9/11 Commission Report - The Classified 28 Pages

dingodan · Aug 21, 2014

symyjym said:
Massive contradiction

John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial in July 2001, due to a threat assessment by the FBI.

That isn't a conspiracy, or a theory. You are looking for conspiracy theories where there are none. Kind of like a conspiracy theorist.

Guy Fawkes · Aug 21, 2014

dingodan said:
John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial in July 2001, due to a threat assessment by the FBI.

That isn't a conspiracy, or a theory. You are looking for conspiracy theories where there are none. Kind of like a conspiracy theorist.

Sounds more like a response due to a threat against him rather than wider knowledge of an imminent attack on mainland USA, why else would the other Bush appointed cabinet position holders continue to fly commercially? Had Ashcroft done anything around that time that could have made him more of a target than usual? (high profile case being processed?)

All other Bush Cabinet appointees, with the exception of Interior and Energy with remote sites to oversee, fly commercial airliners. Janet Reno, Ashcroft's predecessor as attorney general, also routinely flew commercial. The secretaries of State and Defense traditionally travel with extra security on military planes.

The Justice Department insists that it wasn't Ashcroft who wanted to fly leased aircraft. That idea, they said, came strictly from Ashcroft's FBI security detail. The FBI had no further comment. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ashcroft-flying-high/

pastafarian · Aug 21, 2014

dingodan said:
I think the anger will come when people start saying,

"So you knew it was actually country X that was responsible. Why did you not tell us? Why did we lose so much blood and treasure in countries Y & Z, while never mentioning country X at all?"

"If we are not really interested in fighting the actual enemy who attacked us on 9/11, then what exactly are we doing?"

Before going down this route though it should be remembered hostilities started against Afghanistan (oct 2001) before The Commission was even set up (Nov 2002) and
troops where in Iraq (march 2003) before the Commission had even finished its report (july 2004)

Of course its possible that on completion of the report extra players were found culpable as you are insinuating,causing a massive WTF moment,but this is after all at the moment pure speculation.

symyjym · Aug 21, 2014

dingodan said:
John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial in July 2001, due to a threat assessment by the FBI.

That isn't a conspiracy, or a theory. You are looking for conspiracy theories where there are none. Kind of like a conspiracy theorist.

I can discuss this with you if you are not going to be childish.

The fact is we all know that there was a heightened terrorist threat at the time, so worrying about being on a highjackied plane isn't far fetched as he himself may have considered himself a high risk target.

John Ashcroft giving up commercial filghts in July doesn't prove any connection to knowing what was going to happen in advance to the WTC in Sept, though I am sure you will make the link.

I will second guess that your point is to suggest the US administration organised the WTC attack? Just to be clear?

We all know that the WTC has been considered a possible target for the last 30 years, but probably since the time it was built. Remember 1993? An attack on the WTC wasn't a surprise, but the magnitude was.

So be straight in your position rather than beating around the bush and trying to hint at your conclusion via links.

Bold Seagull · Aug 21, 2014

symyjym said:
I can discuss this with you if you are not going to be childish.

The fact is we all know that there was a heightened terrorist threat at the time, so worrying about being on a highjackied plane isn't far fetched as he himself may have considered himself a high risk target.

John Ashcroft giving up commercial filghts in July doesn't prove any connection to knowing what was going to happen in advance to the WTC in Sept, though I am sure you will make the link.

I will second guess that your point is to suggest the US administration organised the WTC attack? Just to be clear?

We all know that the WTC has been considered a possible target for the last 30 years, but probably since the time it was built. Remember 1993? An attack on the WTC wasn't a surprise, but the magnitude was.

So be straight in your position rather than beating around the bush and trying to hint at your conclusion via links.

I prefer this tact of subtle postings that outright declarations of conspiracy. It's like [MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION] is adopting a jazz like style of the things he doesn't say being more important than the things he does. It's actually leading to a more reasoned discussion.

I do like your pun in the last sentence though. :lolol:

symyjym · Aug 21, 2014

Bold Seagull said:
To be fair to [MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION] on this particular thread, he's been very good in only posting links without reaching any outrageous conclusions. His second post you quoted contains no conspiracy theory as it links to a real story. I guess we can jump the gun and second guess he's posting it to suggest a conspiracy plot (based on past postings), but to be fair to him he's not stated that at this point.

This thread contained comments about conspiracies before I even commented, and then got told off by dongadin. He was over defensive in the reaction to my post and giving his game away :shrug:

My post was actually a response to WATFORD zero http://www.northstandchat.com/showt...ied-28-Pages&p=6525304&viewfull=1#post6525304

Not that you want to get involved.

dingodan · Aug 21, 2014

pastafarian said:
Before going down this route though it should be remembered hostilities started against Afghanistan (oct 2001) before The Commission was even set up (Nov 2002) and
troops where in Iraq (march 2003) before the Commission had even finished its report (july 2004)

Of course its possible that on completion of the report extra players were found culpable as you are insinuating,causing a massive WTF moment,but this is after all at the moment pure speculation.

The Commission will have cited evidence, the question is when was the evidence available and known? You are quite right, if they came to know this many years later then things will not look quite so cynical, but there is also the possibility that the evidence existed, and they had it, before the wars began.

Assuming the best, that they found this out at the end of the process in 2004, they would still have continued the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq for a further 10 years. They would still have given effective immunity to actual the perpetrators of 911 for a further 10 years.

dingodan · Aug 21, 2014

symyjym said:
This thread contained comments about conspiracies before I even commented, and then got told off by dongadin. He was over defensive in the reaction to my post and giving his game away

My post was actually a response to WATFORD zero http://www.northstandchat.com/showt...ied-28-Pages&p=6525304&viewfull=1#post6525304

Not that you want to get involved.

I got angry at you, maybe I shouldn't have.

But

"James Foley beheading isn't true and they used faked blood"

Never had any place in this thread. Not sure what you were trying to do, oh wait yes I am.

dingodan · Aug 21, 2014

symyjym said:
I can discuss this with you if you are not going to be childish.

The fact is we all know that there was a heightened terrorist threat at the time, so worrying about being on a highjackied plane isn't far fetched as he himself may have considered himself a high risk target.

John Ashcroft giving up commercial filghts in July doesn't prove any connection to knowing what was going to happen in advance to the WTC in Sept, though I am sure you will make the link.

I will second guess that your point is to suggest the US administration organised the WTC attack? Just to be clear?

We all know that the WTC has been considered a possible target for the last 30 years, but probably since the time it was built. Remember 1993? An attack on the WTC wasn't a surprise, but the magnitude was.

So be straight in your position rather than beating around the bush and trying to hint at your conclusion via links.

I'm trying to be objective and fair, & I did say earlier what I think it relates to. I believe this relates to an Ally of the US possibly being involved. I also believe, for other reasons, that there may have been some foreknowledge that something was going to happen. That's my position.

In this thread though, I'm not really interested in trying to change other peoples minds, I'm just posting stuff.

You might well be finding that the stuff I am posting hints at certain conclusions, but those would be your conclusions, not mine.

Stoo82 · Aug 21, 2014

dingodan said:
The New York Post calls it the "Saudi" report...

http://nypost.com/2014/03/08/victim-families-release-secret-saudi-911-report/

You might be interest in this. Though its from the dreaded Mainstream Media.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ke-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html

dingodan · Aug 21, 2014

Slightly unrelated, but interesting (and kind of strange).

U.S. Military Bans The Intercept

We have received information from our higher headquarters regarding a potential new leaker of classified information. Although no formal validation has occurred, we thought it prudent to warn all employees and subordinate commands. Please do not go to any website entitled “The Intercept” for it may very well contain classified material.

As a reminder to all personnel who have ever signed a non-disclosure agreement, we have an ongoing responsibility to protect classified material in all of its various forms. Viewing potentially classified material (even material already wrongfully released in the public domain) from unclassified equipment will cause you long term security issues. This is considered a security violation.

A military insider subject to the ban said that several employees expressed concerns after being told by commanders that it was “illegal and a violation of national security” to read publicly available news reports on The Intercept.

“Even though I have a top secret security clearance, I am still forbidden to read anything on the website,” said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the subject. “I find this very disturbing that they are threatening us and telling us what websites and news publishers we are allowed to read or not.”

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/08/20/u-s-military-bans-the-intercept/

H block · Aug 21, 2014

dingodan said:
If it is about Saudi Arabia then this kind of thing looks even worse than it did at the time:

WASHINGTON, March 26 - The episode has been retold so many times in the last three and a half years that it has become the stuff of political legend: in the frenzied days after Sept. 11, 2001, when some flights were still grounded, dozens of well-connected Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, managed to leave the United States on specially chartered flights.

Now, newly released government records show previously undisclosed flights from Las Vegas and elsewhere and point to a more active role by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in aiding some of the Saudis in their departure.

The F.B.I. gave personal airport escorts to two prominent Saudi families who fled the United States, and several other Saudis were allowed to leave the country without first being interviewed, the documents show.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/politics/27exodus.html?_r=0

Pretty much extensively covered by Michael Moores in Fahrenheit 9/11

SeagullinExile · Aug 22, 2014

dingodan said:
I believe the revelations are about the involvement of a supposedly "friendly" nation, a supposed "Ally".

That's what I am hearing, but I don't know for sure.

This would be correct.

Lord Bracknell · Aug 22, 2014

Raking over events of the past may or may not be interesting. But nowhere near as important as raking over events of the present.

I guess there's a lot of point in pondering how international relationships are developing right now. Is Assad still being treated as a bad guy? Or has he managed to establish himself once more as a fellow-victim, alongside the US and the UK, of the current insurgency in Syria and Iraq? And, if so, what happens next? And how does Saudi Arabia fit into all this? And what about Egypt and Hamas? And the Gulf States?

Who, in fact, are the good guys? And who are the bad guys? And who is talking to whom?

Eees complicated, I surmise.

Nibble · Aug 22, 2014

SeagullinExile said:
This would be correct.

Have you read the files? Tell us, what do they say?

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

9/11 Commission Report - The Classified 28 Pages

More options

dingodan

New member

Guy Fawkes

The voice of treason

pastafarian

Well-known member

symyjym

Banned

Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...

symyjym

Banned

dingodan

New member

dingodan

New member

dingodan

New member

Stoo82

GEEZUS!

dingodan

New member

H block

New member

SeagullinExile

Well-known member

Lord Bracknell

On fire

Nibble

New member

Share this page

Forum statistics

Online statistics

Newest members

Share this page