I'm tired of hearing people who believe the 9/11 CR, referring to themselves as "skeptics".

[BeachBaby]

Dictionary.com's definition of "skeptic":

A person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

With all due respect, the people who aren't convinced by the 9/11 Commission Report, are in fact....THE SKEPTICS.

Just wanted to clear that up.

[Make7]

1. I think if we could just clear up who does and does not like what nomenclature...

... as it applies to others and also to themselves, we will be well on our way to clearing up all the issues that never seem to get settled.
 

[BeachBaby]

3. I agree.

I have two major issues with the whole thing:

1. Our govt fought to NOT have an investigation. When they realized that people were not going to let it rest, they allowed an investigation - but it wasn't independent. It was a govt investigation. The very same govt who essentially declared "gross negligence" and "incompetency" to define their lack of response that day, now wants to be in charge of the investigation. People demanded an independent investigation, but the govt wouldn't have it. Everything was on their terms. EVERYTHING.

2. Any physical evidence was either not handed over, or handed over to govt agencies for the investigation. Because of this, people like myself have to rely on circumstantial evidence. And the horrendous amount of circumstantial evidence does NOT point to some foreign faction from the Middle East as being the culprit. It's kinda like the Scott Peterson case - they literally had no physical evidence to work with, but the circumstantial evidence put him on death row, because it was so damning.

Hell - the FBI has even admitted that we have "no hard evidence" on OBL or AlQaeda. But a War on Terror is the result of this lack of hard evidence. Our country is falling apart because of the MICs obsession with the Middle East - and I believe that it's all based on a lie. I really do. I am tired of hearing about HOW the buildings fell, or WHAT hit the Pentagon (although I call BULLSHIT on Building 7). In the end, those things don't matter. What matters is WHO IS RESPONSIBLE - because whoever it is, completely fucked up this country. And I'm pissed. REALLY pissed.

So, to all the people here who seem to want to do nothing more than attack those who truly are skeptics - I ask you this: forget about the "freefall collapses"; forget about "thermite" and "thermate" and buildings filled with nukes. Are you willing to maturely discuss who the hell should be held responsible for this?

[SDuderstadt]

5. This is probably one of the dumbest posts...

I have read on this subject. I take it you don't like Logic, either.

Take, for example, your rather silly claim that "the FBI has even admitted that we have 'no hard evidence' on either OBL or al Qaeda". Collosally stupid statements like the foregoing are what happens when you take statements made in the initial aftermath of an event, then pretend they trump statements made much later when more evidence has been developed. It also indicates that you haven't paid much attention to the Moussaoui trial.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/

You also don't seem to understand much about how the 9/11 Commission was established. Have you ever read the public law creating it? I'm willing to bet you haven't. The rest of your post is so packed with conspiracy theory bullshit, myth and gibberish, it's hard to know where to begin.

[BeachBaby]

23. So, Rex Tomb is full of shit?

And, there's no mention of 9/11 on OBL's Most Wanted poster, because why? What - nobody felt like updating his poster?

I'm intrigued at your intent to twist people's words, on this forum. I never questioned how the Commission was formed - and you know it.

Your posts are purely ad hominem. One of your other replies to me suggests that I am not into science - EVEN THOUGH I EXPRESSLY STATED THAT I AM SOLELY INTERESTED IN WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ATTACKS, AND NOT INTERESTED IN HOW BUILDINGS FELL, AND WHAT CAUSED THEM TO FALL.

Have you ever worked in the field of law? Do you understand how it works? Generally, there are two sides - and both sides have to support their argument. So, each side will find a support circle - a team of experts - to prove their side. Attys hunt down "experts" who can support their position, no matter what the position is. The govt had "experts" to support their position - even though there are multitudes of other "experts" who can support a different position.

If you can't engage in rational discussion about that, I will put you on ignore. Not a threat, my dear. It's what I do when certain people make every attempt to distract others from the topic in question.

[SDuderstadt]

24. "I will put you on ignore"

or what you do when you are called on your bullshit and are asked questions you cannot answer.

Do you really think the FBI does not want bin Laden in conjunction with 9/11? You realize that the FBI does not charge people with crimes, right?
Simple question (before you put me on "ignore"). Are you denying we were attacked by bin Laden and al Qaeda on 9/11?

[BeachBaby]

29. Exactly what "bullshit" did you call me on, that I cannot answer?

And, yes dear - I am fully aware of the capacity of the FBI. Again, you were missing my point.

I obviously haven't put you on ignore yet - because I offered you the option of discussing this without ad hominem attacks. I awaited your reply - and while your first sentence is questionable, I'll accept it.

To answer your question: "Are you denying we were attacked by bin Laden and al Qaeda on 9/11?"

Like the FBI, I have no "hard evidence" to link bin Laden and al Qaeda to the attacks on 9/11. The ONLY reason people believe it to be OBL and AQ, is because the Bush Administration said so. Because repetitive liars hold absolutely zero credibility, I cannot accept their accusation of OBL/AQ as being the "evildoers", especially since they don't have the "hard evidence" to support their accusation.

So, am I denying anything? Yes. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are innocent until proven guilty. That's how it works in the United States - or, that's how it USED to work in the United States. It really is that simple.

[SDuderstadt]

39. " Exactly what "bullshit" did you call me on, that I cannot answer"

It's your rather silly insistence that the FBI says they have no evidence against bin Laden, when the Director of the FBI states the evidence against him is clear and irrefutable. Again, you're posting stuff from bullshit conspiracy theory websites.

The al-Qaeda terrorist network headed by Usama Bin Laden is clearly the most urgent threat to US interests. The evidence linking al-Qaeda to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable, and our investigation of the events leading up to 9/11 has given rise to important insights into terrorist tactics and tradecraft, which will prove invaluable as we work to prevent the next attack.

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress03/mueller021103.htm

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Connecting_bin_Laden_to_9-11

[BeachBaby]

44. Okey doke.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=rex_tomb_1

[SDuderstadt]

37. "I never questioned how the Commission was formed - and you know it"

Our govt fought to NOT have an investigation. When they realized that people were not going to let it rest, they allowed an investigation - but it wasn't independent. It was a govt investigation. The very same govt who essentially declared "gross negligence" and "incompetency" to define their lack of response that day, now wants to be in charge of the investigation. People demanded an independent investigation, but the govt wouldn't have it. Everything was on their terms. EVERYTHING.

Your exact words, BB.

[BeachBaby]

45. I guess I need to be more specific with you.

You had asked me, upthread, if I was aware of how a Commission is formed - and I do know how a Commission is formed. I never questioned how a commission is formed.

My issue - as I already stated - is that they would not allow an INDEPENDENT investigation.

[SDuderstadt]

49. Independent of what?

I also did not ask you how "a commission" is formed. I asked you how the 9/11 Commission was established.

You're just playing a typical "truther" game.

[BeachBaby]

52. Okay. Have it your way.

You don't want to engage in respectful discussion. I tried.

[SDuderstadt]

60. No...

you refuse to have an honest discussion.

[BeachBaby]

55. Jesus, Dude. Even the commission knew something was wrong.

Very, very wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html

[SDuderstadt]

61. Hmm...

earlier you claimed the Commission was not "independent". But, this article actually contradicts your claim.

Did you notice that?

[SDuderstadt]

41. "One of your other replies to me suggests that I am not into science - EVEN THOUGH I EXPRESSLY...

STATED THAT I AM SOLELY INTERESTED IN WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ATTACKS, AND NOT INTERESTED IN HOW BUILDINGS FELL, AND WHAT CAUSED THEM TO FALL"

I am tired of hearing about HOW the buildings fell, or WHAT hit the Pentagon (although I call BULLSHIT on Building 7

Your exact words...again.

[BeachBaby]

46. Yeah?

Your point?

[SDuderstadt]

50. So...

you are denying the science of WTC 7.

[Yeahyeah]

38. Man,are you tiresome.

[SDuderstadt]

40. More like tireless combating...

goofy conspiracy theory bullshit.

[BeachBaby]

48. Isn't he, though?

I've gone back and forth with him, on and off, over the years. I often wonder what he thinks he's going to accomplish. He often reminds me of the evangelicals who keep pounding the pavement, trying to make everybody believe in Jesus.

A lot of parallels there, if you really think about it.

[SDuderstadt]

51. Umm...

I'm not the one pushing the faith-based "truther" bullshit.

[BeachBaby]

54. Well, who's doing that?

[SDuderstadt]

62. Umm...

you are. Duh.

[BeachBaby]

68. Interesting. Where am I "pushing" anything?

[SDuderstadt]

69. I already debunked your stupid claim about...

the FBI and bin Laden. Duh.

[BeachBaby]

71. LOL. Okay. Whatever gets you through the night.

[SDuderstadt]

72. Facts are inconvenient...

aren't they? You sound like "Loose Change" exploded in your head, with all the goofy conspiracy theory bullshit you toss out there.

[BeachBaby]

73. LOL. If you say so.

:hi:

[SDuderstadt]

74. Well, unless you can refute what Director Mueller said...

your claim wasn't worth anything. Most people would admit their error gracefully. Why can't you?

[BeachBaby]

75. Actually, I already had. I posted the link upthread. But, here's the clip....

June 6, 2006: FBI Spokesman Says ‘No Hard Evidence’ Connects Bin Laden to 9/11 When asked why Osama bin Laden’s wanted poster only mentions his alleged involvement in the East African embassy bombings, but not 9/11, Rex Tomb of the FBI’s public affairs unit says, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” The Washington Post will later pick up this story and say that bin Laden’s alleged involvement in the 9/11 operation is not mentioned on the poster because he has not been indicted for it (see August 28, 2006).

[SDuderstadt]

76. And, you know what's wrong with your claim...

don't you. This is getting stupid. Simple question: do you deny that we were attacked by al Qaeda on 9/11?

[BeachBaby]

77. What's wrong with my claim?

[SDuderstadt]

78. Well...

you can start with quote-mining.

I'm not really interested in continuing this.

[LARED]

7. 'Are you willing to maturely discuss who should be held responsible for this?'

Sure. Let me know when you have any evidence contrary to the present narrative. I mean real evidence, not made-up or partially true facts, or bits of speculation based on ignorance or lazy research.

I've been waiting for that for nearly nine years, and so far I've gotten zilch from 9/11 CTers.

[BeFree]

11. As you can now see, Beach Baby

There are a few here who can't maturely discuss this.

That's ok, they destroy only their credibility.
Remember, this is their dungeon, we are but visitors here.

[rschop]

35. re: Are you willing to maturely discuss who the hell should be held responsible for this?

Since someone else has now also posted the web site for the Moussaoui trail, I thought it might be illustrative to see what is actually on this site.

The information on this site includes both plaintiff and defense exhibits entered into the Moussaoui trail and this information is now in the public domain.

See the following webs site; http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/, both the plaintiff and defense exhibits are there but it is the defense exhibits that at are the most chilling!

In fact one of the most chilling documents ever uncovered is DE 939. In this document CIA officer Tom Wilshire indicates in email back to his CIA CTC managers, in CIA speak, that Mihdhar will be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda terrorist attack. Also listed is the fact that Mary in reality FBI IOS Agent Margaret Gillespie, working at the CIA Bin Laden unit, finds out from the INS that both al Qaeda terrorists Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US on August 22, 2001, and takes this information to CIA officer Tom Wilshire and FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi. Wilshire and Corsi keep this completely secret from the FBI agents on the FBI criminal investigation of the Cole bombing even though Wilshire, as does the rest of the CIA now know that Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US only in order to take part in the horrific al Qaeda attack that the CIA and FBI HQ had been warned about since April 2001. But on August 28, 2001 when FBI Agent Steve Bongardt does finds out that Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US they shut down his investigation.

Wilshire had been operating under the control of high level CIA managers as shown by DE 939, and the fact that he had tried twice on July 13, and July 23, 2001 to get permission to pass the information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting and the fact that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at that Kuala Lumpur meeting with Walid Bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing, actually planning the Cole bombing, but was denied permission twice by these CIA high level managers. When the CIA and FBI HQ did this they were well aware that as a result of their actions to shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that thousands of people are going to be murdered shortly in the al Qaeda attacks the CIA and FBI HQ had been warned about since April 2001.

In addition to DE 939, are DE-0681 and DE 0682. In DE 681/682, FBI HQ IOS Agent Dina Corsi tells Bongardt on August 28, 2001, that he and his team must shut down any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi because the information came from intelligence through the NSA. But on August 27, 2001 the day before, the NSA had already given Corsi written permission to give all of this NSA information to the criminal investigators on the Cole bombing investigation, and DE-0448 is the actual release from the NSA for Corsi on this Moussaoui trial web site.

Corsi also tells Bongardt on August 29, 2001 that a NSLU attorney had ruled that Bongardt and his team could have no part in the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi but per Sherry Sabol’s testimony to DOJ IG investigators, on November 7, 2002, in the DOJ IG report, it is clear that Sabol, the NSLU attorney Corsi had contacted, had ruled in fact just the opposite and had ruled that Bongardt and his team could be part of any investigation and search for of Mihdhar since the NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant.

This was the exact argument that FBI Agent Steve Bongardt had raised when he asked Corsi on August 28, 2001 to get a legal ruling from the NSLU, the FBI legal unit, to see if he could investigate and search for Mihdhar and Hazmi. Bongardt even tells Corsi on August 29, 2001 as she is shutting down his investigation, that these terrorists are inside of the US to carry out yet another horrific al Qaeda terrorist attack, and people will die because of this ruling. See testimony of Sherry Sabol, aka Sherry S. 9/11 Commission report page 538, footnote 81.

Corsi also never tells Bongardt as she is shutting down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that she even knows that the CIA had been deliberately hiding the photograph of Walid Bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing, taken at Kuala Lumpur, from him and his Cole bombing investigating team, a photograph that directly connects both Mihdhar and Hazmi, who were at the same meeting, to the actual planning of the Cole bombing that had taken place at Kuala Lumpur, see page 302 DOJ IG report for the details on this.

By combining the material from the Moussaoui web site with other material that is now in the public domain it was straight forward to see that the CIA working with groups indeed of the FBI HQ that they had subjugated had deliberately and intentionally allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

Even the Director of the FBI Louis Freeh had been criminally obstructing FBI Agent Ali Soufan and Steve Bongardt’s investigation of the Cole bombing, see account of Soufan July 10, 2006 New Yorker, DOJ IG report pages 238-239 and 9/11 Commission report page 181 for the details on this.

This was not LIHOP, let it happen on purpose this was MSIHOP, deliberately "MADE SURE" it would happen on purpose, on the part of the CIA working with FBI HQ agents they had subjugated at FBI HQ.

See my Journal for information on all of this horrific information and details on this and how it was possible to connect all of the dots!

Again if anyone has information that can refute any of this feel free to do so, but I do not care to see some moron posting nothing but their stupid and ridiculous opinions that are nothing in reality but pathetically really obnoxious snarky ad hominem attacks.

[SDuderstadt]

36. "I do not care to see some moron posting nothing but their stupid and ridiculous opinions...

that are nothing in reality but pathetically really obnoxious snarky ad hominem attacks".


I thibk my irony meter just blew up.

[BeFree]

57. Thanks again, rschop

Imagine what John O'Neill could have done with these reports had he not been killed.

He was probably the only person who could have changed how the whole investigation turned out.

[BeachBaby]

59. Thanks for the info.

And, I bookmarked your website. :)

[SDuderstadt]

2. Well, science isn't for...

everyone.

I've got a great new slogan for you guys: "my personal incredulity trumps your science!".

Catchy, no?

[BeachBaby]

4. Read Post #3.

[William Seger]

6. If you "question the validity or authenticity" of the Commission Report...

... and you have actually read it, and you have actually examined the evidence behind its conclusions, and you have valid reasons for doubting the conclusions, then it would be fair enough to call yourself a "skeptic." If you haven't actually done those things -- you're just "not convinced" -- then no, you aren't really a skeptic. If you make claims about an alternate version of what happened and can't offer any good reasons why those claims should be accepted as factual, then you are certainly not a skeptic.

> With all due respect, the people who aren't convinced by the 9/11 Commission Report, are in fact....THE SKEPTICS.

With all due respect, there don't seem to be very many people who really qualify as Commission Report skeptics, by my definition.

[BeFree]

8. heh

Some of those conclusions were based upon confessions obtained from torture.

But you just ignore that.

The OCTers are selective at best.
And given who the ringleader of their kind is, they are easily dismissed.

You're dismissed.

[SDuderstadt]

9. Seger has far more credibility than...

you do, dude.

P.S. Perhaps you could point to the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission report which are "based upon confessions obtained by torture". Of course, that means you would actually have to READ the report, so I suspect we won't be hearing from you any time soon, dude.

[BeFree]

10. And I have more than the 9/11 CR

But Seger thinks and trusts and wholly supports the 9/11 CR from bushco?

And you have no credibility.... No one here likes to read your junk, and it doesn't fly anywhere else. This is your home, eh?

[SDuderstadt]

12. "and I have more than the 9/11 CR"

dude, it's pretty clear that you haven't actually read the report. Beyond that, we've pointed out numerous times that "Bushco" didn't control the Commission. If it did, then tell me how "Bushco" failed to prevent the Commission's rather scathing treatment of the administration.

Dude...if you "have more than the 9/11 CT", please produce it. It would probably be more fun to read than your patently stupid claims.

[BeFree]

13. More of your goofy bullshit

"Bushco didn't control the commission" wrote DUDer

Do you actually believe what you write? No one else does.

How, day after day, you can come up with this BS is quite amazing. Someone needs to do a study of how you do it.

[SDuderstadt]

14. Dude...

why don't you tell us how "Bushco controlled" the 9/11 Commission. Please be specific. It's pretty clear that you've not only never read the 9/11 CR, nor have you ever read Shenon's"The Commission", nor Farmer's "The Ground Truth" or you wouldn't make such patently stupid assertions. Please, enlighten us, dude.

[BeFree]

15. one word reply to: "how "Bushco controlled" the 9/11 Commission"

Anthrax.

Now, in the interest of debate, which with you is ridiculous, I know, I will ask you a very simple question....

Are you saying bushco had no control?

[SDuderstadt]

17. I am asking you to prove your rather stupid claim that "Bushco" controlled the 9/11...

Commission since you obviously know little of how it was selected or how it actually worked.

The 9/11 Commission wasn't even established until 14 months after the anthrax attacks, so I don't even understand wtf you're babbling about now. I doubt you do, either.

Do you just blurt out the first stupid thing that pops into your head, dude?

[BeFree]

18. Now

All you got is flamebait?

Can't even answer a simple question?


Quit your babbling, please.

[SDuderstadt]

25. Dude...

you claimed "Bushco controlled" the 9/11 Commission through "anthrax". I am simply asking you specifically how that happened.

I also find it ironic that you accuse me of "flamebait", even as you accuse other members of being "Fox News" viewers.

It must really suck to be you, dude.

[BeFree]

27. Do you even pay attention?

Do you realize you may the only human who thinks for one second that bushco did not do everything they could to control the whole 9/11 investigation?

I mean, c'mon, you've been on DU long enough to know that you are all alone in not knowing what bushco's MO was for 8 f'n years.

Really, to think bushco didn't control the investigation is the ultimate goofy bullshit. You really are making this too easy. Y'know?

[SDuderstadt]

34. More of the BeFree two-step...

dude, no one is saying that the Bush administration didn't stonewall the investigation, nor am I saying they didn't TRY to "control" the investigation. But, stonewalling and trying to control the investigation is hardly the same thing as actually controlling it.

YOU are the one making the claim and asserting it as fact. I have asked you repeatedly to explain how they "controlled" the 9/11 Commission and the best you can do is mumble something about anthrax, as if that answers the question. I believe there are not many here who don't take notice of your despicable "debate" tactics.

[BeFree]

42. We are getting somewhere

You admit they stonewalled the commish. Why?

Now, do you admit they stonewalled the whole investigation?

Anthrax was a very serious problem. You saying I mumbled something shows a huge fault in your critical thinking skills. Or just willful avoidance. Whatever, your bitter dismissal says a lot about where you are coming from.

[BeFree]

43. I see your problem

You think in absolutes. Black or white. No gray areas.

That shows a real lack of critical thinking. Actually a near total lack of even thinking.

To control something, in your mind, means total absolute control.
To anyone else control of something entails various levels or degrees.

No, bushco did not totally control every last thing the commish did. DUH. But they did control a large part of what the commish did and how it operated.

Hope that didn't mess with your mind too badly. LOL.

[SDuderstadt]

47. Dude...

do you understand what the word "stonewall" means? I'll ask for the nth time...how did "Bushco control" the 9/11 Commission with anthrax? If your claim is true, why can't you answer a simple question directly?

[BeFree]

53. Imagine the fear

Anthrax loosed on the public and in congress, and no one ever caught.

The aftermath of the anthrax left the investigation into 9/11 stonewalled.

It took months before the commish law was even passed in Congress.

And what senator was it that was told not to begin an investigation or at least to not look too close? Daschle, I believe.

bushco conspired to, and had great success in controlling the whole investigation. The anthrax attack, imo, et al, played a large part in giving bushco a great amount of control of the investigation and the ensuing commish.

I guess you think anthrax had no bearing on DC politics circa 2001-2?

[zappaman]

58. "I guess you think anthrax had no bearing on DC politics circa 2001-2? "

not as much as you seem to think.
care to support that with evidence and not just some speculation?

[SDuderstadt]

63. Yet...

not ONE commissioner states what you claim.

I'm still waiting for that proof, dude.

[William Seger]

19. If you can find any "conclusions based upon confessions obtained from torture"

... then, yes, I'd be skeptical of those conclusions, too. Help me out here and please list them.

[BeFree]

20. WTF

You do claim you have read the report, right?

And you do keep current with the torture committed by the bushco regime, right?

So WTheF are you asking me to take your hand and lead you?

Go back to your fox news viewing and leave the truth to us.

[BeFree]

28. Seriously?

You are asking BeFree to educate you?

What's in it for me? I mean, if you really wanted to be educated, you'd have done it by now, right? I mean, you have read EVERYTHING, right.

But, if all you are saying is that I am lying, then you know where to go.

Ball's in your court: What do you really want from me?

[BeFree]

30. Well, Seger, I am sure you read this?

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=266162&mesg_id=266196


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html

Op-Ed Contributors
Stonewalled by the C.I.A.

By THOMAS H. KEAN and LEE H. HAMILTON
Published: January 2, 2008

MORE than five years ago, Congress and President Bush created the 9/11 commission. The goal was to provide the American people with the fullest possible account of the “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001” — and to offer recommendations to prevent future attacks. Soon after its creation, the president’s chief of staff directed all executive branch agencies to cooperate with the commission.
The commission’s mandate was sweeping and it explicitly included the intelligence agencies. But the recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.

...


So, in October 2003, we sent another wave of questions to the C.I.A.’s general counsel. One set posed dozens of specific questions about the reports, including those about Abu Zubaydah. A second set, even more important in our view, asked for details about the translation process in the interrogations; the background of the interrogators; the way the interrogators handled inconsistencies in the detainees’ stories; the particular questions that had been asked to elicit reported information; the way interrogators had followed up on certain lines of questioning; the context of the interrogations so we could assess the credibility and demeanor of the detainees when they made the reported statements; and the views or assessments of the interrogators themselves.

...

In a lunch meeting on Dec. 23, 2003, George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, told us point blank that we would have no such access. During the meeting, we emphasized to him that the C.I.A. should provide any documents responsive to our requests, even if the commission had not specifically asked for them. Mr. Tenet replied by alluding to several documents he thought would be helpful to us, but neither he, nor anyone else in the meeting, mentioned videotapes.
...

As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.’s failure to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.

[William Seger]

31. (Ahem) What I asked for was...

... the "conclusions based upon confessions obtained from torture." Those are the conclusions we agreed to be skeptical about, remember? So what are they, please?

[BeFree]

32. What do you want from me?

And what do I get in return for further educating you?

The post above lays the ground work for what the commission was up against.

Surely you remember the footnotes in the report about how confessions from certain prisoners were used as a basis for the conclusions.

[William Seger]

33. Admitting that you're talking through your hat would be a good start

Or perhaps admit that you don't understand what I'm getting at. From the NYT article that you linked to:

As a result of this January meeting, the C.I.A. agreed to pose some of our questions to detainees and report back to us. The commission concluded this was all the administration could give us. But the commission never felt that its earlier questions had been satisfactorily answered. So the public would be aware of our concerns, we highlighted our caveats on page 146 in the commission report.

And the caveat referred to on page 146 reads:



So, I'll ask again: What "conclusions based upon confessions obtained from torture" would you like me to be skeptical of?

[BeFree]

56. heh

"...foundation for our narrative..."

The foundation for the narrative that lead to their conclusions was based on the 10 prisoners falsified and torture induced 'confessions'.

But you are not skeptical of that 'foundation' for the 9/11 commish narrative?

[William Seger]

64. Reading comprehension

It's clear from the section I quoted that the Commission itself was skeptical of that "foundation for our narrative," as any reasonable person would be. Yep, I'm skeptical of the details in that narrative that are based only on detainee questioning, and would be even without that caveat I quoted. But it's also clear that the reason you can't list any of these alleged "conclusions based upon confessions obtained from torture" is because there aren't any. There's just the "narrative," with sources cited.

Just another pointless waste of time and bandwidth.

[SDuderstadt]

65. Your dishonesty and...

selective quoting is stunning, dude.

Simply stunning.

[BeFree]

66. Eh?

Foundation for our narrative.

The foundation of the report was the confessions from the prisoners of gitmo.

The conclusions of the commish was built upon the confessions of the prisoners of gitmo.

The prisoners of gitmo were tortured.

The CIA lied to the commission and destroyed videos of the torture.

Man, does that mess up the report, or what? I understand why you guys have your panties in a twist. It don't look good.

[SDuderstadt]

67. You obviously have never read the report...

dude. If you had, you'd realize how silly your argument is.

[SDuderstadt]

70. Really, dude???

All you're demonstrating is that you haven't read the report or you wouldn't make such stupid claims.

You embarrass liberalism, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

16. Simple question...

how could you claim to be unconvinced by the 9/11 CR if you've never read it?

[BeachBaby]

21. I bought it, the very day it showed up in the bookstores.

It was during the Democratic National Convention, in what - August? - of 2004. I was on vacation with my family - and I was one of the first people to show up at the local bookstore the morning it was released. When I got there, the copies were still in boxes. One of the stock girls actally had to cut open one of the boxes, on the spot, so that I could purchase a copy.

I took it back to my hotel, sat at the pool and started reading it. Because of my environment (screaming kids in the pool, family being around, etc), I couldn't get very far in the book without interruption. I read about 50 pages, and then read the rest when I got home. It isn't exactly light reading, so it took me a couple of weeks to absorb it all.

That was my weirdest vacation to date. Mornings on the beach, afternoons reading the report by the pool, early evenings at the amusements, and the hotel at night to watch the DNC. My hotel room was where I heard Senator Barack Obama speak for the first time. I didn't even know who he was - but he stopped me in my tracks, and I said to my then-husband, "If we ever see a black president in our lifetime, we're looking at him".

All of that to say.....DON'T TELL ME WHAT I HAVE READ, OR NOT READ. Thanks.

[SDuderstadt]

26. So...

you're convinced that the 9/11 got it wrong, can you back it up without citing easily debunked conspiracy theory bullshit? If you want to "debate" this, you won't get away with flinging CT bullshit.

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. conceptually, skepticism shouldn't be defined by the content of one's opinions

People on all sides of this debate (or maybe I should say these debates) question the validity or authenticity of many other arguments. By that criterion, we're all skeptics. However, some people are more consistently skeptical as a mode of analysis, whereas others are more selectively credulous. Conceptually, one's position on the continuum from consistent skepticism to selective credulity is independent of the content of their opinions -- although it's hard to see how some positions could be reconciled with consistent skepticism. (For instance, it's hard for me to see how a consistent skeptic could argue that the 9/11 Commission Report is infallible -- an argument I myself have never actually seen made. And it's hard for me to see how a consistent skeptic could argue that the Twin Towers were destroyed by directed energy weapons -- an argument I've seen made, but rarely.)

Based on the OP, I'm tempted to jump to a conclusion about where you fall on the continuum, but I will try not to. Really, this ought to be about reality, not about teams.