Reopen the 9/11 investigation?

ruminator

An unusual mind
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Posts
20,828
Do you think we should learn all that we can that might have been missed by the commission or do you think we should not take another look?

As the push grows for tighter security to prevent threats, isn't it fair to assess the job that's been done with available information so far?

All the data-mining in the world won't help if information is ignored.
 
There is something called the "Paralysis of Analysis"....

That would be an example of it.
 
Definitely yes. Especially in light of the recent release of info from Rep. Weldon about Able Danger.
 
Expertise said:
There is something called the "Paralysis of Analysis"....

That would be an example of it.

True, but what good does it do for us to give up privacy in excess of what is needed for effective security?
 
phrodeau said:
Definitely yes. Especially in light of the recent release of info from Rep. Weldon about Able Danger.

Yeah, he was on Cspan this morning. It'll be rerun again today and it's probably aavailable at c-span.org

The Wash. Post had an article that might contradict some of what he said.
 
I would like to see on-going public evaluation of how we're doing, what's been addressed, and where we are going.

It does no good to do an analysis and then not come up with a plan and evaluate the plan...one of those continuous quality assurance things.
 
Why not, might as well bring Ken Starr back to dig a little deeper into the Clintons and their affairs over in Arkansas also. I mean, at least two state troopers that were on private protection detail that ran an escort ferry service for the gov and first lady have died under mysterious circs. Something fishy about that Vince Foster thing too. I wanna know who really shot Kennedy ,Jack the Doper--not Bobby the Brat, who was really behing the King assassination, if Billy Carter was really fucking Amy, and if George Washington got splinters in his gums from his wooden teeth.
 
ksmybuttons said:
I would like to see on-going public evaluation of how we're doing, what's been addressed, and where we are going.

It does no good to do an analysis and then not come up with a plan and evaluate the plan...one of those continuous quality assurance things.
YES!!!

sitting around talking about everything bugs me, unless there is a plan of action. Seriously what's the point.
 
ksmybuttons said:
I would like to see on-going public evaluation of how we're doing, what's been addressed, and where we are going.

It does no good to do an analysis and then not come up with a plan and evaluate the plan...one of those continuous quality assurance things.


Yeah, that's part of the desired result.

There's enough who feel the 9/11 Commission wasn't thorough enough in their investigation and therefore the current approach is less than effective.
 
I say wait until Bush is out so that there will a proper investigation as well as properly questioning the turd.
 
perks said:
YES!!!

sitting around talking about everything bugs me, unless there is a plan of action. Seriously what's the point.

Part of the point of people like us sitting around discussing it is to make information more available to others who don't have it. A lot of people care about what's going on but get their information from a limited number of sources....on all sides.
 
Blow_this said:
I say wait until Bush is out so that there will a proper investigation as well as properly questioning the turd.

It has to be a bipartisan or nonpartisan investigation/plan to be effective but the current roster of players from both sides is a good place to start.

:D
 
The 9/11 Commission has already investigated Weldon's claims and found nothing in them. Why on earth the NYT printed that story escapes me - Weldon's love of tinfoil-hat-bullshit knows no bounds.
 
revelator said:
The 9/11 Commission has already investigated Weldon's claims and found nothing in them. Why on earth the NYT printed that story escapes me - Weldon's love of tinfoil-hat-bullshit knows no bounds.


Which part of the claims had nothing to them?
 
ruminator said:
Which part of the claims had nothing to them?

Basically everything that whacko has claimed.

http://www.slate.com/id/2124223/

So, what we have in the NYT are allegations by a congressman known to make wildly dubious claims, and one former defense official who backs up the congressman but for some reason declines to put his good name to the ... facts. On the other side, you have—as the Times mentions up high but only details in, oh, the 29th paragraph—the 9/11 commission insisting that they did look into the program and found nothing.


http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=9361
 
revelator said:
Basically everything that whacko has claimed.

http://www.slate.com/id/2124223/

So, what we have in the NYT are allegations by a congressman known to make wildly dubious claims, and one former defense official who backs up the congressman but for some reason declines to put his good name to the ... facts. On the other side, you have—as the Times mentions up high but only details in, oh, the 29th paragraph—the 9/11 commission insisting that they did look into the program and found nothing.


http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=9361

Thanks for the link. I'm in the process of sorting out the information I'm finding.

Also from Slate...
Now to the wrinkles in the NYT's piece: This is the first time the story has hit the big time, but it's been around for at least a few months. As the Times mentions, Weldon actually spoke about the whole deal publicly back in June in a "speech on the House floor." The allegations were picked up only in Weldon's local paper and then recently in more depth by an industry magazine. Presumably, there are only two explanations for this: 1) Other reporters just blew it and didn't notice. 2) They did notice but didn't buy it.


Another reason it wasn't picked up by reporters is the self imposed blackouts the MSM have been using on information that hurts their interests. My first reaction is that while some of it is true, the whole story would be damaging to both sides but primarily Bush and it would also lead to closer looks at 9/11 which none of them want.

On the Prospect article, ...Weldon's Ghorbonifar has been in a lot more mud recently such as the AIPAC indictments and investigations.

As for Iran,....Halliburton has been doing a steady business with them and the spin to hard line Iran into war also helps cover business deals. Same with the UN Oil for Food corruptions.

It's all a mess and Fitzgerald seems to be on every trail.

.....even the Judge and Ms Cornwell
 
Just read the Warren Commission Report....the jet pilots were all hit by the Magic Bullet.
 
Lancecastor said:
Just read the Warren Commission Report....the jet pilots were all hit by the Magic Bullet.

....it's that mysterious white jet again, isn't it?......that sonofabitch was everywhere
 
Expertise said:
There is something called the "Paralysis of Analysis"....

That would be an example of it.


Paralysis BY Analysis

but i get your point.


The idea is silly - it would just serve the people who want to politicize this stuff - on both sides.
 
ImSinister said:
Paralysis BY Analysis

but i get your point.


The idea is silly - it would just serve the people who want to politicize this stuff - on both sides.

Yeah, that will surely happen but what about trying to find real answers to the balance between security and personal liberties?

I'm pissed that the govt wants more restrictions and controls,....more access to daily personal information and they haven't proven they can effectively use it.
 
Back
Top