911 Commission Report is correct!

[slackjawed]

No question about it. The entire report and all the appendix's are true and simply can not be challenged.

 

[slackjawed]

The official report is even on the verge of being endorsed by the group "Transgendered People of Color for Truth" or TAiNT.
Wonder who put the bug in their butt to approve it?

 

[Toro]

You know what else is completely true?

Popular Mechanics.

 

[slackjawed]

The National Geographic report is right on the money too.

All the official reports are the gospel truth.

The people that contributed to them should be sainted, or is it cannonized, in a new national program.

 

[Liability]

I have also found out that the Warren Commission Report is completely and totally accurate in all respects!

 

[Fizz]

and the NIST report.....

 

[DiveCon]

so says you

 

[slackjawed]

The warren commission report is true as well, although that should be it's own thread

 

[jillian]

No question about it. The entire report and all the appendix's are true and simply can not be challenged.

It is true as far as it goes.

Unfortunately, they intentionally didn't go further because they wanted to close it quickly, so they left a lot of holes which allow the conspiracy theorists to fill in the gaps and make stuff up in their own heads.

For example, Bush and Cheney should never have been allowed to give their testimony while together in one room, without any recording of their statements and not under oath. Not because they lied.. but because it left an appearance that if they were going to be truthful, why wouldn't they allow themselves to be sworn and give their recorded statements separately?

 

[Shorebreak]

No question about it. The entire report and all the appendix's are true and simply can not be challenged.

It is true as far as it goes.

Unfortunately, they intentionally didn't go further because they wanted to close it quickly, so they left a lot of holes which allow the conspiracy theorists to fill in the gaps and make stuff up in their own heads.

For example, Bush and Cheney should never have been allowed to give their testimony while together in one room, without any recording of their statements and not under oath. Not because they lied.. but because it left an appearance that if they were going to be truthful, why wouldn't they allow themselves to be sworn and give their recorded statements separately?

Prosecution: Objection, Your Honor! The statement is opinionated and leading. Not only is there no evidence that the defendants, President Bush and Vice President Cheney, did not lie - there is no evidence that they even testified to anything!

...and that is why I just laugh to myself when I see these kinds of responses.

 

[candycorn]

No question about it. The entire report and all the appendix's are true and simply can not be challenged.

It is true as far as it goes.

Unfortunately, they intentionally didn't go further because they wanted to close it quickly, so they left a lot of holes which allow the conspiracy theorists to fill in the gaps and make stuff up in their own heads.

For example, Bush and Cheney should never have been allowed to give their testimony while together in one room, without any recording of their statements and not under oath. Not because they lied.. but because it left an appearance that if they were going to be truthful, why wouldn't they allow themselves to be sworn and give their recorded statements separately?

Not to be argumentative but when the commission questioned Bush and Cheney it was what, 2003 or 2004? How would you like to be put under oath to testify on what happened to you on, lets say, February 8, 2008 and I'm guessing that you had much less on your plate on 2/8/08 than Bush/Cheney had on 9/11/01? Yet you question why they weren't and twoofers expect these people to be placed under oath to recall items that happened 2 years before on the darkest day in American History? I wouldn't be able to recall the same things I did on that day much less 2/8/08 or even 2/8/09.

As for leaving a loophole...

They're still bitching about OKC, JFK, and WWII; what makes you think that if Mother Theresa conducted the investigation that the twoofers would be any more satisfied.

 

[Modbert]

As for leaving a loophole...

They're still bitching about OKC, JFK, and WWII; what makes you think that if Mother Theresa conducted the investigation that the twoofers would be any more satisfied.

OKC is crazy and the only things I hear about WWII is our entry into Pearl Harbor/Hitler's death.

Some say FDR knew about the Pearl Harbor attack coming, which is more of a half-truth than anything. He didn't know it was going to be at that exact time or location. However, talks had broken down only a couple weeks prior with Hull finally wiping his hands of the entire situation, exhausted of no progress. (Much like the Israel/Palestine situation today.) So he and others in the government could of suspected that something was coming in the future at some point.

Hitler's death is suspected due to the fact that Stalin himself believed until he died that Hitler had escaped. There's also the revival as of late that the so called skull of Hitler's wasn't Hitler's but rather a woman's.

And the JFK situation is because many people don't trust the Government since they locked up all the information until most of the people alive at the time would be dead. The Warren Commission Report itself may have been factual for the most part but never questioned more than a few members of the Mafia.

And then there is also evidence that sheds new light with Carlos Marcello admitting to a FBI wire unknowingly that he had JFK killed.

Carlos Marcello Had JFK Killed

While yes, many of the truthers do believe some of these theories to connect to their New World Order theory, that's not the case for everyone involved.

OKC I could see, the other two however do leave room for questions, especially with more evidence coming forward in recent years.

Edit:

To Clarify: Anyone saying OKC is some sort of scheme put forth by the Government should get to a doctor immediately. There is evidence however with WWII and JFK that leave room for reasonable and logical debate. Both of which are lacking in those who believe OKC or 9/11 was done by a massive organization or the U.S. Government.

 

[candycorn]

As for leaving a loophole...

They're still bitching about OKC, JFK, and WWII; what makes you think that if Mother Theresa conducted the investigation that the twoofers would be any more satisfied.

OKC is crazy and the only things I hear about WWII is our entry into Pearl Harbor/Hitler's death.

Some say FDR knew about the Pearl Harbor attack coming, which is more of a half-truth than anything. He didn't know it was going to be at that exact time or location. However, talks had broken down only a couple weeks prior with Hull finally wiping his hands of the entire situation, exhausted of no progress. (Much like the Israel/Palestine situation today.) So he and others in the government could of suspected that something was coming in the future at some point.

Hitler's death is suspected due to the fact that Stalin himself believed until he died that Hitler had escaped. There's also the revival as of late that the so called skull of Hitler's wasn't Hitler's but rather a woman's.

And the JFK situation is because many people don't trust the Government since they locked up all the information until most of the people alive at the time would be dead. The Warren Commission Report itself may have been factual for the most part but never questioned more than a few members of the Mafia.

And then there is also evidence that sheds new light with Carlos Marcello admitting to a FBI wire unknowingly that he had JFK killed.

Carlos Marcello Had JFK Killed

While yes, many of the truthers do believe some of these theories to connect to their New World Order theory, that's not the case for everyone involved.

OKC I could see, the other two however do leave room for questions, especially with more evidence coming forward in recent years.

Edit:

To Clarify: Anyone saying OKC is some sort of scheme put forth by the Government should get to a doctor immediately. There is evidence however with WWII and JFK that leave room for reasonable and logical debate. Both of which are lacking in those who believe OKC or 9/11 was done by a massive organization or the U.S. Government.

No way FDR let Pearl Harbor took place.
As for JFK, I believe that there is no chance that there was US government involvement. Now, I do think there were and possibly still are people who knew it was going to take place--in other words, we didn't get everybody involved in the plan--just everybody involved in the shooting. Some may have ties to the Government in some functionary respect (i.e. they worked for the government at one point possibly) but there was never a file on any one's desk with a plan in it that was approved.

9/11 Whackjob saying that seeing the film "JFK [the movie] told him how things happen in the real world" is humorous insofar as it is correct.

 

[slackjawed]

So far, I only see posts that reinforce my delief that the 911 commission report, the NIST report, The popular Engineering report AND the Warren Commission report are all true.

Where is the evidence to prove otherwise?

 

[Modbert]

No way FDR let Pearl Harbor took place.
As for JFK, I believe that there is no chance that there was US government involvement. Now, I do think there were and possibly still are people who knew it was going to take place--in other words, we didn't get everybody involved in the plan--just everybody involved in the shooting. Some may have ties to the Government in some functionary respect (i.e. they worked for the government at one point possibly) but there was never a file on any one's desk with a plan in it that was approved.

9/11 Whackjob saying that seeing the film "JFK [the movie] told him how things happen in the real world" is humorous insofar as it is correct.

Ack, don't remind me of the JFK Movie. Great movie, horrible piecing together as it comes with reality. Oliver Stone basically took every single theory out there and meshed them together.

Also, FDR didn't have a choice in whether Pearl Harbor would occur. There are plenty of books that have great detail about the U.S./Japan negotiations from 1937 to 1941.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Going-Japan-1937-1941-Jonathan-Utley/dp/0870494457]Amazon.com: Going to War With Japan, 1937-1941 (9780870494451): Jonathan G. Utley: Books[/ame]

That's one I read. It's not saying FDR let Pearl Harbor or anything such as that, but rather Pearl Harbor was enviable.

Cordell Hull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically what it came down to was the U.S. was not going to allow Japan to take over East Asia, especially places filled with material for wartime. It was due to the resources that Hull fought so badly for peace. To be quite blunt, the U.S. did not give a crap about China and were not willing to go over war on it.

So that's why I said it was a half truth that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming. He knew something was coming, but not the details.

As for JFK, that's a complex matter as well.

The theory is what the link says. We had just backed down from what would of been World War III with the Soviets when JFK's death happened. You ought to read pretty much any well-detailed mafia book, especially concerning the Chicago Mafia from the early 1950's to mid 1960's period. The CIA and Mafia were in bed together so to speak.

And they were not about to allow any information about their plot to kill Castro to come out after JFK's death. And if you're wondering, the mafia had motive to want to kill Castro as well. Castro had shut down all their casinos when he took over and they wanted them back.

Of course, there was nobody's file on any government desk that said it was going to happen. But they did their best to cover it up and The Warren Commission was lacking in several areas as previously pointed out.

But I do agree fully that anyone who believers these things point to a NWO of some sort is nutters, etc.

 

[Shorebreak]

Does anyone remember back when there was going to be no investigation of 9/11? Back when four young widows from New Jersey found out that the White House had asked Congress not to investigate 9/11? That was back in the day when the two leading Congressional supporters of an investigation both received Anthrax envelopes that were traced back to a USAMRID facility in Maryland.

Those four young widows/mothers of 9/11 victims wanted nothing more than the best for their dead husbands and for all of the other fallen 9/11 victims. When they first set out for help from our government, they were turned away. The White House refused to listen to them so they decided that they'd camp out on the office steps of memebrs of Congress until they could embarass someone into action. They finally stirred up enough attention that the White House was forced to listen, and a 9/11 Commission was announced - under the direction of Henry Kissinger.

So what did the fine, and loyal ladies from New Jersey decide to do? They visited Kissinger in his offices to determine whether or not he was the right man for the job. But before the visit, they conducted their research on the man and his business activities, discovering that his clients included the Saudi royal family and the contracting/engineering giant known as the Bin Laden Group. When they asked him directly if heading a 9/11 investigation would create any conflicts of interest the answer was "no". When they read out his known clients, he nearly dropped his coffee, explained that he might need to reconsider his role, and ended the meeting.

I believe that much of the truth about 9/11 has been distorted. But I also believe that these four widows of 9/11, aka the "Jersey Girls", were as sincere and honest as you can possibly get. If you want a real glimpse into how things actually rolled out in the months following 9/11, take a look at their story. It might not jive with the story that you prefer or that you accept, but for these ladies who lived it, it's reality.

Here's a link to their movie:

9/11: Press for Truth

 

[Terral]

Hi Slacker:

No question about it. The entire report and all the appendix's are true and simply can not be challenged.

Surely you jest! The 911CR and the Arlington County After-Action Report have been keyword sanitized of the term "explosions" that appears in both Officially-sworn Documents exactly ZERO (0) times. Since Americans and so damned STUPID, then this is point #10 on my list of reasons that the USA will certainly be destroyed. The 911CR (what a joke) never mentions WTC-7 once (my Topic) and the "Govt Documentation Proves 9/11 Was An Inside Job" (my Topic).

The Slacker makes the bold claim that the bogus 911CR is correct, but then offers no claims or evidence to support his abominable thesis and careless conclusions. The 911 Commission was gathered together to cover up the 9/11 Inside Job ... pure and simple ...

GL,

Terral

 

[slackjawed]

Hi Slacker:

No question about it. The entire report and all the appendix's are true and simply can not be challenged.

Surely you jest! The 911CR and the Arlington County After-Action Report have been keyword sanitized of the term "explosions" that appears in both Officially-sworn Documents exactly ZERO (0) times. Since Americans and so damned STUPID, then this is point #10 on my list of reasons that the USA will certainly be destroyed. The 911CR (what a joke) never mentions WTC-7 once (my Topic) and the "Govt Documentation Proves 9/11 Was An Inside Job" (my Topic).

The Slacker makes the bold claim that the bogus 911CR is correct, but then offers no claims or evidence to support his abominable thesis and careless conclusions. The 911 Commission was gathered together to cover up the 9/11 Inside Job ... pure and simple ...

GL,

Terral

The official repoart has been sanctioned by our government and the governments of the word. In addition, Osama took credit for the attacks, lending more credibility to the report.

It's been proven and accepted. It's up to you to prove it wrong if that's your belief.

Whatcha got?

More personal insults perhaps......little else.

 

[slackjawed]

Hi Slacker:

No question about it. The entire report and all the appendix's are true and simply can not be challenged.

Surely you jest! The 911CR and the Arlington County After-Action Report have been keyword sanitized of the term "explosions" that appears in both Officially-sworn Documents exactly ZERO (0) times. Since Americans and so damned STUPID, then this is point #10 on my list of reasons that the USA will certainly be destroyed. The 911CR (what a joke) never mentions WTC-7 once (my Topic) and the "Govt Documentation Proves 9/11 Was An Inside Job" (my Topic).

The Slacker makes the bold claim that the bogus 911CR is correct, but then offers no claims or evidence to support his abominable thesis and careless conclusions. The 911 Commission was gathered together to cover up the 9/11 Inside Job ... pure and simple ...

GL,

Terral

.









































There, I left you plenty of room to list your proof that the report is wrong.

 

[jillian]

Not to be argumentative but when the commission questioned Bush and Cheney it was what, 2003 or 2004? How would you like to be put under oath to testify on what happened to you on, lets say, February 8, 2008 and I'm guessing that you had much less on your plate on 2/8/08 than Bush/Cheney had on 9/11/01? Yet you question why they weren't and twoofers expect these people to be placed under oath to recall items that happened 2 years before on the darkest day in American History? I wouldn't be able to recall the same things I did on that day much less 2/8/08 or even 2/8/09.

As for leaving a loophole...

They're still bitching about OKC, JFK, and WWII; what makes you think that if Mother Theresa conducted the investigation that the twoofers would be any more satisfied.

People are called upon to testify two, three, four, ten years after events during the course of normal civil trials. If you have to testify to the execution of a will, you could be testifying to something that happened 20 years past or better.

And not to be argumentative, but the administration maintained records of even people who they met with at the white house from the day they took office. They had records of everything.

What I KNOW is that they spent 70 million dollars investigating a failed land deal and came up with a blue dress. They spent 7 million investigating 9/11.