Which report is considered "The Official Report"?

[zipplewrath]

I usually assume people are discussing the 9/11 commission report. However, Bob Graham and company came out with their report much earlier. Or is it the NIST report?

[hack89]

1. Depends what you are talking about

911 CR covers the events leading up to 911. The NIST report deals solely with the collapse of the WTCs. The other report of note is the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance report.

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

[SDuderstadt]

2. You just put your finger on the problem...

the CT's amongst us try to conflate all the various reports into an "official story" and claim the only source for information was "Bushco". It's this blatant inaccuracy that sparks some of the more protracted disputes here.

[zipplewrath]

3. Okay, anyone wanna nominate the "best" alternative explanation?

Best is probably defined by

1) complete
2) self consistent
3) most factually based containing the least amount of speculation
4) devoid of most of the classic logical fallacies like false dichotomies, begging the question, post hoc fallacies, etc.
5) is focused on alternative explanations, not just tearing apart the "official story".

[LARED]

4. Don't get your hopes up

After nearly eight years no one has even remotely come close to meeting your criteria.

[noise]

5. The criteria is nonsense

when many 9/11 records are classified. It's a dishonest debunking tactic to demand explanation and then delight in criticizing anyone who offers speculation by claiming they are putting forth baseless conspiracy theories.

Government officials could make the questions go away tomorrow if they would conduct themselves in an honorable manner. Instead they hide behind propaganda, secrecy and fearmongering. One is left to wonder why debunkers continuously ignore such an absurdly low standard of conduct.

[zipplewrath]

6. Okay

How many of the criteria is it reasonable to meet?

[noise]

7. I'm not defending 9/11 conspiracy theories

I agree with some of the criticism of the 9/11 truth movement. My objection is the double standard. Why should the people with the most access to the evidence and the witnesses be held to such a low standard of conduct? As I've stated repeatedly, one need not read "9/11 conspiracy literature" to realize something is very wrong with official explanations. Bamford, Suskind, Mayer, Wright and Shenon all detail questionable aspects that have never been credibly addressed.

[zipplewrath]

8. Pick one

Can we pick one for me to start with? Which would you suggest for "questionable aspects"?

[noise]

9. CIA conduct in relation to al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar

Tenet claims he was freaked out about a possible terrorist attack in the summer of '01 yet at the same time Alec Station knew two al Qaeda operatives were in the US and withheld this information from the FBI. This information was withheld for about 20 months as the FBI was finally alerted in late August.

The MFR's on the NARA site for intel agents who could shed light on what happened are pending classification review. We've never heard a public word from either chief of the FBI and CIA Bin Laden units. FBI agent Ali Soufan requested information about the January 5-8 Malaysian meeting as part of the Cole investigation but was told the CIA had no information to share. Author Lawrence Wright has stated this conduct was tantamount to obstruction of justice.

Edited for readability.

[zipplewrath]

13. What does he suggest it could tell us?

What would he expect to find? Or better put, why is he focused on this bit of info?

[noise]

45. Because it is a bizarre contradiction

Here are various explanations for Alec Station's conduct:

1) Poor cable trafficking/watchlisting procedures.

2) Turf battle.

3) Insufficient personnel/funding.

4) Legal restrictions (i.e. not enough police state power).

5) Incompetence.

6) Bureaucratic inefficiencies (i.e. too much red tape and lack of inter-agency coordination).

Two Alec Station officials assigned to Alec Station in early January 2000 told James Bamford that they were ordered to withhold from the FBI the fact that al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar had US visas. The CIA IG report executive summary states that 50-60 CIA personnel had seen cables that mentioned the US visa information.

If the FBI was told in January 2000 (or even January 2001) that al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were in the US then there would have been plenty of time to get FISA warrants and uncover the 9/11 plot. So it seems CIA withholding ensured the 9/11 plot would not be thwarted by the FBI.

[zipplewrath]

54. Occum's razor

Most of those explanations tend to fall in line with few of my general rules such as Occum's razor and my other favorite.

"Never ascribe to cunning what can be explained by incompetence". #2 and #6 are a couple more of my most common explanations. But that probably comes from watching the government attempt to work on too many occasions.

[noise]

73. Rebuttal

1. Incompetence=nonsense. Orders to withhold information rule that out.

2. Turf battle=bizarre. One, the FBI had jurisdiction. Period. Two, CIA officials can't have it both ways--either they wanted to prevent attack or they didn't. If they did then they had to share information unless they wanted to conduct an illegal operation of their own. Obviously they didn't do so as the attack went forward. Three, Rice, Hadley and Clarke didn't have any turf battle issues. What were they doing to ensure CIA/FBI cooperation?

3. Gorelick wall=nonsense. Alhazmi and Almihdhar were linked to al Qaeda by the NSA by 1999. They were linked to Cole plotters in late 2000 by way of the Malaysia meeting. CIA witholding information had nothing to do with the "wall." FBI UBLU agent Corsi knew they were linked to a Cole plotter (Bin Attash) but withheld that information. Bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings in 1998 which presumably gave US law enforcement the legal authority to surveil/arrest/deport al Qaeda operatives.

4. Lack of CT funding=absurd. The executive summary of the CIA IG report stated that Tenet diverted CT funding to other areas. The funding issue comes up because acting Director Pickard asked AG Ashcroft for increased funding and reportedly Ashcroft said CT wasn't a priority. This does nothing to explain the strange conduct at the CIA and FBI in the lead up to 9/11.

[JackRiddler]

112. Bravo, bravo. Simple & complete. Endorsed.

[JackRiddler]

111. Good thing you've got platitudes to replace thinking!

Here we go again. "Occam's razor" is not a scientific law. It is a heuristic (rule of thumb) for formulating hypotheses in the natural sciences: minimize the number of "entities" (assumptions of things one cannot yet see) while trying to explain all of the known facts. In itself, violation of "Occam's razor" is not a falsification.

Furthermore, it is laughably inapplicable to human politics, first of all because humans can deceive. When a rock rolling down a hill can issue a press release claiming it isn't falling, get back to me about "Occam's razor." (Poor guy, I wonder if he would have liked knowing that one day his name would be abused as a slogan on behalf of faux political naivete.) Secondly, there is the matter of just which facts apply and may be presented as relevant to a given case, something that courts spend many hours determining.

As for your "Never ascribe..." saying, really one should stop at "never" and laugh. How about, never make up absolutist platitudes that determine your conclusion in advance of examination?

"Cunning," deception, criminality, these all indisputably exist and are common aspects of human affairs, no doubt including on this very board (i.e., deception and cunning, presumably not criminality!). Governments including that of the United States have a long and rich track record of harboring agents and officials who engage in criminal behavior.

Furthermore, the false dichotomy is truly pungent. Cunning and incompetence are not mutually exclusive categories. Someone can be cunning and incompetent. In fact, widespread incompetence in government is the breeding ground and ideal environment for corruption and criminal activity. In fact, stupidity and corruption often go together in the same people; and yet many stupid, corrupt people prosper beyond any rationally based expectation. (See: Bush)

Just of curiousity, would you apply that ridiculous saying to Iranian affairs? How about Russia?

[rschop]

71. re: Because it is a bizarre contradiction

This has already been thoroughly examined in great detail and completely explained.

There no longer is any bizarre contradiction!

[noise]

72. The contradiction involves

the publicly stated concern about al Qaeda in contrast to the behind the scenes blocking of investigations.

As for CIA motives I don't know. You have put forth a theory and I give you credit for doing so. That said, it seems like a stretch to think some CIA officials let 9/11 go forward because they were worried about obstruction of justice charges for the attacks on the Cole or African embassies.

1) As we have seen with 9/11 the CIA has the ability to use national security classification to conceal much of their conduct. Thus any evidence of CIA malfeasance could be shielded by way of classification procedures.

2) One would think the DOJ would have their hands full if they tried to pursue a criminal case against CIA officials (especially the CIA Director). Look at the torture program. We have plenty of evidence the CIA broke torture laws and obstructed justice. Yet there has been no legal action.

3) If the CIA was truly worried about obstruction of justice charges in previous attacks but wanted to prevent 9/11 then they could have killed al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. Are we to believe the CIA is above such a thing?

[rschop]

79. re; it seems like a stretch to think some CIA officials let 9/11 go forward because

From prior post:

"That said, it seems like a stretch to think some CIA officials let 9/11 go forward because they were worried about obstruction of justice charges for the attacks on the Cole or African embassies."

IMHO

As I said before it was clear from my analysis that the CIA had forbidden Tom Wilshire, former deputy chief of the Bin Laden unit from turning over the information on the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing and that was the principle reason this information was withheld from the FBI.

But we now know that Wilshire and Corsi used every possible means at their disposal to shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi when these al Qaeda terrorists were discovered inside of the US, knowing that this would mean that no one would find them quickly. Since both Wilshire and Corsi as well of 50-60 people at the CIA including the entire CIA hierarchy knew about the huge al Qaeda attack about to take place inside of the US, it is impossible to believe that they also did not know by shutting down Bongardt's investigation thousands of Americans were going to die as a direct result of their actions.

It was hard for me to image that because of this restriction on passing this information to the FBI criminal investigators, that they would let thousands of Americans perish in these attacks. So I was trying to find an additional motivation for why they shut this investigation down. It is clear Corsi and Wilshire and many other people at the CIA and FBI HQ knew they all would end up in prison for years if Bongardt continued with his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

According to the CIA IG report 50-60 people at the CIA alone were aware of Mihdhar and Hazmi, knew they were inside of the US, and many of these knew these two terrorists were actually inside of the US in order to take part in a horrific terrorist attack that would kill thousands of Americans. And yet they all kept silent and intentionally allowed this huge attack to take place. The CIA IG's own report listed many of the people who took part in this criminal conspiracy to hide information from the FBI criminal investigators, as did the DOJ IG report.

From these reports, it was possible to identify most of the people who knew about Mihdhar and Hazmi, since they were named in these reports. Since almost all of these people withheld this information from FBI Agent Bongardt and his team, or blocked other investigations of al Qaeda terrorists inside of the US with no real explanation of why they did this, it would appear that this criminal conspiracy ultimately included; the CIA Bin Laden unit, with Clark Shannon, and Tom Wilshire, the Yemen CIA station, the Thailand CIA station, the handler for the joint FBI/CIA source, virtually the entire hierarchy of the CIA including Richard B, head of the Bin Laden unit, Cofer Black head of the CIA CTC section, John Gannon, CIA Operations, and George Tenet Director of the CIA, and groups at FBI HQ including the Bin Laden unit with FBI IOS Agent Dina Corsi, her boss Rod Middleton, the RFU with Michael Maltbie and David Frasca, and even the Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh. It is impossible to believe that Michael Rolince, head of the ITOS unit, was not also involved since both the RFU and UBL units were in his ITOS section and reported directly to him.

Furthermore since Wilshire had been moved over in mid-May 2001 to be liaison to Rolince, Rolince had to know Wilshire was a CIA spy being planted into the single FBI organization that controlled all FBI criminal investigations in the world. Since Wilshire was so high up in the CIA hierarchy, this move had to have been initiated by George Tenet and Cofer Black, and agreed to by Louis Freeh and Michael Rolince. Since Freeh and Rolince knew Wilshire was a spy coming into the FBI who might cause massive damage to FBI criminal investigations, and could do nothing to stop this move, the CIA must have had some horrific information to have forced Freeh and Rolince to agree to this. It is also clear that Rolince in effect forced Corsi to work for Wilshire, as he carried out his criminal activities at the FBI to keep information hidden from FBI criminal investigators.

Rolince had to know when Wilshire set up the meeting in New York with the FBI Cole investigators on June 11, 2001, right after being moved to the FBI, that he was doing this only to make sure that the information the CIA had from the Kuala Lumpur meeting had never been uncovered by the Cole bombing investigators.

We now know from the DOJ IG report that both Wilshire and Corsi were aware well before this June 11, 2001 meeting with the FBI Cole bombing investigators, that Khalid Bin Attash had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting planning the Cole bombing with Mihdhar and Hazmi. It is also clear after August 22, 2001 that both Wilshire and Corsi knew and even participated in criminal actions to continuing to hide this photograph of Attash taken at that Kuala Lumpur meeting from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, see page 302 DOG IG report.

Since both Corsi and Wilshire had criminally obstructed this investigation of the Cole bombing numerous times, they knew if Bongardt continued with any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, and then obtained the photographs of Mihdhar and Hazmi along with the photograph of Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur planning the Cole bombing, Bongardt would have immediately known that the June 11, 2001 meeting set up in New York City had been a CIA sting on the FBI and his team.

At this meeting, Bongardt had been shown three photos of Mihdhar by FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi, one that even included Hazmi, taken at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting. Bongardt and his team was then asked by CIA officer Clark Shannon, if they could recognize anyone in these photos. When Bongardt said he could not and asked; “Who are these people in these photographs and what do they have to do with the Cole bombing?”, neither Corsi or Shannon would give him any answers other to say the wall did not allow this information to be given to him.

But both Shannon and Corsi knew when Bongardt asked this question that the people in these photographs, Mihdhar and Hazmi, had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with Walid Bin Attash actually planning the Cole bombing and yet both withheld this information from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team, the very FBI agents who were assigned to investigate this horrific crime.

Since this meeting had actually been set up by CIA officer Tom Wilshire, it is clear Wilshire forbid both Shannon and Corsi from giving this information to the FBI Cole investigators. This was then part of a massive crime to hide this meeting and the names of the people who were at this meeting planning the Cole bombing.

The information on the US government web site for the Moussaoui trial, http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/, the Substitution for the Testimony of John, aka Tom Wilshire, also shows:

That Wilshire knew Khalid al-Mihdhar and by association Nawaf al-Hazmi were going to take part in the next big al Qaeda operation in July 2001, see his email on July 23, 2001, back to his CIA CTC managers. In his earlier email on July 5, 2001 he had already indicated that the people at the Kuala Lumpur meeting were connected to the massive warnings of a huge al Qaeda attack that the CIA and FBI HQ had been receiving since April 2001, see the DOJ IG report.

That Wilshire and FBI IOS HQ Agent Dina Corsi, at the FBI Bin Laden unit, were told on August 22, 2001, that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the USA. They knew immediately that these terrorists were inside of the US preparing to take part in this massive al Qaeda attack the CIA and others at the FBI Bin Laden unit were already clearly aware of.

That Wilshire had actually twice requested permission from his CTC managers, in July 2001, to send the information on the Kuala Lumpur meetings and the people who were there, to the FBI Cole bombing investigators, but was denied both times. His managers would have been Richard B, Chief of the Bin Laden unit, Cofer Black head the CIA CTC unit and his boss, George Tenet, Director of the CIA. This is the information that would have prevented that attacks on 9/11 and the very group at the FBI that had the resources to actually have prevented these attacks.

Notice that while it is clear that Wilshire and Corsi were trying to stay out of prison, I did not come to any conclusions on why Wilshire's managers forbid him from giving this information to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing. Their reasons are a whole different issue, and I did not find any documentation on their motives for doing this.

We do know however that at the exact same time Tenet and Black had forbidden Wilshire two times from giving the information on the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting to the FBI criminal investigators, they were having an urgent meeting in the White House with Rice and Clark, on July 10, 2001, describing a huge al Qaeda attack just about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans.

We also know from Tenet's testimony to the 9/11 Commission on April 14, 2004 that Tenet was hiding his meetings in August 2001 with the President of the United States from the American public. At this hearing Tim Roemer asked the question: "If you, (George Tenet), knew that the al Qaeda terrorists were about to mount a huge attack inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans why did he not tell the President about this in August?"

Tenet answered that he was in Washington DC and the President was in Crawford Texas, and that is why he had not told the President.

Then Roemer asked why did he not pick up the telephone and call the President and give him this horrific information. After all, if the Director of the CIA had information on an al Qaeda attack inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans, it would only seem logical that he would contact George Bush, the President at his earliest opportunity, and let him also know right away about this horrific terrorist attack, in order to save all of these people from being killed in these attacks. This only seems logical!

If there were ever a real ticking time bomb scenario, this had to be it.

But Tenet said he had not called the President in August to give him this information, and could not go beyond this as an explanation. He simply could offer up no possible explanation at all on why he had not called the President of the United States and given him this information, and main stream media seemed unusually uncurious about any of this.

But Bill Harlow, the CIA spokesman came out after Tenet’s testimony and said Tenet had just misspoken numerous times, which is CIA speak for lied. He said that Tenet had flown down to Crawford on August 17, and has seen the President in Washington on August 31, and six more times in September before the attacks on 9/11.

We now also know Tenet had also flown down to Crawford on August 24, 2001 and had a meeting with the President on August 25, 2001. This is after Tenet learned on August 23, that Moussaoui had been arrested after the FBI thought he was a terrorist learning to fly a 747, and also after he learned on August 23 that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans.

So what did George Tenet Director of the CIA, who had all of this horrific information tell the President of the United States of America at these meetings. It seems that after 7 1/2 year that we still do not know. But we know he was willing to lie to all of the American people and to the 9/11 Commission, committing a major crime of perjury, in order to hide these meetings with the President. But isn’t this what psychologists call "consciousness of guilt", something one does only if they have committed a crime!

It is now clear that after August 22, 2001 both Wilshire and Corsi participated in several criminal actions to shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, even beyond not giving Bongardt the information that Bin Attash had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi actually planning the Cole bombing. In fact Bongardt only found out about this fact that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US when FBI supervisor at the New York office, John Liguori, accidentally send Corsi's EC to him.

In DE #681, also found on the Moussaoui court official web site, email on August 29, 2001, from Dina Corsi to John Liguori (the FBI manager at the New York FBI field office who had directed Corsi's EC to Bongardt), Dina Corsi says:

”There is material in the EC from which has not been approved and which is not cleared for criminal investigators (meaning the FBI Cole bombing investigators on the Cole bombing). Steve(this is Steve Bongardt) and Rod, (this is Rod Middleton, her boss) and I spoke with him and tried to explain why this case had to stay on the intel side of the house.”

Unfortunately DE #448, on the same web site, is the actual NSA release that Dina Corsi received from the NSA, and shows that this release had already been approved on August 27, 2001, and sent to Corsi on August 28, 2001. This release clearly said that the NSA information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting and the names Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi who were attending this important al Qaeda planning meeting, was cleared by the NSA to be sent to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing in New York. When Corsi tells Bongardt that this information had not yet been approved and is not cleared for criminal investigators, it is clear she is lying in a desperate attempt to shut down Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

OOPS!

When Bongardt asked Corsi to get a ruling from the NSLU, to see if he could take part in the investigation of Mihdhar, since he knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US to take part in a horrific al Qaeda attack that would kill many Americans, Corsi told him on August 29, 2001 after she consulted NSLU attorneys, that the NSLU had ruled he could not be part of any investigation and search for Mihdhar. Since Bongardt could not see any connection to any FISA warrant when the NSA had obtained this information, he was sure that the NSA and NSLU would readily approve this information going to him and his team.

And FBI Agent Bongardt was right. But this information never got to him! From page 538, footnote 81 in the 9/11 Commission’s own report we learn that Corsi had fabricated Attorney Sherry Sabol’s ruling, and that Sabol had ruled that Bongardt could be part of any investigation of Mihdhar since the NSA information was not connected to any FISA warrant.

Yet another OOPS!

The 9/11 Commission stated as one of their moist important conclusions that:

"We could not understand why the CIA had never connected Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi to the warnings of a massive al Qaeda attack the CIA and FBI HQ were both aware of".

But this email from Wilshire on July 23, 2001 and July 5, 2001 would have rendered this conclusion inaccurate. The testimony of Corsi shows that FBI HQ intentionally shut down the investigation of Bongardt even when they knew this would block the only FBI criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that could have prevented the upcoming al Qaeda attacks that took place on 9/11, attacks both the CIA and FBI HQ knew would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans.

Had this information been brought out at the 9/11 Commission hearings, it would have caused a big stink when the American people found out the our own intelligence agencies had intentionally allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

The conclusion that the 9/11 Commission reached that the CIA and FBI were not criminally involved in allowing the attacks on 9/11 was a conclusion the 9/11 Commission was chartered to make since their primary job was to cover up the criminal actions at both the CIA and FBI HQ and prove to the American people that our intelligence agencies could never have done such a thing. It was therefore necessary that this evidence be withheld until long after the 9/11 Commission had reached their final conclusions.

Since the 9/11 Commission had subpoena power and had access to all of the DOJ IG reports that now make up the “Substitution of John” and all of the other interviews, emails and other evidence items that are now part of the record of the Moussaoui trial, it is clear that the 9/11 Commission report reached conclusions that were contrary to the very evidence they were already aware of. One might says this renders the entire effort of the 9/11 Commission a complete fraud.

The web site www.eventson911.com has a more complete summary of all of this information!

[noise]

106. Contradictions

1) (As previously mentioned) Publicly stated concern about al Qaeda vs. withheld information, diverted CT funding, blocked investigations. IMO this is notable because it suggests al Qaeda isn't what we have been told. If al Qaeda was actually a mix of intel plants (agent provocateurs) and willing recruits then we have an explanation for all the bizarre intel community conduct. High level officials could have known that al Qaeda was actually a strategy of tension operation (i.e. Gladio-like) while agents could have been told that the intel plants were infiltrating al Qaeda in order to thwart their plans. Thus, in this scenario the withholding of information by agents could be viewed as a patriotic act.

2) Obstructed investigations due to concern of criminal prosecution vs. a paper trail of the obstructed investigations and incredibly even the likely result of the obstruction (i.e. a horrific terrorist attack). If avoiding criminal prosecution was the motive for obstructing the Cole investigation then why weren't same officials even more panicked about the consequences of obstruction leading to another attack? Did they somehow know that nobody in the intel community would be held accountable for 9/11?

It all remains a mystery as the interviews with all the involved agents are classified and none of them have ever been interviewed by the media. We hear all the time that skeptics of 9/11 are insulting the victims and their families. How insulting is it for the intel community to put out all sorts of bullshit and then hide behind national security classification?

[noise]

109. Soufan won't explain what happened

...

In the months before the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on America, Mr Soufan was leading an FBI investigation into the 2000 bombing of the American warship, the USS Cole, in Yemen. He asked the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) - several times - for information he knew they had about the bombers and their meetings in Malaysia, but the information was not handed over.

In fact, the masterminds of the USS Cole bombing had met up with two plotters of the Sept 11, 2001 attacks in America. The CIA knew they were in America. They had known for over a year.

When Mr Soufan came to know of this fact on Sept 12, 2001, he ran into the bathroom and threw up, said The New Yorker.

Speaking to The Straits Times, Mr Soufan declines to elaborate on this moment, or to discuss his involvement in the 9/11 investigation.

He will say only that it was a 'painful' time, and that The New Yorker article was 'very accurate'.

...

http://counterideology.multiply.com/journal/item/263/Just_sharing_-_Battling_terrorism_The_Straits_Times_Singapore_29_Aug._2008">Just sharing - Battling terrorism (The Straits Times (Singapore), 29 Aug. 2008)

Some of the same officials involved in the withholding/obstructed investigations were leading advocates of torture. Soufan testified that the torture program was not only ineffective but that legal methods were in fact working. One reason the public has been deceived into accepting the legitimacy of police state tactics is because the bizarre contradictory conduct of intel officials/agents was covered up. Suskind, Mayer, Bamford, Wright, etc. have all characterized the police state tactics as an overreaction by officials who felt guilty for failing to prevent 9/11. The overreaction theory only makes sense if one simply pretends that all the bizarre pre-9/11 conduct didn't take place. I'm not sure how doing so is either patriotic or indicative of good journalism. Why should we have to guess at what the CIA/FBI/NSA were doing on matters of such importance? Why should anyone find it acceptable that the same officials who supposedly "dropped the ball" were later REWARDED (with promotions!) for doing so?

[rschop]

110. re; Why Soufan won't explain what happened

From prior post: Why should we have to guess at what the CIA/FBI/NSA were doing on matters of such importance?

We don't have to.

We now have almost the complete account of what took place prior to the attacks on 9/11. The account that I put together was based on the DOJ IG report combined with the account of FBI Special Agent FBI Agent Ali Soufan, the lead FBI investigator on the Cole bombing.

Later, information was added from the Moussaoui trial. It wasn’t that any of these accounts were in general completely wrong, but each report just left out critical information that later accounts filled in. Almost all of the government reports intentionally tried to obfuscate some of the most damning information, although after some practice it was reasonably easy to see where this had been done. It turns out it was all there!

Soufan’s account had been dictated by FBI Special Agent Steve Bongardt to Lawrence Wright. Bongardt was Soufan’s assistant on the Cole bombing investigation. Soufan account was very accurate , but Wright had complete failed to read the DOJ IG report and the information from the Moussaoui trail so his report while very complete on the FBI investigation by Soufan and Bongardt, missed major parts of the story on 9/11. Wright also had failed to read the 9/11 Commission report, even though that report had been released almost 2 years before he finished his work on Soufan.

By combing Soufan’s account with the DOJ IG report and then later adding in the material that came out of the Moussaoui trial, it was possible to finally put together in almost every detail, a complete account of what took place prior to the attacks on 9/11 that had allowed there attacks to take place.

The DOJ IG report was in fact very detailed by itself, it just intentional left out key details, like almost any mention of Ali Soufan or his investigation, and had tried to deliberately obfuscate information critical to understanding the account of 9/11. Since the DOJ IG knew that both the planning of the Cole bombing and the attacks on 9/11 took place at the January 2000 al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur, leaving out Soufan’s account makes no sense. Did the DOJ IG not know who the lead investigator on the Cole bombing was?

I don’t think so!

It was clear from these records that the CIA working with groups inside of the FBI HQ they had subjugated, the ITOS section and the office of the Director of the FBI, had criminally withheld material evidence from the FBI Cole investigators. They then finally shut down the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, and in fact of all al Qaeda terrorists found to be inside of the US, when FBI criminal investigators discovered that these al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US preparing to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack. When the CIA and FBI HQ shut down Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and FBI Agent Harry Samit’s investigation of Moussaoui, they clearly knew that this would all but make it all but impossible to find Mihdhar and Hazmi in time to prevent the al Qaeda attacks that both the CIA and FBI HQ were aware of.

There are just a few questions that remain, like why did Tom Wilshire withhold the information on Mihdhar prior to the attack on the Cole?

I speculated that since Mihdhar and Ali Mohamed had closely worked together on the east Africa bombings and Mohammed was a al Qaeda spy inside of the FBI, CIA and Army Special force, that was why the CIA and FBI did not want Mihdhar’s name given to the FBI criminal investigators prior to the Cole bombing. They were afraid any investigation of Mihdhar would lead back to Mohamed and ultimately embarrass both the FBI and the CIA. but I clearly stated that was only speculation and had no proof of this.

Why did the FBI and CIA not want the FBI agents and CIA officers involved in criminally obstructing the Cole bombing investigation to talk to the press?

That is easy. Since both agencies had deliberately and intentionally allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11, and that had resulted in the murder of almost 300 people, they did not want this fact exposed to the Americana public out of fear it might reflect badly on their agencies.

The 9/11 Commission was clearly set up to hide the fact that these agencies had intentionally allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11. And they succeeded, although almost every American today feels that the story that came out of the 9/11 Commission was somehow not at all right and that all of the facts behind this account have never been revealed. How could the CIA have known about and even photographed three of the al Qaeda terrorists that took part in the attack on 9/11 at an al Qaeda planning meeting 21 months prior to these attacks on 9/11 and somehow just never give this information to the FBI criminal investigators? To the American people this did not even begin to pass the smell test.

All of the pathetic excuses that the CIA gave to the 9/11 Commission for why this had happened clearly seemed like just unadulterated BULL SHIT!

It turns out however by carefully making time lines of the DOJ IG report, and adding in the information from Ali Soufan's account to fill in the missing pieces, you could get a complete story on 9/11. It was all there it just took a big effort, over more than 4 ½ years, to put it all back together again. The material from the Moussaoui trail just reinforced this account with iron clad proof that these agencies had intentionally and deliberately allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

[Kalun D]

51. THAT'S AN EASY ONE

Okay, anyone wanna nominate the "best" alternative explanation?

The Terror Timeline

[Marksbrother]

80. Because 9/11 was an inside job, it isn't in the interest of

the perps to have an official story. They need to be able to dance whenever the music starts up. Having an official
story would be tantamount to having to remain in place.

[SDuderstadt]

82. So, now you're claiming there is NO "official story"?

I'm pleasantly surprised at your candor.

[Marksbrother]

84. It's an ever- moving reptilian relic of BUSHCO origins

You can stab it with a steely knife, but you just can't kill that beast. It refuses to die, continues to lie, and Joe & Mary
are as clueless as ever. But WE aren't, are we?

[SDuderstadt]

85. Actually, I'd say you are...

but that's just me.

[Marksbrother]

87. Yes, we all know it's just you. Not us.

Thank the Lord for small favors.

[SDuderstadt]

89. Actually, it's you, dude...

the "lord" told me.

[Marksbrother]

90. The Lord told me to watch out for deceivers

The world is full of trickery and tricksters. Now, back to your regularly scheduled contributions (sic) to the advancement
of truth.

[SDuderstadt]

92. If the "Lord" told you to watch out for "tricksters"...

why are you a "truther"?

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

95. Simple question, dude...

Do you think it's possible that some people here merely disagree with you on the facts and are engaging in principled debate? Don't you think you guys have run the "tricksters who sell Bushco snake oil" meme into the ground? Have you ever noticed that I have never accused you of "shilling for Osama" or "fronting for the Taliban"? I invite you to engage in principled debate and leave the juvenile debating tactics behind.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

100. Dude...are you so intimidated by actual debate that all you can do is....

yammer "Bushco snake oil"? I invite you to stick to the issues and quit smearing anyone who happens to disagree with you.

[Marksbrother]

102. Dude yourself

I invite you to stop having a hissy fit. Kids run to mama.

[SDuderstadt]

104. And I invite you to start debating on the facts ...

which would mean you'd actually have to have some. I can see how that would pose a huge problem for you.

[BeFree]

10. Is there agreement?

First, is there agreement that Bushco had and did exert great pressure on the framing of the information that did make its way into the public sphere and incorporated into the government's reason for the actions it took before and after the event?

Second, is there agreement that a lot of the information about the event is still being kept from the public sphere?

Third, is there agreement that the information that has been allowed into the public sphere is at times highly questionable?

[Bolo Boffin]

11. Define "Bushco." n/t

[Marksbrother]

14. Define "truther." n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Find the term "truther" in my posts and then ask me that question. n/t

[Marksbrother]

35. Why does it have to be in one of your posts?

Or is that just an excuse to evade the question?

[Bolo Boffin]

36. I asked BeFree to define a term that BeFree uses constantly.

You ask me to define a term that I rarely, if ever, use. Produce a post of me using the term and I'll tell you what I meant when I used it.

[Marksbrother]

42. I get the feeling you don't want to give a definition of truther

How many times would you say you've seen that term used? 3 times? 1,000 times?

Do you recall that it is used almost exclusively by people who share your viewpoints?

Whenever you've seen it used, no matter how many times, whether it's 300 or 3,000, or whatever number you can coaxed into agreeing
is reasonable as far as how many times you've read it in a post, have you ever seen it used in a respectful manner?

Are you aware that there are people here who regularly resort to insults whenever the Official Conspiracy Theory about 9/11 or other conspiracies are challenged?

You DO agree that you've seen the term used here many, many times, right?

It's not a term that you're unfamiliar with, is it?

Thanks for your challenge, but I'm not interested in doing a search to see how many times you've personally used it or
how many times you've responded positively whenever it was used by someone else.

[Bolo Boffin]

43. Very nice explanation of why I should be held responsible for a term I don't use

Utterly invalid explanation, of course.

[BeFree]

17. Bushco

I find it incredulous that there is seemingly no comprehension of what Bushco is.

On the other hand it could all be a dishonest ploy, a trap of sorts to even ask the question.

However, in the interest of the other readers here, I will attempt to simply define Bushco.

It goes back a long way. Back to before FDR. Grampa Bush, Prescott, was a financier of Hitler. In fact a company of his was shut down for that activity.

Bushco resurfaced with Daddy Bush, who rose to head the CIA, and who made it all the way to the VP office under Reagan. Then he himself took the highest office in the land. His sons became governors.

Along with this rise to power, came characters such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and many others. They are veteran government insiders, all of them. They have conspired to steal as much as they could from the American people, and they have been very successful.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. Way too vague a definition, BeFree. Be more precise. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

40. And you were more precise in another thread, and I thank you. n/t

[zipplewrath]

12. I'm dubious there is

"First, is there agreement that Bushco had and did exert great pressure on the framing of the information that did make its way into the public sphere and incorporated into the government's reason for the actions it took before and after the event?"

Kinda vague. By "bushco" I presume you basically mean the White House and the political appointees within the administration. I don't think there is any doubt that, even outside of these events, that the White House always tried to "manage the message". The degree to which they were successful varied by issue. The CIA was one of the LEAST cooperative branches on this issue, especially as attempts were made inside, and outside, of the White House to slide blame their way. The FBI didn't need much direction in that they were already concerned because it is highly probable that they had an informant that was working both sides of the fence and they didn't want that uncovered. It's covered extensively in Graham's book.

"Second, is there agreement that a lot of the information about the event is still being kept from the public sphere?"

"A lot"? Again, hard to define. I'm sure there is a large volume of documents that aren't available. The degree to which that is intentional is also a bit vague. The vast majority of government documents never see the "light of day". So it is a given in some sense. There are key pieces of information in which we have hints, suggestions, and suspicions for which more information has never been forth coming. I have to say though that this is a constant of government, and not just at the federal level. An interesting question might be is it any MORE prevelant in this case. I'd hazard a guess that the answer is no. In fact, we probably know more, especially more than many folks would like us to know, because it exposes just how generally inefficient and incompetent our departments generally perform. As an aside, it has been interesting in the last decade or so to see information come out about the Cuban Missile Crisis. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, people on both sides have been able to meet and discuss the events in an historical context. One of the things that struck me was how much our CIA and State Departments thought they "knew" that was just flat out wrong.

"Third, is there agreement that the information that has been allowed into the public sphere is at times highly questionable?"

Yes, but for 2 reasons.

1) They prefer to release information in a "biased" manner. i.e. they only want to release info that is favorable to them, or unfavorable to targets which will shift blame.

2) They didn't always know what they thought they knew and so despite the fact that it is in their records, it could still be false.

There is a third related category, related to 1. The magnitude of which is hard to ascertain. Information that was false, but they did not know was false, because they didn't WANT to know it was false. (Curveball kinda stuff).


Now, can ya answer my question?

[BeFree]

15. .....

#1 Really, is about the M$M, but you missed that. Now that you know, maybe you can explain a bit better?

#2 You hazard guess as "no". When evidence clearly shows that much is still being kept from us. Clearly.

#3 Again, the M$M is totally missing from your explanation.

It is the feeling around here that a very large part of the OCT comes from TV. One person even subscribed to that on a previous post. So here you are, asking questions but you leave out the elephant in the room: M$M.

Oh, M$M means Mass Money Media.

You are so ignorant (at least appear to be) of the whole envelope that I have to say there is no use trying to talk you down. I could be wrong. I do keep an open mind about all of this. And you are new here, so I will give you a slight benefit of the doubt, but so far? Bleh.

[zipplewrath]

18. MSM

The MSM is not the only source of information, and the administrations ability to moderate them is limited. It is more of a "manipulated" than a "expert great pressure". There wasn't much at all they could do (directly) about the NIST report.

On #2, while I acknowledged that there was still "much", my "guess" was that it was not more and probably significantly less than other topics.

On #3 No. The MSM, although selective in the information they will distribute, are not sufficiently coordinated enough to prevent publicly available information from being disseminated. Furthermore, they are completely incapable of covering their tracks when they try.


NOW will you answer my original question?

[BeFree]

19. Heh

You can't even spell write. lol

It is M$M. Shows, along with the rest of your scribbling, that you don't have a real grasp of what the M$M has done.

What was your question again? I am trying to answer what I think it was, but since your concept seems to be clouded I figure we'd work thru that first.

M dollar sign M. = Fox news. Etc. Eh?

[zipplewrath]

20. Which report is considered "The Official Report"?

Which report is considered "The Official Report"?

[BeFree]

21. Which report?

You have been told there are many sources for the OCT. There are many reports. If you who support the OCT can't pick one, or answer your own questions, then that tells us something.

Anyway, to summarize the OCT:

No one could have imagined that it could happen, and even tho they were told it would, they (Bushco) just ignored what was coming. Agents in the federal government knew it was coming they even had the suspects under surveillance, but the ball was dropped. Air defenses were no match for the hijackers. A small fire destroyed the steel framed towers like never before. No government official has ever been fired because he/she failed to protect America.

I could go on, but that pretty well sums up the OCT and all the official reports.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[zipplewrath]

28. So there is no written "official report"?

I was under the impression that there was an official report or story.

Now I'm a bit on the confused side. The OCT as I understand it is the "official conspiracy theory". Is that not different than the "official report" (which apparently doesn't actually exist). I presumed the OCT was Jones' work or something similar. Does this mean I won't find one of those either?

[BeFree]

33. Impression?

Is that being coy, or what?

As stated above, there are many official reports. You know that.

The OCT is a compilation of the many official reports and was, IIRC, coined here on DU @'03. It compiles the official and non-official reports into what we determine to be the official 'Theory' as to what happened.

I gave you a summary of the official reports, can you add to it, or does that suffice?

[zipplewrath]

34. Not really

Has this compilation of reports been assembled and available somewhere? Or is it merely an allusion to the existing reports?

[BeFree]

37. Yes

It has been compiled. We call it the OCT.

The history, however, is all too well known.

The people who don't accept the OCT, in whole or parts, have been assembling other theories. Since we are at a loss as far as acquiring the information we need to finalize the theories - being that Bushco has NOT been forthcoming - the compilation will take some time yet.

We'll let you know.

[SDuderstadt]

41. If it's ''been compiled''...

perhaps you could tell us where to find it.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[BeFree]

64. Enough

If you have something to say, say it. If you don't think there were any official reports, say it. If you think there was no concerted effort to describe why we attacked Afghanistan without any official reason, say it.

Quit beating around the bush.

[zipplewrath]

69. I want to read it

There's an incredible volume of opinion on this subject. It is hard to know which alternate version people are discussing. To some extent, I'm never quite sure which set of information folks who dispute the common understanding are working from. I was curious of there are either of these documents which are presented somewhere as a common basis for discussion.

I mean, I've read that it was nuclear bombs, it was thermite, it was super thermite, it was remote controlled planes, it was holograms, it was centext, it was high powered laser beams. The buildings fell faster than gravity, at freefall speeds, they fell too slow, there was too much dust/concrete/steel. It's been coming up on 8 years and it occurred to me that in DU maybe there was some "consensus" amongst otherwise like minded people (democrats) on what the definitive documents were.

[rschop]

65. re: Has this compilation of reports been assembled and available somewhere?

From prior post: Has this compilation of reports been assembled and available somewhere?

Yes it has!

[rschop]

78. re: Has this compilation of reports been assembled and available somewhere?

From prior post: Has this compilation of reports been assembled and available somewhere?

Yes it has!

[achtung_circus]

39. "You can't even spell write. lol"

Physician, heal thyself. :rofl:

[BeFree]

52. Heh

see that lol at the end? It was a joke. Not that you'd notice.

[achtung_circus]

67. Yeah... sure...

[BeFree]

68. You calling me a liar?

See the lol? Ever see that before? I thought it was kinda cute. Never thot anyone would take it seriously and call me a liar. But you did. You continue to surprise. Badly.

[achtung_circus]

70. Project much?

or is it all just ?

[CJCRANE]

23. The OCT is the "public perception" molded by the MSM

(or perhaps a number of the "public myths").

One of the obvious "public myths" was that Saddam was connected to 9/11.

[SDuderstadt]

24. So then, wouldn't that mean the 9/11 CR ...

isn't part of the OCT, since they debunked that claim that Iraq was part of the 9/11 attack?

[CJCRANE]

25. The various official reports though flawed

are not necessarily the OCT.

It is the interpretation and "spin" that is the OCT.

For instance have you ever read a court transcript (or been in court) and then seen the case is reported in various newspapers? What the journalists choose to emphasize may be almost the opposite of what actually happened. That happens all the time in the MSM.

ed: sp

[SDuderstadt]

26. You should tell Be Free...

that the 9/11 CR is not part of the OCT. I'm not sure that'll go over too well.

[CJCRANE]

29. The 9/11 CR can sometimes be used to back up the OCT

but isn't the sum total of the OCT. And truthers interpret the 9/11 CR differently by looking at what is missing or at the contradictions.

Information is information. It's how we choose to interpret that information that is different. That's why the OCTers vs Truthers argument can never be resolved on a message board. The usually accepted way to resolve these kind of differences (over opinions on a criminal matter) is in a court of law. The evidence is presented, the prosecution and defense give their interpretations and then the jury decides.

But there's no judge or jury down here in the dungeon!

[zipplewrath]

30. Popular Understanding

So the OCT is what some might call the "popular understanding" or the "common understanding". I presume this is different than the "official report" or the "official story"?

[CJCRANE]

31. The thing is, Bush, Cheney, Condi etc. often said

things that weren't exactly in agreement with the various official reports so to me the "official story" is the story promoted by Bush officials in the MSM, as that has a much bigger impact.

ed: sp

[zipplewrath]

32. Problem is

My difficulty with all of this is, that ultimate "the official story" or the OCT or whatever becomes something of a strawman. It becomes whatever the speaker needs or wants it to be. One would think that a least someone who found serious fault with this story would have assembled a description of what they believed it to be.

[CJCRANE]

38. That's true

but it works both ways: no-planers, CDers, LIHOPers and MIHOPers are all categorized as "truthers". That's what happens when a crime is committed and there's no trial - there's no weighing of evidence, no prosecution or defense, no jury and no resolution.

It's left to the court of public opinion and "public perceptions" turn into "public myths".

[Marksbrother]

44. No problem.

"One would think that a least someone who found serious fault with this story would have assembled a description of what they believed it to be."

It's not only "believed" to be but in fact IS, the Official Conspiracy Theory. Supporters of it deny its existence and simultaneously claim to have certain (usually unstated) questions and concerns about it. Maybe you should ask one of it's supporters aka True Believers, to "assemble a description" of what they believe is he Bush administration's version of what happened on 9/11.

That's a simple and easy solution to your quandary. Have you considered doing that? Just ask one of THEM. You may have to repeat
your request a few times...okay, many times, but sooner or later one of 'em might prove to be up to the arduous task of telling you
what it is they believe that they support about 9/11. Keep in mind that they will probably reserve ample wiggle room and thus
only give you a simple (simplistic) answer. Osama Bad Man got 19 Arabs to hijack planes & crash them into America because "they"
hate us for our freedoms.

You might get a little bit more out of them than this, but if none of them will take up your challenge (and don't be surprised if they refuse or break into a dance), at least maybe now you know the basic outline of what OCT means.

Good luck in your challenge!

[SDuderstadt]

46. Taking issue with your goofy claims...

doesn't mean there is an OCT, nor does it mean I believe it. To the extent there is an ''OCT'', it's a strawman invented by ''truthers'' and intended to be a proxy and shortcut one-size-fits all rhetorical trick designed to ''psychicly foreclose'' further debate.

It attempts to do this by shifting attention away from the ''truther's'' inability to defend their goofy claim (for example, no witness saw the 2nd plane strike live) and call into question their opponent's judgment and/or motivation thusly: ''you support Bushco'' or ''you just blindly buy the OCT'' or ''you love authority''. It's instantly recognizable and laughable on its face.

[Marksbrother]

47. Surely you jest.

Were you trying to make a point or just give everyone a little comic relief?

[SDuderstadt]

48. One of your "drive-by's", MB?

Most of the comic relief here is found in your goofy claims.

[Marksbrother]

49. Did it hurt you THAT much? Must have been a bull's-eye strike.

Give us the benefit of some more comic relief, how about it?

[SDuderstadt]

50. Give us the benefit of actually addressing OP's...

and defending your goofy claims.

[Marksbrother]

55. Most people would rather see more of your humor

than see more evidence that disproves your goofy claims. Here's a dime to get you started.

[SDuderstadt]

56. Look around you, dude...

Have you ever noticed that your fellow ''truthers'' don't seem to leap to your defense? Does it occur to you that you just MIGHT be embarrassing them with your goofy ''no-planes crashed on 9/11'' or ''no one witnessed the 2nd plane strike live'' claims. You might want to ask them why they are shunning you. Maybe one of them will level with you.

[Marksbrother]

57. That's all I'm willing to offer

For your unique brand of humor.

[SDuderstadt]

58. And your ''side'' shuns you, nonetheless...

Why is that, dude?

[Marksbrother]

59. My "side" shuns disinformation and propaganda

It's your side that prefers nonsense instead of common sense.

[SDuderstadt]

60. Your side thinks you're a ''disinfo agent'', dude...

if you can't see that they are embarrassed by your goofy ''no one saw the second plane strike live'' claims, you'll never understand why they don't flock to your defense when you're floundering trying to rationalize your absurd claims.

[Marksbrother]

62. disinfo agent? We'll get to your special interest shortly.

Stay tuned.

[SDuderstadt]

63. Do you deny that the bulk of the truth movement regards...

goofy "no-plane" claims as coming from disinfo agents? More importantly, I'd love to know what my "special interest" is beyond debunking your goofy claims. If you assail my motivation here, just make sure you can substantiate your goofy claims, dude.

[Marksbrother]

66. "I'd love to know what my 'special interest' is."

Your special interest? That's easy.

Goofy claims and more goofy claims, and goofy planes too.

Such as, "thousands of people saw a plane crash into WTC2." Bush said that he saw a plane crash into WTC1. Did he also claim to have seen a plane crash into WTC2? Honestly, would George W. Bush know the difference between a CGI plane inserted into a composite video and a real plane?

[greyl]

74. 78% of those who took the poll said no planes theories are an embarrassment to 9/11 truth.

Technically, they agreed that ""No planes" theories are a huge embarrassment to the 9/11 truth movement".

[Marksbrother]

75. 99% of those who took the poll

and who self-identified as right-wingers, neocons, or Republicans (the more modest participants, no doubt) agreed that

the Fake 9/11 Conspiracy is true and the Actual 9/11 Conspiracy is goofy.

[achtung_circus]

76. 96.3 % of your answers

are made up on the spot. The CGI IRL is flakey.

[Marksbrother]

81. Those CGI planes are so fake looking that THEY must have

been made up on the spot...in a cheap computer with first-generation, crude software.

[SDuderstadt]

83. I see...so, now the "perps" were so inept...

they didn't even anticipate the need for CGI planes?

[Marksbrother]

86. Maybe they did the best they could with that era's technology

That's probably the main reason why the videos were only seen a few times by the public. Just a quick peek, then HEY, look over
there, it's Osama and he hates us for our freedoms. We've gotta do something about that. Afghanistan, here we come.

[SDuderstadt]

88. Oh, I see...

The videos were only seen "a few times by the public"...right.

[Marksbrother]

91. How many times have you seen them?

Did you see them on youtube as well as TV? About how many times in all have you seen them and when was the last time?

[SDuderstadt]

93. 26,934 times on everything from TV to YouTube to cereal boxes...

the last time was about 15 seconds ago.

[Marksbrother]

96. Then you ARE easily fooled. I can think of another reason, but.

No wonder you can pretend to really believe all those goofy claims you make and if you've seen the evidence of composite videos, CGI
planes, controlled demolitions, and fake aircraft crash sites, then you've got a raging case of denial or something else that I don't
care to speculate about here.

[SDuderstadt]

97. Jesus, dude....

how much more exaggerated would I have to make my response before you'd realize I am spoofing you?

[Marksbrother]

99. Really, dude yourself?

Do you EVER post anything that isn't goofy? Now you know why you aren't taken seriously by most people here.

[SDuderstadt]

101. I think I'm taken far more seriously than you are by....

everyone except for hardcore "truthers" like yourself

[Marksbrother]

103. You THINK?

It doesn't appear that way in your goofy posts.

[SDuderstadt]

105. To you, maybe...

and others who promote silly "no-plane" nonsense.

[Marksbrother]

107. Now, that's just way too goofy. AND it's silly, too.

Goofy and silly.

[SDuderstadt]

108. I agree ...

"no-planes" theories ARE silly and goofy. I believe you right be coming around.

[greyl]

77. The poll was in this very forum.

About 100 votes were cast.

[zipplewrath]

53. Good

Can you tell me who has compiled and document then? I wouldn't want to deny it's existence if it is easily obtainable. Alternately, I wouldn't want to be referencing some goofball, diversionary, false flag kinda document put out by Bushco to undermine the truth.

As for a True Believers document, I'd suspect most of them would point to 3 really. The NIST report, the 9/11 CR and the joint committee report from Graham and Goss. The last one is relatively critical in many ways, and being one of the first, points out many of the holes in the governments behavior leading up to 9/11