About, Contact, FAQ, Hate Mail, Help, Links, Sources Archive, Contribute

Skeptic Project

Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source.
Register | Login

Page By Category

Forum - Context of 9/11 coverup allegations

[ Add Tags ]

[ 1 | 2 ]

[ Return to 9/11 Can | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 17, 2010 - 02:07
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

In this thread, I wrote:

Personal disclosure:

For a while in 2007 and early 2008, I was partly convinced by some of the WTC demolition claims. I knew from the beginning that a lot of the alleged evidence was weak. Other alleged evidence did seem convincing to me for a while, though I was never 100% convinced. I spent a lot of time studying the writings of debunkers as well as proponents, and I also spent a bit of time interacting online with both proponents and debunkers.

Eventually I concluded that even those WTC demolition arguments I thought were convincing were without merit after all. And, once I ceased to believe in any of the alleged evidence for WTC demolition, I no longer believed in any kind of 9/11 "inside job" theory either.

I did read up on other aspects of 9/11, as perceived by both "inside job" believers and debunkers, and I did come across evidence of coverups (such as statements by the 9/11 Commissioners themselves saying that there were coverups). So I can still honestly sympathize, at least in some ways, with the call for a "new investigation." But there are any number of other things that could be covered up besides an "inside job," and, at the present time, I don't see any real evidence of the latter.

Edward replied:

>> such as statements by the 9/11 Commissioners themselves saying that there were coverups

Maybe you should read up on that, as the statements are taken out of context.

Here's the context, as far as I am aware:

1) Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, the chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commisstion, have said they were “stonewalled by the C.I.A.” (New York Times, January 2, 2008) regarding information about the detainees. Mainly, this was about the confessions of detainees who were tortured.

2) Thomas H. Kean has said that NORAD (the North American Aerospace Command) made blatantly false statements “so far from the truth” that the 9/11 Commission considered criminal charges (9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon, Washington Post, August 2, 2006):

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources.

The commission decided, instead, to refer the matters to the inspectors general of the Defense and Transportation departments. The inspectors general concluded that there was no criminal wrongdoing. However, according to the above-quoted news story:

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

3) In their 2006 book Without Precedent (as excerpted here), Kean and Hamilton charge that the 9/11 Commission was “set up to fail” (although they nevertheless believe that they succeeded to a large extent, against great odds).

4) Senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.), on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has said that there is evidence of involvement by foreign governments - evidence that remains highly classified. Graham has alleged that the information remains classified not for any genuine national security reason, but merely to avoid embarrassing some people. (PBS interview, July 24, 2003).

5) The 9/11 Commission Report contains the following, in Chapter 5:

To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance. 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.

To me, this seems like a ridiculous excuse for downplaying an important unanswered question. How could the funding be "of little practical significance"? By the above reasoning, if I wanted to kill someone and get away with it, all I would need to do is hire a hit man who is already a millionaire who has gotten money from many different sources and doesn't really need my money, so that my money would be "of little practical significance," and then I'm off the hook, right?

As I said, none of the above implies an "inside job." But it does imply that there are still some significant "loose ends" (as Kean would say) that are worth investigating.

Now that I've supplied the context, I would be interested to hear why you disagree.

#1 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 17, 2010 - 08:15
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

Certain commissioners were indeed very critical of the Bush administration, the one the truthers love recently is John Farmer who talked about them not telling the truth. However what truthers dont like to tell you is that Farmer is no truther since he is also very proud of the 911 Commission Report.

What I found amusing is the claims that they were all shills and paid off (as promoted in Zeitgeist) and yet they turn around and quote them to help prove their claims of an inside job. This must mean the government must be morons again, because according to truther logic they let all their agents and shills blab about the conspiracy to the worlds media, not to mention themselves.

#2 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 17, 2010 - 08:20
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

To me, this seems like a ridiculous excuse for downplaying an important unanswered question. How could the funding be "of little practical significance"?

I argued about this claim on the JREF back when I was on my last truther legs, as it were.

What you have missed is that they are NOT saying that the source of the money is of "little practical significance", they are saying its not significant BECAUSE they had so MANY avenues of funding and that if any source dried up they could easily find another that could get them they $400,000-$500,000 for the 911 operation.

The real reason truthers pick up on this is because they claim that the Commission are ignoring the $100,000 wire transfer to Atta by the head of the Pakistani ISI.

The reason the issue with "of little practical significance" is relevant to them is because of this large and very significant avenue of funding. The problem is that you have to assume this $100,000 wire transfer to Atta actually happened. I used to think it was just a confirmed fact, I didn't realise truthers were basing it on such shoddy reporting and shaky evidence. In short we have no reason to think this transfer ever happened, so now put that back in context with what the Commission report said and it should make more sense.

#3 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 17, 2010 - 10:26
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

Ed wrote:

The real reason truthers pick up on this is because they claim that the Commission are ignoring the $100,000 wire transfer to Atta by the head of the Pakistani ISI.

The reason the issue with "of little practical significance" is relevant to them is because of this large and very significant avenue of funding. The problem is that you have to assume this $100,000 wire transfer to Atta actually happened.

I was already aware of the ISI/Atta wire transfer allegation, and I was already aware that it is at best questionable, because its original published source was a newspaper in India with an ax to grind against Pakistan. However:

What you have missed is that they are NOT saying that the source of the money is of "little practical significance", they are saying its not significant BECAUSE they had so MANY avenues of funding and that if any source dried up they could easily find another that could get them they $400,000-$500,000 for the 911 operation.

As I already explained in my previous post, this just doesn't make sense to me as a reason for saying that the source of the money is "of little practical significance." Even if the money could have been gotten from any number of other sources, the actual source of the money -- whatever it might have been -- is still a key part of the story.

And it's still a key question that remains unanswered, apparently -- unless there has been some relevant new development within the past year that I'm not aware of. (Admittedly I have ceased paying close attention to 9/11-related news.)

I'll add the following note: Here in NYC, I still run into lots of people who believe that "9/11 was an inside job." When explaining to such people why I no longer believe this, I find that it really helps a lot for me to acknowledge that there still are some important unanswered questions, but that these unanswered questions don't necessarily point to an inside job. The person is then more likely to listen to me when I explain why the alleged "inside job" evidence is flawed. Psychologically, most people are more inclined to listen to someone who agrees with at least some of their concerns than to listen to someone who dismisses everything they have to say.

#4 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
MuertosPosted: Apr 17, 2010 - 10:44
(0)
 

Paid Disinformation Blogger

Level: 14
CS Original

Truthers proceed from the assumption that 9/11 is some sort of "unsolved mystery" and that the 9/11 Commission was tasked to solve the mystery and find out who committed the attacks, how and why. Consequently, any statement expressing any doubt or equivocation whatsoever about the Commission, particularly from any of its members, is immediately interpreted as impugning what Truthers believe the conclusion was, which they say is the "official story."

The 9/11 Commission was not asked to find out who committed the attacks. We already knew who committed the attacks, how and why. The Commission was asked to investigate why US counterintelligence didn't discover and stop the plot (which Truthers misconstrue as an oblique admission of LIHOP at the very least), how we responded, and how the US can better respond to the Al Qaida threat in the future.

Similarly, Truthers assume that the NIST report was an investigation to solve some sort of "mystery" on what caused the WTC towers to collapse. This is because Truthers have no understanding of the concepts of cause-in-fact versus proximate cause. The cause-in-fact of the collapse (that the buildings were either hit by planes or in the case of WTC7 severely damaged by the collapse of WTCs1 and 2) was never in dispute, so the NIST never investigated that. What they did investigate was how the structural beams failed and why the cause-in-fact (plane strikes and associated damage) led to the proximate cause (structural failure of the load-bearing elements). Again, because Truthers misconstrue the purpose of the report, naturally they mistake any questions about the report or its conclusions as germane to a cause-in-fact question instead of a proximate cause question.

Thus, whenever you talk about "unanswered questions" regarding 9/11 and the investigations--and there clearly are some--you must be careful to define what those questions are really about. They are NOT about the cause-in-fact. They're about other peripheral matters. But asking a Truther to understand this is like asking Zeitgeisters to spell "you're" correctly. They can't do it.

#5 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 17, 2010 - 11:38
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

Muertos wrote:

Again, because Truthers misconstrue the purpose of the report, naturally they mistake any questions about the report or its conclusions as germane to a cause-in-fact question instead of a proximate cause question.

...

Thus, whenever you talk about "unanswered questions" regarding 9/11 and the investigations--and there clearly are some--you must be careful to define what those questions are really about. They are NOT about the cause-in-fact. They're about other peripheral matters. But asking a Truther to understand this is like asking Zeitgeisters to spell "you're" correctly. They can't do it.

Depends which Truthers you've been talking to, I guess. When I was involved in the 9/11 Truth movement, I made a point of seeking out the most intelligent and articulate people on both side. And I think the most intelligent and articulate people in the 9/11 Truth movement do understand the difference between proximate cause and cause-in-fact. They would not claim that mere uncertainty about proximate causes is sufficient to disprove the alleged cause-in-fact. But most of them would claim that the alleged proximate causes were so unlikely as to cast doubt on the alleged cause-in-fact as well.

The 9/11 Commission was not asked to find out who committed the attacks. We already knew who committed the attacks, how and why.

Actually the "why" was in question, as Kean and Hamilton explained in a news story I'll link to in my next post if I can find it again via Google.

The Commission was asked to investigate why US counterintelligence didn't discover and stop the plot (which Truthers misconstrue as an oblique admission of LIHOP at the very least), how we responded, and how the US can better respond to the Al Qaida threat in the future.

According to Kean and Hamilton:

We had an exceedingly broad mandate. The legislation creating the commission instructed us to examine (i) intelligence agencies; (ii) law enforcement agencies; (iii) diplomacy; (iv) immigration, nonimmigrant visas, and border control; (v) the flow of assets to terrorist organizations; (vi) commercial aviation; (vii) the role of congressional oversight and resources allocation; and (viii) other areas of the public and private sectors determined relevant by the Commission for its inquiry.

It is true that some (not all) people in the 9/11 Truth movement mistake the 9/11 Commission for a criminal investigation, which it wasn't. There was an earlier criminal investigation by the FBI.

The 9/11 Commission was an "investigation" in a more general sense, concerned with government accountability rather than with solving the crime per se. The best-informed people in the 9/11 Truth movement do understand this, but argue that a more truly "independent" commission (with an executive director other than Philip Zelikow, who had close ties to the Bush administration) would likely have uncovered evidence of criminal wrongdoing by people in the U.S. government.

#6 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 17, 2010 - 12:15
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

Here's the article I was looking for, on the "why" being in question: a New York Times review of Kean's and Hamilton's book Without Precedent. Among other things, this review says:

Talking to the detainees was especially important because the commission was charged with explaining not only what happened, but also why it happened. In looking into the background of the hijackers, the staff found that religious orthodoxy was not a common denominator since some of the members “reportedly even consumed alcohol and abused drugs.” Others engaged in casual sex. Instead, hatred of American foreign policy in the Middle East seemed to be the key factor. Speaking to the F.B.I. agents who investigated the attacks, Hamilton asked: “You’ve looked [at] and examined the lives of these people as closely as anybody. . . . What have you found out about why these men did what they did? What motivated them to do it?”

These questions fell to Supervisory Special Agent James Fitzgerald. “I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States,” he said. “They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States.” As if to reinforce the point, the commission discovered that the original plan for 9/11 envisioned an even larger attack. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the strategist of the 9/11 plot, “was going to fly the final plane, land it and make ‘a speech denouncing U.S. policies in the Middle East,’” Kean and Hamilton say, quoting a staff statement. And they continue: “Lee felt that there had to be an acknowledgment that a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was vital to America’s long-term relationship with the Islamic world, and that the presence of American forces in the Middle East was a major motivating factor in Al Qaeda’s actions.”

#7 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
MuertosPosted: Apr 17, 2010 - 18:25
(0)
 

Paid Disinformation Blogger

Level: 14
CS Original

Depends which Truthers you've been talking to, I guess. When I was involved in the 9/11 Truth movement, I made a point of seeking out the most intelligent and articulate people on both side. And I think the most intelligent and articulate people in the 9/11 Truth movement do understand the difference between proximate cause and cause-in-fact. They would not claim that mere uncertainty about proximate causes is sufficient to disprove the alleged cause-in-fact. But most of them would claim that the alleged proximate causes were so unlikely as to cast doubt on the alleged cause-in-fact as well.

You must have encountered a lot more intelligent Truthers than I ever have, because none of the ones I've ever talked to could make such a distinction (between proximate cause and cause-in-fact). They're so desperate to find any statement that they can turn into something incriminating, that intellectual honesty or logical thought simply isn't part of the equation.

Truthers approach 9/11 from the standpoint of, "We don't know how it happened!" They see events X, Y, and Z, and they hear the majority of the public, the government, and the mainstream media suddenly blame Osama and his 19 hijackers. What Truthers think is that there is an open question, "What caused the WTC towers to collapse?" and that void has been filled by an "official" explanation, "Oh, it was Osama and his hijackers," when another explanation, "It was controlled demolition" or "it was Judy Wood's space beams" fits what we know as well or usually better than the explanation that eventually became accepted.

What Truthers miss is that it was never a mystery. From the moment it happened there were hundreds of eyewitnesses who could tell you exactly what happened: two planes crashed into the buildings. Within an hour it was pretty clear who was behind it. Oh, look. 19 guys with Arabic names boarded those planes. We found out who they were and it turns out they were connected to Al-Qaida. It wasn't like there was a big mystery about it and you had to run around doing a lot of detective work to figure out what happened.

Truthers treat it as if 9/11 was some event about which the key facts are not known. The key facts have always been known. This is the same thing that gets my goat when people refer to "solving" the JFK assassination. There was never anything to solve. Oswald did it, his prints were on the rifle, the bullets that killed JFK were matched to that rifle, he killed Officer Tippit trying to escape, and it turns out he had means, motive and opportunity and there was never any evidence that it happened in any other way. Bingo, case closed. The Warren Commission was not aimed at determining whether Oswald did it. They wanted to know all the facts that were not known, but it was never disputed that the key fact of the assassination--that Oswald did it--was known almost immediately.

#8 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 17, 2010 - 20:52
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

Muertos wrote:

You must have encountered a lot more intelligent Truthers than I ever have

As I said, I sought out the most intelligent and honest-seeming people on both sides. Some people in the 9/11 Truth movement whom I still have respect for (despite disagreements) are (1) Paul Thompson and his friends who have put together the Complete 9/11 Timeline on the History Commons site and (2) Nick Levis, who was one of the original leaders of New York 9/11 Truth. On the debunkers' side, the site I always had the highest respect for was 9/11 Myths, which answered many (though not all) of my questions and always struck me as having a reasonable attitude.

They're so desperate to find any statement that they can turn into something incriminating, that intellectual honesty or logical thought simply isn't part of the equation.

In my experience, many people in general, including many (though by no means all) alleged skeptics, will cling desperately to their worldview at the expense of intellectual honesty or logical thought, regardless of their opinion about 9/11.

What Truthers miss is that it was never a mystery. From the moment it happened there were hundreds of eyewitnesses who could tell you exactly what happened: two planes crashed into the buildings.

Personally, I never doubted that there were live human hijackers. I never took seriously the speculation about remote-controlled planes, which always struck me as such a horrendously complicated scenario as to be exceedingly unlikely.

To me, the major question was whether the WTC towers (especially WTC 7) went down with a little extra help. For a while I believed that they did. Eventually I concluded that there was no sound evidence for this idea.

Within an hour it was pretty clear who was behind it. Oh, look. 19 guys with Arabic names boarded those planes. We found out who they were and it turns out they were connected to Al-Qaida. It wasn't like there was a big mystery about it and you had to run around doing a lot of detective work to figure out what happened.

Actually, as even most debunkers acknowledge, it wasn't quite that simple. There was, apparently, quite a bit of initial confusion as to who the hijackers' accomplices were, if any. The FBI rounded up and detained a total of 765 Muslims, nearly all of whom were released within a few months. (U.S. Holds 6 of 765 Detained in 9/11 Sweep, Washington Post, Thursday, December 12, 2002; Page A20.) To a lesser extent, there was also was some initial confusion as to the identities of some of the hijackers themselves, leading to the stories about some of the hijackers still being alive (until the FBI published photos a few weeks later).

Truthers treat it as if 9/11 was some event about which the key facts are not known.

I would say they believe that they have reason to doubt one or more of the commonly accepted key facts. Which commonly accepted key facts they doubt, and on what grounds, varies with the individual Truther.

#9 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 18, 2010 - 07:39
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

As I already explained in my previous post, this just doesn't make sense to me as a reason for saying that the source of the money is "of little practical significance." Even if the money could have been gotten from any number of other sources, the actual source of the money -- whatever it might have been -- is still a key part of the story.

I'm going to quote from some other people that I already debated on this issue a long time ago:

"This statement comes at the end of a chapter which explains that the 9/11 plotters would never have been short of money. That is why they claim that the precise channel used by al Qaeda to fund them is of little practical significance (to this specific issue). It in no way states that the issue of funding itself is simply unimportant.

Moreover, the quotation in question is taken from a section entirely devoted to the issue of funding sources. Also, if the 9/11 Commission really did consider the issue of terrorist financing to be irrelevant, it seems very strange that they would have released a 150-page monograph solely devoted to it. " - Par

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3398782&postcount=32

Well what was the reason they give that it was of little practical significance? Just summed up.

I have already expounded upon this.

The section in question states that the issue of the source of the funding is of little practical significance to the plotters’ abilities to continue operating without running into financial difficulties. The reason that they give for this is that “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.- Par”

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105292&page=2

"The Commission simply does not claim that the source of the funding is of little significance. Rather, it points out that it is of little practical significance to the plotters’ abilities to continue operating without running into financial difficulties.

I strongly suggest that you read the 9/11 Commission Report before further pursuing this line of argument." - Par

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3399170&postcount=52

Picture accounts being setup as Joe Shmo. this person does not really exist but ATM deposits are made all over the world. Likewise withdrawals are also made. This is the way they fund this type of thing so finding the who is not possible. So finding the accounts (their as in the hijackers source of funds) are of little significance. - DGM

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3399187&postcount=53

I just want to emphasize this point, which so many people can't seem to understand. The ultimate source of the funding is of great interest to the investigators, but mattered little to the terrorists, since so many avenues of funding were available. The 9/11 Commission estimates that al Qaeda's budget was about $30 million per year before 9/11.- Gravy (Mark Roberts)

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3399199&postcount=54

Well what was the reason they give that it was of little practical significance? Just summed up.

Par kinda answered this for you on the first page, but I'll give it a go. First you need to remember what the objective of the report was. Second, they said that as Al Qaeda had many different sources of funds, where they each came from was of little significance. It wouldn't have made a difference to the success of the attacks. They weren't trying to find everybody connected with 9/11, it wasn't that kind of investigation. That would be my understanding of it. - jproudj

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3399025&postcount=47

If you look at the entire quote, it starts by saying the USG hasn't been able to trace the origins of the funding. It then says the question (of who funded) is of little practical significance. This is IMMEDIATELY followed by...

"...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..."

I read the entire statement as follows...

1. The Commission was not able to determine the origin of the funding that Al-Qaeda received for the 9/11 attacks.
2. It is of little practical significance BECAUSE Al-Qaeda had many different sources, so if one dried up, there were many more available to fund them.

I think what they are saying, is that finding one source, of the many they had, would not likely point to the puppet master, because in terms of funding, there does not seem to be one dominant master. - TAM

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3399353&postcount=62

#10 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 18, 2010 - 10:55
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

The above is one way to interpret the statement that "Ultimately, the question is of little practical significance."

However, the immediate context of the statement is the following (after a long section about the funding of Al Qaeda in general):

To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance. 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.

The Funding of the 9/11 Plot
As noted above, the 9/11 plotters spent somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to plan and conduct their attack. The available evidence indicates that the 19 operatives were funded by al Qaeda, either through wire transfers or cash provided by KSM, which they carried into the United States or deposited in foreign accounts and accessed from this country. Our investigation has uncovered no credible evidence that any person in the United States gave the hijackers substantial financial assistance. Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government-or foreign government official-supplied any funding.131

We have found no evidence that the Hamburg cell members (Atta, Shehhi, Jarrah, and Binalshibh) received funds from al Qaeda before late 1999. It appears they supported themselves. KSM, Binalshibh, and another plot facilitator, Mustafa al Hawsawi, each received money, in some cases perhaps as much as $10,000, to perform their roles in the plot.132

After the Hamburg recruits joined the 9/11 conspiracy, al Qaeda began giving them money. Our knowledge of the funding during this period, before the operatives entered the United States, remains murky. According to KSM, the Hamburg cell members each received $5,000 to pay for their return to Germany from Afghanistan after they had been selected to join the plot, and they received additional funds for travel from Germany to the United States. Financial transactions of the plotters are discussed in more detail in chapter 7.

In this context, I interpret the statement as an attempt by the Commissioners to cover their ass in all directions. Basically they seem to be saying something like, "We worked hard to find out how the 9/11 plot itself was funded. We didn't succeed, but our failure to find this out doesn't really matter anyway, because Al Qaeda could have funded it in lots of different ways."

Nevertheless, it seems to me that the actual source of the funding is still an important question, an important loose end that was never tied up, and a worthy topic for some future investigation. (And one can say this without believing that 9/11 was an inside job.)

#11 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 18, 2010 - 11:20
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

>>>Nevertheless, it seems to me that the actual source of the funding is still an important question,

But as discussed they DIDN'T SAY IT WASN'T.

You have been altered to this passage by truthers and I think something in your mind is still interpreting it they way they told you to interpret it.

You are purely hung up on what they meant by "practical significance".

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch5.htm</p>

In the section this passage is in it had just talked about a wide variety of ways Al Queda got funding including "from employees of corrupt charities" or "drug trafficking and conflict diamonds". It also discusses the fact that "actual terrorist operations represented a relatively small part of al Qaeda's estimated $30 million annual operating budget.".

So what might they mean when they then go to on say that the question of what the actual source of the money for the 911 attacks is of "little practical significance"?

Put in context the words "practical significance" is surely referring to the fact that it wouldn't make much difference to find out where they made the few hundred thousand to fund the attacks since they had SO MANY ways to make money and had to make WAY more than that, the estimated 30 MILLION, a year just to stay running. The actual source of money for the 911 attacks is of "little practical significance" BECAUSE Al Qaeda can just use a hundred other avenues to get money.

The report also explained that no "person in the United States gave the hijackers substantial financial assistance. Similarly, [they] have no evidence that any foreign government-or foreign government official-supplied any funding."... so they are referring then to the hundreds of small untraceable sources of funds. So who funded the 911 attacks is also of little "practical significance" to the terrorists BECAUSE of that. It WOULD be significant if that was not the case, such as the claim about the head of the ISI wiring Atta money, but since they found no evidence for ANYTHING like that and going by how well Al Qaeda funded itself THAT is what makes it "practically insignificant".

#12 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 18, 2010 - 21:25
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

You have not convinced me of your interpretation, but I'll concede that the statement is open to more than one interpretation.

#13 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 19, 2010 - 07:03
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

The only reason you might interpret it your way is if you were already predetermined to believe that the Commission had some nefarious ulterior motive or wanted to act incompetent enough to just come out and say they didn't care where the source of the money was.

In my opinion, since you seem to have already decided to think of it in that way you can't see the most logical interpretation.

#14 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 19, 2010 - 13:20
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

I don't claim that the Commission necessarily had a nefarious motive. I think they simply wanted to excuse their failure to find a particular key piece of information. That failure does not necessarily imply even incompetence, let alone anything worse, given the constraints that the Commission was working under.

Regardless of the Commission's motives, competence, etc., it is understandable that they would want to excuse, from multiple angles, their failure to answer a key question. One of those angles was to dismiss the question as relatively unimportant, even while showing that they attempted to answer it.

I do think the Commission was not entirely unbiased, given the involvement of Philip Zelikow as executive director. But I don't claim to know the extent to which Zelikow's biases influenced the Commission's findings.

#15 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 19, 2010 - 13:27
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

But you do believe that they would actually make the outrageous statement that it doesn;t matter where Al Qaeda gets its money from.

The fact that it is so outrageous should suggest that maybe they didn't really MEAN that, and that this understanding of those TWO WORDS are just a misunderstanding. I gave you a perfectly understandable interpretation of those TWO WORDS, yet you choose to believe they would say something so silly anyway.

#16 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 19, 2010 - 15:10
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

Muertos wrote:

But you do believe that they would actually make the outrageous statement that it doesn;t matter where Al Qaeda gets its money from.

The statement wasn't that it doesn't matter where Al Qaeda got its money from in general. What was dismissed as insignificant was the funding of the 9/11 attack itself. This was dismissed on the grounds that, in the context of Al Qaeda's much larger overall budget and its many different sources of funding, the funding for the attack could have come from any of a variety of sources.

But it seems to me that the funding of the attack itself is still a key part of the story and should not be dismissed as insignificant.

#17 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 19, 2010 - 15:18
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

I wrote that not Muertos.

But it seems to me that the funding of the attack itself is still a key part of the story and should not be dismissed as insignificant.

Once again, they never said that it wasn't.

They said that determining the exact source of funds primarily for the 911 attacks was PRACTICALLY insignificant. What do you think "practically" could mean? What do you think "significant" could mean?

#18 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 19, 2010 - 15:38
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

Apologies to both Ed and Muertos for the mix-up on who said what.

Ed wrote:

They said that determining the exact source of funds primarily for the 911 attacks was PRACTICALLY insignificant. What do you think "practically" could mean? What do you think "significant" could mean?

The "practical significance" could be from either of two points of view: (1) Al Qaeda's point of view only, or (2) the point of view of U.S. policymakers as well as Al Qaeda's point of view. Your interpretation is that it refers to Al Qaeda's point of view only. I would say that the wording is ambiguous, and appears to be an attempt to downplay the overall importance of the question. I admit that the latter is just a subjective impression on my part, and could be wrong, though I still am not inclined to think so. As I said, the wording is ambiguous.

#19 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 19, 2010 - 16:44
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

Your interpretation is that it refers to Al Qaeda's point of view only.

Actually I think its both.

The 911 attacks only cost around $500,000. The entire budget of the Al Qaeda PER YEAR is around $30 MILLION.

So already we can see that determining the EXACT source of funds for the 911 attacks could easily be described as "practically insignificant".

But there's more.

They DID try to determine the exact source of funds but could find no evidence that any one in the US aided them in the attacks and they could find no evidence that any "foreign government-or foreign government official-supplied any funding". Clearly they did think it was significant where Al Qaeda gets its money, but absent any evidence for significant and direct/specific implication of people or governments having funded the 911 attacks then the question itself is of little value to THE FIGHT AGAINST AL QAEDA. As they say, even if one source of funds is stopped then they can easily tap some other resource.

Think about it, raising $500,000 out of an operating budget of $30 MILLION is SMALL POTATOES. The fact is that absent any further evidence it would be a waste of money and resources to it because PRACTICALLY the question has little value.

I admit that the latter is just a subjective impression on my part, and could be wrong, though I still am not inclined to think so. As I said, the wording is ambiguous.

The wording is fine, you are just conditioned by truther rhetoric to misread it, kind of like how truthers misread PNAC. They assume it HAS to say what they have been told it says so find it very hard to learn that it really doesn't say that at all.

Why is it more likely that they would outright state that the source of the funds doesn't matter just to "cover their asses" because they couldn't find out?

#20 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 19, 2010 - 18:21
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

I'm also "conditioned" by my own personal experiences in the workplace. In my experience, people are always covering their asses -- especially when they are given a huge job to do and not enough time and resources with which to do it, as was the case for the 9/11 Commission.

#21 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 19, 2010 - 18:27
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

I'm also "conditioned" by my own personal experiences in the workplace. In my experience, people are always covering their asses -- especially when they are given a huge job to do and not enough time and resources with which to do it, as was the case for the 9/11 Commission.

I'm perfectly able to accept they tried to cover their asses, but these TWO WORDS you are hung up on is just ridiculous to interpret the way you are doing.

If they didn't have the time or resources then that's not their fault. If they felt the question of the 911 funding needed further study, but they were not equipped or had the resources to continue, then they would have suggested more investigation into the matter IF THAT IS WHAT THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT and no one would have batted an eyelid. Its not like they didn't complain about the government's treatment of the Commission or its actions generally, so what motivation did they have to bullshit their way on this particular point?

But according to you they decide to just say it doesn't really matter. Of course it mattered, they never said it didn't, just that it was practically insignificant. I can't understand why you are unable to see the difference.

#22 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
MuertosPosted: Apr 19, 2010 - 18:38
(0)
 

Paid Disinformation Blogger

Level: 14
CS Original

I'm not certain that I understand why Zelikow's involvement is supposed to be highly suspect.

He was a Republican, a history/policy professor at UVA and served on Bush's transition team. My understanding is that he was recommended by Lee Hamilton (a Democrat) to head the Commission, and that in response to the concerns about conflict of interest he recused himself from any investigation involving matters concerning the Clinton to Bush transition. That seems reasonable, and beyond that I'm not sure I see an obvious case for bias or conflict of interest.

In the absence of specific evidence that he influenced the commission, I'm not sure I smell a rat regarding Zelikow's participation. They were all politically connected to one degree or another, to both the Bush and Clinton administrations (and some to the Bush I administration, as Zelikow himself was).

#23 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 19, 2010 - 19:06
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

Zelikow apparently had other close ties to the Bush administration.

He was a close friend of Condoleeza Rice and co-authored a book with her, Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft, 1995.

According to the Wikipedia article on Philip Zelikow:

After George W. Bush took office, Zelikow was named to a position on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board [PFIAB], and worked on other task forces and commissions as well.

The Wikipedia article also says he was an internal critic of some of the Bush administration's policies. To the extent that that's true, his influence on the Commission might not have been as bad as some people in the 9/11 Truth movement make it out to have been. Still, his close friendship with one of the star witnesses, Condoleeza Rice, seems problematic to me, as do his multiple ties to the Bush administration in general.

#24 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 19, 2010 - 19:12
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

All Commissioners truthers claim had close ties to the government, its just a way to claim the Commissioners were being deceptive and never intended to do a real investigation.

But if Zelikow was being deceptive then all of them would have had to be as well, since the others would have noticed if the Executive Director wasn't doing his job.

Do you really want to go down that road Diane? The slippery slope of your arguments is showing.

Truthers never think things through...

#25 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 19, 2010 - 22:31
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

Ed, do you understand the concept of a conflict of interest?

Please note: The observation of a "conflict of interest" is not the same thing as an accusation of actual impropriety.

Edit: Here's a legal definition of "conflict of interest".

#26 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 20, 2010 - 06:45
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

Diane, there may have been a conflict of interest but the question is did he hinder the investigation. I already made my point:

If Zelikow was being deceptive then all of them would have had to be as well, since the others would have noticed if the Executive Director wasn't doing his job.

So, you want to tread that path?

#27 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 20, 2010 - 08:24
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

First off, a person can be biased, and have that bias influence one's work, without necessarily being deliberately deceptive.

Second, even if he was being deliberately deceptive, no, the Commissioners wouldn't necessarily have noticed. Zelikow wasn't a member of the Commission itself. He was the executive director, meaning he headed the Commission's research staff. Thus he occupied a key gate-keeping position in terms of the flow of information.

Third, you seem to be thinking in terms of a binary either/or, of someone "doing his job" or not. The real world is a lot more subtle and has a lot more gradations than that.

#28 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 20, 2010 - 08:38
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

So once again...

Do you have any evidence that Zelikow's bias influenced the Commissions work?

Why didn't any other Commissioners complain about it?

If they didn't notice, you are saying they are incompetent. If they did notice but didn't make an issue out of it then you must be saying they were being deliberately deceptive.

You can't have it both ways.

#29 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DianePosted: Apr 20, 2010 - 09:35
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

Ed wrote:

If they didn't notice, you are saying they are incompetent.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying it might have been systemically impossible (or at least difficult) for them to notice, given the nature of Zelikow's role.

Do you have any evidence that Zelikow's bias influenced the Commissions work?

Again you seem to be conflating conflict of interest with actual wrongdoing, to which an "innocent until proven guilty" standard should be applied. There are many situations in which a conflict of interest is improper even if one cannot prove actual wrongdoing.

Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission itself did acknowledge that Zelikow had a conflict of interest pertaining to the Bush transition team. This was handled by having Zelikow recuse himself from all matters pertaining to the Bush transition team.

The question is whether that was sufficient, or whether Zelikow's conflicts of interest ran a lot deeper than just the Bush transition team. It seems to me that they ran a lot deeper.

#30 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]

[ 1 | 2 ] Next Page

All content © Skeptic Project and/or the original authors.