Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report

JumpInTheFire · #1 (**permalink**) 02-04-2008, 11:50 PM

Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11

Source: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/A...enge%20911.pdf

Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11

Source: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/A...Dept%20911.pdf

Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report

Source: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/A...enge%20911.pdf

RATSOADM · 02-05-2008, 12:15 AM

uh oh

RATSOADM · 02-10-2008, 10:11 PM

What do you think about this rightwinger?

rightwinger · 02-10-2008, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RATSOADM

What do you think about this rightwinger?

Not much. It's a lot of the same old claims, and no real evidence.

A lot of the quotes are pretty nutty. I'll give a few examples:

Karen Kwiatkowski: "It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it doesn't satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the world trade centers clearly violate the laws of probability and physics"

She has no background in physics. She is not really a scientist. She is not in position to analyze collapses.

Then there is Ralph Kolstad, who claims that he, as an advanced pilot...couldn't have made the moves this guy did. This has already been gone over. The movements of the terrorist at the Pentagon is not one of a highly trained pilot. He was a trained pilot, but he had a very dangerous and amateurish style of flight, knocking over light poles...and having a rapid drop in altitude. These are not things an experienced pilot would do.

I would ask what this person is suggesting....that a more advanced pilot flew himself into the pentagon?? WTF? Why?

Major Jon Fox gives off the tired line of "Jet fueled fires not hot enough to weaken steel" which is complete bull shit. He even got the conspiracy theory wrong. It's "not hot enough to melt steel" Jon. Pay more attention to the lines you're being fed. And again. We have a pilot talking about physics, and engineering...why?

Then you got Lenkford repeating the "first time in history" line that is very tired. And also mentions the "could be knocked down with a couple hoses" line. Which of course, is another complete lie of the truth movement. The fire fighters were talking about fires that were on different floors. This is another completely debunked claim. I forget which floors exactly, but the point of structural failure, and place of the worst fires, was a few stories up from the fires that could be "knocked down by a couple hoses" He then repeats the "pull it" line....so basically, this guy is just parroting the lines of the truth movements without actually doing any research.

I can keep going if you like....most of the claims of these people, are completely old, and completely tired....I will stay away from the "We need a new investigation because the 9-11 commission report sucked" type comments...because they aren't very specific. I'd like to know what sucked about it, and where'd they'd like to see improvements. I am troubled that the report gets confused with the actual investigation that took place though.

And a lot of the quotes, are very non-specific. So, I really don't know what you want me to think of it. Why don't you go on over to the J-Ref forums, and see what they think about it. They are much better at this stuff than me.

One quick question though RATSOADM, have you called any engineering departments or anyone schooled in structural engineering and collapses yet, like I suggested?

But, again, this seems like it's doomed to get very convoluted once again, due to the posting of pages of stuff and then saying "What do you think of that?" well...I think you're incredibly lazy, and rely on conspiracy websites to do your thinking for you. Just like the last link from the "whatreallyhappened" site. Do you wanna give me some bullet points to maybe narrow this thing down a bit?

AndtheDaysGoBy · 02-10-2008, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightwinger

Then there is Ralph Kolstad, who claims that he, as an advanced pilot...couldn't have made the moves this guy did. This has already been gone over. The movements of the terrorist at the Pentagon is not one of a highly trained pilot. He was a trained pilot, but he had a very dangerous and amateurish style of flight, knocking over light poles...and having a rapid drop in altitude. These are not things an experienced pilot would do.

hahaha neither is flying into a building

rightwinger · 02-10-2008, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndtheDaysGoBy

hahaha neither is flying into a building

The claim seems to be "the person flying the plane was actually a very advanced pilot, and not who the government says it was"

ok...so we have a very advanced pilot, who is also very suicidal. Are we missing an advanced pilot from anywhere?

And this guy said that he couldn't even make the moves, and he's some kind of flying stud...so who did it? Who was flying that plane? Why'd he have such a death wish? So, basically...this pilot was more advanced than a military pilot. Who was this guy?

Also, I'd like to point out that...of course an advanced pilot wouldn't be able to pull off those moves, those moves are stupid, and ultimately lead to a crash.

And I still don't get the point of the government faking an attack on the Pentagon.

RATSOADM · 02-11-2008, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightwinger

Not much. It's a lot of the same old claims, and no real evidence.

A lot of the quotes are pretty nutty. I'll give a few examples:

Karen Kwiatkowski: "It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it doesn't satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the world trade centers clearly violate the laws of probability and physics"

She has no background in physics. She is not really a scientist. She is not in position to analyze collapses.

Then there is Ralph Kolstad, who claims that he, as an advanced pilot...couldn't have made the moves this guy did. This has already been gone over. The movements of the terrorist at the Pentagon is not one of a highly trained pilot. He was a trained pilot, but he had a very dangerous and amateurish style of flight, knocking over light poles...and having a rapid drop in altitude. These are not things an experienced pilot would do.

I would ask what this person is suggesting....that a more advanced pilot flew himself into the pentagon?? WTF? Why?

Major Jon Fox gives off the tired line of "Jet fueled fires not hot enough to weaken steel" which is complete bull shit. He even got the conspiracy theory wrong. It's "not hot enough to melt steel" Jon. Pay more attention to the lines you're being fed. And again. We have a pilot talking about physics, and engineering...why?

Then you got Lenkford repeating the "first time in history" line that is very tired. And also mentions the "could be knocked down with a couple hoses" line. Which of course, is another complete lie of the truth movement. The fire fighters were talking about fires that were on different floors. This is another completely debunked claim. I forget which floors exactly, but the point of structural failure, and place of the worst fires, was a few stories up from the fires that could be "knocked down by a couple hoses" He then repeats the "pull it" line....so basically, this guy is just parroting the lines of the truth movements without actually doing any research.

I can keep going if you like....most of the claims of these people, are completely old, and completely tired....I will stay away from the "We need a new investigation because the 9-11 commission report sucked" type comments...because they aren't very specific. I'd like to know what sucked about it, and where'd they'd like to see improvements. I am troubled that the report gets confused with the actual investigation that took place though.

And a lot of the quotes, are very non-specific. So, I really don't know what you want me to think of it. Why don't you go on over to the J-Ref forums, and see what they think about it. They are much better at this stuff than me.

One quick question though RATSOADM, have you called any engineering departments or anyone schooled in structural engineering and collapses yet, like I suggested?

But, again, this seems like it's doomed to get very convoluted once again, due to the posting of pages of stuff and then saying "What do you think of that?" well...I think you're incredibly lazy, and rely on conspiracy websites to do your thinking for you. Just like the last link from the "whatreallyhappened" site. Do you wanna give me some bullet points to maybe narrow this thing down a bit?

Ok so I dont want to reply to that entire thing... just 1 thing, when a pilot says that a more advanced pilot must have flown (he is qualified to give his opinion of this), and then says the steel line.. you ignore one topic and attack him for "We have a pilot talking about physics" yet you yourself have no problem talking about physics.. it is forbidden for him, and the valid statement is to be avoided...

Then you get angry for them "repeating lines" yet it is simple facts they are repeating, do they repeat the same line as others? yes, because they have seen other sources and are repeating the facts... you disregard these people because they "repeat lines"... You say you want specifics about why the commission report sucks... wellI have given plenty in the past, but here are a couple..

no mention of the building 7 collapse, they say that "finding the source of the money which paid for the attacks is not important and of little significance to the investigation" (paraphrasing)

As for going to JREF to argue with engineers in a forum, I could not stand a chance in any forum on a topic I have no expertise in, when faced with some experts in the field. I would suggest that the writers of debunking reports argue with them if they are that good, or vice-a-versa.

Did I call any engineers? no I doubt most of them have studied this subject in depth? or do you think the average engineer or even architect, studies the collapses of the WTC towers in their spare time? I have met a few however who were convinced the official story was B.S. (just like nearly everything else the government tells us) and the organization "architects and engineers for 911 truth" has grown quite large...

As mentioned many times before, the collapses of the WTC are not my main concern although I will discuss them on occasion, they are not my expertise and I have seen some valid arguments but would rather focus on the things that can be discussed with the average person. Things like the lies and omissions of the commission report.

now go ahead and attack architects and engineers and start attacking credibility of anyone who ever disagreed with the official version

Static · 02-11-2008, 01:39 AM

I was kinda thinking the same thing. I dont understand why all of a sudden after the attacks all the eyewitness accounts were considered to be unreliable because none of them were 'experts' in the fields of engineering or physics... Someone see's something, they report it, of course there's room for error, just like anything that's related to being human, but I would argue that 1 eyewitness account is more reliable than what some government spokes person spits out in some press conference, especially if that individual is associated with the Bush administration. These people do not have alternate agenda's, there would be no reason for them. The administration on the other hand does, that's why their explinations are questionable.

**Brother of Yeshua** · 02-11-2008, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Static

I was kinda thinking the same thing. I dont understand why all of a sudden after the attacks all the eyewitness accounts were considered to be unreliable because none of them were 'experts' in the fields of engineering or physics... Someone see's something, they report it, of course there's room for error, just like anything that's related to being human, but I would argue that 1 eyewitness account is more reliable than what some government spokes person spits out in some press conference, especially if that individual is associated with the Bush administration. These people do not have alternate agenda's, there would be no reason for them. The administration on the other hand does, that's why their explinations are questionable.

Couldn't of said it better myself.

It was the eyewitness testimony compiled in 9/11 Mysteries (a video) that really made me wonder about all this being true. Up until then it was all kind of fantasy that all seemed strangely compelling, but a bit spotty. That video has more first-hand testimony than any other "documentary" I've seen. It's something anyone interested in the subject of 9/11 truth should watch, on either side of the argument.

But anyway, ask any cop how to find out information, and they'll tell you to QUESTION WITNESSES, yet we believe our own government's report over the accounts of many first hand witnesses to the massive attack.

Anyway, watch the video. I've included it for the convenience of anyone who is too lazy to do a google video search.

911 Mysteries Part 1 - Demolitions (Full - 1ed.)

rightwinger · 02-11-2008, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Ok so I dont want to reply to that entire thing... just 1 thing, when a pilot says that a more advanced pilot must have flown (he is qualified to give his opinion of this), and then says the steel line.. you ignore one topic and attack him for "We have a pilot talking about physics" yet you yourself have no problem talking about physics.. it is forbidden for him, and the valid statement is to be avoided

I addressed the issue of a more advanced pilot, did I not? And that particular pilot did not talk about the flying techniques.

Quote:

Then you get angry for them "repeating lines" yet it is simple facts they are repeating

They aren't facts, they are lies and half truths, there is a difference.

Quote:

no mention of the building 7 collapse, they say that "finding the source of the money which paid for the attacks is not important and of little significance to the investigation"

THE COMMISSION REPORT IS NOT AN ENGINEERING DOCUMENT. It deals with the direct attack. The hows, the whys the whens...not the actual damages and side effects of the attack. That's why you have the NIST report to talk about the collapses. There is no reason for the commission report to talk about building 7's collapse.

The money was said to be of little significance due to the small scale of the attack (i.e. didn't take a whole lot of money). Do I buy that? Not sure. But it does sound somewhat reasonable.

Quote:

As for going to JREF to argue with engineers in a forum, I could not stand a chance in any forum on a topic I have no expertise in, when faced with some experts in the field. I would suggest that the writers of debunking reports argue with them if they are that good, or vice-a-versa.

What? The people who lead the truth movement do not agree to debate anyone. And the people who are on JREF, have debunked all their reports. I don't know exactly what you are saying.

Quote:

Did I call any engineers? no I doubt most of them have studied this subject in depth? or do you think the average engineer or even architect, studies the collapses of the WTC towers in their spare time?

They can explain to you the simple concept. It's called research.

Quote:

and the organization "architects and engineers for 911 truth" has grown quite large

Not really. Plus, most of their work is plagiarized. It's a re-hash of what Steven Jones says. What do they got? A couple hundred members? The ASCE has hundreds of thousands, just for reference as to what would be "quite large"

AE911Truth.info - Home page

^I'm not submitting this site as scientific proof or anything. Just a site some guy created in response to Richard Gage. The guy who runs the site is a poster on JREF though.

Quote:

As mentioned many times before, the collapses of the WTC are not my main concern

Yet you continue to argue about them. You either believe they were CD, or you don't. Since there is no evidence of controlled demolition...I would guess that you don't, right? Then why continue to argue? This is your "out" card because you are too lazy to actually look into this matter.

Quote:

they are not my expertise and I have seen some valid arguments

You have not. There are none for controlled demolition. It's why the truth movement can't come up with actual experts, and rely on con men like Jones, who aren't even qualified in the right field.

Quote:

Things like the lies and omissions of the commission report.

Did you actually read it, or do you just rely on David Ray Griffin?

Quote:

Anyway, watch the video. I've included it for the convenience of anyone who is too lazy to do a google video search.