while viewing the "Confronting the Evidence" DVD this weekend . . .

[OneBlueSky]

among the MANY things that really grabbed my attention was a quotation from the 9/11 Commission's report . . . I don't recall if the DVD provided the page or section number, but the gist of the quote was that the Commission didn't know who provided the funding for 9/11, and didn't consider it important that it be known! . . .

if I heard this right -- and I'm pretty sure I did -- this would constitute prima facie evidence that the Commission and its report are frauds . . .

is anyone familiar enough with the report to be able to provide a citation for this statement? . . . I'd like to see the exact wording, and the context in which it was made . . .

[Horse with no Name]

1. I watched this last weekend

Amazing eh?
Opened my eyes to a few things.

[jeff30997]

2. I always thought that this "commission" was a joke.

[pauldp]

3. Check out this thread about Pakistan's ISI (CIA cronies) funding Atta

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x50927

[FreedomAngel82]

4. Anway to see this film online??

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

5. Here you go!

http://reopen911.org/pictures_and_videos.htm

[petgoat]

6. "Ultimately the question is of little practical significance."

The 9/11 Commission's dissing of the issue appears in p. 172 of the
pdf--I suppose it's the same numbering scheme as the paper book.

I don't suppose the business ties that the Commission's chair, Thomas
Kean--and George Bush for that matter--had to the suspected terrorist
financier Khalid bin Mahfouz had anything to do with the Commission's
decision not to go there.

"To date, the US government has not been able to determine the origin
of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of
little practical significance. Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding."

Gee, if you're inclined to be credulous, that sounds convincing.
Nothing to see here. It neatly sidesteps the fact that the Indians
knew that the approval for the $100k payment to Atta came from General
Mahmood Ahmed of Pakistani Intelligence, the same guy who was having
breakfast with Porter Goss and Bob Graham on 9/11. It neatly avoids
opening the can of worms that is al Qaeda's "many sources of funding."
Phil Zelikow is sure smooth!

[OneBlueSky]

8. that's the one . . . think maybe the American people should hear . . .

about this? . . . I know the corporate media won't cover it, so I'm continuing my own campaign of making copies of the DVD and distributing them to everyone I know . . . that the Commission feels that the question of where the money to fund 9/11 came from is "of little practical significance" is disgraceful and exposes the entire enterprise as a fraud, imo . . .

thanks for the citation . . .

[petgoat]

9. where the money to fund 9/11 came from

According to Kyle Hence, Daniel Pearl's widow says that Pearl was
beheaded because he was on the trail of the source of funds, the
connections between al Qaeda and the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI.

Pearl's kidnappers at one point demanded that the US provide F-16s to
Pakistan--a strange request don't you think? Apparently last fall Condi
agreed to provide them.

[reprehensor]

7. Yup.

Sure would be embarrassing to peel away the layers of ISI funding to find...

Ah, not that important.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

[JackRiddler]

10. you're welcome

I wrote that segment into the original script for "Confronting the Evidence," for which I was paid but received no credit. Nor do I want my name associated with this DVD, which has a lot of good stuff but is a terrible butcher job of the actual event in NYC on Sept. 11, 2004.

(ON EDIT: Yeah, page 172 as correctly cited above by petgoat.)