The Official Story Version: is there a published version/"case" anywhere?

[Abe Linkman]

Is anyone aware of a published version of the Official Version Conspiracy Theory? It would seem like some outfit like Hill & Knowlton would have been hired to put together some kind of reasonably comprehensive (and well-reasoned) article for use by the liberal media to help spread the O.V.C.T., but I'm not aware of any such animal.

If you know of one, would you kindly let the rest of us know where we can find/read it. Thank you.

[Old and In the Way]

1. No, and that itself is interesting, yes?

Why doesn't this administration have the detailed "official" story for us to analyze? Maybe they don't want to commit a story that could be refuted? Maybe such a story could incriminate them? They were so quick to verbally assure us, with confidence, that they had it all figured out within days of the attack....but nothing has been writtem, as far as I know, that can be used to against them.

Very good question....something we should be demanding of this misadministration, I think.

[number6]

2. what, .. put that out and have it picked apart by researchers

not likely soon

[RH]

3. 2002 Congressional Hearings

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/

:nopity:

[Old and In the Way]

4. Thanks for the links.

OK, I agree we had the narrative of the hearings. But even Mueller and Tenet's testimony is focused on the autobiographical details of the terrorists. But precious little is spent on the physical details, primarilly the timeline. I suspect that it would be in the military portion that I haven't read yet.

Most of the testimony seems to rehash the history of terror and the postmortem recommended changes.

What I did find interesting was Karen Britweiser's testimony. I didn't know about the Bangor cellphone lead that the FBI had within hours of the event. Sure does seem like they were able to put the pieces together very quickly after the fact....

What's really missing in this testimony is what the Executive branch was doing with the information that they were getting. Or not doing with the information.

[RH]

5. The official 'timeline' version

is essentially laid out here:

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/2002/senatecommittee092602.html

[Abe Linkman]

6. If that's it, no wonder we'll never see an honest investigation.

Puff piece, unworthy of serious consideration. Not even up to the standards of some of the defenders on the Web.

[Frodo]

7. Though you will, of course, not refute his opinion?

And, of course, you give his opinions respect. As you would expect for your own.

:eyes:

Interestingly. The piece you label a "puff piece" and "unworthy of serious consideration" seems to be nothing but a recitation of facts. "Person 'x' entered the US on this date, paid $1200 cash for a hotel, called his mother, walked the dog, etc etc etc."

I'm not sure how you formed your "opinion" about the piece. Is there a single factual assertion that you dispute? He offers no opinion at all until the very end. What "standard" does it fail to meet?

Or do you just have a pavlovian response to actual facts that don't appear on X-Files?

[Abe Linkman]

9. Your facts are wrong.

The puff piece is nothing but a recitation of an unsupported BS.
A "case" like that would never be brought to trial. Any judge would throw it out of court. It would be an embarassing affront to justice.

[Frodo]

11. That you can say that and still promulgate the Walter Davis cr@p ...

... should be embarasing to you.

The Senate intelligence committee is "a recitation of unsupported BS" yet you are willing to spread the Davis balloney?

Davis makes over a dozen easily identifiable factual errors in his first ten points. The committe record makes probably 100 statements of fact in less text.

"Unsupported BS"? Can you point out two or three statements (from "pre 9/11" to the word "conclusion") that are known to be in error? Should be easy.

As for whether a case would be brought to trial? Davis would never get beyond the "CT nutcase" stage. Oh, and guess what? He hasn't.

[DulceDecorum]

10. CONCLUSION

Statement For The Record
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence website
September 26, 2002

What I, have just provided is an overview of what we have learned about the U.S. activities of the hijackers before and during the attacks.
Clearly, these 19 terrorists were not supermen using extraordinarily sophisticated techniques. They came armed with simple box cutters. But they also came armed with sophisticated knowledge about how to plan these attacks abroad without discovery, how to finance their activities from overseas without alarm, how to communicate both here and abroad without detection, and how to exploit the vulnerabilities inherent in our free society.
There were no slip ups. Discipline never broke down. They gave no hint to those around them what they were about. They came lawfully. They lived lawfully. They trained lawfully. They boarded the aircraft lawfully. They simply relied upon everything from the vastness of the Internet to the openness of our society to do what they wanted to do without detection.
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/2002/senatecommittee092602.html

Let us take another look at the guy who just fingered
19 Saudi Arabian men and one Osama bin Laden.

The Herald reported that the committee had concluded that this represented “one of the greatest failures in the history of federal law enforcement.”
From 1984 to 1990, FBI Director Mueller served in the office of the U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts, beginning as chief of the Criminal Division and ending as the U.S. Attorney. This has raised questions about what he knew about the Salvati case and suspicions that the stonewalling of the committee’s requests for documents may be to protect him.
http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2003/7.html

That's odd.
They are stonewalling
the committee’s requests for documents
concerning September 11 as well.


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Frodo]

12. I agree.

That's why I've avoided his "conclusions", and hinted at that in the past you replied to.

They continue to want to paint the events of 9/11 as being outside of their reasonable ability to do anything about it. It was an "intelligence snafu", but we don't need to fire anyone over it, etc.

[RH]

8. For serious consideration

try Mathew 7:

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye Judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

etc.

:puffpiece:

[leftofthedial]

13. is there any other major event

for which there would not have been HUNDREDS of investigative books published by now?

Most odd, this 9-11 story. Most odd.