Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
Sorry Will, I didn't get the memo on that one. Why was the 9/11 commission a joke?
|
Okay....??? Why do you think that the 9/11 commission "left out" the tesitmony of a "key" official....Norman Mineta, in a report about a hijacking by terrorists of important transportation assets, that brought the air tranpsortation system to a complete halt, (except for the white house arranged flights of Saudi nationals), and accelerated the bankruptcies, that followed....in less than five years, of all of the largest US passenger airline companies....Mineta's sworn testimony to the committee was well publicized in the news, when he appeared before that commission and gave it.
Why did the commission accept the demands of the POTUS and the VP to limit it's questioning of both of them to a joint, private appearance, before only a select few members of the entire commission, that was not conducted while they were sworn to tell the truth.
Why did the commission not examine, in depth, and report on President Bush's two ridiculous statements about "watching the first plane, on TV", crashing into WTC1, <b>before</b> Bush went into an elementary school classroom, to sit for at least 22 minutes, including seven minutes <b>after</b> Andrew Card whispered to him. "on camera" that a second airliner had crashed into WTC2, at a bout 9:15 am. ? Both of Bush's statements about what he was doing and thinking, were lifted from and linked to whitehouse gov web pages.
Cheney's statement, to Tim Russert, on Sept. 16, 2001, that <b>"The Secret Service has an arrangement with the F.A.A. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was..."</b>, lifted and linked from the whitehouse gov site, as well, makes a convincing case that Bush knew before he left his motorcade, to go into the Sarasota elementary school, that a large plane had crashed into WTC1, since it happened at 8:48 am, and that there were FAA reports received from Boston TRACON, as early as 8:20 am, that a possible airliner hijacking was being investigated.
The 9/11 Commission left all of these contradictions, and a close examination of Bush and Cheney's behavior that morning, versus their public statements, and the contradictory statement of Mineta and the white house photographer, David Bohrer, and the testimony of Richard Clark as to the timeline of Cheney's arrival and actions in the PEOC, "open". Mineta's testimony was omitted from the final report, and Cheney's disclosure about what information chanel the secret service had access to...and when, contradicted what Bush did.....spend 20 plus minutes in a grade school classroom versus, what he said, and said that he thought and did.
At the least, why was there no commission examination of what the secret service knew, before and during the time Bush was in that classroom, and until he left Sarasota on AF1, when the SS knew it, what it told Bush about the attack on the WTC and the airline hijackings, and when it found out, and when and what it told Bush. Why was Bush kept for more than 30 minutes, after the first airliner crash, in a school, surrounded by young students and their teachers? The commission should have examined and reported on what else Bush was told between 8:20 am and 9:50 am on 9/11, who told him, when they told him, and who told them, and when....before the told Bush, or a member of his entourage.
Was there ever a time when you were curious about any of these things, these "gaps" in the commission's investigating, and in it's report, politicophile.....or are you incurious about Bush's peculiar statements, and his behavior at the school, during the attacks and shortly afterward?
I have always been told, that in any criminal investigation, you "follow the money". What then, can we make of this, from the 9/11 commission report?
Quote:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch5.htm
......To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. <b>Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.</b> Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding. If a particular funding source had dried up, al Qaeda could have easily tapped a different source or diverted funds from another project to fund an operation that cost $400,000-$500,000 over nearly two years.
<b>The Funding of the 9/11 Plot</b>
As noted above, the 9/11 plotters spent somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to plan and conduct their attack.......
|
******On edit, I have to add the documentation of these amazing contradictions as to what we have been told:*****************
Quote:
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/speech041902.htm
Robert S. Mueller, III, Director, FBI
Commonwealth Club of California
San Francisco, CA
April 19, 2002
........<b>The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind.</b> They used hundreds of different pay phones and cell phones, often with prepaid calling cards that are extremely difficult to trace. And they made sure that all the money sent to them to fund their attacks was wired in small amounts to avoid detection............
|
Mueller seems to be contradicted in the next two news excerpts:
Quote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34711,00.html
Bin Laden Goes 'No-Tech' to Thwart U.S. Intelligence Agents
Thursday, September 20, 2001
<b>Associated Press</b>
.......In March 2000, the CIA has warned about terrorist organizations using secure Internet communications. CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate then that several terrorist groups, including bin Laden's al-Qaida, "are using computerized files, e-mail and encryption to support their operations."
"Terrorists also are embracing the opportunities offered by recent leaps in information technology," Tenet said. .......
|
Quote:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...fAl%20Qaeda%20
JAMES RISEN and DAVID JOHNSTON
WASHINGTON, March 5
A Nation Challenged: The Terrorist
New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Mar 6, 2002. pg. A.1
Newly detected Internet traffic among Al Qaeda followers, including intercepted e-mail messages, indicates that elements of the terror network may be trying to regroup in remote sanctuaries in Pakistan near the Afghan border, government officials say.
United States officials said they had discovered the existence of new Web sites and Internet communications that appeared to be part of a concerted Al Qaeda effort to reconstitute the group and re-establish communications after the war in Afghanistan.
Senior counterterrorism officials said that Al Qaeda's effort to rebuild itself outside Afghanistan appeared to rely heavily on the Internet for communications among highly mobile operatives, who often check their messages in public Internet cafes around the world, making them difficult to track.
American officials said the new communications traffic was a serious concern because they feared that Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden's network, could use its sophisticated Internet ability to launch new terror attacks against the United States.
At least some of the cyberspace activity can be traced back to Pakistan, said a senior law enforcement official.
Some of the activity appeared to come from villages in the Pakistani province of Baluchistan, along the Afghan border, a remote and sometimes lawless region......
......United States intelligence has also tracked e-mail traffic that counterterrorism analysts said they believed showed efforts to re-establish communications between some members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan and operatives around the world. Some of the e-mail can be traced to border regions of Pakistan, where some Al Qaeda members may be operating under the protection of local tribal leaders.......
<b>.......In the investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks, investigators found that the hijackers communicated with each other in hundreds of e-mail messages</b> often sent from public places like Kinko's or public libraries.
So far, there is no sign of Mr. bin Laden or other top Al Qaeda leaders communicating with their followers........
|
You asked a question, policticophile, that shows that you are not incurious,
so I'll ask you.....doesn't the last example, by itself, with icing on the cake of incredulity, provided by my other points and examples, defend the idea that some harbor, that the 9/11 commission's report was "a joke"? The terms that it granted in exchange for the right for some of it's members the privelege of a Q&A in a brief, joint appearance by Bush and Cheney, where no notes taken by the few commission members allowed to attend, could leave the room without white house approval, speaks in support of willravel's statement, as the "final report" itself, does, as well........