Quantcast

The Ground Truth

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin
The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11

More 9/11 style crazy, right?

Well, here is an article about it, and here is the synopsis on it.

Here is an important quote from said synopsis:
Farmer, senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, ... concludes...the official version of events was almost entirely ... untrue.
(heavily edited to get to the meat of it, but read the synopsis and see if that is not the gist for yourself.)

Anyone read this?

What do you think about the fact that 9/11 Commission members are publicly stating that the official story is untrue?

Maybe the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are starting to rub off on the commission members?
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
23
SF, CA
Here is an important quote from said synopsis:
"Farmer, senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, ... concludes...the official version of events was almost entirely ... untrue. "
(heavily edited to get to the meat of it, but read the synopsis and see if that is not the gist for yourself.)
I don't know why I even bother to ask, but are you completely ****ing nuts?

Here's the actual synopsis. It doesn't even remotely imply what you do above. And it certainly doesn't support any kind of conspiracy or idea that it was anything but a terrorist attacj in which planes knocked down buildings. It pins the blame, as we have numberous times in this forum, on bureaucratic ineptitude.

Farmer, senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, updates the commission's report in this thorough and bipartisan analysis. Drawing on newly declassified records and recent investigative reports from the departments of defense and transportation, the author concludes that the failure to detect and prevent the attack lay in the [bureaucratic] nature of modern government. Most significantly, rules proscribing information-sharing within and among agencies meant that no one had complete access to all available intelligence or information—typical bureaucratic inertia that presaged the government's bungled response to Hurricane Katrina. Farmer faults the disconnect between decision-makers and operational employees, concluding that leadership was irrelevant on 9/11 and the official version of events was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue. Farmer's conclusion that bureaucratic government does not adapt fast enough to changing missions to be effective is not original, but in his careful exegesis of the events of 9/11, he transcends easy generalizations to expose the fault lines in contemporary governance and point the way to fundamental reform. (Sept.)
 

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin
I don't know why I even bother to ask, but are you completely ****ing nuts?

Here's the actual synopsis and it doesn't even remotely state what you quote above:
Really? Here is what I see. Read the bold.

Farmer, senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, updates the commission's report in this thorough and bipartisan analysis. Drawing on newly declassified records and recent investigative reports from the departments of defense and transportation, the author concludes that the failure to detect and prevent the attack lay in the [bureaucratic] nature of modern government. Most significantly, rules proscribing information-sharing within and among agencies meant that no one had complete access to all available intelligence or information—typical bureaucratic inertia that presaged the government's bungled response to Hurricane Katrina. Farmer faults the disconnect between decision-makers and operational employees, concluding that leadership was irrelevant on 9/11 and the official version of events was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue. Farmer's conclusion that bureaucratic government does not adapt fast enough to changing missions to be effective is not original, but in his careful exegesis of the events of 9/11, he transcends easy generalizations to expose the fault lines in contemporary governance and point the way to fundamental reform. (Sept.)
I guess you are right.

It doesn't say the 9/11 commission report was untrue at all in there. :rolleyes:
 

rockofullr

confused
Jun 11, 2009
7,342
924
East Bay, Cali
Really? Here is what I see. Read the bold.

I guess you are right.

It doesn't say the 9/11 commission report was untrue at all in there. :rolleyes:
That's whats called "taking out of context".

When you read the whole paragraph it means one thing. By itself it seems to say something completely different.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Oh great... another craptastic RR thread, where he posts some crap he found on the internet, and then defends the garbage to a point so ridiculous, he's forced yet again to retreat with his tail between his legs.

In case everyone hasn't noticed.. this is becoming a trend. Im pretty much done responding.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,669
1,713
chez moi
I'm just in it for the snappy Orwell quote that's inevitably going to show up.
 

X3pilot

Texans fan - LOL
Aug 13, 2007
5,860
1
SoMD




Seriously?? To everyone else BESIDES RR, am I reading it as the reports and parts of the reports that referenced the sharing of communication (how it was OK) that there was enough sharing of intelligence between agencies, etc, etc....THAT'S the part of the commision report that the article is refering to as untrue, right??
 

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin
Seriously?? To everyone else BESIDES RR, am I reading it as the reports and parts of the reports that referenced the sharing of communication (how it was OK) that there was enough sharing of intelligence between agencies, etc, etc....THAT'S the part of the commision report that the article is refering to as untrue, right??
I didn't read the book, so I don't know what part of the report it claims is untrue. But I take the words "almost entirely" to mean "almost entirely." It sounds awfully close to the "whole gosh darn thing" to me. And by "events" I think the author means the "events of 9-11" (which is what is documented in the 9-11 commission report).

Probably just some clarity leaking through the tinfoil or something...
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
Ugh. Honestly, take statistics. Do the whole "a penny is a coin but a coin isn't necessarily a penny" thing. Then sit down with a dictionary and figure out what words like "almost" and "mostly" mean. Then take a debate class and learn to construe an argument and put forth your thesis with facts to back it up. *Then* come back and post on this subject.

Please, this is just getting painful...
 

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin
Ugh. Honestly, take statistics.
Did that.

Do the whole "a penny is a coin but a coin isn't necessarily a penny" thing.
Got that.

Then sit down with a dictionary and figure out what words like "almost" and "mostly" mean.
Don't know where "mostly" comes into this, but I think I understand almost... as in not quite.

Let me say this again, but a little more slowly...

The author stated that the 9-11 report, which is about the events of 9-11, is almost entirely untrue. "Almost entirely" means very close to all of something. In this context it means that while most of the report is untrue, there are some parts that are true, like maybe they got the date right or something. :weee:

Then take a debate class and learn to construe an argument and put forth your thesis with facts to back it up.
hmmmm... don't seem to recall putting forth a thesis or making any sort of statement. Just asking what it means when someone involved in the production of a report states that the report is untrue, at any level... especially when that report claims to be:

...a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks.
I take it to mean we shouldn't believe what is in the report, because it is almost entirely untrue. I guess I am just funny in that I interpret words to mean what they say and I am not all up on all the latest newspeak (that's for you MikeD). It's like when I was talking to the IRS the other day and explaining what voluntary meant to us common folk. I guess they have a different understanding of the meaning as it relates to income taxes. :eek:
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
1) "I went for a bike ride today on a Felt road bike, I averaged 75mph, the sky was blue and there wasn't a single cloud in the sky."

2) That statement is "almost entirely untrue."

Note: This does not mean that the sky was green, I averaged 85mph, or that I was propelled at that speed by flying monkeys. You can't infer something from statement #2, particularly since the words "almost" is in there. You're grasping at straws trying to claim that it backs up your theory that the gov't brought down the buildings but in effect it does no such thing.
 

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin
You can't infer something from statement #2, particularly since the words "almost" is in there.
Can't you infer that some portion of it is false? Which portion? I don't know.

You're grasping at straws trying to claim that it backs up your theory that the gov't brought down the buildings but in effect it does no such thing.
Weird... I don't recall ever claiming that the government brought down the buildings.

What I recall saying is that there are a lot of things that don't seem to make sense about the official story. This book was written by someone involved in writing the official story. He says that at least some portion of the story is not true. What portion? I don't know.

What we now know as a result of this book is that what has been claimed to be the truth is not the truth. In my mind it is unacceptable for a "full and complete account" to be false in any way. I can accept the idea that maybe they missed something, or forgot something, but being told something that isn't true? That suggests a coverup (or worse). But before you go getting all excited, it does not PROVE it.

So, please stop saying what theory I am promoting. I don't have one.
What I have are questions.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,669
1,713
chez moi
questions like: "did the government plant explosives and demolish the world trade centers?"
No, questions like "Where and how did the government plant the explosives that clearly destroyed the world trade centers?"
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
23
SF, CA
Why did Glen Beck rape and murder a teenage girl in 1990? Why is no one asking these hard questions?
 

RenegadeRick

98th percentile on my SAT & all I got was this tin
I still haven't read this, but apparently David Ray Griffin doesn't think much of it.

His review of The Ground Truth is far from favorable. He points out 15 flaws in the book, documented facts, that people should really consider.

The comments on this review are also quite interesting. One suggests that this book is really a limited hangout... admitting a little bit of wrongdoing to hide a much bigger chunk of guilt.

:weee: