There has to be reason for it Bob. What do you think the reason was for all these lies, finger pointing, etc. It's a simple question. People don't make up lies and information for no reason.
Bob, in point 12. above it says Philip admitted that most or all of the 9/11 commission report relied on 3rd party elayed torture testimony, yet in point 13. it says 25% of the footnotes is relayed torture testimony? How does "all" or "most" equal 25%?
Hey Bob, the Commission report is 567 pages. I have a few questions. Since you believe that what Philip says above is fact, can you answer some questions? 1. Was chapter 12, What To Do? A global Strategy, based on torture testimony? Were the footnotes based on torture testimony? Those two sections took up pages 361 to 567. 2. Was chapter 11, Foresight and Hindsight, obtained from torture testimony? That chapter took up pages 339 though 361. 3. Was chapter 9, Heroism and Horror, obtained from torture testimony? That took up pages 278 through 324. 4. Was chapter 10, Wartime, obtained from torture testimony? That chapter took pages 325 through 360. That's just some of the information in the report.
Any thoughts on why the Commission in its report wrote 63 times that "we found no evidence" to support various elements of the OCT?
An this is just a nitpick. The statement "we found no evidence" does NOT appear 63 times. I just searched the document. "no evidence" appears 61 times. Of the 61 appearances on "no evidence" "we found no evidence" appears 8 times "there is no evidence" appears 21 times "we have found no evidence" appears 8 times "we have seen no evidence" appears 2 times... ...etc...
Example 1: Example 2: Example 3 (in response to the question of whether a hijacker used the cockpit jump seatfrom the outset of the flight): Looks to me like they investigated certain questions or claims and found "no evidence to support them. What exactly is YOUR point about the "no evidence" instances? Edit: I just reread your post: Can you explain how stating they found no evidence of a hijacker sitting in the jump seat "supports" the "OCT"?
Of course there has to be a reason. But speculating as to what the reason is is putting the cart before the horse. When someone commits murder the accused is prosecuted and could be found guilty based on the evidence even if no reason is ever known. It seems to me you’re trying to marginalize the fact that the 9/11 Commission and their report are scams or divert that fact. For what reason? To protect the criminals? Because what they did was a heinous crime amounting to complicity and treason.
Apples and oranges man you should be able to figure that one out for yourself if you really wanted to. The former is a fact taken from a Zelikow quote and the latter is strictly a calculation of the FOOTNOTE contents. Why would try to conflate the two facts? Just to try your damnedest to confuse?
So if Phillip can't be trusted, how can you trust he's telling the truth in points 12 and 13? Or are you talking his statements on blind faith?
Just because one can’t be trusted doesn’t mean everything that person says is a lie. I don’t see how or why Zelikow benefits by claiming all or most of the 9/11 Commission Report is based on torture testimony but he’s really lying. But let’s just suppose he’s lying about that and only 10% is for example. Any testimony extracted via torture is unreliable and could render an entire report unreliable as a result. I’m sure you know that and you’re still trying to create your shenanigan diversions. No you don’t think that you KNOW the guy is a scummy weasel despite your phony pretenses. Edit: What I meant to say is it’s a fact that he was quoted to have made that claim. Whether his claim is true or not is arguable.
Where did I say he was a scummy weasel? Why are you again making things up about me? Didn't you recently whine about this?
Oh I see. We don't know that what he said is factual, just that it's a fact he said it. Funny you decided to clarify that.
So the 75% of the footnote references back to information in the report WEREN'T gotten from torture testimony? How can Philip say ALL of the report was from torture testimony then?
Tell you what Bob. What is the implied meaning for the following points you posted here regarding Philip. Are these meant to show him as a trustworthy person or someone who may be shady? I would LOVE your opinion.
You didn’t you’re right my apologies. I should not be a hypocrite and assume anything about you, at least not on paper.
Nothing funny about it. I said virtually all 29 points are sourced or sourceable. I would assume you try to twist my posts to suit yours so I clarified it.
It was his claim not mine. Email him for an explanation. The 9/11 Commission Report speaks for itself in terms of the footnotes used to support the many claims. I understand much of the torture testimony was obtained 3rd party from a detainee who signed a “confession” he wasn’t allowed to read.
You're not making sense here Bob. If the the above is only referring to the fact that he made that statement and nothing else, how does that support your claim that the commision report is a scam? Especially when you admit you don't know if the subject of the statement is true or not.
