|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 29)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Trancer-X |
It's funny that you guys think that personally attacking me with adolescent innuendo is going to make up for your absence of an argument.
I think that you keep forgetting that this is not the COR, so maybe you should go back there until you can learn to behave like adults.
BTW - donny, I really like your myspace profile. Those shades are pimpin. :haha:
http://www.myspace.com/donnybrasco |
|
|
| DJFreaq |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
There once was a Paranoid named Trancer.
He thought whacked-out websites had the answer.
From a dark little computer room, he decried;
"CONSPIRACY! That's why they all died!"
...when shown common sense, it only made the dork type faster. |
Awesome. Could have been executed better but it's still very awesome. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
[color=#33ccff]It's funny that you guys think that personally attacking me with adolescent innuendo is going to make up for your absence of an argument. |
Common Sense is a finite commodity...insanity (conspiracy theories) knows no bounds.
I'm fresh out of ways to show you common sense.
So I turned to the arts and poetry. :tongue3 |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
Common Sense is a finite commodity...insanity (conspiracy theories) knows no bounds.
I'm fresh out of ways to show you common sense. |
That's pretty funny coming from you.
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
So I turned to the arts and poetry. :tongue3 |
And you're not much good at that eigther. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
Common Sense is a finite commodity...insanity (conspiracy theories) knows no bounds.
|
I like how all you can do is ignorantly label people with opposing viewpoints. Why don't you try refuting the actual argument for a change - or is that too hard for someone with such low intelligence to accomplish? It must be, considering how your desperate attempts to detract from the topic itself have moved beyond arguing about the facts and completely into the realm to personal attacks.
It's cool though, I'd like to see this thread reach about 50 pages in length - with about 35 of them being relevant information pertaining to the topic at hand and the other 15 being some duuuuuumb kid who doesn't know how to argue but just keeps perpetuating the discussion with idiotic character assassinations. ;) |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
Essay: Outrageous Conspiracy Theories: A Report on a Conversation with Philip Zelikow
Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 12:42 PM
Thomas Hansen, Ph.D., Charlottesville, Virginia
It is nearly a year since the 9/11 Commission report was finished and the investigation of the events of 9/11 officially came to a close. But unofficially, many Americans have unanswered questions, and at least some of this hesitancy to close the book on 9/11 is because of the long-standing connection between the Bush Administration and the man who was the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, Dr. Philip Zelikow.
In a new book by Professor Emeritus David Ray Griffin of the Claremont School of Theology (The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Olive Branch Press, 2005), the case is made that the staff of the 9/11 Commission acted as gatekeepers who followed the official explanation of events of 9/11, rather than acting as true independent investigators. Griffin gives detailed and abundant evidence that he feels shows Philip Zelikow and his staff did not thoroughly investigate information that was contrary to what the Bush Administration had already accepted as the facts of 9/11. Last fall I had a conversation with Zelikow, which I feel supports the ideas and evidence of Professor Griffin’s book. But before I go into what Dr. Zelikow told me in person, let us look at the facts of Zelikow’s association with members of the Bush Administration over the past 15 years. The reason I present this “bio” of Dr. Zelikow is that, while we expect any person might receive a job offer based on whom they have worked with and have known in the past, this was not an ordinary job. This job was to oversee the official investigation of a most serious and consequential crime, and it occurred under the watch of President Bush’s Administration. Dr.Philip Zelikow, despite his fine record of integrity and scholarship, was clearly not independent from the Bush Administration. And since Bush, Cheney and Rice were three of the witnesses who testified before the Commission, their relationship with Zelikow is relevant.
Dr. Zelikow was on the National Security Council of President George H.W. Bush in the 1980s, working as an aide to National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. Condoleeza Rice was also an aide, working with Zelikow. In 1997, Zelikow and Rice co-authored a book. Also in the 1990s, Zelikow directed the Aspen Strategy Group, which included Rice, Scowcroft, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and others. Then after President George W. Bush was elected in 2000, Zelikow was appointed to the National Security Council transition team to provide recommendations to Rice as she accepted the position of National Security Advisor to Bush. Shortly after 9/11, Zelikow was appointed to President Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. In 2003, he was appointed Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, and took a leave from his position as Director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia.
After the 9/11 Commission Report was finished in July 2004, and the Commission was dissolved, Zelikow returned to his previous Miller Center position for a few months. Recently he left the Miller Center job completely and became Counselor of the Department of State, as announced by new Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on February 25, 2005. To quote Rice in the U.S. State Department press release of that day, “Philip and I have worked together for years, and I value his counsel and expertise. I appreciate his willingness to take on this assignment.” To quote the State Department press release, “Though the position has been vacant since 2001, the office of the Counselor is not new, having been part of the Department’s organization since 1909. The Counselor is a principal officer of the Department. As Counselor, Dr. Zelikow will serve as a senior policy advisor on a wide range of issues and will undertake special assignments as directed by the Secretary.”
So we see from these facts that Philip Zelikow’s work with members of the Bush Administration preceded his 9/11 Commission work for 15 years, and it has now resumed again, fulltime. Apparently we are supposed to assume that during 2003-2004, when he was Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, he was NOT “associated with” members of the Bush Administration as he had been before, and is again now. He was somehow able to distance himself from his past relationship with them, oversee the interviews of many witnesses, thoroughly investigate all of the evidence, and supervise the writing of the final 9/11 Commission Report without being influenced by his past association with them. And now he has been able to re-associate with them in good stead and be re-hired by the Bush Administration fulltime in an important position.
Dr. Zelikow gave a lecture at the Miller Center at UVA on September 10, 2004, titled, “The Road to 9/11,” and another on October 14, titled, “The Road From 9/11.” I attended the second of the two lectures and had an opportunity afterwards to have a conversation with him for several minutes. Among other things, I asked him why the Commission did not report more evidence that would answer the specific conspiracy concerns and questions that have been circulating regarding 9/11. I asked him why the Commission would let these concerns go unanswered and cause unnecessary doubt and dissent in the country.
I pointed out to Dr. Zelikow that one of many reasons this conspiracy talk about 9/11 continues is that there have been no photos released of the Boeing 757 wreckage inside the Pentagon, or outside either, as we normally see after a civilian plane crash. I asked if he has seen photos that show the wreckage of the 757. He said, yes, they have photos, and that he has seen them, and he also said that there are eyewitness reports from a dozen or so rescue workers at the Pentagon who confirm seeing those airplane parts in the wreckage. Well, I asked, can I or some other ordinary person see these photos? He said no. I asked if I could see the rescue worker’s statements, and he said no. I told him I had seen photos of the exterior Pentagon wall before it collapsed, and the hole where the plane entered appeared to be only about 20 feet in diameter, with unbroken window frames on either side of it where the wings and engines would have hit. This hole was much too small for a 757 to enter, and no wreckage of the plane is shown on the ground outside. He said those photos might have been “adjusted” in scale by someone to give the wrong impression. I asked if I or anyone else could see the National Transportation Safety Board report about the crash, or even about the 757 being picked up by radar as it approached Washington, and he said no. He said that the air traffic controllers at Dulles saw on their radar that a plane was approaching, without its transponder turned on, but they could not identify it just by radar. It was not one scheduled to come into Dulles, so they assumed it was landing at Reagan National, and when it dropped off their radar at the Pentagon they knew something was wrong. This was 35 minutes after the second World Trade Center Tower had been hit. I told him this explanation defied reason, but he said it is proven in the NTSB Report, which I can’t see.
I told Dr. Zelikow that this secrecy of the 9/11 Commission is still fueling conspiracy theories and distrust throughout the country and around the world. Then I asked him why he and the Commission and the staff don’t simply release photos and other information to the public so that we can rest assured that the Commission has fully investigated and answered these and other persistent questions. His answer was that the staff, including himself of course as Executive Director, made a conscious decision not to dignify these “outrageous conspiracy theories” by investigating them or reporting on them. In my opinion, this statement by Dr. Zelikow lends credence to Professor Griffin’s charge that Zelikow’s staff acted as a filter of what would be investigated and reported. Dr. Zelikow then told me he could see my point about the public wanting to know more, and he said he would go back to the Commission staff and re-visit the question of what to release. We’re still waiting.
Americans are concerned about the unanswered questions of 9/11. The reputable polling firm, Zogby International, conducted a poll of State of New York citizens in August 2004. Results showed that 49.3% of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall said that some of our leaders “Knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act.” Nearly 30% of registered Republicans agreed with this statement, despite the serious legal and political implications. Only 36% of the total respondents believed that the 9/11 Commission had “ answered all the important questions about what actually happened on September 11th,” and 66% want another full investigation of the “still unanswered questions.”
CSPAN2 recently broadcast, and rebroadcast, the speech Professor Griffin gave about his book to a standing-room-only crowd at the University of Wisconsin. People are paying attention and learning and speaking up. As the 9/11 Commission Report approaches its 1-year anniversary, many Americans are not celebrating, nor are they letting it all just fade away. We pay the salaries of those who have made conscious decisions to investigate and report only what fits their own version of 9/11 events, and their own vision of what the world should be like for them. It seems that “we the people” are considered by some officials to be just bystanders, without the right to see the evidence that our leaders have seen, and to decide for ourselves what is true. The Bush Administration has demonstrated a pervasive pattern of secrecy, deception, and arrogance, not just related to the 9/11 investigation. They have left the rest of us in the dark, but we can see well enough to fear that the Emperor has no clothes.
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/mod...article&sid=556 |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
July 22nd Congressional Briefing: The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later: A Citizens' Response - Did They Get It Right?
On July 22, 2005, Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) will host a full-day briefing, co-sponsored by Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), and other sponsors, for Members of Congress and their staffs in the Caucus Room, Cannon House Office Building, Room 345, Independence Ave. & First Street SE, from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
One year after the release of the 9/11 Commission Final Report many questions about what transpired on September 11, 2001 and who should be held accountable still remain unanswered. Serious flaws and omissions in the Report have been addressed by whistleblowers and academics. Well known researchers and authors have put the evnts of that day into historical perspective, and have suggested possible alternatives to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission regarding intelligence reform, domestic and foreign policy. The hard evidence has yet to be properly evaluated, and points to the need for full transparency, release of information, and continued probative investigations to have an effective, democratic response to the crisis that confronts all of us.
Family members of the victims of 9/11 will present a “Report Card” to address their still unanswered questions about the events of 9/11 and the lack of accountability for the security and intelligence failures that may have allowed these events to happen. Other experts will speak to the flaws in the 9/11 Commission’s process, including conflicts of interest, lack of transparency, investigative rigor and public input, and the many whistleblowers ignored by the Commission.
One panel of experts will explore the omissions and errors in the Commission’s Final Report, including the timeline of NORAD/FAA and P-56 defense responses that day, the suspects and plot, the background of Al Qaeda and bin Laden, the involvement of other countries, the obstruction of investigations by the FBI and CIA, and foreknowledge and forewarnings prior to the attacks. Another panel will place 9/11 into historical perspective and looka t the flawed assumptions that misled the Commission’s work, including the politics of illegal drugs, oil investments, covert operations and terrorism, as well as past covert operations like Contragate and the rise of the neo-conservatives and their agenda.
The last half of the day will be a critical examination by experts of the Commission’s recommendations concerning domestic and foreign policy and intelligence reforms, suggesting other alternatives and policies that could lead to real security and preserve civil liberties and democracy. Rep. McKinney will also address the need for further investigation and opening the evidence for public scrutiny.
A list of confirmed speakers so far includes:
Rober McIlvaine, father of 9/11 victim, member of September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows
Marilyn Rosenthal, mother of 9/11 victim, professor at U. of Michigan, expert on forewarnings to 9/11
Robert Baer, author of Sleeping with the Devil and See No Evil, former CIA
Nafeez Ahmed, author of The War on Truth, Director, Institute for Policy Research & Development
Jumana Musa, Amnesty International
Melvin Goodman, Fellow, Center for International Policy, former CIA
John Newman, Ph.D., professor University of West Virginia, former NSA analyst
Paul Thompson, author of The Terror Timeline
Elaine Cassel, author of The War on Civil Liberties, legal expert
William Michaels, author of No Greater Threat
Lauretta Napoleoni, author of Terror Incorporated: Tracing the Dollars Behind the Terror Networks
Anne Norton, author of Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire
Mary Rose Oaker, President, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination
Committee, legal expert
Peter Dale Scott, Ph.D., professor UC Berkeley, author of Drugs, Oil and War, former Canadian diplomat
Murray Weiss, author of The Man Who Warned America concerning FBI agent John O’Neill who died on 9/11
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/pres...albriefing.html |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later: A Citizens’ Response – Did They Get It Right?
-----------------------------
Rep. Cynthia McKinney:
I want to thank everyone for coming today to this briefing, as we take a scrutinizing look at the 9/11 Commission Final Report on the anniversary of its publication, and ask the question, “Did the commissioners get it right?”
I especially want to thank all of the panelists here today, some of whom have traveled across the Atlantic to be here.
And I wish to point out that without the families of victims of 9/11, none of us would be here today to hear them, as we shall very shortly share their evaluation of the work of the 9/11 Commission. And that is because there would not have been any Commission were it not for the stubborn refusal of family members of the victims of 9/11 to accept the silence and obstruction of the White House and Congress, on this issue.
And with us today we have two of the Jersey Girls; Mindy Kleinberg and Laurie Van Auken, who lost their husbands Alan and Kenneth on 9/11, and who co-chaired the Family Steering Committee. Bob McIlvaine, who lost his son Bobby on September eleven, and who works with 9/11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. And Marilyn Rosenthal, who lost her son, Josh on September eleven.
It is principally through the efforts of these and thousands more Americans whose families were touched by the tragedy of September eleven that this administration reluctantly agreed to establish the Commission. Yet, even once it was founded, the families had to fight to overcome underfunding, and to extend unreasonably short deadlines.
So when we talk of the 9/11 Commission, and its report, we must first thank the families for their perseverance in seeing to it that any commission was assembled at all.
We need to remind ourselves that this Commission’s task was to investigate the murder of nearly 3,000 persons. And while the Commission published a final report, there is today widespread skepticism, among the American public, about the Commission’s report. And many voices are calling for keeping the investigation alive.
Monica Gabriel, who lost her husband, and she is with us today, this morning, as a panelist.
Within days of the attacks, we were told that the perpetrators were from a terrorist network known as Al Qaeda. When reporters and members of the public asked for details, then Secretary of State Colin Powell promised that it would be made all clear to the world in a White Paper.
Nearly 4 years, and 2 wars later, we still have no official statement from the Bush administration on the specifics of who did it, who aided and financed them or what their origins are.
For the families who suffered so much loss this surely feels like adding insult to injury. They deserve to know everything that there is to be known about how their loved ones died. They fought for an investigation that would be non-partisan, independent, and that would get to the bottom of things. But, as work got underway, not only did the Commission run up against obstruction by the administration and non-cooperation from government agencies, many, if not most of the commissioners themselves had conflicts of interest.
And several commissioners spoke out about problems in the process; the lack of investigative rigor and heavy reliance on previous work the Joint-Commission Report, the drafting of recommendations before the investigative process got rolling, the failure to take testimony under oath or in many cases to even take transcripts.
As the original deadline approached, the Commission’s work was half done and only after the families fought for it was the deadline extended.
Then last year, we got the final report. An extensive, prosaically impressive report. But as some of us sat down to read it, the errors and omissions immediately jumped out at us.
How was it that it took over an hour after the first transponder went off before planes were scrambled to meet the threat? All of them too late.
What happened to those reports that surfaced within months of September 11th stating that 7 or more of the alleged hijackers had come forward and claimed that they were victims of stolen identities, they were alive and well, living in Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Tunisia? Why did the Commission choose not even to address this?
What about the terrorist Omar Said Sheikh? Now sitting in a Pakistani prison on charges of participating in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Pearl. According to Indian intelligence, this man received orders from a Pakistani General to transfer $100,000 to Mohammed Atta. People all over the world are talking about this story. But not a word about it in the Report.
What about Osama bin Laden and his role in the Mujahadin backed by the CIA in the 1980’s to fight the Soviets? The Commission didn’t go there.
This morning, we will be hearing about these omissions, errors, and about the historical background of September 11th from the collection of experts we have assembled. In the afternoon we will be looking at the Report’s recommendations. And I think we will find very little in them that challenges the Bush administration’s foreign policy and its war on terrorism.
In fact, its recommendations for centralizing America’s intelligence networks seems designed to further that agenda.
And we will be hearing about how under the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and the dual legal system that has been enacted to allow detainees to be held indefinitely without facing judge or jury, how our Civil Liberties are being eroded in the name of fighting the terrorists. As if the term ‘terrorist’ alone tells us all we need to know about our enemies.
We need to know about our enemies, if we’re going to reclaim a future free from the fear of terrorist attacks and weapons of mass destruction. We cannot afford to shy away from inconvenient truths. Many of you may find what you hear today to be inconvenient information. But Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but times of challenge and controversy.”
I encourage you to engage with the issues that are raised, and if you don’t agree, or don’t like what you hear, challenge it.
I believe that we should take in what every reasonable person has to say, to inform our decisions, because that’s the best way to find the truth.
And in our pursuit of the truth, I encourage you to emulate the courage and the determination of the September 11th families, in their struggle to know, what really happened.
Thank you very much, for being here today.
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.nowpublic.com/node/16470 |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
BTW: If this is your attempt at some sort of retributive come-back, it takes the cake for weakest come-back ever.
If you have however, somehow deduced that this is actually me, I can only marvel at what tangled conspiracy web you had to crawl through in order to come to the conclusion that this is me? :crazy: |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
Information Warfare: Ideas as Weapons in the Era of Deception
At the core of the September 11, 2001 attack is a series of stupendous lies, including:
- That jet impacts and fires induced the mammoth steel-framed Twin Towers to explode into dust and shards of steel long after the impacts.
- That fires caused 47-story steel-framed Building 7 to implode with all the features of a standard controlled demolition.
- That Islamic terrorists hijacked four jetliners with knives and flew them all over the Northeast for nearly two hours without encountering any resistance from the trillion-dollar US Air Force.
- That top officials and Bush's Secret Service detail remained unaware that the country was under attack long after it began to be broadcast on TV worldwide.
Adding to the absurdity of the official story are facts such as:
- The responsible commanders were promoted after the attack.
- The evidence from collapses of the WTC skyscrapers -- the largest and most unanticipated structural failures in world history according to the official explanation -- was destroyed as rapidly as possible.
- Only $600,000 was allocated to study the collapses before the steel had been recycled, and the all-volunteer investigators were barred from the site.
- There has not been a single successful prosecution of any of the supposed perpetrators anywhere in the world for direct involvement int the attack.
How could such glaring red flags be ignored by the vast majority of Americans, and indeed most people throughout the world? To grasp how this is possible it is helpful to understand the history and sophistication of the "weapons of mass deception" that are used regularly to achieve the aims that the powerful could not attain through legitimate means.
There are many examples of intentional deceptions that, unlike the Big Lie of 9/11/01, are widely recognized, such as the specter of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction concocted by the administrations of George W. Bush and Tony Blair as a pretext to invade Iraq. Other less contemporary examples are described on this site under Historical Precedents for 9/11/01. With each operation, the perpetrators gain more experience about how the news media and the public will react -- experience useful in the planning of subsequent operations. For example, despite reports in local news outlets that responders to the Oklahoma City bombing discovered unexploded bombs inside the building, national media reports remained free of any mention of such contradictions to the official story. It is likely that the success of the cover-up of this operation emboldened the planners of the 9/11/01 attack.
The September 11, 2001 attack was not only bolder than previous attacks, it also likely involved the most careful planning of any psychological operation ever undertaken. We can see in its design and cover-up multiple layers of deception: should the outermost layer be exposed as fraudulent, the deeper layers will serve to continue to obscure the truth. Broadly speaking, there are three layers of cover-up:- The mainstream official story: This is the story as told by the mainstream media since the day of the attack.
- The "limited hangouts": These are revelations that seem shocking to adherents to the official story, but fall far short of the whole truth. Examples are the many warnings of the attack that the administration should have acted on.
- The poison pills: These are extreme ideas that have no basis in evidence and serve to discredit evidence-based research about the core facts of the attack through guilt-by-association. Examples are the no-planes and pod-planes ideas popularized by propaganda such as In Plane Site, and racist ideas like "the Jews did it."
Remarkably, it appears that the vast majority of propaganda supporting all three layers of deception was produced, not by attack insiders, but by people exploited by the perpetrators using psychological engineering. The perpetrators are apparently highly expert at designing memes that effectively recruit people to unwittingly support such diversions from the true nature of the attack.
http://911review.com/infowars.html |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
BTW: If this is your attempt at some sort of retrobutive come-back, it takes the cake for weakest come-back ever.
If you have however, somehow deduced that this is actually me, I can only marvel at what tangled conspiracy web you had to crawl through in order to come to the conclusion that this is me? :crazy: |
What does retrobutive mean? I'm not able to find a Moron to English dictionary anywhere online so any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
What does retrobutive mean? I'm not able to find a Moron to English dictionary anywhere online so any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks. |
Simple typo, genius. "Retributive".
I doubt the word is that foreign to you that you couldn't still figure it out.:crazy:
How about answering the question now? |
|
|
|
|
