• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man Linked to 9/11 Attacks Captured in Syria

George Bush obfuscated the Saudis involvement in 9/11, would you agree? His family has been tied to the Saudis, and the bin Laden family for 30-40 years. The attempt by the Bush administration to squash transparency involving the Saudis hand in 9/11 smacks of duplicity.

There is no evidence the Saudi goverment—-as opposed to Saudi individuals—-was in any way responsible for 9/11.
 
I have posted it about twenty times. And you know this to be true.

And I have linked to it as well.

Whenever it has been presented to you you ignore it and come back with the "set up to fail" meme a week or a month later.

Feel free to post it again, if you like.
 
There is no evidence the Saudi goverment—-as opposed to Saudi individuals—-was in any way responsible for 9/11.

"...the Saudi Government paid two nationals, posing as students in the US, to take a flight from Phoenix to Washington and test out flight deck security before 9/11.

FBI documents, submitted as evidence, claimed that the two Saudi nationals who came to the US, Mohammed al-Qudhaeein and Hamdan al-Shalawi, were in fact members of “the Kingdom's network of agents” in the country. The documents claimed the men trained in Afghanistan with a number of other al-Qaeda operatives that participated in the attacks.


In November 1999 they boarded an America West flight to Washington, and tried to access the cockpit several times, asking the flight attendants “technical questions” and making the staff “suspicious”.

The case can go to trial thanks to the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act which was voted into law by Congress last September, despite a veto from former President Barack Obama and lobbying from the Saudi government."


I believe the truth will come out in full, eventually. Then we can all ask why Presidents Bush and Obama tried to keep that truth from being known to the public.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ijacks-lawsuit-cockpit-security-a7938791.html
 
"...the Saudi Government paid two nationals, posing as students in the US, to take a flight from Phoenix to Washington and test out flight deck security before 9/11.

FBI documents, submitted as evidence, claimed that the two Saudi nationals who came to the US, Mohammed al-Qudhaeein and Hamdan al-Shalawi, were in fact members of “the Kingdom's network of agents” in the country. The documents claimed the men trained in Afghanistan with a number of other al-Qaeda operatives that participated in the attacks.


In November 1999 they boarded an America West flight to Washington, and tried to access the cockpit several times, asking the flight attendants “technical questions” and making the staff “suspicious”.

The case can go to trial thanks to the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act which was voted into law by Congress last September, despite a veto from former President Barack Obama and lobbying from the Saudi government."


I believe the truth will come out in full, eventually. Then we can all ask why Presidents Bush and Obama tried to keep that truth from being known to the public.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ijacks-lawsuit-cockpit-security-a7938791.html

You do realize that doesn't actually.....prove anything, right? Claiming that something is a "dry run" does not make it so. Claiming the Saudi government paid people to "test flight security" doesn't equate to "the Saudi government is behind 9/11 either.

As usual, the American people are all to eager to invent fantasies about government conspiracies.
 
You do realize that doesn't actually.....prove anything, right? Claiming that something is a "dry run" does not make it so. Claiming the Saudi government paid people to "test flight security" doesn't equate to "the Saudi government is behind 9/11 either.

As usual, the American people are all to eager to invent fantasies about government conspiracies.

The FBI claimed those things not me. Will you now accuse Mueller's FBI of being CT wingnuts? Mueller was director when the documents were compiled.
 
The FBI claimed those things not me. Will you now accuse Mueller's FBI of being CT wingnuts? Mueller was director when the documents were compiled.

Quotes - 9/11 Commission member said Commission was setup to fail

This page contains a quote used by conspiracy theorists that has been further researched. For more information about our quotes database, please see the introduction.
Quote

This quote is used by conspiracy theorists to attempt to make Lee Hamilton look like he was very dissatisfied with the 9/11 Commission and Commission Report:

"I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

Quote Status: Out of Context
Attributed to: Lee Hamilton
Category: 9/11; 9/11 Commission
Submitted By: Edward L Winston
Actual Details
As with many cases, using the same source as conspiracy theorists we come with with a more than slightly different explanation:

At the beginning of the interview where the quotes originate, something most conspiracy theorists obviously didn't read, we get Lee's view of the Commission and Commission report (my emphasis):

Solomon: Do you consider the 9/11 Commission to have been a success, and if so, under what ways do you measure that success? How do you call it a success?

Hamilton: The 9/11 Commission was created by statute. We had two responsibilities - first, tell the story of 9/11; I think we've done that reasonably well. We worked very hard at it; I don't know that we've told the definitive story of 9/11, but surely anybody in the future who tackles that job will begin with the 9/11 Commission Report. I think we've been reasonably successful in telling the story. It became a best seller in this country and people showed a lot of interest in it.

Our second task was to make recommendations; thus far, about half of our recommendations have been enacted into law, the other half have not been enacted. So we've got a ways to go. In a quantitative sense, we've had about 50% success there. In a qualitative sense, you could judge it many different ways. But we still have some very important recommendations that we think have not yet been enacted that should be.


That doesn't really sound like what conspiracy theorists are saying.

Going on:

Hamilton: I don't believe for a minute that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history.
We wrote it under a lot of time pressure, and we sorted through the evidence as best we could.

Now, it would be really rather remarkable if we got everything right. So far, of the things that have been brought up challenging the report, to my knowledge, we have more credibility than the challenger. But I would not for a moment want to suggest that that's always true, either in the past or in the future. People will be investigating 9/11 for the next hundred years in this country, and they're going to find out some things that we missed here.

So I don't automatically reject all the evidence you cite. It may be we missed it, it may be we ignored it when we shouldn't have - I don't think we did, but it's possible.


So, while he thinks they certainly got some things wrong, he still thinks they're more correct than conspiracy theorists. Interesting how the conspiracy theorists don't include that part of the quote.

Setup to fail:

Solomon: You write.. the first chapter of the book is 'the Commission was set up to fail.' - my goodness, for the critics - who suggest that it was indeed set up to fail as some kind of obfuscation - you certainly dangled a juicy piece of bait out there in the river. Why do you think you were set up to fail?

Hamilton: Well, for a number of reasons: Tom Kean and I were substitutes - Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell were the first choices; we got started late; we had a very short time frame - indeed, we had to get it extended; we did not have enough money - 3 million dollars to conduct an extensive investigation. We needed more, we got more, but it took us a while to get it.


9/11 Commission member said Commission was setup to fail - Quotes - Skeptic Project
 
The FBI claimed those things not me. Will you now accuse Mueller's FBI of being CT wingnuts? Mueller was director when the documents were compiled.

But the FBI did not claim the Saudi government was behind the 9/11 attacks.
 
But the FBI did not claim the Saudi government was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Stay on topic. The FBI claimed the Saudi embassy in the US paid to stage a test run for 9/11. This information was not disclosed during the 9/11 Commission.
 
This quote is used by conspiracy theorists to attempt to make Lee Hamilton look like he was very dissatisfied with the 9/11 Commission and Commission Report:

"I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

9/11 Commission member said Commission was setup to fail - Quotes - Skeptic Project

(I had to edit your piece in order to fit under 5k characters)

OK, tell me please, in your own words, what the significance of this excerpt is?

It doesn't contradict Kean and Hamilton's statement about being set up to fail, it merely attempts to explain Hamilton's view of that phrase.

Also, your article's author states that people who cite the 'set up to fail' quote are implying that the quote is used to imply a 'vast conspiracy'. That's not my assertion at all, but rather the quote was practically an apology from Kean & Hamilton, for the deeply embarrassing debacle that was the Commission Hearings, and subsequent report.

I don't suppose you have a link handy that explains Senator Max Cleland's comment about quitting the Commission because "the White House has played cover-up"?

Or why he also stated, "I... cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Cleland
 
I have posted it about twenty times. And you know this to be true.

And I have linked to it as well.

Whenever it has been presented to you you ignore it and come back with the "set up to fail" meme a week or a month later.

Actually I don't know that to be true. I cannot remember what Kean said at the end, and you seem in no mood to tell me. Whatever he might have said, it does not change the big picture. The Commission report still said 60+ times they found no proof for this, that, or some other detail of the official story. That tells much.
 
Actually I don't know that to be true. I cannot remember what Kean said at the end, and you seem in no mood to tell me. Whatever he might have said, it does not change the big picture. The Commission report still said 60+ times they found no proof for this, that, or some other detail of the official story. That tells much.

Why lie?

And Citation for your "60 plus" claim?
 
(I had to edit your piece in order to fit under 5k characters)

OK, tell me please, in your own words, what the significance of this excerpt is?

It doesn't contradict Kean and Hamilton's statement about being set up to fail, it merely attempts to explain Hamilton's view of that phrase.

Also, your article's author states that people who cite the 'set up to fail' quote are implying that the quote is used to imply a 'vast conspiracy'. That's not my assertion at all, but rather the quote was practically an apology from Kean & Hamilton, for the deeply embarrassing debacle that was the Commission Hearings, and subsequent report.

I don't suppose you have a link handy that explains Senator Max Cleland's comment about quitting the Commission because "the White House has played cover-up"?

Or why he also stated, "I... cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Cleland

It completely demolishes the "set up to fail" meme used to discount the Commission's findings.

It doesn't "attempt" anything. It clearly points out the early frustration that led to the original STATEMENT.

Add to that there is nothing "embarrassing" about the report.

And you do know investigators were at work in the FBI from the moments the planes struck the towers. The largest investigation to dare for the FBI.

So we have the Commission members clearly proud of their final report and an investigation the largest ever conducted on one side... One the other side we have a meme....

Do with it what you will.
 
It completely demolishes the "set up to fail" meme used to discount the Commission's findings.

It doesn't "attempt" anything. It clearly points out the early frustration that led to the original STATEMENT.

Add to that there is nothing "embarrassing" about the report.

And you do know investigators were at work in the FBI from the moments the planes struck the towers. The largest investigation to dare for the FBI.

So we have the Commission members clearly proud of their final report and an investigation the largest ever conducted on one side... One the other side we have a meme....

Do with it what you will.

I have no idea why you're still touting the Commission hearings and report by now. American support for the Commission has dwindled down to a pittance of what it was.

Have you ever read the entire CBC interview of Lee Hamilton? You'll find that your Skeptic Project author cherry picked quotes he thought could defeat the initial 'set up to fail' phrase. He's using the same tactics he accuses Truthers of using.

The truth is that Lee Hamilton talks out of both sides of his mouth. He's a politician, they're known for playing both sides of an issue, when it suits them. Hamilton was not about to give up his 30+ years in Washington DC, and all the contacts he'd made there in order to push for some truth about 9/11 to be made known. That would be too much to ask of most life long government employees, except those rare individuals who've sacrificed what connections they once had in government, in order to free their conscience. Men like Michael Sheuer, Anthony Shaffer, Max Cleland, Bob Graham, and others.
 
I have no idea why you're still touting the Commission hearings and report by now. American support for the Commission has dwindled down to a pittance of what it was.

Have you ever read the entire CBC interview of Lee Hamilton? You'll find that your Skeptic Project author cherry picked quotes he thought could defeat the initial 'set up to fail' phrase. He's using the same tactics he accuses Truthers of using.

The truth is that Lee Hamilton talks out of both sides of his mouth. He's a politician, they're known for playing both sides of an issue, when it suits them. Hamilton was not about to give up his 30+ years in Washington DC, and all the contacts he'd made there in order to push for some truth about 9/11 to be made known. That would be too much to ask of most life long government employees, except those rare individuals who've sacrificed what connections they once had in government, in order to free their conscience. Men like Michael Sheuer, Anthony Shaffer, Max Cleland, Bob Graham, and others.

Ah, so Hamilton was telling the truth when saying "set up to fail" EARLY IN THE PROCESS but lying when he stated AT THE END of the Commission....

Got it.
 
Ah, so Hamilton was telling the truth when saying "set up to fail"

Every possible bit of information we have about that time suggests the commission was set up to fail. The Bush White House fought against even the establishment of the commission, bowed out due to congressional demands & media attention, and then attempted to financially starve the commission out of existence.

Commission members considered seeking obstruction of justice charges against several sources of lying testimony, including members of NORAD and the Pentagon.




EARLY IN THE PROCESS but lying when he stated AT THE END of the Commission....

Got it.

That's almost it Fleder. The Commission hearings had been over for 2 years when Hamilton co-authored Without Precedent, and gave that interview to the CBC. Hamilton was already a member of another governmental committee by that point. He had nothing to gain by harping on why the Commission was set up to fail by 2006.
 
Every possible bit of information we have about that time suggests the commission was set up to fail. The Bush White House fought against even the establishment of the commission, bowed out due to congressional demands & media attention, and then attempted to financially starve the commission out of existence.

Commission members considered seeking obstruction of justice charges against several sources of lying testimony, including members of NORAD and the Pentagon.






That's almost it Fleder. The Commission hearings had been over for 2 years when Hamilton co-authored Without Precedent, and gave that interview to the CBC. Hamilton was already a member of another governmental committee by that point. He had nothing to gain by harping on why the Commission was set up to fail by 2006.

Other than the Saudi angle have you issues with the report?
 
Other than the Saudi angle have you issues with the report?

The Commission didn't go far enough into ascertaining intelligence failures, and why good intelligence wasn't acted upon by those in power.

You still haven't addressed why Senator Cleland chose to quit the commission, btw. You won't find any recanting statements by him either. He called the Commission what it was; compromised.
 
The Commission didn't go far enough into ascertaining intelligence failures, and why good intelligence wasn't acted upon by those in power.

You still haven't addressed why Senator Cleland chose to quit the commission, btw. You won't find any recanting statements by him either. He called the Commission what it was; compromised.

They went into much detail about the failures in Intel.

Have you read the report?

And Clelland chose another job...

I would think you would have known that....
 
They went into much detail about the failures in Intel.

"and why good intelligence wasn't acted upon by those in power."

One of the Commision's members said publicly that the Pentagon probably lied during questioning, but it wasn't a big deal. Who in their right mind would trust the Commission at this point?


Have you read the report?

I've read the report. Kean and Hamilton didn't say the report was set up to fail, did they? That would have been hilarious, considering they authored the report.

And Clelland chose another job...

I would think you would have known that....

If you're going to take Lee Hamilton at his word, I think it's only fair you do the same for Cleland. He never said he was leaving the Commission so he could work on the banking committee, he said he was leaving due to a moral obligation of not being part of a corrupted process, one he accused the Bush administration of attempting to play cover up with. Whichever position he fulfilled after leaving the train wreck commission on 9/11, it doesn't have anything to do with what his intentions were for leaving.
 
"and why good intelligence wasn't acted upon by those in power." (1)

One of the Commision's members said publicly that the Pentagon probably lied during questioning, but it wasn't a big deal. (2) Who in their right mind would trust the Commission at this point? (2a)

I've read the report. Kean and Hamilton didn't say the report was set up to fail, did they? That would have been hilarious, considering they authored the report. (3)

If you're going to take Lee Hamilton at his word, I think it's only fair you do the same for Cleland. He never said he was leaving the Commission so he could work on the banking committee, he said he was leaving due to a moral obligation of not being part of a corrupted process, one he accused the Bush administration of attempting to play cover up with. Whichever position he fulfilled after leaving the train wreck commission on 9/11, it doesn't have anything to do with what his intentions were for leaving.(4)

1. A number of reasons. The Gorlick wall comes to mind. That and zero ACTIONABLE intelligence as to the WHO, the WHEN, and the HOW of the attacks.

2. OMFG... Someone lied. Trying to CYA. Yes. And? Did or did not the Commission later get the needed information? (The answer is yes)

2a. Someone may have lied in a small facets oft eh report so the whole report cannot be trusted? BS.

3. Ignoring that they got the funding and the information they needed and spoke out in favor of the FINAL report. A point you can't seem to grasp. In your world a football team that is down 14 points has lost even though they outscore the opponents at the end of the game.

4. Citation?
 
1. A number of reasons. The Gorlick wall comes to mind. That and zero ACTIONABLE intelligence as to the WHO, the WHEN, and the HOW of the attacks.

2. OMFG... Someone lied. Trying to CYA. Yes. And? Did or did not the Commission later get the needed information? (The answer is yes)

2a. Someone may have lied in a small facets oft eh report so the whole report cannot be trusted? BS.

3. Ignoring that they got the funding and the information they needed and spoke out in favor of the FINAL report. A point you can't seem to grasp. In your world a football team that is down 14 points has lost even though they outscore the opponents at the end of the game.

4. Citation?

1. The author of the Gorlick wall memo was chosen to sit on the Commission. 'Set up to fail' describes that decision remarkably well. Just more CYA, right?

1a. Despite evidence that suggests 2 out the 3 terror cells responsible for the 9/11 attacks were identified by military intelligence prior to the attack, executive director Philip Zelikow never presented this information to the Commission. It's been speculated, with good reason, that Zelikow was the Bush administration's weapon for preventing important facts from reaching the Commission's investigation.

Beyond the Commission, Bill Clinton's failure to liquidate OBL was what I had in mind when I said "good intelligence wasn't acted upon by those in power." It took CIA officer Michael Sheuer to inform the world that Clinton had been offered Bin Laden's location from CIA counterterrorism efforts no less than 8 times in 1998-1999, and refused to order a strike. On one occasion, Sheuer described how after being informed of OBL's location, Clinton, Richard Clarke, and Sandy Berger decided to have a call placed to OBLs visitor, warning him that he'd been spotted. Maybe this is why Berger later stuffed classified documents down his pants, and later destroyed done some of them? Possible.

2. See, you really don't believe in the veracity of the hearings.

2a. The Pentagon's lies are just one issue here. There are at least a dozen more. It all adds up to that 'corrupted... cover up' that Max Cleland spoke of.

3. The government covered their ass, received huge increases in funding, and most important, got their War in Iraq. Billions of dollars were made, Zelikow was rewarded, Gorlick collected $30 million from Fannie Mae, and now serves as Jared Kushner's attorney.

No one took responsibility, except of course for the 3,000 Americans who died violent deaths, and those who continue to die every year from respiratory illness and cancer.

Kean and Hamilton got what they needed. Too bad the rest of America didn't.

4. I posted it already in this thread.
 
1. The author of the Gorlick wall memo was chosen to sit on the Commission. 'Set up to fail' describes that decision remarkably well. Just more CYA, right?

1a. Despite evidence that suggests 2 out the 3 terror cells responsible for the 9/11 attacks were identified by military intelligence prior to the attack, executive director Philip Zelikow never presented this information to the Commission. It's been speculated, with good reason, that Zelikow was the Bush administration's weapon for preventing important facts from reaching the Commission's investigation.

Beyond the Commission, Bill Clinton's failure to liquidate OBL was what I had in mind when I said "good intelligence wasn't acted upon by those in power." It took CIA officer Michael Sheuer to inform the world that Clinton had been offered Bin Laden's location from CIA counterterrorism efforts no less than 8 times in 1998-1999, and refused to order a strike. On one occasion, Sheuer described how after being informed of OBL's location, Clinton, Richard Clarke, and Sandy Berger decided to have a call placed to OBLs visitor, warning him that he'd been spotted. Maybe this is why Berger later stuffed classified documents down his pants, and later destroyed done some of them? Possible.

2. See, you really don't believe in the veracity of the hearings.

2a. The Pentagon's lies are just one issue here. There are at least a dozen more. It all adds up to that 'corrupted... cover up' that Max Cleland spoke of.

3. The government covered their ass, received huge increases in funding, and most important, got their War in Iraq. Billions of dollars were made, Zelikow was rewarded, Gorlick collected $30 million from Fannie Mae, and now serves as Jared Kushner's attorney.

No one took responsibility, except of course for the 3,000 Americans who died violent deaths, and those who continue to die every year from respiratory illness and cancer.

Kean and Hamilton got what they needed. Too bad the rest of America didn't.

4. I posted it already in this thread.

Blathering "set up to fail" over and over means nothing. They didn't fail.

Please show any ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE...

ACTIONABLE.

Meaning can be acted on.

As far as the veracity of the report please show how the tainted (and later corrected) Pentagon testimony impacts the veracity of the report itself.

And security costs money. Derp. And wars cost money. Derp.

Please tell me. WHO was responsible for the attacks. WHO should shoulder the blame for not stopping them.
 
That the Commission would state 63 times that it could "find no evidence" of various aspects of the official story is very telling, for those into rational analysis. It means something.
 
Blathering "set up to fail" over and over means nothing. They didn't fail.

Please show any ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE...

ACTIONABLE.

Meaning can be acted on.

You don't think killing or capturing OBL could have prevented 9/11?

As far as the veracity of the report please show how the tainted (and later corrected) Pentagon testimony impacts the veracity of the report itself.

Let's turn to one of the Chairs for that answer:

"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."

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

Oh well, that's good enough for the 9/11 Omission. Lets not scrutinize the Pentagon too much over this, or the trillions of unaccountable dollars they 'lost' right before 9/11. Rummy is an American treasure.

And security costs money. Derp. And wars cost money. Derp.

And creating wars based on fictitious grounds insures more money will be needed for homeland security derp.

American wars in the Mideast + Mideast migration to America = terrorism. Derp.

Shill Zelikow probably would have told you that.

Please tell me. WHO was responsible for the attacks. WHO should shoulder the blame for not stopping them.

Teh bearded guys livin in teh caves over in Afganiland. Right?
 
Back
Top Bottom