I do understand. You don't. That is somewhat on display here since you caved in and eventually tried to make an argument.

Jiggs and Deuces confirmed furious, love it.

No. We're not like that at all. Here's why:

Actually, we have told you what's wrong with it. Time and time again. From the commissioners themselves saying the investigation was set up to fail all the way to the omission of the money trail and the mandate not to assign blame.

Inversely, you coincitards can't just say "it WAS investigated" over and over again. This claim will never hold water.

Gambool confirmed out of bullets. Love it.

True. Although in those examples I don't think a very high proportion of people hold those beliefs. I believe we went to the moon. But why do I believe that? I didn't go. I was even alive when it was said to have taken place. So why should I believe that?

I believe we went to the moon because I almost always trust in what others report. On some level, whether in your life or wrt public affairs, you have to trust other people to give you true information. I have no problem doing that under almost all conditions. But when people behave incredibly secretively when the value of transparency is never greater, this starts to set the condition for when I think about not trusting people. When the people being secretive have criminal backgrounds and are very likely sociopaths that makes me more distrustful. When those same people directly benefit from a tragedy, then my trust is gone. I want to see the evidence at that point and I want the people who are responsible or negligent held to account. We should all be demanding this.

At the same time I can see how people, who need to trust each other and trust communications, are lulled into trusting everything by simply maintaining the trusting attitude they need to survive. When you combine this with the reflex to come together in the face or a real enemy in terrorism (regardless of it's origins) then I can really see why this sorry situation developed.

Yea here's the thing. You just said nothing and you know it this whole post is misdirection. Notice you said nothing about anything they actually got wrong or gave any reason why the things they "omitted" should have been investigated.


You're entire premise is basically "doesn't That seen weird"? Which, surprisingly doesn't impress a lot of people

What? ... 180 degrees wrong. You don't get to fake what I've presented and try and re-write forum history.

My "entire premise" (for now) is to get any one of you clowns on record admitting the 9/11 Commission was profoundly flawed, and thus, not really much of an endorsement for your argument. You guys seem to have nothing in your arsenal besides "but the 9/11 Commission sez!!," some tortured logic and endless trolling. ... So, fine. Can't help the other two, so let's talk about the Kean Commission. Because in the end, there's no where to go besides having to concede that the great coincidence novel means next-to-nothing. It was a book deal. Written like a book, aimed to keep it safe and satisfy an increasingly outraged public. ... Unless you wanna actually discuss the aspects it astoundingly doesn't bother to cover, we'll safely assume you know it was a half-assed "official investigation," yet don't have the courage to openly admit it. But that's OK, because we already have Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean doing so for you. It's true regardless of whether you admit it or not. Awwww.

So let's cut the crap once and for all: Despite the Commissioners themselves admitting it was a disaster, Team "Nothing to See Here" will never budge an inch when it comes to being honest about the great novel. Because you guys know that once you acknowledge the fact that Kean Commission openly said it wouldn't even try from the very start, it's a cancer for your argument. At least for anyone being at least honest with themselves, which I doubt is the case for most of you.

Do better.

Yet again, not a single concrete example of what they got wrong, or why something that was "omitted" shouldn't have been.

The funniest thing about it is you probably think that if you just spout enough rhetoric you'll be convincing, but you're awful at that too.

wtf are you talking about? are you following the thread lucidly? ... I brought up ISI Gen. Mahmud Ahmad (spellings vary). He wasn't even mentioned in the Kean report. Kind of a big deal.

Are you one of those rookie coincitards entering the fray late and hoping to learn as you go along? Because the discussion doesn't really have time for you. Come back when you grasp the basic objections voiced by skeptics.

Here's a bit more that the 9/11 never mentions once... not once:

- Ahmad's wire transfer to Atta
- Pakistani ISI
- Omar Sheikh
- Khalid bin Mahfouz
- Dave Frasca
- John O'Neill
- Caspian region
- Halliburton
- Cheney's NEPDG
- WTC7
- the Office of National Preparedness

plenty more, if you like...

Do I need to flesh out how each of those are beyond relevant? Or will you be able to do some work for yourself so that the discussion can move forward?

I've read the Report, front to back. Have you? I have it on PDF if you'd like.

Yea, and I asked you before how you tie his actions to the U.S. and... nothing. His mere existence is not "evidence" for your side.


This is good, though. For all your insults and bluster, it's interesting to see how easy it is to turn you into a quivering mess of generalities.

Boy, even you realized your post was crap before the edit. Progress?

As per the bolded: Yep. That's usually how it works when you're trying to convince someone of something.

I appreciate the "I'm not going to do your homework for you!" variant though. Nice to know you will still dig into the truther playbook when you get cornered.

If you're insinuating I saw your ******ed post above and then edited my post, I can assure you I'm only seeing it just now. And yup, you're one of those kinds of coincitards that I mentioned. Unaware of the main objections, and learning as you go along:

Very well. I'll lead you by the hand on the first one, and we'll see how you handle it. If you do well, we'll cover some others.

Indian intelligence asserted that Ahmad (or Sheikh) transferred $100K to Mohammed Atta shortly before the attacks. This was confirmed by our own FBI. ... The point (at this stage in the discussion) isn't about "tying him to the U.S." you simpleton. It's about the fact that, obviously, if he wasn't even mentioned in your great romance novel, then the money trail couldn't possibly have been followed, and an enormous black mark on the Commission. The man was literally IN Washington D.C. as the attacks were happening, meeting with lawmakers. This is well documented.

So, Magnum, ... do you maybe think this man might possibly have some explaining to do? Some stories to tell? ... Was any pressure put on the Pakistani govt. to have him debriefed? Maybe even arrested and detained for questioning? Once?

One might say our CIA created their ISI. I doubt it would have created an "international incident" to ask a few questions.

Logic, how does it work?

And yes, it IS about tying him to the U.S. because your claim is that they lihop. If they didnt know about it, they couldnt have stopped him if they wanted to (assuming he was involved, of course) and thus, no lihop.

What you are actually intending to argue here (whether you know it or not; probably not) is cover up. Which is different than lihop.

Idiot. It goes A, then B, then C, then D, then E and so on.

It doesn't go A straight to Z.

The mention has nothing to do with the U.S. "stopping him." It's about a prime witness never questioned. Can you coincitards ever discuss this topic without jumping ahead and creating straw men? Calm down, focus, and let's dissect it step by step.

Again, this part is about discrediting your romance novel. Not showing Dick Cheney's fingerprints. We can perhaps get to that, if you'd ever stop causing AIDS with the opening volley.

So in other words, no you can't connect his money to Atta to U.S. Thanks for saving us the time.

I have been arguing this stuff for way too long to follow you down another one of your ******ed rabbit holes. Either present your evidence or take your medicine.

DONT FORGET RANDOM FIRES IN MANHATTAN COULD BE A CONSPIRACY

I don't care about the commission report, I trust Nova.

Yet it's the most plausible conclusion a rational mind can come to after examining everything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

"in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."

People tell little white lies all the time, it's accepted as part of human nature and the way that society moulds us. So therefore people realize that there are lots of little lies going on in politics amongst the politicians they see on tv. People don't, however, think that there could possibly be a much bigger lie going on, like the complete fabrication of a media narrative with background stories, fake victims/perpatrators and social media simulations acting as a witness testimony to the fake event. People don't realize the motives behind such a big lie, so they disregard all possibility that what they see on their tv screens might be a load of codswallop.

The idea that Islamic extremists would become suicide bomber terrorists is ridicilous, there's nothing in their religion that says they should kill themselves and in the process kill others of a different religion. Humans naturally have survival instincts, they aren't just going to kill themselves because their leader told them so, and hi jacking aeroplanes w intention of flying them into the twin towers and killing not only yourself but a load of others, just because of a religious command, is the most preposterous lie i've ever heard. Man flying to other planets back in the 60's and filming it is a close second.

You are so painfully, painfully stupid.

Even Jiggs laughed this theory off. Ive spoken to people who saw the planes, were they hologram simulations too?

At least we all agree that Al Qaeda did it and the USA didn't aid them.

I have to admit folks like JiggsCasey/Deuces are making compelling arguments

In any event I think folks are missing something huge in the sense that without the USA/Saudi/Pakistan assistance to Afghanistan during the 80s, 9/11 would not have occurred.

Al Qaeda is something brand new, at least in terms of history. The facts are the folks who fought the Russians in Afghanistan during the 80s would go on to form the Taliban/Al Qaeda. The bottom line is Al Qaeda or the Taliban would not have had the means to come to power had it not been for the military equipment/money/training these folks received in the 80s.

And this has what to do with anything?

You remind me of that kid who just has to let everyone know that Christmas actually comes from a pagan holiday.

The origins of Al Qaeda are relevant. Blowback which traces back to some of the same people who were in power when 9/11 happened is very relevant as it shows a deeper link between the government and the perpetrators at hand which can serve as the basis of a more profound discussion as to who is ultimately responsible.

It also underscores the point that the U.S. government routinely acts in ways which protects and advances what it sees as its interests whether or not the course has anything to do with the official line. If it doesn't, the government just lies. For example, officially we want to foster democracy in the world. That's the official line. In reality our government trains, arms, and supports any monsters who it thinks will further what it sees as its interests which, of course, are the interests of the oligarchs and not the interests of the majority. The fact that our government is willing to lie to us and keep us in the dark about so many things is certainly relevant to this discussion.

Someone read Chomsky