You have been bested by superior arguments, clearly the only thing we can suggest to you is to give in and become a truther! We can make the transition quick and painless, or if you prefer, put you out of your misery.
Seriously, though, the problem with truthers is similar to the problem with creationists. For one thing, they are big fans of the false dilemma. Something like "A tiny facet of evolution is disproven! Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that a magical sky pixie created the world in 7 days!" is a valid argument in both those circles.
Let's take a look at that post. Even if we assume that everything in it is absolutely true, what does it tell us? The investigation of the 9/11 commission has been obstructed by various government agencies. So,
naturally there has been a massive conspiracy going back decades to establish conservative dominance over America by staging a catastrophic event and galvanizing public opinion. Planting bombs in the WTC and shooting a missile at the Pentagon has been part of that conspiracy, and that is what the government has tried to cover up by obstructing the investigation.
It
most definitely could not have been trying to cover up, say, the massive corruption and incompetence of the Bush administration. That's just so...banal.
Which of these two options is more plausible given what we know of the world in general and the Bush administration in particular? On one hand, we have a super-conspiracy that went off without a hitch and led us to the current predicament. On the other, we have evidence of the massive incompetence of the Bush administration on every level of government starting from Hurricane Katrina and ending with the not-quite-unveiled assassinations program.
That post can only be interpreted in such a way to point to a Truther interpretation of 9/11 if you're already a Truther and buy into the whole Conspiracy! bullshit. That's because Truthers, like creationists do not draw conclusions from the evidence, they start with a theory and shoehorn evidence to fit it.
And that is another problem with both Truthers and creationists. These people, and this gentleman in particular, are, to put it politely, lying fucktards.
Let's take a closer looks at the sources he provided.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opini ... ef=opinion
he wrote:The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation".
The White House obstructed the investigation into the bombs at WTC?
the article wrote:The commission’s mandate was sweeping and it explicitly included the intelligence agencies. But the recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.
There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the C.I.A. — or the White House — of the commission’s interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations.
The White House obstructed the Commission access to the CIA tapes of interrogations! Here's a critical thinking excercise for you: WHY did it do that? Did they do it because the Al Quaeda suspects said that they didn't do it? Or was there another reason from making these tapes public? Things like the blatant violations of the Geneva convention by the Bush administration?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... ml?sub=new
he wrote:
The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).
the article wrote:Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.
For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.
In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... =printable
he wrote:Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.
The book, a behind-the-scenes look at the investigation, recounts obstacles the authors say were thrown up by the Bush administration, internal disputes over President Bush's use of the attacks as a reason for invading Iraq, and the way the final report avoided questioning whether U.S. policy in the Middle East may have contributed to the attacks.
Kean and Hamilton said the commission found it mind-boggling that authorities had asserted during hearings that their air defenses had reacted quickly and were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93, which appeared headed toward Washington.
In fact, the commission determined — after it subpoenaed audiotapes and e-mails of the sequence of events — that the shootdown order did not reach North American Aerospace Command pilots until after all of the hijacked planes had crashed.
In their book, which goes on sale Aug. 15, Kean and Hamilton recap obstacles they say the panel faced in putting out a credible report in a presidential election year, including fights for access to government documents and an effort to reach unanimity.
Among the issues:
_ Iraq. The commission threatened to splinter over the question of investigating the administration's use of 9/11 as a reason for going to war. The strongest proponent was original member Max Cleland, a Democratic former senator who later stepped down for separate reasons.
If Cleland had not resigned, the commission probably would not have reached unanimity, according to the book. Ultimately, commissioners decided to touch briefly on the Iraq war by concluding there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida; the administration had asserted there were substantial contacts between the two.
_ Israel. The commission disagreed as to how to characterize al-Qaida's motives for attacking the U.S., with Hamilton arguing that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the presence of U.S. forces in the Middle East were major contributors.
Unidentified members believed that "listing U.S. support for Israel as a root cause of al-Qaida's opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy," which those commission members did not want.
Ultimately, the panel made a brief statement noting that U.S. policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Iraq are "dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world."
_ Access to detainees. The panel pushed for direct access to detainees, at one point proposing to be at least physically present or to listen by telephone during interrogations so they could gauge credibility and get unvarnished accounts.
The administration resisted, citing concerns about national security. Officials also said they feared setting a precedent of access by a nongovernment entity that could undermine the administration's position that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to detainees classified as "enemy combatants."
And so on. In fact, every source he posted (except for that Democracy Now article which does not go into the reasons for the obstructions and that blog which is, well, a blog)
contradicts the Truther version of events.
But, of course, the guy is hoping no one would actually READ those sources he linked to. Too much Youtube debating, I suspect.
I would appreciate if you post a link to the debate in question. I want to see how you do.
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
