9-11 was an inside job

[MaineShark]

You underestimate me Joe.

No, I don't.  You're quite transparent.

If we ever met, I would reach to shake your hand and offer you a rootbeer.

What's your point?  The thugs who arrested Russell for not paying his yearly tribute to the US talked about how they wanted him to consider them as friends.

I'd no sooner shake your hand than I would George Bush's.

Now back to the topic of this thread. You have done little (if anything) to support your stance.

Yeah, all the detailed engineering information is "little (if anything)"!

As I always say about debate-type discussions, when people run out of facts they resort to name calling and personal attacks. It is the signal of surrender.

What should I call you?  You are a child.  It's the correct label.

Hey, think of it this way... it's not possible for a child to anger me.  Children are, by definition, irrational and incapable of taking responsibility for their own actions.  So you can be guaranteed that you can't make me angry.

Joe

[kola]

I forgot.

You are disciplined.

Kola   

[coffeeseven]

Any y'all wonder why I think "Truthers" are immature children...

Joe

Not really.

[MaineShark]

Any y'all wonder why I think "Truthers" are immature children...

Not really.

Good.  Because it would be silly to wonder about that, when the reasons are so blatant.

I thought you were ignoring me?

Joe

[jaqeboy]

In an interview with David Frost of the BBC a couple of weeks before her assassination, Benazir Bhutto makes a statement about who KILLED Osama bin Laden. BBC then censors that part of the interview and plays the rest.

This YouTube video shows the before and after versions:

[youtube=425,350]ZMiuFx6rQbE[/youtube]

Why that matters, of course, is that UBL is still trotted out from time to time via videotape and audiotape.

[Kat Kanning]

Interesting.

[KBCraig]

In an interview with David Frost of the BBC a couple of weeks before her assassination, Benazir Bhutto makes a statement about who KILLED Osama bin Laden.

Why do you think Bhutto would have knowledge of it, even if true?

Since one of the harshest condemnations of Bush is that he's been chasing everyone except bin Laden, and that he's propping up a puppet military dictator in Musharref (and that ObL is likely hiding in Pakistan), don't you think BushCo would be blasting news of ObL's death far and wide?

[alohamonkey]

Why do you think Bhutto would have knowledge of it, even if true?

Since one of the harshest condemnations of Bush is that he's been chasing everyone except bin Laden, and that he's propping up a puppet military dictator in Musharref (and that ObL is likely hiding in Pakistan), don't you think BushCo would be blasting news of ObL's death far and wide?

BushCo need OBL alive to get away with their gross violations of liberty and pre-emptive wars.  Without him, who are we fighting?

[jaqeboy]

This forwarded to me - I don't have info on where the op-ed was published.
===============================================
Op-Ed Contributors
*Stonewalled by the C.I.A.*
By THOMAS H. KEAN and LEE H. HAMILTON
Published: January 2, 2008

Washington


        Related

Blogrunner: Reactions From Around the Web
<http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/5/0/stonewalled_by_the_cia/>

MORE than five years ago, Congress and President Bush created the 9/11
commission. The goal was to provide the American people with the fullest
possible account of the "facts and circumstances relating to the
terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001" --- and to offer recommendations to
prevent future attacks. Soon after its creation, the president's chief
of staff directed all executive branch agencies to cooperate with the
commission.

The commission's mandate was sweeping and it explicitly included the
intelligence agencies. But the recent revelations that the C.I.A.
destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to
conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for
information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes
--- and did not tell us about them --- obstructed our investigation.

There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the
C.I.A. --- or the White House --- of the commission's interest in any
and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11
plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the
existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations.

When the press reported that, in 2002 and maybe at other times, the
C.I.A. had recorded hundreds of hours of interrogations of at least two
Qaeda detainees, we went back to check our records. We found that we did
ask, repeatedly, for the kind of information that would have been
contained in such videotapes.

The commission did not have a mandate to investigate how detainees were
treated; our role was to investigate the history and evolution of Al
Qaeda and the 9/11 plot. Beginning in June 2003, we requested all
reports of intelligence information on these broad topics that had been
gleaned from the interrogations of 118 named individuals, including both
Abu Zubaydah and Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, two senior Qaeda operatives,
portions of whose interrogations were apparently recorded and then
destroyed.

The C.I.A. gave us many reports summarizing information gained in the
interrogations. But the reports raised almost as many questions as they
answered. Agency officials assured us that, if we posed specific
questions, they would do all they could to answer them.

So, in October 2003, we sent another wave of questions to the C.I.A.'s
general counsel. One set posed dozens of specific questions about the
reports, including those about Abu Zubaydah. A second set, even more
important in our view, asked for details about the translation process
in the interrogations; the background of the interrogators; the way the
interrogators handled inconsistencies in the detainees' stories; the
particular questions that had been asked to elicit reported information;
the way interrogators had followed up on certain lines of questioning;
the context of the interrogations so we could assess the credibility and
demeanor of the detainees when they made the reported statements; and
the views or assessments of the interrogators themselves.

The general counsel responded in writing with non-specific replies. The
agency did not disclose that any interrogations had ever been recorded
or that it had held any further relevant information, in any form. Not
satisfied with this response, we decided that we needed to question the
detainees directly, including Abu Zubaydah and a few other key captives.

In a lunch meeting on Dec. 23, 2003, George Tenet, the C.I.A. director,
told us point blank that we would have no such access. During the
meeting, we emphasized to him that the C.I.A. should provide any
documents responsive to our requests, even if the commission had not
specifically asked for them. Mr. Tenet replied by alluding to several
documents he thought would be helpful to us, but neither he, nor anyone
else in the meeting, mentioned videotapes.

A meeting on Jan. 21, 2004, with Mr. Tenet, the White House counsel, the
secretary of defense and a representative from the Justice Department
also resulted in the denial of commission access to the detainees. Once
again, videotapes were not mentioned.

As a result of this January meeting, the C.I.A. agreed to pose some of
our questions to detainees and report back to us. The commission
concluded this was all the administration could give us. But the
commission never felt that its earlier questions had been satisfactorily
answered. So the public would be aware of our concerns, we highlighted
our caveats on page 146 in the commission report.

As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.'s failure to
disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do
know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully
constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate
one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that
obstruction.

Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton served as chairman and vice chairman,
respectively, of the 9/11 commission.

[kola]

and thus..better named " The Omission Report"

[coffeeseven]

This forwarded to me - I don't have info on where the op-ed was published.

NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?ref=opinion

[ThePug]

Bush needs Osama bin Laden alive to continue the threat of al-Qaeda. Which is why the administration has done everything in their power to push bin Laden out of the public consciousness. Makes perfect sense.

Just like how they haven't caught Saddam. After all, if they got him, Bush would have to leave Iraq, right? Of course! Everyone knows that. That's why we'll never catch Saddam.

[jaqeboy]

Pug, glad to see you have your health back. While you were away a new thread was created that should help you find a forum for your beliefs, called 911 was NOT an inside job. Hope you enjoy it.

Welcome back.

[ThePug]

Pug, glad to see you have your health back. While you were away a new thread was created that should help you find a forum for your beliefs, called 911 was NOT an inside job. Hope you enjoy it.

Welcome back.

Thanks, though there seems to be a more active discussion going on in this thread.

[jaqeboy]

9/11 Truth in MSM - Denmark

[youtube=425,350]jze33vZCpwo[/youtube]

discussed on 911blogger.