chairs of the only commission on 9/11 weren't impressed with that commission's work. When my snark acknowledgment produces the usual grief from the usual suspects on handing out dungeon grief, I'm supposed to tie my comment with everything the commission has supported?

I don't think so. I also don't think I'm here to impress you, but state the facts as others may need to understand about the co-chairs.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William Seger]

43. LOL, "state the facts" ?

> I made it perfectly clear that the co-chairs of the only commission on 9/11 weren't impressed with that commission's work.

And I made it perfectly clear that you don't know what you are talking about. You are spreading bullshit that's been deliberately created by the "truth movement" by taking their comments completely out of context. Kean and Hamilton -- people whom you said are "most credible" -- both believe that the Commission got the story right, despite the difficulties. You are simply wrong. If pointing that out is "the usual grief from the usual suspects on handing out dungeon grief," maybe it's time to reexamine your position. Maybe it's time to stop spreading "truth movement" bullshit, because when you do that it becomes your bullshit. But instead, you act like a petulant child. You seem to have no real interest in "facts as others may need to understand about the co-chairs," and others may need to understand that about you. Deal with it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

46. but do you want people to understand about the co-chairs?

It seems to me that if you did, you would indeed either concede or rebut (were that possible) Seger's statement that neither Kean nor Hamilton agrees with the claims that he mentioned, which are commonly attributed to the truth movement.

I've been associated with all sorts of bodies whose work I wasn't "impressed with." That doesn't mean that they got everything wrong.

So, your non-substantive defense of your tangential comment does not well serve forum readers.

[jberryhill]

21. Whom do they think is responsible for the attacks of 9/11? /nt

[BeFree]

29. They are not sure?

They sat on the commission that was "set to fail" and they probably wonder everyday "What really happened?".


Just like most of the rest of us.

[William Seger]

30. Bad guess

Funny how "truthers" like to quote that "set up to fail" line and completely ignore that that is a description of how they both felt going into that political minefield, and that their book is actually a description of how they believe they succeeded despite the difficulties.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/193800-1

So, why do you suppose people who call themselves "truthers" engage in such distortion, BeFree?

(ETA: Money quote from Hamilton: "I think it's important to point out that in the end, we got what we wanted.")

[BeFree]

33. "...we got what we wanted"

Yeah? They got what they wanted? Certainly bushco got what they wanted.

The heads of the commission got what they wanted? What exactly, did they want before they got going? Was it justice? Accountability? What?

Funny how the OCTers like to say they got what they wanted, while the rest of America is shaking their heads asking: WTF?

Did the Families 'GET' what they wanted?
Was justice served... ever? Who got fired? Who was held accountable?

Just answer the fucking questions, DUDE.

Did you get what you wanted?

[William Seger]

34. The ol' BeFree Two-Step

The issue I've raised in this thread is what you and other "truthers" are claiming about what Kean and Hamilton believe. As the OP makes clear, the intent was to borrow some undeserved respectability for "truth movement" bullshit by taking opinions of certain "non-truthers" out of context. Before letting you change the subject, once again deflecting from a corner you've painted yourself into, did you watch that video?

[BeFree]

35. I knew it.

You won't answer the questions.
What did they want?
What did you want?
What did we get?
Who is happy?

Bushco is happy, are you happy?

[William Seger]

36. I'll take that as a concession of the point

... so I'll ask again: Why do you suppose people who call themselves "truthers" engage in such distortion, BeFree?

Let's finish that up before switching subjects, 'k?

[BeFree]

37. Bullshit

If anyone is distorting anything and obstructing it is the authors and followers of the OCT. Just like bushco you guys can't even answer a simple fucking question.

It really is quite embarrassing to progressives to have every attempt at debate boil down to bullshit like yours here. Fucking disgraceful. Have you no honor at all?

[SDuderstadt]

38. "If anyone is distorting anything and obstructing it is the authors and followers of the OCT"

Why don't you point to some specific examples, dude?

Take your time.

I hereby nominate this as the Unintentionally Ironic post of the year. And, of course, you work in your "Bushco" smear again.

[BeFree]

39. Yeah

I smear bushco. You really have a problem with that don't you?

Your ignorance, maybe it is just blindfolded whacking, is profound. I guess it goes hand-in-hand with your problem of me smearing bushco?

Kean and Hamilton exclaimed the problems they had with getting bushco to cooperate. I call it obstruction.

[SDuderstadt]

40. No one is taking issue with you "smearing Bushco", dude...

the smearing enters in when you try to tie anyone who dares disagree with you on the facts to "Bushco".

Again, if you'd observe the ten steps you outlined to honest discussion, half or more of this shit wouldn't start.

Please point out my "ignorance", dude. That should be simple. Point to any fact I got materially wrong. Take your time.

You always seem to omit the fact that Kean and Hamilton also said that, despite the lack of cooperation from "Bushco" that the 9/11 Commission got it right. The problem with you is you try to use the target of the Commission to smear the Commission itself, as well as anyone who dares disagree with you. Again, it's comical to watch you flailing about.

[William Seger]

41. Bullshit? Here's the bullshit, and I quote...

In response to jberrrhill's question, "Whom do they think is responsible for the attacks of 9/11?" you said:

> They are not sure?

> They sat on the commission that was "set to fail" and they probably wonder everyday "What really happened?".

> Just like most of the rest of us.

Let's be perfectly clear on this, BeFree: That's unadulterated bullshit, and you got called on it. I gave you a link to an interview where they talk for nearly an hour about the Commission and their book. Please point me to where they say anything remotely similar to what you're claiming. I just found that you can read the first chapter and a few more random pages of their book on Amazon. Please find a single sentence in any of those pages that supports your distorted view of reality. The first chapter of that book is titled "Set Up to Fail," and it is the original source of the quote that "truthers" love to take out of context, but they spend many pages there putting it in the context they intended. The last section of that chapter is subtitled "How to Succeed," and as the interview clearly shows, they believe they did.

You attempted to deflect attention away from your bullshit posting by trying to bait me into stating my opinion of the Commission report, which has nothing whatever to do with the fact that you were posting bullshit based on your own gullibility in falling for "truthers" who distort reality by taking quotes out of context.

And then when you got called on that, too, you've got the completely incredible chutzpah to say this?

> It really is quite embarrassing to progressives to have every attempt at debate boil down to bullshit like yours here. Fucking disgraceful. Have you no honor at all?

You're not just an embarrassment to DU and to progressives, BeFree; you embarrass your "truth movement" far more by constantly proving how little the truth means to you.

[BeFree]

42. Feel Better? Good

Now answer some fucking questions since you are all so smart and wise and full of truth and pure and never distort anything.

The Commissioners said: "...we got what we wanted"

Yeah? They got what they wanted? Certainly bushco got what they wanted.

The heads of the commission got what they wanted? What exactly, did they want before they got going? Was it justice? Accountability? What?

Funny how the OCTers like to say they got what they wanted, while the rest of America is shaking their heads asking: WTF?

Did the Families 'GET' what they wanted?
Was justice served... ever? Who got fired? Who was held accountable?

Just answer the fucking questions, DUDE.

Did you get what you wanted?

[SDuderstadt]

44. Dude...

before you spout off, maybe you should:

1) actually watch the interview Seger has linked you to

2) actually read the 9/11 Commission Report

3) actually read Kean and Hamilton's book

4) actually read the public law that created the 9/11 Commission to begin with, so you quit misrepresenting what they were established to do

5) realize that, since the Bush administration did not even want any investigation to begin with, it's pretty stupid to claim they "got what they wanted", especially when the 9/11 Commission was harshly critical of them, which you'd know if you'd actually read their report

6) quit maligning people like Seger for YOUR shortcomings

7) quit volunteering to be the "designated pinata" here

8) look into doing something about your "Bush Derangement Syndrome", as you're distracting people with your rants and actually beginning to render W a slightly sympathetic character in the process, which is pretty stunning when you think about it

9) quit twisting and distorting what people have actually said beyond all recognition and

10) quit embarrassing DU, your fellow liberals and the Democratic Party with your "9/11 was an inside job" bullshit any more than you already have

Can you think of anything I left out?

[BeFree]

45. You too, eh?

You are so pure and correct and righteous?

Answer the fucking questions.

[SDuderstadt]

48. Dude...

your "questions" have been answered over and over again. You just don't like the answers.

You're not in a position to demand things of people, dude. The real question is why you refuse to educate yourself by reading. More importantly, I believe many people would like to know why you castigate everyone but yourself for YOUR failure to educate yourself. It's truly embarrassing, dude.

[William Seger]

47. Someone who consistently shows that he doesn't care about the truth...

... is in no position to demand answers.

And anyone who engages in the "debating tactics" that you do does not deserve to be taken seriously.

But I'll answer your question nonetheless, just to deprive you of one of those tactics.

Kean and Hamilton talk about accountability in that same interview (which I doubt you're watched). Kean said that focusing on accountability would have interfered with their primary mandate to get at the truth of what happened, and that's very possibly true. But then he got called by the moderator on a very good point: They wrote their book after the Commission had finished their report; why no accountability now? Kean brushed it off by saying he thinks that's someone else's responsibility. That may also be true, ultimately, but it's no excuse for his failure to at least attempt to put some momentum behind that effort. Hamilton pointed out that "a hundred" people would need to held accountable, from ticket takers up to two Presidents, and "what's the point?" Well, I certainly think there's a point. So to answer your question, even though you don't really give a damn about the answer: No, I'm not at all satisfied with that aspect of the Commission report or Kean and Hamilton's dodging of the issue.

None of which has anything at all to do with idiotic "inside job" theories, which do nothing whatever but an odorous cloud around any serious questioning of the events of 9/11. The "truth movement" itself has become a giant obstacle to addressing the real issues. "Truthers" are constantly imagining all sorts of reasons why so many people confront their bullshit, when the answer is obvious to anyone who really cares about the truth: Bullshit never did anyone any good.

[BeFree]

49. Finally

Now was that so hard?

""No, I'm not at all satisfied with that aspect of the Commission report or Kean and Hamilton's dodging of the issue.""
I do care, and that was an answer that shows some reality.

Y'know you keep blaming the truthers for not solving this matter:
"The "truth movement" itself has become a giant obstacle to addressing the real issues."

So that gets me to asking.... What do you consider to be the real issues that the truth movement is an obstacle too?

[William Seger]

50. I've been saying that same thing for as long as I've been here

... and as I said, there is no reason anyone should take you seriously anymore.

[BeFree]

51. Then put me on ignore

Gawd, you make a statement and I ask you to explain, and you run away as if you were afraid of your own statement? WTF? What are you afraid of?

[SDuderstadt]

52. "What are you afraid of"

More dishonest reframing from you, BeFree.

[William Seger]

53. You've run away from EVERY question I asked of you in this thread

... and no, fear is not my reaction to your dodge-and-bait routine. And no, I don't use the "ignore" function; I'd probably miss a lot of the unintentional humor around here. Such as this:

> It really is quite embarrassing to progressives to have every attempt at debate boil down to bullshit like yours here. Fucking disgraceful. Have you no honor at all?

Anyone who still takes you seriously hasn't been paying attention.

[BeFree]

54. The difference is...

...you run away from your own statements.

So, again, what have the truthers been an obstacle too?
The big bad truthers are keeping you from what?

[William Seger]

56. No, the difference is

... that you deliberately "debate" disingenuously. Nobody is required to play your games.

[Make7]

57. I don't believe anyone takes BeFree seriously. Including himself. ( n/t )

[BeFree]

59. Well, Make7

I sure don't take any of you seriously. There is no reason to do so.

Bushco is my enemy. I believe they had a hand in 9/11.

Yall are just, well, you're here. And since you're here, whenever I can, I try to get yall to answer some questions, since yall believe bushco didn't have a hand in 9/11, and so maybe I can find some reasons from yall to change my belief.

Not yet. Not a thing. Yall got nothing.

[SDuderstadt]

61. "I believe they had a hand in 9/11"

Once you can show some actual, concrete proof of that, perhaps you'll stop being the object of such derision.

[BeFree]

62. Heh

Maybe the reason I get such flak from yall is because I have ""... become a giant obstacle to addressing the real issues."" ??

Bwahahahaha!!

[SDuderstadt]

63. Man, you catch on quick....

maybe if you'd quit going around screaming "9/11 was an inside job" (with no evidence offered), you'd actually actually field some recruits and we could to the bottom of the Bush administration's actual crimes, dude.

[BeFree]

64. It's all my fault?

I'm in the way of you getting to the bottom of the Bush administrations actual crimes?

If that is what you believe, that is fucking goofy. And a whole bunch of expletives deleted.

Bwahahahaha!!!

[SDuderstadt]

65. Show me where I said it's "all your fault", dude.....

more of your dishonest reframing. This is precisely what I'm talking about. Despicable.

[SDuderstadt]

66. You don't see how your goofy bullshit camoflages...

the actual issues?

Jesus, dude...no wonder most of the room is at odds with you on a consistent basis. Fucking unbelievable.

[Make7]

67. That merely confirms why people shouldn't take you seriously, BeFree.

Why would anyone think you are serious when you claim to be seeking answers to change your beliefs from those whom you admit you do not take seriously? Why wouldn't you simply seek that information on your own? (It isn't like it's difficult to find.)

Based on your ill-informed posts on the topic of 9/11, it appears that you have not done much useful research despite spending a considerable amount of time discussing the subject. Perhaps if you did not seem to merely disregard whatever others whom you disagree with have to say, people could actually find a reason to begin to take you seriously.

Hell, when I read your posts I find it hard to believe you take yourself seriously. But by all means, keep asking those questions - just because people don't take you seriously doesn't mean we don't like having you around.
 

[BeFree]

60. You stated:

""The "truth movement" itself has become a giant obstacle to addressing the real issues.""

So, tell us, if you will, what the truth movement has done to be an obstacle to addressing the real issues.

You might want to start with a real issue and show how the truthers have been an obstacle to addressing that issue?

[William Seger]

17. Highly incredible people take quotes out of context (n/t)

[snooper2]

55. Truthy to Power!

nt