what are the three biggest problems

[leftofthedial]

(holes, flaws, inexplicable phenomena) in the OCT (official conspiracy theory), for example, as laid out by the 9-11 Commission?


do you think . . .

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Let's see...

1. The commission was guided to minimize criticism of the Bush Administration through various means, including a director seeking to ingratiate himself to the Administration, political attacks, and refusals to cooperate
2. Kean and Hamilton adopted a non-confrontational, "move forward" approach to the investigation that left them blindsided by no. 1
3. The commission should have dug deeper into the past and given a more complete picture of America's interaction with Islamic terrorism (Looming Tower is a great example of this)

[leftofthedial]

2. three undeniable problems.

thanks.

[SDuderstadt]

15. I concur completely with Bolo...

Great summary! Now, if someone would just do a post about the three biggest problems with the "9/11 was an inside job" crowd, we'd have balance.

[Bassman66]

19. What would that prove?

Listing the three nuttiest problems?

No planes
Nukes
Holograms

That gives us balance somehow?

How? Only if you want to use them to point at "the" truth movement. But there is no single entity that is "the truth movement".

There are a wide spectrum of questions about 9/11.

The same can't be said for the OCT for which there is no discernible spectrum, OCTer's never want to discuss their problems with the OCT whilst assuring us that they do have them.

[SDuderstadt]

26. We just did...

duh.

[Bassman66]

27. Did what?

Duh.

[Bassman66]

16. Unfortunately none of your points are about flaws...

... in the OCT.

Do you see any flaws in the actual OCT?

Here's three.

1) High-jacked planes in American skies for two hours and no fighter interception?
2) The "no one could have imagined planes used as missiles" lie.
3) The "there were no warnings" lie.

But anyway, the Jersey girls submitted 200 hundred questions that never got answered.

A new investigation is required.

Another three:

1) Bush didn't ask a single question - The commander in chief has no questions when told "America is under attack".
2) Card didn't expect a response - He just told the commander in chief "America is under attack" and doesn't expect a question.
3) The SS knew the Bush team were safe - An unknown number of aircraft are being hijacked potentially right over their heads, Bush is in a publicized location, they don't move.

[leftofthedial]

18. something fishy here

no doubt.

[Bolo Boffin]

20. Bwa-ha-ha-ha! The OP clearly said OCT as laid out in the 9/11 Commission.

I list three flaws with the 9/11 Commission and that's not good enough for you. Well, I don't consider you a responsible arbiter of either flaws with the 9/11 Commission or my thoughts, Bassman, but thanks so much for the application. I'll be sure to take it under advisement.

[Diane_nyc]

21. Epistemology vs. actual specific claims of fact

To boloboffin:

I agree with you that http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=211374">your three objections to the 9/11 Commission's procedings are important, and I even agree with you on two of them as the most important problems with the 9/11 Commission Report.

But your objections are purely epistemological (methodological, procedural). They are not objections to any of the specific content of the 9/11 Commission Report itself. Are there any significant specific alleged facts that you either believe or suspect that the 9/11 Commission got wrong?

Judging by http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=211375">leftofthedial's response, it appears that your answer did indeed satisfy the intent of the question http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=211373">in the O.P. of this thread.

However, the wording of the O.P. is ambiguous, suggesting to other people here, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=211456">such as Bassman66, that the question was about flaws in the alleged factual content of official reports such as the 9/11 Commission Report. The original question asked about "(holes, flaws, inexplicable phenomena) in" - that's "in," not "pertaining to" - "the OCT (official conspiracy theory), for example, as laid out by the 9-11 Commission." Thus, it's understandable why Bassman66 interpreted the question as referring only to the actual content of the story, not the means by which the story was arrived at.

Anyhow, while your answer apparently did satisfy the intent of the O.P., it would be interesting to hear whether you also have any significant objections to the actual content of the story told by the 9/11 Commission, and, if so, what your most important such objections are.

(Note that, by "significant" objections to the actual content of the story, I don't mean things like getting the collapse times of the Twin Towers wrong. I mean objections to major points on matters clearly within the 9/11 Commission's mandate.)

To others here, including Bassman66:

Do you agree that boloboffin's epistemological objections to the 9/11 Commission's proceedings, or at least some of boloboffin's objections, are indeed important objections, even though they are not objections to any of the specific claims of the 9/11 CR itself?

[Bolo Boffin]

22. Who died and made you forum interpreter and arbiter here, lady?

Get over yourself.

[Bassman66]

25. She was right.

Get over yourself.

[Diane_nyc]

34. boloboffin, did I MISINTERPRET anything you said here?

Sheesh! You're in a good mood today..... What's your problem, exactly?

I suspect that you may be carrying baggage from another thread. Before you reply, please see, in the other thread, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=211498">this post in which I acknowledge and apologize for something I said, in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=211389">this post, which was a misinterpretation of something you said in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=211339">this post, but I also, in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=211498">this post, respond to your overreaction in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=211465">this post.

Anyhow, back to this current thread. In http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=211468">this post of mine, did I misinterpret anything you said in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=211463">this post?

I should mention that I wrote http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=211468">this post (in the current thread) before I saw http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=211465">this post of yours (in the other thread). Thus, I had not yet read the following, in the latter post of yours:

However, there's quite a bit of evidence that at least needs to be cleared up with regards to certain elements of authority in both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia helping the 19.

which answers the question I asked you here in this thread:

Are there any significant specific alleged facts that you either believe or suspect that the 9/11 Commission got wrong? ... It would be interesting to hear whether you also have any significant objections to the actual content of the story told by the 9/11 Commission, and, if so, what your most important such objections are.

Anyhow, I would be very interested to hear whether there are any other significant specific alleged facts in the 9/11 Commission Report that you question, and, if so, what they are.

[Bassman66]

36. Bolo will never answer that question.

Bolo will never tell you which parts of the 9/11 CR he has problems with, although he will tell you that he doesn't know any OCTers who believe the 9/11 CR got everything right.

He could surprise us though.

[Bolo Boffin]

40. Eh, I'm not sure.

I suspect that you may be carrying baggage from another thread. Before you reply, please see, in the other thread, this post in which I acknowledge and apologize for something I said, in this post, which was a misinterpretation of something you said in this post, but I also, in this post, respond to your overreaction in this post.

Anyhow, back to this current thread. In this post of mine, did I misinterpret anything you said in this post?

I should mention that I wrote this post (in the current thread) before I saw this post of yours (in the other thread). Thus, I had not yet read the following, in the latter post of yours:

But I posted something else in that post before you posted another post in response to that first post. The next post I posted in response to your other post wasn't posted before that post. It was another one.

I mean to post a response to the aforementioned post post-haste. But my Post Toasties got onto my Post-Its and I posted with great dexterity to go find a Washington Post to mop it up.

[Diane_nyc]

50. Clever and cute, but you're avoiding my questions....

... and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=211514">you're also brushing off my http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=211508">attempt to resolve various misunderstandings between us.

Anyhow, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=211508">the post of mine which http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=211514">you parodied here was not anywhere nearly as vague as your parody. I did provide links.

[Twist_U_Up]

76. You just got schooled boffin

can ya taste that ?

[Bassman66]

24. Bolo ignored what the OP asked

..and instead went off on another tangent which was to do with "flaws" in procedure as you said.

I'm don't agree with his premise on those points either.

He infers that Zelikow was trying ingratiate myself with the White House, that presupposed that he wasn't put there to control it by the White house.

You won't get Bolo to tell you what he finds wrong with the content of the 9/11 CR.

Unless he surprises us.

[Bolo Boffin]

30. An amazing display of fallacious resolving of cognative dissonance here by Bassman

The OP asked for the three biggest problems in the "OCT" as laid out by the 9/11 Commission.

I actually listed three of these problems as I see them, and the OP author thanked me.

But that's not good enough for Bassman. It simply cannot be that a "9/11 debunker" has problems with the "OCT", not in Bassman's world.

So he's completely concocted this new category (along with the help of DianeNYC) to dismiss my points. And now in another post he claims "OCTer's never want to discuss their problems with the OCT whilst assuring us that they do have them."

When I just did!

Stand up and take a bow, Bassman. That one belongs in a textbook.

[SDuderstadt]

31. Isn't it amazing?

To say it "belongs in a textbook" is being charitable.

[Bassman66]

35. You didn't list three problems with the OCT

The OP thanked you for listing "three undeniable problems", they are not problems with the OCT, and the OP didn't say they were problems with the OCT as laid out by the 9/11 Commission.

Your premise that Zelikow was "ingratiating" himself with the White House and wasn't actually planted by them is highly dubious.

Anyway, back to the OP, what problems do you have with the OCT as laid out by the 9/11 commission?

Which particular part of the content of the 9/11 CR problem do you have a problem with?

That's where the "flaws and holes" will be.

[Bolo Boffin]

37. So Kean and Hamilton's non-confrontation style ISN'T a problem with you? You're fine with it?

Really?

The way the Bush Administration stalled and attacked various members of the 9/11 Commission, you don't see that as a problem?

Really?

:rofl:

:rofl:

[Bassman66]

39. It;'s not a problem with the OCT.

Why don't you answer the question in the OP.

[Bolo Boffin]

41. :rofl:

Bassman, stop while you're hopelessly behind.

[Bassman66]

43. Answer a question for once in your life.

List three problems with the OCT as laid out by the 9/11 CR.

You do have problems with the 9/11 CR? I'm sure you said you don't know a OCTer who doesn't.

[Bolo Boffin]

45. I did, already. Post #1. Stop attacking me. n/t

[Bassman66]

46. Same old shit.

Never answer a question.

Blah!

[Bolo Boffin]

48. Stop harassing me. n/t

[Bassman66]

49. No surprise today then. nt.

[Bolo Boffin]

56. No, you attacked me yesterday, you're attacking me again today. Quit. n/t

[Bassman66]

42. I never said that and you know it.

Semantics Bolo, always semantics with you.

Nobody likes a smartarse.

Now are you going to tell us what problems you find with the OCT as laid out by the 9/11 CR?

Go on, surprise us.

[Bolo Boffin]

44. "Now are you going to tell us what problems you find with the OCT as laid out by the 9/11 CR?"

I did already. Post #1 in this thread. The very first one. I'm sorry that you don't think they are problems. They are.

[Bassman66]

47. Semantics.

You're transparent.

[Bolo Boffin]

55. Bullshit. I answered the question in the first post. Quit attacking me. n/t

[leftofthedial]

57. This is the booming voice of gawd, er, the original poster

I said, "FOR EXAMPLE, the 9-11 Commission" (emphasis added). I did not ask for only problems with the 9-11 Coverup, er, Commission.

[SDuderstadt]

28. If you'd educate yourself about these things,...

especially the first, you'd find they are not the bombshells you think they are. Most of them flow from your lack of knowledge or your incuriousity to learn more or both.

I have referred you repeatedly to sources that deals with what happened that day with our air defenses. After the average person reads about it, it doesn't sound anywhere near as nefarious as you believe it is. Your last three speculations are exactly that...speculation. You're not going to find me defending Bush's actions on 9/11 in the least. But, to infer from there that "they knew they were safe" is just pure conjecture on yout part and silly. You don't know anything about SS protocol, you're just yammering about what you think should have happened. Do you really think the SS was aiding and abetting a terrorist attack on our country? Do you?

If you truly want a new investigation, it makes sense that you would seek answers to your questions so that a new investiogation is not bogged down by things that can easily be explained. You have no hard evidence whatsoever of your silly LIHOP or MIHOP or whatever HOP you're espousing. What I find hard to figure out about you is you can see why the "no-planes" theory makes no logical sense. I don't understand why you can't use that same logic to see the same thing with respect to this.

I'm done.

[Bassman66]

38. Evidence

"You have no hard evidence whatsoever of your silly LIHOP or MIHOP or whatever HOP you're espousing. What I find hard to figure out about you is you can see why the "no-planes" theory makes no logical sense. I don't understand why you can't use that same logic to see the same thing with respect to this."

I have applied the same logic to the Florida classroom scene and I came up with the answer, "we need a new investigation".

I applied the same logic to the fact that even though hijacked airplanes flew around USA skies for two hours without fighter interception nobody got repremanded and I came up with the answer, "we need a new investigation".

I applied the same logic to the Bush and Rice lies about "nobody could imagine planes used as missiles" and I came up with the answer, "we need a new investigation".

I applied the same logic to the Cheney lies about "there were no warnings" and I came up with the answer "we need a new investigation".

I am a logical person.

[SDuderstadt]

62. What hard evidence do you have of anything from the classroom?

I'm really curious.

[leftofthedial]

58. wow. after the average person reads the propaganda,

the lies sound almost plausible.

I guess that proves it.

[SDuderstadt]

63. The propaganda?

Is anything that contradicts your view propaganda? Did it ever occur to you that you might just be wrong on the facts?

[leftofthedial]

65. yup. I'm wrong.

The bushies are right and completely truthful in all they say.

[SDuderstadt]

66. Christ....

Do you think there are no sources besides the "Bushies" for the "official story"? Stupid "false dilemma" fallacy.

[leftofthedial]

71. you claim that I think there are no sources besides the bush cabal,

but I don't. Stupid strawman fallacy.

[SDuderstadt]

72. Then quit implying....

that's my source, okay? I have never used the "bushies" as a source for anything.

[leftofthedial]

73. the 9-11 Commission toed the bush line. Hell they ARE the bush line.

I think you've referred to them on occasion.

But I don't mean to accuse anyone unfairly. Taken as a whole, the Commission obviously started with a conclusion and built their "investigation" to ensure that it reached that conclusion. Some members may have been diligent and forthright, but the scope of the entire proceedings ensured an outcome that confirmed the official bush cabal story first promulgated within hours of the towers falling and that deflected blame away from any specific individual.

[Bassman66]

78. "These are the answers, now come up with the questions".

That's the way I see it.

A new investigation is needed.

[SDuderstadt]

79. Yeah, you were inside the investogation/work of the Commission, right?

Oh, you weren't?

[Bassman66]

91. I've observed what happened.

It was obstructed and controlled by the WH.

[SDuderstadt]

92. You're entitled to your opinion...

that, however, doesn't make it true.

[Bassman66]

93. You know all about presuppositions

because whenever a new investigation is discussed you immediately want to put limitations on it.

Investigate "foreknowledge" but only foreknowledge of a certain kind.

That's what the last one did.

NO presuppositions is a prerequisite of a new investigation.

[SDuderstadt]

100. You need to quit misrepresenting my position

And, unless you were privy to all the investgation, you've read all the intervierws, etc. you don't have a fucking idea of what actually transpired. One can tell this by the kind of idiotic questions you ask. In fact, I doubt whether you've actually read the 9/11 Commission Report. I'm certain this won't make any sense to you, but a starting point to evaluate anything is an understanding of the basic underlying processes.

For example, your silly questions about security at Booker School show that you haven't done the slightest amount of research but, rather are "reasoning" somewhat like this: "Well, here's what I think should've happened and they didn't do it that way, so that proves they knew". If the 9/11 Truth Movement is going to get anywhere with demands for a new hearing, it's apparent that you shouldn't be the pointman or the spearhead. You won't listen to reason, you constantly question and even impugn the motivation of anyone who attempts to educate you or has the temerity to ask you logical questions you can't even beginn to answer.

For example, when you were yammering on and on about how no government should keep anything from its citizens, I asked you if you were, like I was, outraged when the Bush administration outed Valerie Plame. By the way, Plame was a NOC (Non-Offical Cover) and I suspect you have no idea what that even means or the ramifications it holds. I don't know why I'm still trying to educate you, but here goes. NOC's take the ultimate risks, in that, since they have no official cover, they are most at risk of execution if they are caught. I noticed that you never answered my question about her. I'm all for transparency in government, but I also recognize there would be no way to conduct vital intelligence work if we just said, " oh, and in the interest of transparency, here's a list of all our intelligence assets".

I don't know why you have such a hard time understanding that, despite its flaws, we don't have to redo every bit of work the 9/11 Commission did. To be sure, it needs to be analyzed, additional or new information needs to be evaluated, then the appropriate follow-up investigation/interviews/research needs to done to get at the truth to the greatest degree possible. However, that does not mean every goofy conspiracy theory is back on the table. Most of the really silly questions you pose have already been answered adequately and we don't have to rely on the 9/11 Commission Report to answer them, which is why, in debate, I don't even cite the report. You've stated that the theory that no planes were involved on 9/11 is stupid and I agree. Are you saying we don't need to investigate that? Isn't that a presupposition? See what I mean?

As far as your "only foreknowledge of a certain kind" comment, if you'd bother to take the time to think about it, a proper investigation of exactly what I am talking about would actually uncover any evidence of "an inside job" in the process. If the investigation reveals anything of that nature, then it SHOULD be investigated. In other words, you start with the evidence and follow it where it leads. In your world, I'm afraid, an investigation would start from your silly premise that you know that "they knew Bush was safe at the school, therefore there was either LIHOP or MIHOP" and we'd go down this rabbithole where every goofy conspiracy theory and every anomaly is accorded equal weight with more reasonable explanations. For example, in your claims about Bush at Booker School, do you honestly think that a SS detail that utilizes SAM's just says, "Yup, we've got SAM's so we don't need to constantly scan the skies for threats. We'll just wait until something happens."? Have you ever educated yourself about the sophistication and capabilities of the equipment on AF 1? Do you honestly think the people charged with the safety of the CIC just leave this stuff to chance?


As I stated earlier, my problem with you is that the naivete of most, if not almost all of your questions, shows that you don't even try to find out things for yourself before you leapto a half-cocked conclusion. I research and read both sides. You should do the same.

[seemslikeadream]

3. my top three

Zelikow

WTC7

and the 200 questions the Jersey Girls have

[LARED]

5. I keep wondering why WTC 7 keeps getting lumped in the

9/11 CR. The collapse of WTC7 was not within the scope of the investigation



From the 9/11 CR

Our mandate was sweeping.The law directed us to investigate “facts and
circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,” including
those relating to intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, diplomacy,
immigration issues and border control, the flow of assets to terrorist
organizations, commercial aviation, the role of congressional oversight and
resource allocation, and other areas determined relevant by the Commission.

[seemslikeadream]

6. Our mandate was sweeping.

I don't see where it says "Don't investigate WTC7"

[Bolo Boffin]

7. I don't see where it says TO investigate WTC7.

A scientific accounting of why that building fell didn't need to be on their agenda. They didn't have the resources or the time to get to things that WERE on their plate. Focusing on 7 unnecessarily would have taken more attention away from the things they did manage to cover.

[seemslikeadream]

8. bullshit

[LARED]

9. That's not how it works

using that logic the 9/11 commission could have investigate any and all matters related to the time before, during, and after the attacks regardless of the scope defined by law.

[seemslikeadream]

10. only what you chose they should or should not investigate

[LARED]

11. Again, it's not what I want, it's what the commission was tasked

to investigate by Congress. The collapse of WTC 7 is clearly outside of the defined scope. Did you read the report?

[seemslikeadream]

12. no YOU are the one selecting what is meant by sweeping

[LARED]

13. Is English a second lauguage for you?

Because when the phrase "sweeping mandate" is used, it is referring to the following sentences that describe the mandate. Sweeping in no way means an unbounded investigation.

[seemslikeadream]

14. Can YOU read or understand English at all?

From the 9/11 CR

Our mandate was sweeping.The law directed us to investigate “facts and
circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,” including
those relating to intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, diplomacy,
immigration issues and border control, the flow of assets to terrorist
organizations, commercial aviation, the role of congressional oversight and
resource allocation, and other areas determined relevant by the Commission

[Diane_nyc]

75. The 9/11 Commission didn't have a scientific panel.

To have investigated the collapses of any of the WTC buildings, the 9/11 Commission would have needed to have had a bunch of relevant scientists and engineers on its staff. It didn't. Hence it wasn't qualified to investigate building collapses. Hence the 9/11 Commission had to confine itself to investigating matters that could be investigated by a layperson with subpoena power.

[leftofthedial]

81. and it restricted itself much further than even that,

interviewing some witnesses not under oath, leaving entire areas of inquiry completely out of the hearings, restricting questions to the "factoids" inherent within the OCT.

Plus, MANY (if not most) issues surrounding the collapse of WTC7 are not technical at all and would not require scientific or engineering testimony.

[Diane_nyc]

82. Issues that the 9/11 Commission could have looked at regarding WTC 7?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=211826">leftofthedial wrote:

81. and it restricted itself much further than even that,

Edited on Mon Jun-23-08 03:43 PM by leftofthedial
interviewing some witnesses not under oath, leaving entire areas of inquiry completely out of the hearings, restricting questions to the "factoids" inherent within the OCT.

Agreed.

Plus, MANY (if not most) issues surrounding the collapse of WTC7 are not technical at all and would not require scientific or engineering testimony.

What kinds of issues do you have in mind, which either:

1) would not require scientific or engineering testimony, yet could prove that there was foul play in the collapse of WTC7?

or

2) would otherwise have been of interest to the 9/11 Commission, given that foul play in the collapse of WTC 7 had not been proven scientifically?

[leftofthedial]

84. who ordered what official actions relative to the firefighting effort and when?

what was the official NYFD involvement at WT7?

What other individuals were involved in management of the firefighting efforts?

What was in the building?

These are just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many, many more.

[Diane_nyc]

88. Sounds like something for a local New York City-based commission

The issues you mentioned here all have to do with local New York City government departments and officials.

Thus, only a local New York City-based commission could conceivably have a justification for investigating them. They would not likely be a high priority for a federal investigation such as the 9/11 Commission.

[leftofthedial]

89. your conclusion does not follow

after all, all events are local somewhere. the answers to the above questions might not all touch on entities, issues or events confined to NYC.

[Diane_nyc]

94. Under what circumstances would a national panel of investigators be interested ...?

It seems to me that the behavior of various New York City government departments regarding WTC 7 would be of interest to a federal-level commission (without a scientific panel) only if it had already been established that there had been some kind of foul play in the collapse of WTC 7. Otherwise it would likely be seen as a matter of purely local interest.

On what specific basis do you think a national commission would be interested in the behavior of various New York City government departments regarding WTC 7 if foul play had not already been established?

[leftofthedial]

98. if they are not interested, how would foul play ever be established or excluded?

:shrug:

It sounds like you think any local event should be excluded from federal inquiry. The collapse of WTC7 was clearly (or maybe not so clearly) a part of the overall 9-11 events, which had national impact. So much of WTC7 remains either unexplained or highly dubious in nature that it seems a no brainer that it would interest any panel investigating the overall events of 9-11. There is no way to tell where such an investigation might lead and there is no way to tell that it would remain purely local. When investigating a murder, the cops don't in advance exclude everyone who lives in the neighborhood form inquiry.

[Diane_nyc]

102. More about WTC 7 and the 9/11 Commission

In the case of a building collapse, foul play can be established only by a scientific/engineering inquiry.

What I've been saying here is that there is no reason for a federal commission without a scientific panel to be interested in the collapse of WTC 7 unless it has already benn established, by some recognized scientific/engineering study, that there was foul play in the collapse of WTC 7.

Why? Becuase, unless foul play has already been establised, then what happened to WTC 7 would be perceived as mere collateral damage, not a direct target of the attacks. Lots of buildings in the neighborhood, not just WTC 7, were damaged to one degree or another by the collapse of the Twin Towers. There's no particular reason for a non-scientific federal commission to spend its limited time and money examining collateral damage rather than giving priority to things more clearly relevant to the attacks themselves and why the attacks weren't prevented.

If the 9/11 Commission had included a scientific panel devoted to examining building collapses, then I would agree with you that it should have investigated WTC 7's collapse. But it did not include such a panel.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=212145">leftofthedial also wrote:

When investigating a murder, the cops don't in advance exclude everyone who lives in the neighborhood form inquiry.

True, but the cops probably wouldn't investigate the death of the victim's next door neighbor, who is said by doctors to have died of natural causes, unless the cops already had some good reason to suspect that the next-door neighbor had really been murdered too.

Cops aren't supposed to go around investigating anything and everything out of the blue. To do so would be unconstitutional. Cops are supposed to investigate only when they have "probable cause." How would you like it if the cops were to investigate you for no particular reason? That's why we have limits on the power of cops.

[Twist_U_Up]

4. my 3

1. the pentagon
2. shanksville
3. WTC complex 1-7

and everything in between.

If you are to look into any of these and start connecting the dots, the only conclusion becomes.....

911 was an inside job.

Why didnt the "Commission" come up with the answers ?
Because they werent supposed to. Thats why.
Can you say Kissinger ;-)

[Bassman66]

17. Kissenger

The section in "9/11: Press for Truth" where they talk about their meeting with Kissenger is great!

Can you say Bin Laden.

[End Of The Road]

59. Those are my three, too.

I don't consider myself a no-planer, I just think there were only the two planes that hit the Trade Center. No plane at the pentagon, no plane in Shanksville. Explains alot.

[HamdenRice]

23. Don't be distracted ...

by flaws in the epistemology of the 9/11 Commission itself. I assume you are really interested in the flaws in the OCT story, not in how the story was documented.

First, the claim that the federal authorities did not have specific actionable intelligence is just wrong. Various domestic and foreign intelligence and law enforcement authorities knew a great deal about the plot to hijack planes and fly them into targets. The French intelligence agency had thoroughly penetrated AQ and provided detailed reports to their American counterparts. The Uzbek intelligence services had penetrated AQ up to its command structure and provided its intelligence to both the French and the Americans. Israeli intelligence appears to have tracked the hijackers within the U.S., and tried to warn the Americans as well. The Russian, German, Jordanian, Egyptian and other middle eastern intelligence agencies seemed to have precise information about the attacks.

Second, the official story does not detail the assistance that the hijackers received from Saudi officials while they were here in the U.S. The links between bin Laden, the rest of the bin Laden family, Saudi officialdom and other wealthy Saudis is now openly known.

Third, the official story does not trace the source of funding for the hijackers, nor try to show what parties or governments helped pay for the operations.

[leftofthedial]

29. the funding and "education" of the hijackers

(to the extent they may have really been hijackers rather than dupes) is a compelling issue to me.

Where is a good source about the flight schools and the hijacker funding?

[hack89]

32. Excellent points

and certainly worthy of further investigation. I have always believed that there was enough information available to prevent 911. I also believe that Saudi Arabian royal family made a deal with the devil (radical Islam) to stay in power and keep the radicals focused beyond Saudi Arabia's borders.

[SDuderstadt]

33. Is this unintended irony?

I assume you are really interested in the flaws in the OCT story, not in how the story was documented.

Despite what you say above, aren't your points 1 and 2 essentially about how the 9/11 did or did not document something? Did you even notice this internal contradiction when you were writing?

[Diane_nyc]

51. More about epistemology vs. specific content

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=211475">HamdenRice wrote:

23. Don't be distracted ...

by flaws in the epistemology of the 9/11 Commission itself. I assume you are really interested in the flaws in the OCT story, not in how the story was documented.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=211504">SDuderstadt replied:

33. Is this unintended irony?

...

Despite what you say above, aren't your points 1 and 2 essentially about how the 9/11 did or did not document something?

No. HamdenRice's points 1 and 2 focus on specific things that the 9/11 CR did or did not document, not on the question of how.

In contrast, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=211374">Boloboffin's earlier post listed a bunch of reasons why the 9/11 CR shouldn't be fully trusted, but did not list any specific claims of the 9/11 CR that he had a problem with.

Apparently you're not very familiar with the distinction between any given thing and the epistemology of that thing. I'm sorry that this distinction seems to be causing so much confusion around here, but it's an extremely commonplace distinction in philosophy.

Unlike HamdenRice, I would not dismiss boloboffin's epistemological objections as relatively unimportant. In fact, I consider Boloboffin's points 1 and 2 to be the strongest objections to the 9/11 CR. But they are not points of disagreement with the 9/11 CR's story itself.

Have I made it any clearer now?

[HamdenRice]

52. Thanks for that

I just don't have the patience to answer SDuderstadt because I know in advance he is trying to be intentionally dense -- ie asking things for the sake of distracting or derailing conversation rather than for actually exchanging ideas.

As for the epistemological issues raised by the 9/11 Commission and its report, I don't think they are unimportant at all. I think the epistemological questions are very important. I just didn't think that that is what this thread was about, in light of various recent threads concerning what one actually agrees or disagrees with in terms of the 9/11 CR's claims.

[Bassman66]

53. My position also...

HR wrote: "I think the epistemological questions are very important. I just didn't think that that is what this thread was about,"

Not difficult to understand I would have thought but they are those who seemingly struggle.

[Diane_nyc]

54. Still more about epistemology vs. specific content

Given http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=211375">leftofthedial's response to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=211374">boloboffin's post, and given that leftofthedial also wrote the O.P., apparently the O.P. was intended to include epistemological responses, although various other people in this thread, including you (HamdenRice) and Bassman66, interpreted the O.P. as referring only to the content of official reports such as the 9/11 CR.

For now at least, I'm going to assume that this is just an honest misunderstanding on the part of everyone involved.

It seems to me that various people, on all sides of these debates, have been too quick to jump to the conclusion that other people, who disagree with them, are intentionally obfuscating.

[HamdenRice]

61. You haven't been around for very long ...

and you are therefore laboring under the misconception that everyone posts in good faith.


Your reasonable voice is welcome, but please don't waste your time trying to reason with certain posters, as I think you are already beginning to see.

[SDuderstadt]

64. Oh, christ, Hamden...

Please point to someone not posting in good faith.

[vincent_vega_lives]

97. I agree wtih you (n/t)

[SDuderstadt]

60. Oh, bullshit, Hamden...

I write plenty of posts that get into an exchange of ideas...you're just sore because I called you on your silly "most of the 'OCTers' " nonsense.

[Diane_nyc]

67. SDuderstadt, could you please reply to my posts on epistemology vs. content?

SDuderstadt, could you please reply to the following posts of mine: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=211532">More about epistemology vs. specific content and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=211562">Still more about epistemology vs. specific content?

[SDuderstadt]

68. Ummm...

no.

No offense.

[Twist_U_Up]

77. Wow.

[HamdenRice]

69. See what I mean?

You seem to be a very bright person with lots of information and the ability to make logical arguments.

Please don't waste your time.

[SDuderstadt]

70. Oh, I see....

now we have to answer all of your questions, but you don't have to answer all of ours, right?

I chose not to answer her question. It's my prerogative. BTW, I'm still waiting for you to give us the names of the "most of the OCTers" who believe the 9/11 Commission Report is totally correct and complete. I really don't understand why you can't seem to name any. It's certainly apparent you haven't got the slightest bit of proof for your rather silly claim.

[Diane_nyc]

74. SDuderstadt, you could settle this issue MUCH more easily ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=211632">SDuderstadt wrote, to HamdenRice:

I'm still waiting for you to give us the names of the "most of the OCTers" who believe the 9/11 Commission Report is totally correct and complete. I really don't understand why you can't seem to name any. It's certainly apparent you haven't got the slightest bit of proof for your rather silly claim.

It would be extremely difficult to prove a universal generalization like this. To prove it, Hamden would have to take the time to build a list of links to every post by "most of the OCTer" in this forum, and then you, in turn, would have to take the time to re-read all those linked posts. Obviously, that's not feasible.

Evidently, Hamden's statement about "most of the OCTers" reflects an impression that Hamden has gotten after reading this forum for a long time. Perhaps it's a wrong impression. But asking Hamden to prove it it obviously going to go nowhere.

On the other hand, it would be far easier for you to settle this issue by citing a bunch of counterexamples - and preferably a bunch of counterexamples having to do with content and not just epistemology.

[SDuderstadt]

80. Diane...

it's HAMDEN'S claim. HE has the burden of proof. I've challenged him for that proof. So far, he cannot even produce ONE statement by a so-called "OCTer" that says anything like "the 91/11 Commision report was totally correct or complete". None.

Think this through. If someone claims the burden is on us to prove the claim is not true, that's essentially demanding we prove a negative (also called "shifting the burden of proof"). What makes it silly is that getting together any number of examples in which that is not the case, doesn't mean that much to begin with, since his claim was "most" not all". If he made (the even dumber) claim that ALL "OCTers" believe the 9/11 Commission Report is totally correct and/or complete, all I would have to do is produce ONE example that contradicts his claim and it would be shown to be false. This is why the burden of proof falls upon the maker of the claim. If Hamden were honorable, he'd withdraw the claim or explain his mistake. Again, he is unable to provide a SINGLE example of any of us claiming anything close to what he claimes we did.

[Diane_nyc]

83. Burden-of-proof vs. counteracting prejudices and bridging longstanding communication gaps

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=211768">SDuderstadt wrote:

it's HAMDEN'S claim. HE has the burden of proof.

That is true.

However, my concern here is not who has the "burden of proof," but, rather, what would be the most efficient way to end some of the sillier arguments that keep going around and around in circles here on this board.

I suspect that the reason why Hamden does not feel obliged to prove his claim is that he believes that the truth of his claim is obvious. I suspect that he feels as if he were being asked to prove that the sky is blue. (HamdenRice, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Of course, what's "obvious" isn't necessarily true. But what is the most effective way to challenge a belief that someone thinks is "obviously" true? If your approach is to demand proof, then you are likely to be perceived as just playing dumb or obfuscating.

A far more efficient way to challenge an "obviously true" belief is to provide a bunch of counterexamples.

I do agree with you that, in general, the burden of proof should be on the maker of a claim. I also think that people should be very cautious about making generalizations about other people.

However, in practice, it can be very difficult to apply these principles to beliefs that people have developed, rightly or wrongly, from their experiences in dealing with other people. In the latter case, it can be a big challenge just to get people even to consider the possibility that their "obviously true" beliefs might not be true after all.

"The burden of proof falls upon the maker of the claim" is a sound principle of debate, but, nevertheless, isn't always the most effective way to bridge the communication gap between people who hold very different worldviews.

You also wrote:

What makes it silly is that getting together any number of examples in which that is not the case, doesn't mean that much to begin with, since his claim was "most" not all".

It seems to me that you're seeing this issue strictly in terms of logic and debate principles, and missing the psychology. The psychology here, as I'm inclined to see it anyway, is that Hamden perceives you and other "OCTers" as more-or-less consistent opponents. I suspect that that's what Hamden actually means when he makes the generalizations that you're objecting to.

And it seems to me that you could overcome some of that opponent psychology, thereby improving communication all around, by making more of an effort not to act like an opponent all the time. I would suggest, for example, that you make a point of finding areas of agreement with the people you normally have a lot of disagreements with, and that you make a point of voicing such agreement whenever you sincerely can. For example, here in this forum, I would suggest that you make a point of voicing your own criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report more often. If you were to do that, then you would be less likely to be perceived as an "OCTabot."

[SDuderstadt]

85. I'm sorry, Diane....

when it comes to people making stupid claims, I am definitely an opponent. I have a better way to resolve or prevent this. People whpuld not make claims they cannot back up.

[Diane_nyc]

87. What do YOU do when something seems "obviously" true, but would be very time-consuming to prove?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=211880">SDuderstadt wrote:

People whpuld not make claims they cannot back up.

For the most part, I agree with you.

But, to put the shoe on the other foot, what do YOU do when something seems to be "obviously" true in your own experience, but would be extremely time-consuming to prove to someone else who doesn't believe it for whatever reason?

Do you simply refrain from mentioning such things when in the presence of people who disagree, lest you be required to prove your point of view?

[SDuderstadt]

90. It's real simple....

I say, "in my opinion".

[Diane_nyc]

95. "In my opinion..."

So then, would you have no objection if HamdenRice were to say, for example: "In my opinion, most OCTers consistently defend the contents of the 9/11 Commission Report"?

Or, at the very least, you would not treat it as a claim for which HamdenRice was obligated to provide proof?

[vincent_vega_lives]

96. Not really

I think the term "OCTers" is loaded, but then I understand the perception that caused it to come into useage.

It comes from the impression that each and every theory on the events of 9-11-01 are equally valid and defendable.

Like the OCT of the JFK assasination, and the OCT of the Apollo moon landings.

[Diane_nyc]

99. The terms "CT" and "OCT"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211373&mesg_id=212014">vincent_vega_lives wrote:

I think the term "OCTers" is loaded, but then I understand the perception that caused it to come into useage.

It comes from the impression that each and every theory on the events of 9-11-01 are equally valid and defendable.

Can you provide an example of anyone who has claimed that "every theory on the events of 9-11-01 are equally valid and defendable"?

As far as 9/11 is concerned, I think most people here would perceive a huge difference between, say, no-planes claims (obviously ridiculous) and speculation on the possibility that some intelligence warnings may have been more specific, more credible, and more actionable than anyone in government has officially admitted. (For some recent examples of people in this forum making such a distinction, see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=206336&mesg_id=206339">this post by Flatulo and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=206336&mesg_id=210948">this post by Bassman66.)

Like the OCT of the JFK assasination, and the OCT of the Apollo moon landings.

And I think most people here would perceive a huge difference between these two as well. The idea that the moon landings were faked is a priori extremely unlikely, given that huge numbers of people worked on the Apollo project and it wasn't some top-secret operation. On the other hand, the idea that more than one person was involved in the assassination of JFK is not inherently ridiculous for any obvious a priori reason; one would need to examine the purported evidence in some detail to determine how likely it is. (I myself have not yet taken the time to dig into the JFK assassination issue and do not yet have an opinion on it one way or the other.)

It seems to me that the term "OCT" is simply a reaction against the term "CT," which is a highly ambiguous and rhetorically-charged term. (For one of the reasons why I think it's ambiguous, please see my blog post http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2007/10/14/chip-berlet-and-conspiracism/">Chip Berlet and “Conspiracism”].)

[SDuderstadt]

101. An opinion, by definition...

isn't a claim. A claim is in the form or a statement of fact which can be falsified. If someone states an opinion, they are saying "here's what I think", not, "I know this to be true". If someone is claiming something to be literally true, they should expact they might be challenged for proof. If someone states something as their opinion, others are certainly entitled to take exception to it but, since the speaker is not asserting it as a statement of fact in the first place but, rather, their opinion, there's really no burden, as people are entitled to hold faulty opinions, but not make false statements of fact and expect to get away with it.

Just for the record, I am waiting for some of our less educated members to jump in and say, "well, a statement of fact has to be true", getting fooled by the presence of the word "fact". A statement of fact can either be true or false. The term "statement of fact" merely means the speaker is asserting it as a fact, rather than merely their opinion. If the statement of fact is true, then the speaker told the truth. If the statement is shown to be false, at the very least, the speaker is shown to be mistaken. If the statement is shown to be false and it can be proved that the speaker knew it to be false, that is the definition of a lie (although some hold there must be intent to deceive). If you want to claim something is perjury, it must be a deliberately false statement, made under oath and pertaining to a material matter.

[Diane_nyc]

103. Opinions vs. claims -- a key to ending some of the sillier endless quarrels around here?

SDuderstadt, I understand the difference between an opinion and a statement of fact. I fully agree with your post.

My aim in pursuing this matter has been to try to find a way to end some of the seemingly endless, silly quarrels here on this board, primarily involving you.

Do you think it would help if various people here were to be more careful about distinguishing between opinions and claimed facts, qualifying opinions with phrases like "in my opinion," "I believe," or "it seems to me"?

In my experience, a lot of people don't bother to make that distinction explicitly. Either they assume that their opinions will be recognized as opinions without an explicit qualifier, or they mistake their own opinions for facts. Is that true in your experience too?

[Jon Gold]

86. Hmmm...

That the 9/11 Commission was a legitimate investigation. It wasn't.

That they had a "failure of imagination," and had no idea what was coming, and never possibly conceived of what happened even though there is SO MUCH INFORMATION to suggest that they were WELL AWARE of what was coming and when, and conceived of the idea on TOO MANY occasions to count.

That whoever was responsible for murdering 2,973 people did so because they hate us for our freedoms.

Of course, that could change tomorrow.

[rschop]

104. RE: 9/11 Commission

The 9/11 Commission was a total and compete fraud to try to prove to the Americans people that the CIA and FBI Headquarters did not deliberately allow the attacks on 9/11 to take place, when in fact they had deliberately allowed these attacks to take place.

Even the public testimony by the top managers of the CIA and FBI was filled with so many lies that no one finally believed a word of what they said.

Tenet even stated under oath, on April 14, 2004 at these 9/11 Commission public hearings that when he knew that a huge attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans, he just had not talked to the President in August 2001 in order to tell the President about this huge attack and ask him to do something to stop this attack and prevent all of the deaths that occurred on 9/11. In fact he said he never even picked up the phone to call the President so he could give the President this important information? After all it was the President who was charged with protecting the American people and the President has repeatedly said that this was in fact his most important duty!

But Bill Harlow, CIA spokesman, said right after Tenet gave his testimony and could never be called back that Tenet had deliberately lied to the 9/11 Commission, lied several times in fact, and to the American people. Tenet had talked to the President on August 17, and August 30, 2001.

But we now also know Tenet flew down to Crawford on August 24, 2001 just after he learned long time al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in the huge al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans that the CIA was well aware of. So why did Tenet lie to the 9/11 Commissions and the American people.

And why did the 9/11 Commission not say , "Hey George you lying miserable bastard, you lied to us and your own CIA spokesman just told us that."

"We are calling you back so you can answer the question of what did you tell the president in August when you knew a huge al Qaeda attack was about to take place that would kill thousands of Americans and knew that at least two al Qaeda terrorists were already inside of the US. You also knew that Moussaoui had been arrested by the INS at the behest of the FBI because they thought he was an al Qaeda terrorist learning to fly a 747 in order to hijack a large commercial aircraft and fly it onto the WTC Towers, and knew he was found with two 4-inch folding knives on his person." "George Tenet we do not believe you when you said you had not talked to the president because we now know your own spokesperson just told us you lied. So what did you tell the President about these attacks in August 2001 and why did you deliberately lie to us in the public testimony on April 14, 2004 about these facts?"

Why was Tenet so afraid of being asked what he told the President in August that he would lie to the 9/11 Commission , the American people and even the whole world. Based on what we know he was aware of at the time it is inconceivable he had not told the President about this attack and that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were going to take part in this attack, an attack that he knew would kill thousands of Americans.

So what does that make our President, George Bush, if he knew about this attack and knew it was going to kill thousands of Americans and then just let it happen.

It is clear that all of the information that has come out since the 9/11 hearings point to this conclusion. As the 9/11 Commission said, we leave that up to the American people to decide about this!