So that people know where you got your cut-and-paste - it's a 9/11 conspiracy site: http://911summary.com/ (it's proper forum etiquette, I think, to cite your sources, particularly when quoting them verbatim).Conny wrote:since you asked why i think what i do, and others do too:
Highly-Credible People Question 9/11
Yeah, but that had nothing to do with the "science" of the 9/11 attacks. Those had to do with whether the CIA should have disclosed classified videotapes of interviews with detainees to the 9/11 Commission.Conny wrote: 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
The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation".
Let's see the quote here. I think that the 9/11 summary website overstates what the co-chairs of the commission are saying. They haven't suggested anything like that 9/11 was an inside job or that there was any reason to think it was a controlled demolition or that Bush was involved, etc. They are acknowledging that their investigation probably got things wrong, and that some aspects of their investigation involved not getting full information from military and intelligence sources (but none of those issues concerned the hijacking of the planes and the downing of the towers by terrorists - they involve the history of Al Qaeta and the interrogations of Al Qaeta witnesses).Conny wrote: The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).
Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.
You have to look behind the inflammatory quote and see what they are talking about. Are you seriously suggesting that Tom Keane and Lee Hamilton think 9/11 was "an inside job" or that "Bush did 9/11" or that "it was a controlled demolition?" Give us a break.
Let's see the link to the whole quote. Remember, the mandate of the 9/11 commission was not just to find out what happened on 9/11 and who did it. They were also tasked with finding out about the history of the al Qaeda terrorist movement, investigating the ramifications for foreign policy, and determining ways to improve emergency response, as well as investigating details of terrorist financing and other issues.Conny wrote:
9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.
The idea of the Commission being "set up to fail" comes from its initial budget - $3 million. However, that budget was increased to $14 million.
He's not talking about an alternative to Al Qaeta having "done 9/11" or that the Towers might have been brought down by other than airplanes that day. Read the whole quote, and not just the quote mine, and recall that the mandate of the Commission was very broad. The alternatives he's referring to are alternatives for the political ramifications, the history and nature of Al Qaeta, etc. None of the 9/11 commissioners have ever stated that they think that the towers might have been brought down by a controlled demolition or that Al Qaeta did not commit the acts on 9/11/01. They've never stated, or implied, that Bush did 9/11, etc.Conny wrote:
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."
I'm not going to go through the whole thing you cut-and-pasted. But, that is of course the strategy of the 9/11 truthers - quote mine and then post endless screeds that do not get at the issue of what they're really claiming. It's a strategy reminiscent of the Moon Hoaxers who say that we never went tot he moon.
And, of course, there is the disclaimer of responsibility: "all we're saying is that we should ask questions." Nobody suggestions you can't ask whatever questions you want to ask. However, how seriously should we take you when you post a quote mine from Tom Keane where he is referring to being obstructed from getting interrogation videotapes from the CIA of Al Qaeta detainees, but you leave that part out and it's advanced without context with the definite implication that "even the 9/11 Commission knows that the towers were not or may not have been brought down by Al Qaeta that day." They've not said anything of the kind.
The towers were brought down that day by Al Qaeta and there is overwhelming evidence of that being the case. There is no evidence of a controlled demolition or other nonsense. If you want to discuss what information the CIA or the military may have held back about interviews and interrogations they had which might shed further light on the history of Al Qaeta, the political structure of Al Qaeta, the political ramifications of the incident and/or Al Qaeta, or the financing of Al Qaeta, well, that would be very interesting and in that sense I'm sure the Commission did get some things wrong. None of that says anything about the science on the 9/11 attacks.
yes the drama queen of hearts 
give me a kiss...
