FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Fox News: 9/11 Commission "a whitewash"





Navigator
Quote:
Do we all have to apologize to the Iranian president? Who's going to tell Jon Stewart? Will he be less of a "bigot" now? Coincidences are piling up. Will he admit to his "anal/rectal confluence?"

Two weeks ago, President Ahmadinejad of Iran called for a UN investigation of 9/11. He was called a lunatic by President Obama. Now, Fox News, new owner of Farsi 1, Iran's biggest entertainment network, has blown the lid off 9/11, calling it a "whitewash" and saying that the 9/11 Commissioners staged a coverup.

What can we say we have proven? Can we prove Israel was involved? No. Can we make a case, based on both direct testimony, documentary and circumstantial evidence, that they were involved and that failing to investigate this is part of a conspiracy? Yes.

Do we have to prove how it was done? No. Was Osama bin Laden involved? We don't know. It depends. The only way he could have been involved is if he were still working for the CIA and under their control.

Who should the next guest be? Attorney General Eric Holder?
"Mr. Holder, based on what we have just heard from these two highly reliable sources, clear evidence of a massive criminal conspiracy within the United States government, how do you suggest dealing with this problem?"

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/216398-Fox-News-9-11-Commission-a-whitewash-

Mod - Just this once I will put the quote tags in for you. Next time I will just spamcan (delete) the posting. If you wish to quote material from other sites it MUST be enclosed in quote tags and you must say where the material came from. You must also add something of your own - not simply copy-paste a quote like this.
Bikerman
liljp617
We can start calling somebody important when there's legitimate evidence, as opposed to mass speculation and jumping gigantic gaps because you don't think answers to a few questions have reached some arbitrary standard of truthfulness. When a movement is led by Alex Jones, you know you're on thin ice...

The only thing "covered up" is the arguable negligence of both the Clinton and Bush Administrations with regards to the seriousness of possible attacks and the power/influence of those commanding the attackers. And that point isn't really a cover-up to anybody who opens their eyes a little...it's out there, plain as day for anyone to observe.


You might get into a bit of trouble for the lack of quote tags by the way, just as a heads up.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
The only thing "covered up" is the arguable negligence of both the Clinton and Bush Administrations with regards to the seriousness of possible attacks and the power/influence of those commanding the attackers. And that point isn't really a cover-up to anybody who opens their eyes a little...it's out there, plain as day for anyone to observe.
I think there were many other things covered up that we may not even know about. Such as for example the quality of the building structures of the Twin Towers, that basically just about melted, however the extent to which the building may have been built below specifications could have been covered up to avoid huge law suits. Etc. etc. Many anomalies surrounding the Twin Towers for me.
Navigator
@Bikerman, no prob and sorry! Smile

liljp617 wrote:
We can start calling somebody important when there's legitimate evidence, as opposed to mass speculation and jumping gigantic gaps because you don't think answers to a few questions have reached some arbitrary standard of truthfulness. When a movement is led by Alex Jones, you know you're on thin ice...

The only thing "covered up" is the arguable negligence of both the Clinton and Bush Administrations with regards to the seriousness of possible attacks and the power/influence of those commanding the attackers. And that point isn't really a cover-up to anybody who opens their eyes a little...it's out there, plain as day for anyone to observe.


You might get into a bit of trouble for the lack of quote tags by the way, just as a heads up.


Well, if you don't think there are legitimate questions to the idea that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon leaving no trace at all of the fuselage, not crashing windows within the reach of the structure of the plane and leaving doubtful accounts from witnesses that work at the Pentagon and of course not showing video footage when available, then bashing Clinton/Bush for it is OK.

The gaps are gigantic in the opposite direction, the gaps in the story are HUGE and they deserve scrutiny as the whole event unfolded a terrible war, thousands if not millions dead and trillions upon trillions of taxpayer money being thrown away.

And Alex Jones is just spitting against the wind, you don't have to associate EVERYONE that questions the official story with him or his movement, there are others that pose legitimate and intelligent questions, questions that are there in plain sight (no pun intended).

Posts merged by GhostRider103
Bikerman
No trace of the fuselage?
Hmm...



The ground is strewn with bits of fuselage - that is what happens when a plane hits a structurally reenforced building at several hundred miles per hour.

There is a very good, thorough debunking of this offensive nonsense at the following site:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
No trace of the fuselage?

Obviously photoshopped. I can tell by the pixels! ^.^

You can't fool me with these lies I saw a documentary! A documentary! If it's on TV, you know it's true!
liljp617
Navigator wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
We can start calling somebody important when there's legitimate evidence, as opposed to mass speculation and jumping gigantic gaps because you don't think answers to a few questions have reached some arbitrary standard of truthfulness. When a movement is led by Alex Jones, you know you're on thin ice...

The only thing "covered up" is the arguable negligence of both the Clinton and Bush Administrations with regards to the seriousness of possible attacks and the power/influence of those commanding the attackers. And that point isn't really a cover-up to anybody who opens their eyes a little...it's out there, plain as day for anyone to observe.


You might get into a bit of trouble for the lack of quote tags by the way, just as a heads up.


Well, if you don't think there are legitimate questions to the idea that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon leaving no trace at all of the fuselage, not crashing windows within the reach of the structure of the plane and leaving doubtful accounts from witnesses that work at the Pentagon and of course not showing video footage when available, then bashing Clinton/Bush for it is OK.


The issues raised have been quite adequately dealt with.

Quote:
The gaps are gigantic in the opposite direction, the gaps in the story are HUGE and they deserve scrutiny as the whole event unfolded a terrible war, thousands if not millions dead and trillions upon trillions of taxpayer money being thrown away.


I don't believe the gaps are that large. The 9/11 Commission could have done a better job, sure. Why that automatically requires everyone to jump to a conspiracy theory about it being an inside job of some nature is beyond me. It means the 9/11 Commission was led by incompetent people. It means the government exhibits incompetency. These aren't revolutionary attributes of government and government organizations.

But again, the overwhelming majority of significant questions that conspiracy theorists latch on to have been adequately answered. Of course they won't admit it -- they don't get the ego boost, money, or attention if they admit their nonsense has been discredited.

Quote:
And Alex Jones is just spitting against the wind, you don't have to associate EVERYONE that questions the official story with him or his movement, there are others that pose legitimate and intelligent questions, questions that are there in plain sight (no pun intended).


The questions have been answered to anyone who at least attempts to lay down their bias and seek which side has the most rationality and fact behind it.
Navigator
Bikerman wrote:
No trace of the fuselage?
Hmm...



The ground is strewn with bits of fuselage - that is what happens when a plane hits a structurally reenforced building at several hundred miles per hour.

There is a very good, thorough debunking of this offensive nonsense at the following site:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1


Al right, and the rest of a 100 ton 757?
Bikerman
When you combust (oxidise) matter then you tend to get lots of smoke, so much of the mass would have literally gone up in smoke. A large amount of material WAS found - including major parts of the engines and landing gear.

Navigator
Bikerman wrote:
When you combust (oxidise) matter then you tend to get lots of smoke, so much of the mass would have literally gone up in smoke. A large amount of material WAS found - including major parts of the engines and landing gear.



Well, if you mean by major parts of the engines that rounded thingy that was pictured and shown, the people at rolls royce had a difficult time identifying it as being part of a 757 engine.

Anyways, here is something to watch:

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm
Bikerman
Of course they had a hard time identifying it - it was mashed. Nevertheless they DID identify it.
The video is the normal mix of misinformation, poor understanding and conspiracy theory nonsense.

Now why don't YOU read through the reference I provided earlier which deals with all these allegations and completely debunks them?
Navigator
Bikerman wrote:
Of course they had a hard time identifying it - it was mashed. Nevertheless they DID identify it.
The video is the normal mix of misinformation, poor understanding and conspiracy theory nonsense.

Now why don't YOU read through the reference I provided earlier which deals with all these allegations and completely debunks them?


It wasn't smashed, the piece seemed to be OK. Or are you referring to other pictures? If so, please post them as the links to the images don't work.
Bikerman
Simply go to the site I referenced. It is all explained - including the Rolls Royce comment.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
ocalhoun
Navigator wrote:

Well, if you mean by major parts of the engines that rounded thingy that was pictured and shown, the people at rolls royce had a difficult time identifying it as being part of a 757 engine.

Anyways, here is something to watch:


Give it up... It's quite sufficiently proven that a very large plane - almost certainly a 757 smashed into the Pentagon.

If you want to have a conspiracy theory, you still can, you just have to say that is wasn't really Islamic terrorists flying the plane, but actually US government agents, just like the ones that hit the World Trade Center.
(And really, if they went to all the trouble of hitting the WTC with real planes, why not use a real plane on the pentagon, too?)
Navigator
ocalhoun wrote:
Navigator wrote:

Well, if you mean by major parts of the engines that rounded thingy that was pictured and shown, the people at rolls royce had a difficult time identifying it as being part of a 757 engine.

Anyways, here is something to watch:


Give it up... It's quite sufficiently proven that a very large plane - almost certainly a 757 smashed into the Pentagon.

If you want to have a conspiracy theory, you still can, you just have to say that is wasn't really Islamic terrorists flying the plane, but actually US government agents, just like the ones that hit the World Trade Center.
(And really, if they went to all the trouble of hitting the WTC with real planes, why not use a real plane on the pentagon, too?)


The reason for this to be an issue is that this event unfolded a catastrophic war, 3k american civilians, thousands of US troops, more than a million iraqis and thousands of afghans civilians have been killed in the 7 years since this event. The backbone of the official story is shaky, it has gaps in it the size of the craters in the moon and taking all this into account you just can't help to ask, who benefits?

And just bear with me on this one, if flight 77 really just disintegrated into smoke, then how the FBI could identify the bodies? And another important question, where is the footage of the plane crashing the Pentagon?
Bikerman
This is tiresome.
I've provided you with a reference to a site which deals with the issues. Have you read it?
deanhills
Isn't the reason for doubt because of the general withholding of information from the public? There is plenty of security regulations in force at the Pentagon, and apparently they seized the video films of those who had filmed the immediate aftermath of the attack. So if the information below is correct, there were only two security videos shown by the Pentagon, and none of the two shows exactly what the crash looked like.
Quote:
With the release of the two video clips, the Pentagon claims to have supplied all of the footage it has of the attack. Although the number and positions of security cameras monitoring the Pentagon is not public knowledge, it seems unlikely that only two security cameras captured the attack. Isn't it reasonable to assume that there were dozens, if not hundreds, of security cameras ringing the huge building that is the heart of the United States military establishment?

Source: 9-11 Research
Bikerman
Why on earth would the Pentagon be surrounded by video cameras. The walls were reenforced concrete several feet thick. What possible threat could they have expected which would require surveillance? Yes, there are cameras at exits/entries, but on an otherwise blank wall? That would simply be a waste of resource and a waste of the security guards time.

I don't know why the Pentagon was so reluctant to release the tapes - perhaps just force of habit - but the tape does show what it was said to show, so i can't see why people persist on believing some crazy conspiracy theory....
ocalhoun
Navigator wrote:

The reason for this to be an issue is that this event unfolded a catastrophic war, 3k american civilians, thousands of US troops, more than a million iraqis and thousands of afghans civilians have been killed in the 7 years since this event. The backbone of the official story is shaky, it has gaps in it the size of the craters in the moon and taking all this into account you just can't help to ask, who benefits?

As stated earlier, if you want to insist that it was a conspiracy, just say the plane was flown by US agents. There's no reason to be so adamant about the plane not actually hitting the pentagon; it isn't even important to the whole 'it was a setup' conspiracy, since it can still all be fake, even if a real plane hit the pentagon.

As for the 'where's the plane!?!?' question, It's mostly inside the building, of course... In very small, charred pieces.
Quote:

And just bear with me on this one, if flight 77 really just disintegrated into smoke, then how the FBI could identify the bodies?

The way they usually do when a plane goes up in smoke. Dental records mainly.
Quote:
And another important question, where is the footage of the plane crashing the Pentagon?

On the site Bikerman linked to.

Why is there only one, low quality video?
1- The pentagon is used to operating in secrecy, they probably see no reason to release the tapes, if there are any... Especially since those tapes might be used to evaluate the effectiveness of hitting the building with a plane, and then used to improve the plan for next time.
2- As previously stated, why have a video camera pointed at a blank wall?
3- All military installations discourage photography and videotaping of the facility without permission - They do this to help prevent terrorist attacks and espionage.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
I don't know why the Pentagon was so reluctant to release the tapes - perhaps just force of habit - but the tape does show what it was said to show, so i can't see why people persist on believing some crazy conspiracy theory....
That is probably why the videos were shown? And only the ones by the Pentagon?

I'm not saying that there is a conspiracy. I am saying that the Pentagon was responsible for people thinking along conspiracy lines because of not being completely open and transparent. And possibly they could not be completely open and transparent because of their own safety rules and regulations.
watersoul
The conspiracy thing is a non-issue to me to be honest. Assuming there is a conspiracy, either government agents did it or jihadists, or there was no plane, or there is no spoon, whatever. The people privy to the whole thing would be so far up the chain of command that it would never be proven conclusively.

The whole roswell thing has dragged on for over 60 years and still some people let their lives be dominated by it - anything at a level "above normal rules apply" will just end up a diluted mystery with non-truths and crazies obsessed with the mystery and no-where near any "real" tangiable evidence.

To me, the biggest issue is as mentioned earlier, just the whole tragedy and sadness of many wasted lives caught up in some bigger picture most of us will never understand why.
Lets face it, if society were a machine, the average person is simply a small rivet in the air-con ducts, holding bits together but easily replaceable by the technical engineers.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I don't know why the Pentagon was so reluctant to release the tapes - perhaps just force of habit - but the tape does show what it was said to show, so i can't see why people persist on believing some crazy conspiracy theory....
That is probably why the videos were shown? And only the ones by the Pentagon?
The videos were shown because they were subject to a freedom of information ruling which meant they HAD to be released by law.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I don't know why the Pentagon was so reluctant to release the tapes - perhaps just force of habit - but the tape does show what it was said to show, so i can't see why people persist on believing some crazy conspiracy theory....
That is probably why the videos were shown? And only the ones by the Pentagon?
The videos were shown because they were subject to a freedom of information ruling which meant they HAD to be released by law.
Quite correct, in fact they were compelled by the court to do so. But what happened to all of the other videos?

Just to repeat again. I'm not in favour of a conspiracy theory here. My point of view is that the Pentagon was hiding materials and that that is the reason for the conspiracy theories. I also believe that some of the Video footages were never shown.
Blaster
If you want to argue about 9/11 being a hoax i'm pretty sure I've spent a good 12 pages arguing this

http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-33279.html#422267
liljp617
Blaster wrote:
If you want to argue about 9/11 being a hoax i'm pretty sure I've spent a good 12 pages arguing this

http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-33279.html#422267


Loose Change is nonsense.
Navigator
Bikerman wrote:
This is tiresome.
I've provided you with a reference to a site which deals with the issues. Have you read it?


I haven't yet, will check it over the weekend once I can get a break from work.

Bikerman wrote:

I don't know why the Pentagon was so reluctant to release the tapes - perhaps just force of habit - but the tape does show what it was said to show, so i can't see why people persist on believing some crazy conspiracy theory....


That video, the one from the gas station doesn't show at all that a 757 crashed the Pentagon, and even more worrisome is that upon the release of the video, there were missing frames to that file. And lets remember that the tape was in possession of the FBI officials in less than an hour after the event.

Blaster wrote:
If you want to argue about 9/11 being a hoax i'm pretty sure I've spent a good 12 pages arguing this

http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-33279.html#422267


Sorry blaster, I didn't check that out, perhaps we could continue the discussion over there.

[quote="ocalhoun"]
Navigator wrote:


Why is there only one, low quality video?
1- The pentagon is used to operating in secrecy, they probably see no reason to release the tapes, if there are any... Especially since those tapes might be used to evaluate the effectiveness of hitting the building with a plane, and then used to improve the plan for next time.
2- As previously stated, why have a video camera pointed at a blank wall?
3- All military installations discourage photography and videotaping of the facility without permission - They do this to help prevent terrorist attacks and espionage.


Well, there are videos, at least three of them. The one in the gas station across the Pentagon was confiscated within an hour after the event. It doesn't show of course a "blank wall", it shows the gas station and a part of the Pentagon lawn. This video has been released after much reluctance of the FBI. The orientation and quality of the video will hardly be of any use to anyone trying to get information about the Pentagon's surrounding, but it would definitely show if a big plane hit the Pentagon, the problem with this is that it doesn't, it doesn't show anything substantial, any hard evidence.

Yes the Pentagon works with secrecy, that same secrecy with which the intelligence community of the USA has always worked, remember, the Manhattan Project was hidden from the members of Congress for 2 years before they knew anything about it.

If the footage of the Twin Towers was shown endlessly, why not show the footage of the Pentagon?

Quadrupole posts merged by GhostRider103 Shocked
Blaster
liljp617 care to explain your reasoning?
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.