Why Have 6 Members of the 9/11 Commission Come Out And Say Its A White Wash?

6 members of the 9/11 commission have come out and say it was a whitewash and there should be criminal investigations?

because they know the official investigation was a sham and a fraud from the beginning.

http://books.google.com/books?id=SO9fqnNBaigC&lpg=PA14&ots=vZunG85edP&dq=kean%20%22set%20up%20to%20fail%22&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q=kean%20%22set%20up%20to%20fail%22&f=false



Why do you continue to misrepresent what Kean was saying here? Why do you pretend he's sounding an alarm to question the 9/11 Commission Report? the TRUTH is, he's saying, "Despite the obstacles, we succeeded." Why don't you want to know and spread the TRUTH?

:eyes: :puke:

How odd.

I just feel arguing over Kean's quotes is pointless cuz he's a lying republican sack of shit :)

and you'd rather sweep these constantly used arguments under the rug?

Here's the full quotation for you. Read it and weep

"Lee and I write in our book that the commission was set up to fail in many ways. Because we had not enough money; we didn't have enough time; we've been appointed by the most partisan people in Washington, the leaders of the House and Senate."

- Thomas Kean, 9/11 commission chairman

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzrv-e37Es8


How's that?

I feel like I've said this all before.. oh wait, I have..

Not enough money?
Kean & Hamilton: Without Precedent - The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, pg. 45-46.

what Kean says in his book and what he says off the record are two different things. they cannot both be true. how do you rectify the two completely different statements? well, it's obvious to me that Kean is being much more candid and honest when he speaks informally and off the record.

That's from your C-Span video. You have failed. It's time to apologize for twisting this comment or flee.

Can you provided an entire quote from a single source that disputes the essence of rollingrock's quote? And no, I don't mean something Frankensteined from various statements to suit your outcome.

Link and everything.

In the book, they write that when the commission was set up, it wasn't given enough funds. They then hinted at this through the media, forcing Congress and the White House into a race to see who could give them the most money. They then chose to accept the money from congress and ended up with $1.4 million in spare funds.

.. and you're claiming that they still think it wasn't given enough funds?

those are the words from the horse's mouth.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/170613

Your quotation comes at 7:50 in that C-Span video. At 12:00 in the C-Span video, he says:



So it's clear even from your "read it and weep" trump card that Kean is saying exactly what he said in the book I quoted, the one he and Hamilton were promoted when they made that appearance recorded by C-Span. The Commission was set up to fail, but despite these obstacles, it succeeded.

Why you would continue to defend your obvious and consistent twisting of this quotation is a mystery even to fellow 9/11 Truth advocates. Why don't you apologize and let the matter drop?

why don't you apologize for your twisting and spinning and let the matter drop?

in showing that Kean is a typical Washington politician (who are always contradicting their own statements). Mr. Kean seems to be a man who is torn between party loyalty and his own conscience, so he tries to have it both ways.

all to cover up your embarrassing twisting of his statement?

to ask such loaded questions? unlike yourself, I do not view everything in such simpleton terms of black and white.

who confidently asserted that Kean said, "We were set up to fail," black and white, no subtlety like context allowed.

not me.

'We were set up to fail' is a pretty clear and strong statement.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand what those words mean.

which I have provided, shows that the statement is indeed supported by the context.

You produced a :30 second Youtube recording of a C-Span program which I provided in full.

And I provided an further quote showing that Kean was saying exactly what he said in the book he and Hamilton were introducing in the C-Span video.

Talk about dishonest...

The disparity is with rollingrock's interpretation and use of Kean's quote. I've demonstrated that rollingrock is using the Kean quote out of context.

Now before, you didn't see any need to argue over Kean's quote. Are you now defending rollingrock's illegitimate use of the Kean quote?

transparency never has been his strong point

a logical explanation for the apparent contradictions of Kean's statements, while you on the other hand, wish to continue to simply and conveniently ignore entirely, the parts of his c-span speech that do not support the official story.

It is you conveniently ignoring the parts of the C-Span speech AND the parts of the Hamilton-Kean book that don't support your illegitimate use of the Kean quote.

you can't or won't even acknowledge, much less attempt to explain or reconcile, the huge contradiction in Kean's own words. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

Kean thinks that they were set up to fail, and yet they succeeded. There's no fricking contradiction there.

If by success, you mean the commission was successful in covering up the crime of the century, then yes it was indeed successful in accomplishing that goal, for the most part.



Is this your idea of success?





Gee, I wonder why this stuff didn't make it to the official report? Because there was a cover up involved?

It's not there. Where NEXT shall your goalposts take us?

in the official report is not my idea of a 'full and complete accounting' of the September 11 attacks (though it is probably yours)...hence the commission was a failure. There is a very wide disparity between what is said in the report and what the commission members themselves have disclosed after the fact, hence the glaring contradiction.



'(Senator Max Cleland) was appointed to the Sept. 11 Commission but resigned after accusing the Bush administration of “Nixonian” efforts to conceal crucial evidence.'

--http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/c/max_cleland/index.html">New York Times/AP


I guess Senator Cleland thinks it was a resounding 'success' too, eh?

He was going to leave anyway. He was highly critical of the Bush administration, so it's hardly a surprise he chose to use the occasion for a bit of political grandstanding.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Just someone who realises that just about all politicians will use any opportunity to his/her advantage. Especially if it can score cheap point with their home crowd.

Cleland wasn't running for any re-election after his defeat to Chambliss, so there were no 'cheap political points' to be scored with anyone. He retired from the Senate in 2002 and was teaching at the American University. It's also a great stretch to suggest that accusing Bush of covering-up 9/11 would in any way shape or form help him score any kind of political points, especially in a deeply conservative state like Georgia. LMAO. if anything, that kind of talk would no doubt result in certain defeat for Cleland, which it did. EDIT: ESPECIALLY in 2002, when BUSH was at the HEIGHT of his popularity.

It's also nonsensical that the Senate Democrats, who had appointed Cleland as a commission member in the first place, would all of the sudden just happen to reverse their decision and appoint him instead to the Import/Export bank while he was in the middle of the biggest, most important investigation of a terrorist act in US history. This was a matter of life and death. The bank job could have waited until the investigation was completed.

But if you still think it was a simply a mere coincidence, then I hear there's some swampland for sale in Florida I think you'd be interested in. They appointed him to the bank because they didn't want a scandal having to deal with this outspoken commission whistleblower on their hands raising hell about how the investigation was proceeding, so they got rid of him quietly; and Cleland himself didn't want to play any more part in what was to him an obvious cover-up, and make his protest known by resigning (according to the NY Times), so in the end both parties benefited mutually from the arrangement.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Post-commission he did some work with Kerrys presidential campaign in 2004, something I doubt he'd be doing had he left the Commission with roses and hugs for Bush/Cheney..

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

replied to the wrong post

as usual

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and what he says off the record, are two different things.

Clearly the commission failed. This absurd document says it all: Declassification of records meeting

The commission voted to keep their records from the public until 1/09. That is bullshit.

And Kean in the C-Span speech reads off both of those mandates verbatim and claims success in them.

I agree it is not a good argument to claim Kean or Farmer believe they failed. Both are on record stating they succeeded. Clearly both men are full of shit on this point.

please its getting old.

please

It was the 9/11 Commission's job to show that in spite of over whelming evidence that the CIA using FBI HQ units that had subjugated had intentionally and deliberately allowed that attacks on 9/11 to take place, that this evidence was obscured, obfuscated or mentioned only in fine print at the very back of their report so that the American people would never see the whole picture.

It was the job of the 9/11 Commission to hide the enormity of the crimes that CIA and FBI HQ had committed in allowing the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11.

go figure

bolo caught in another kinundumb....

go figure

We haven't even been given one yet.

The 9/11 Commission was not only a white wash, but the whole thing was just a complete fraud. The same documents that the 9/11 commission had access to, clearly show that the CIA working with groups inside of the FBI HQ knowingly intentionally and deliberately, allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murder 3000 people on 9/11.

What do these documents show:

That the CIA knew on August 22, 2001 that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, and knew at that time that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US for no other reason than to carry out a horrific al Qaeda attack that the CIA and FBI HQ had been warned about since April 2001.

So what did the CIA and FBI HQ do at this point:

First they tried to kept this information as a complete secret from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing even though the CIA and FBI HQ knew that the Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the January 2000 al Qaeda planning meeting with Walid Bin Attash, Khallad, mastermind of the Cole bombing, actually planning the Cole bombing.

When FBI Agent Steve Bongardt accidentally found out on August 28, 2001 that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and called FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi to demand that the investigation and search for Mihdhar and Hazmi be given to his group, Corsi said that Bongardt and his team would not be allowed to investigate Mihdhar because the information he would need would have to come from a NSA document and the NSA had not given permission to pass this document on to any FBI criminal investigator.

But the NSA had already approved a request for FBI Agent Dina Corsi to pass this NSA information on to the FBBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing on August 27, 2001, the day before she tells him he is not allowed to have this information.

When Bongardt was told he and his team could not investigate and search for Mihdhar, he protested to Corsi since he did not see any connection between this NSA document and a FISA warrant, and asked Corsi to get a ruling from the FBI NSLU unit, the legal unit at the FBI because he was clearly aware that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US only in order to carry out a massive al Qaeda attack. The CIA had already connected both of these terrorists to the Cole bombing and also to the east African bombings that had killed over 200 people.

When Corsi contacted Sherry Sabol, according to a footnote buried at the end of the 9/11 Commission report, on page 538, footnote 81, Sabol told Corsi that since the NSA information had nothing to do with any FISA warrant, Bongardt and his team could take part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

But Corsi on August 29, 2001 told Bongardt a completely different version of what Sabol had said. Corsi tells Bongardt that the NSLU attorney had ruled he could have no part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, effectively shutting down his investigation of these two al Qaeda terrorists.

At the time Corsi is doing this, she knows as does her boss Rod Middleton and the CIA officer who was directing her actions in shutting down this investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, Tom Wilshire, that the CIA and FBI HQ had been hiding the photograph of Walid Bin Attash taken at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting, the very photograph that directly connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the planning of the Cole bombing that took place at that meeting.

Since Wilshire had been forbidden from giving the FBI Cole bombing investigators the information that came from Kuala Lumpur twice in July 2001, and Middleton was clearly part of this conspiracy to sabotage Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar, this criminal conspiracy to hide this Kuala Lumpur information and shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi went way beyond Wilshire and Corsi and included many people at the CIA and FBI HQ including almost all of the CIA management, and FBI HQ management including FBI Director Louis Freeh himself.

It is now impossible to believe that when the CIA and FBI HQ ordered Wilshire and Corsi to shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that they did not know that as a result of their actions, that thousands of Americans were going to be murdered by the al Qaeda terrorists.

Since the 9/11 Commission had access to all of this information, the 9/11 Commission report was not only a fraud on the American people but was also a criminal conspiracy to hide what really allowed the attacks on 9/11 to succeed and protect the people at the CIA and FBI HQ who were behind this conspiracy. See my Journal for additional details and the actual government documents that prove all of this.

but but but......

Nice post.
Its getting old responding to the flock. Ill just say.

Inside job

At least rschop has the wherewithal to come up with an actual plausible theory or two. Your whistling past the graveyard act is what's getting old.

apparently your eyesight is as bad as your reasoning ability.

I'm going to ask you one more time politely to quit referring to me as "dud". Trying to disguise it by tacking my first initial on it isn't fooling anyone, dude. BTW, when you want to weigh in with some substance rather than your usual hit-and-run from the sidelines, we're all ears.

You might fall off and hurt yourself.

to the discussion, instead of constantly attacking me, TuTu? Cat got your tongue or something?

The days of debating with agenda driven zombies is over.
Clearly, you work to dismiss information and evidence, rather than use it to gain more truth.
Such incompetent methods are really fuckn boring.
Dewd

Yeah, there's something to aspire to... :eyes:

Incidently, wouldn't that imply purposely starting 9/11 related threads outside the 9/11 forum, in breach of the rules? Tut tut

are you accusing me of breaking DU rules without evidence?
Are you degrading the DU admins that made the Greatest page for DU members.
Are you degrading DU members that "aspire" to get posts to Greatest page?
Slander a forte?
Show me one of my posts that proves what you insinuate or apologize immediately
lol

Didn't you notice the questionmark?

it should be easy for you to point to one of your substantive contributions here, TuuTuu. It's not my fault your self-styled "truth movement" is floundering, dude. Everyone can see you're not up for the debate.

you scare me with your ruff,agressive,style. I wonder if your like that face to face? You know when you actually had to back it up?
lol
another keyboard warrior

Ive stopped trying to convince the idiots,dewd

You know those posters that create microscopic and ridiculous fantasies
and who seem to either want to make a name for themselves, to be a "hero" or something,
or they are truly so delusional that they believe the incredible stories of all this "pre-planned" nonsense.

It turns into such an elaborate "plot", it defies belief.

YET, these deluded folks manage to find others who, through a lack of thorough research, tend to believe the baloney.
just sayin
dewd

You want a contribution?
Hold on!!
I feel a turtle head pokin out.

dude. It's no wonder you're regarded as somewhat of an inside joke here.

Where did you establish that?

You have quite a thing for embellishing the truth or creating myths as you go along. 'Embellishment' is even a bit of an understatement really.

"embellished the truth" or "created a myth", TuuTuu. Please be specific. Again, this is why you are regarded by many as somewhat of an inside joke around here, dude.

Incidentally the information I posted is (IMHO) just the tip of the ice berg describing the events on 9/11. The prior post just describes the last 19 days in a criminal conspiracy that dated back to at least October 2000 when the USS Cole was bombed.

And incredibly both the CIA and FBI HQ knew about Mihdhar and Hazmi since January 4, 2000. The CIA even had many photos of them with Walid bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing, at the January 5-8 Kuala Lumpur al qaeda planning meeting, planning not only the Cole bombing but that attacks of 9/11 and yet kept this information secret from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing after October 2000 when the attack on the USS Cole took place.

Tom Wilshire, the CIA deputy chief of the Bin Laden unit, who later worked with FBI Agent Dina Corsi to shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi on August 28 and August 29, 2001 had even blocked FBI Agent Doug Millers CIR on Mihdhar, including his passport number and passport photograph from going to the rest of the FBI back on January 5, 2000 when this information had already been given to FBI Director Louis Freeh, and was included in Freeh’s daily briefing papers on January 4, 2000.