Ask Any Debunker...

[Homeland Insurgency]

1. Are there or are there not a multitude of cover-ups concerning the 9/11 attacks?

Complex Question

2. Was the 9/11 Commission, headed by Philip Zelikow, a whitewash?

Complex Question leading to Poisoning the well

3. Should there be accountability?
Complex Question derived from the previous two

Jon Gold needs to work on his interrogation methods...

Why are you afraid to answer?

 

[RedIbis]

A good description of the cover up.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Why are you afraid to answer?

His questions are demonstrably flawed in logic, rendering the argument moot. Why are you afraid to recognize this?

 

[funk de fino]

A good description of the cover up.

I like this part of the review

The non-judgmental tone is the 9/11 report's weakness and its strength. The narrative was stripped of anything that smacked of partisan controversy. Given the commission's makeup and the requirement that every word of its report be approved by all the commissioners, it was naive to expect anything else. What the 9/11 investigation did extremely well was assemble a large body of agreed-upon facts. The business of passing judgment was left to others. Future historians will almost certainly come across evidence that the commission overlooked. But four years later, the 9/11 report stands up pretty well -- despite Shenon's dogged revisionism.

And this

While Shenon has interviewed many commissioners and staffers, his sourcing falls short of the standard set by the 9/11 commission. His book includes 14 pages of often vague notes, compared to 114 pages in the 9/11 report. It can be difficult to tell who is drawing the key conclusions in Shenon's book: a named source, an anonymous source or the author.

And this

Take the question of ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Shenon contends that Zelikow bent over backward to promote the administration's claim of a relationship between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. He invited the "intellectual godmother" of the Iraq invasion, American Enterprise Institute scholar Laurie Mylroie, to expound her theories about an Iraq-bin Laden connection at a hearing. According to Shenon, "some members of the staff" suspected Zelikow of sharing Mylroie's views.

As it turned out, Mylroie's theories were rejected. To the dismay of commentators such as William Safire, the Republican commissioners joined the Democrats in finding no evidence of a "collaborative operational relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Given that top administration officials believed in the connection, the commission was right to hear Mylroie out. But far from justifying the invasion of Iraq, as Shenon claims, the commission ended up dismissing -- in a dispassionate, nonpartisan way -- one of the Bush administration's central arguments for war.

David Ray Griffin says in his review that Shenon has "ignorance of facts". Quite possibly the most ironic thing I have seen this year.

 

[RedIbis]

I like this part of the review



And this



And this



David Ray Griffin says in his review that Shenon has "ignorance of facts". Quite possibly the most ironic thing I have seen this year.

So instead of reading the book, you're going to rely on reviews. Typical.

 

[funk de fino]

So instead of reading the book, you're going to rely on reviews. Typical.

Is that what I said? Strawman time?

 

[GStan]

So instead of reading the book, you're going to rely on reviews. Typical.

Why don't you highlight the arguments that are the most damning to the Commission and the evidence the author used to support them, instead of linking to a book, and asking that everyone read the whole book to decipher what you are arguing.

In fairness though, if you present one even modestly convincing argument from the book that suggests a cover-up, I will read the book.

 

[johnny karate]

So instead of reading the book, you're going to rely on reviews. Typical.

If you're going to use someone else's arguments as proxy for your own, it is certainly valid to counter them with someone else's criticisms.

 

[RedIbis]

If you're going to use someone else's arguments as proxy for your own, it is certainly valid to counter them with someone else's criticisms.

Total nonsense. I'm not using Shenon's conclusions as my own. I'm pointing out what he's reported. The difference is that I read the book and you didn't.

 

[RedIbis]

Why don't you highlight the arguments that are the most damning to the Commission and the evidence the author used to support them, instead of linking to a book, and asking that everyone read the whole book to decipher what you are arguing.

In fairness though, if you present one even modestly convincing argument from the book that suggests a cover-up, I will read the book.

This thread goes into some of the particulars.

 

[VespaGuy]

A good description of the cover up.

Silly of me to expect a real answer from you, Red.

You claim there are a multitude of cover-ups surrounding 9/11.

Given the opportunity to prove multiple coverups, you respond with one. And you don't even tell us what the coverup is.

So.... what's the coverup? Here's your opportunity to blow us all away with your knowledge since you've read the book and some of us haven't.

Go ahead, Red. I'll even get you started.

The cover-up surrounding the 9/11 attacks that involved Zelikow was...

 

[RedIbis]

Silly of me to expect a real answer from you, Red.

You claim there are a multitude of cover-ups surrounding 9/11.

Given the opportunity to prove multiple coverups, you respond with one. And you don't even tell us what the coverup is.

So.... what's the coverup? Here's your opportunity to blow us all away with your knowledge since you've read the book and some of us haven't.

Go ahead, Red. I'll even get you started.

The cover-up surrounding the 9/11 attacks that involved Zelikow was...

I don't suppose you'd place your pointer over the word thread in the post just above yours.

 

[johnny karate]

Total nonsense. I'm not using Shenon's conclusions as my own.

Sure you are. Otherwise you would just make an argument of your own rather than provide links to the arguments of others.

I'm pointing out what he's reported.

And funk de fino pointed out what others have reported.

The difference is that I read the book and you didn't.

And funk de fino read the criticisms of the book.

Here's a thought: Show a little intellectual courage and actually make an argument of your own. That way, when you mock others for citing the arguments of other people you won't look as ridiculous and hypocritical.

 

[RedIbis]

Sure you are. Otherwise you would just make an argument of your own rather than provide links to the arguments of others.



And funk de fino pointed out what others have reported.



And funk de fino read the criticisms of the book.

Here's a thought: Show a little intellectual courage and actually make an argument of your own. That way, when you mock others for citing the arguments of other people you won't look as ridiculous and hypocritical.

This will be a total waste of time and I'll remember to resist responding to your posts in the future but for what it's worth, here goes:

You're reduced to semantic arguments because you cannot address the enormous accumulation of evidence which proves that Zelikow, as well as other members of the Bush administration, orchestrated the results of the 9/11Commission to prevent any revelation of what truly transpired. This is the very definition of a cover-up, a whitewash.

When I have email correspondance with Zelikow, as Shenon did, and access to many of the principals involved, I'll present my own argument. In the mean time, we read well sourced books from impartial journalists.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This thread goes into some of the particulars.

I think you're engaging in the rhetorical trickery known as equivocation.

That book talks about "evidence of a cover-up" in the sense of US officials covering up their own incompetence after AQ pulled off the 9/11 attacks.

It doesn't talk about "evidence of a coverup" in the sense of evidence supporting LIHOP conspiracy theories, or your own kooky MIHOP fantasies.

 

[RedIbis]

I think you're engaging in the rhetorical trickery known as equivocation.

That book talks about "evidence of a cover-up" in the sense of US officials covering up their own incompetence after AQ pulled off the 9/11 attacks.

It doesn't talk about "evidence of a coverup" in the sense of evidence supporting LIHOP conspiracy theories, or your own kooky MIHOP fantasies.

I find the global incompetence theory pretty damn kooky.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

1. Are there or are there not a multitude of cover-ups concerning the 9/11 attacks?

Complex Question

2. Was the 9/11 Commission, headed by Philip Zelikow, a whitewash?

Complex Question leading to Poisoning the well

3. Should there be accountability?
Complex Question derived from the previous two

Jon Gold needs to work on his interrogation methods...

Actually, only the third question is a complex question. I'll rephrase it for you:

Did any agency obligated by either their job or morality who could have prevented or diminished the terror attacks of 9/11 do anything that warrants accountability and if so, should they be held accountable?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I find the global incompetence theory pretty damn kooky.

Whatever.

The point is, the question "Are there or are there not a multitude of cover-ups concerning the 9/11 attacks?" seems to be asked with dishonest intent. It looks to me like the idea is to elicit a response agreeing that there is some circumstantial evidence of cover-ups concerning incompetence concerning the 9/11 attacks, and then twist that response so that it appears to be agreeing with your MIHOP lunacy and truther calls for a "new investigation" that will supposedly validate MIHOP theories.

 

[johnny karate]

You're reduced to semantic arguments because you cannot address the enormous accumulation of evidence which proves that Zelikow, as well as other members of the Bush administration, orchestrated the results of the 9/11Commission to prevent any revelation of what truly transpired. This is the very definition of a cover-up, a whitewash.

Clearly, you don't know what a semantic argument is. I'm not arguing the meaning of your words, but rather that you seem reluctant to use your own.

The fact that you post a link to a book and insist that all of us address the book in its totality is not argument and is not discussion. It's intellectual cowardice, and it's flat out stupid. Next time just say "Do ur reserch!" and be done with it.

When I have email correspondance with Zelikow, as Shenon did, and access to many of the principals involved, I'll present my own argument. In the mean time, we read well sourced books from impartial journalists.

Awesome. Just be sure and nudge me whenever you decide to get around to formulating an original thought. In the mean time, I'll be over here with the rest of the world not caring.

 

[johnny karate]

Actually, only the third question is a complex question. I'll rephrase it for you:

Did any agency obligated by either their job or morality who could have prevented or diminished the terror attacks of 9/11 do anything that warrants accountability and if so, should they be held accountable?

If 9/11 was an inside job, this question becomes moot.

You need to decide if you're arguing MIHOP or LIHOP. Choose a position, defend it, and then maybe you'll have earned the right to have your questions addressed.

Until then, you're just another Truther jumping from one contradictory argument to another in some juvenile game of "gotcha".