Farenheight 9/11 debunked?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-26 12:38am

I think it bears mentioning (despite the fact that some people no doubt assume I'm a "rabid Moore supporter") that my own father has had dealings with Bin Laden construction companies, from back when he worked at Ontario Hydro. You just don't do business with Saudi Arabia without making connections with those guys sooner or later.

So a connection with the Bin Ladens, while it may initially strike one as tantalizing evidence, looks more like a triviality when you get a chance to calm down and think about it rationally.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-06-26 08:11pm

Howedar wrote:I see that Elfdart has been hanging out in Toker's Aurora thread for too long.

Elf-fart, here's a little rundown of debating for you. You might find it useful in the future.

When you say something, it is called a claim.

When you make a claim, you can't just say it for fun. You need to provide something else with it. That something is called evidence. In effect, this evidence is a set of facts or reasonable inferences that support your claim. That is to say, the evidence gives your audience a reason to believe your claim.

If you do not provide evidence to support your claim, it will be revealed to your audience that you are a weasel and a bullshitter. The audience will quite reasonably not believe your claim until you do in fact bring forth evidence.

If you continue to fail to provide evidence of your claim or claims, everyone will realize you are a fucking retard and you will be mocked to death.

This helpful debating guide has been brought to you by Howedar and the number ten.

I'm debating Stormbringer, Axis Kast and Master of Ossus and am doing pretty well (if I say so myself). Since you have nothing of value to offer to any point/ counterpoint discussion (flames and threats don't count, asshole), might I suggest that you print your suggestions on paper and shove them up your ass?

Skelron · Post by **Skelron** » 2004-06-26 08:26pm

I suppose it comes down to a few simple points, (No looking back and going well we know this now...)
Firstly your Number one Suspect for planning a major terrorist action in the nation has family in the area.
You have two choices, you either
A.) Question them to make sure they don't know anything or
B.) Ignore them, airlift them around the country etc.

If A.) you can still airlift them around, afterwards, you might not discover anything but... what have you lost?

Thats the point however until you actually question them you don't know what they might know... It may only be bits and pieces, here and there, it may be you get nothing BUT it has to be better than going, 'HAY there you go, no need to worry we arn't even going to check'

Honestly it's that simple you might as well check before you lose the chance, I doubt they are going to turn round and shout, 'My rights where violated!' or anything else...

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-06-26 08:45pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Elfdart wrote:
Axis Kast wrote:And who says they hadn't earlier been interviewed?
Not seriously, they weren't. Jack Cloonan from the special FBI task force handling Al Quaeda said that there were only a few brief interviews and none of the statements were recorded in any kind of formal proceeding. Does he get a tinfoil hat, too?
Yes, because aside from Michael Moore no one has stood by him. The fact that not even Richard Clarke (you know the Cabinet Member that left over the handling of Sept 11th!) has backed it up, and indeed he flat out fucking contradicted the Coohan/Moore claim. So I think the notion is pretty much put to rest unless you've got better evidence than you've provided.

What specifically did Clarke contradict Cloonan on?

Cloonan was an FBI agent for thirty years. He handled the Al-Queda investigation under both Clinton and Bush. But what does a law enforcement professional know? Only Stormbringer and Master of Ossus can vouch for what is and isn't proper procedure for the Bureau, right? A career FBI agent whose opinions differ from those of self-appointed experts like the ones we have here MUST not only be wrong, but a kook as well in the Bizarro World of some of the posters on this thread, right?

A few questions, then we really can lay this one to rest:

Do you have any sort of law enforcement credentials to dispute Cloonan's claims?

Can you cite any sources from federal law enforcement to support your assertion that Cloonan is wrong or a crank?

Do you even know what you're talking about or do you just dismiss out of hand any expert testimony that doesn't agree with your opinions?

That last one was a rhetorical question, by the way.

I cited a credible source and I notice that nobody here can dispute what he claims. So they either dismiss him as a crackpot (Stormbringer) or pretend he doesn't exist (Axis Kast). Oh well, at least they're not taking debating pointers from Howedar. Then they'd really look stupid!

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-06-26 08:48pm

Skelron wrote:I suppose it comes down to a few simple points, (No looking back and going well we know this now...)
Firstly your Number one Suspect for planning a major terrorist action in the nation has family in the area.
You have two choices, you either
A.) Question them to make sure they don't know anything or
B.) Ignore them, airlift them around the country etc.

If A.) you can still airlift them around, afterwards, you might not discover anything but... what have you lost?

Thats the point however until you actually question them you don't know what they might know... It may only be bits and pieces, here and there, it may be you get nothing BUT it has to be better than going, 'HAY there you go, no need to worry we arn't even going to check'

Honestly it's that simple you might as well check before you lose the chance, I doubt they are going to turn round and shout, 'My rights where violated!' or anything else...

I hope you realize that this makes you a lunatic in a tinfoil hat.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-06-27 12:05am

HemlockGrey wrote:Right, because, as we all know, blind dismissal and glib comparisons are much better than having to actually think critically.

Actually, it has to do with a lack of desire to watch overtly one-sided propaganda, whilst paying for the priviledge.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-27 12:58am

Elfdart wrote:What specifically did Clarke contradict Cloonan on?

EVERYTHING YOU GODDAMNED RETARD!!!!!!!

Richard Clarke has flat out said that the FBI was responsible for the rounding up the Bin Ladens and that the FBI had plenty of time to interveiw them. Which contradicts the Moore/Cloonan claim entirely, and Richard Clarke being a cabinet secretary is in a far better position to the know what went on.

Elfdart wrote:Cloonan was an FBI agent for thirty years. He handled the Al-Queda investigation under both Clinton and Bush. But what does a law enforcement professional know?

In this case, it seems not as much as is being claimed. Or rather I think Michael Moore has distorted Mr Cloonan's orginal claim to be something other than what it was. And for the simple reason that no one has come foward to back it up. And a cabinet level whistle blower has said it's just not so.

Elfdart wrote:Only Stormbringer and Master of Ossus can vouch for what is and isn't proper procedure for the Bureau, right? A career FBI agent whose opinions differ from those of self-appointed experts like the ones we have here MUST not only be wrong, but a kook as well in the Bizarro World of some of the posters on this thread, right?

Oh, what lovely ad hominems. You can't beat the facts so instead you just make personal attacks.

Elfdart wrote:A few questions, then we really can lay this one to rest:

Do you have any sort of law enforcement credentials to dispute Cloonan's claims?

No, but then again I don't need them to point out that the story is unproven and has been contradicted totally by a Cabinet Member.

Elfdart wrote:Can you cite any sources from federal law enforcement to support your assertion that Cloonan is wrong or a crank?

You mean a member of the Cabinet that resigned in protest over the handling of September 11th and it's fall out and who wrote a tell all book about it isn't good enough?

Elfdart wrote:Do you even know what you're talking about or do you just dismiss out of hand any expert testimony that doesn't agree with your opinions?

I do indeed know what I'm talking about and have provided a documentation supporting it. It's you that doesn't seem to know what's going on and so you're just clutching at straws.

Elfdart wrote:That last one was a rhetorical question, by the way.

Wow, I wouldn't have guessed.

Elfdart wrote:I cited a credible source and I notice that nobody here can dispute what he claims

.

I have disputed it since the beginning. The fact that you've ignored it entirely doesn't mean that it's undisputed. Now step off the crazy train and come back to reality.

Elfdart wrote: So they either dismiss him as a crackpot (Stormbringer) or pretend he doesn't exist (Axis Kast). Oh well, at least they're not taking debating pointers from Howedar. Then they'd really look stupid!

Not only are you carrying around a pointless vendetta like the uttter fucking moron you are, you've stopped addressing people's points and simply settled for ad hominem attacks.

At this point I'm very much tempted to Hall of Shame your bullshit. And if you keep on dragging up your personal squabbles with everyone I will.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-06-27 02:35am

I was under the impression that a "retard" is someone who has low intelligence. Stormbringer uses the word to describe someone who just got the better of him in an argument. If I'm a "retard", what does it say for his intellect?

Another term Stormbringer misuses is "Cabinet" as in Cabinet-level official. I would suggest:

www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html

Was Clarke a member of Bush's Cabinet? At this point, you're just making shit up. But I'll continue because I'm always entertained and impressed when people flame me with very big letters!

The problem you have is that citing Clarke means that you're relying on a witness who can't keep his story straight:

www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx

"Clarke claims responsibility
Ex-counterterrorism czar approved post-9-11 flights for bin Laden family
By Alexander Bolton

Richard Clarke, who served as President Bush’s chief of counterterrorism, has claimed sole responsibility for approving flights of Saudi Arabian citizens, including members of Osama bin Laden’s family, from the United States immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Former White House counterterrorism adviser testifies before the 9-11 commission.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In an interview with The Hill yesterday, Clarke said, “I take responsibility for it. I don’t think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again.”

Most of the 26 passengers aboard one flight, which departed from the United States on Sept. 20, 2001, were relatives of Osama bin Laden, whom intelligence officials blamed for the attacks almost immediately after they happened.

Clarke’s claim of responsibility is likely to put an end to a brewing political controversy on Capitol Hill over who approved the controversial flights of members of the Saudi elite at a time when the administration was preparing to detain dozens of Muslim-Americans and people with Muslim backgrounds as material witnesses to the attacks.

Several Democrats say that at a closed-door meeting May 6, they pressed members of the commission investigating the attacks of Sept. 11 to find out who approved the flights.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who attended the meeting, said she asked former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.) and former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman, a Republican, “Who authorized the flight and why?”

“They said it’s been a part of their inquiry and they haven’t received satisfactory answers yet and they were pushing,” Boxer added.

Another Democrat who attended the meeting confirmed Boxer’s account and reported that Hamilton said: “We don’t know who authorized it. We’ve asked that question 50 times.”

Referring to questions about who authorized the flights, former Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Ind.), one of the 10 members of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission, said in an interview Monday: “In my mind, this isn’t resolved right now. We need more clarity and information from the relevant political sources and FBI sources.”

But Clarke yesterday appeared to put an end to the mystery.

“It didn’t get any higher than me,” he said. “On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn’t get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.”

Clarke’s explanation fit with a new stance Hamilton has taken on the issue of the Saudi flights.

Hamilton said in an interview Friday that when he told Democratic senators that the commission did not know who authorized the Saudi flights, he was not fully informed.

“They asked the question ‘Who authorized the flight?’ and I said I did not know and I’d try to find out,” Hamilton said. “I learned subsequently from talking to the staff that we thought Clarke authorized the flight and it did not go higher.”

“I did not at any point say the White House was stalling,” Hamilton added. “They asked me who authorized it, and I said we didn’t know.”

Hamilton said, however, that “we asked the question of who authorized the flight many times to many people.”

“The FBI cleared the names [of the passengers on the flights] and Clarke’s CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] team cleared the departure,” Hamilton said.

He cautioned that this is “a story that could shift, and we still have this under review.”

This new account of the events seemed to contradict Clarke’s sworn testimony before the Sept. 11 commission at the end of March about who approved the flights.

“The request came to me, and I refused to approve it,” Clarke testified. “I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with the — at the time — No. 2 person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved … the flight.”

“That’s a little different than saying, ‘I claim sole responsibility for it now,’” Roemer said yesterday.

However, the FBI has denied approving the flight.

FBI spokeswoman Donna Spiser said, “We haven’t had anything to do with arranging and clearing the flights.”

“We did know who was on the flights and interviewed anyone we thought we needed to,” she said. “We didn’t interview 100 percent of the [passengers on the] flight. We didn’t think anyone on the flight was of investigative interest.”

When Roemer asked Clarke during the commission’s March hearing, “Who gave the final approval, then, to say, ‘Yes, you’re clear to go, it’s all right with the United States government,’” Clarke seemed to suggest it came from the White House.

“I believe after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we ran it through the decision process for all these decisions that we were making in those hours, which was the interagency Crisis Management Group on the video conference,” Clarke testified. “I was making or coordinating a lot of the decisions on 9-11 in the days immediately after. And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don’t know. The two — since you press me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State or the White House chief of staff’s office.” [boldface from Elfdart]

Instead of putting the issue to rest, Clarke’s testimony fueled speculation among Democrats that someone higher up in the administration, perhaps White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, approved the flights.

“It couldn’t have come from Clarke. It should have come from someone further up the chain,” said a Democratic Senate aide who watched Clarke’s testimony.
Clarke’s testimony did not settle the issue for Roemer, either.

“It doesn’t seem that Richard Clarke had enough information to clear it,” Roemer said Monday.

“I just don’t think that the questions are resolved, and we need to dig deeper,” Roemer added. “Clarke sure didn’t seem to say that he was the final decisionmaker. I believe we need to continue to look for some more answers.”

Roemer said there are important policy issues to address, such as the need to develop a flight-departure control system.

Several Democrats on and off the Hill say that bin Laden’s family should have been detained as material witnesses to the attacks. They note that after the attacks, the Bush administration lowered the threshold for detaining potential witnesses. The Department of Justice is estimated to have detained more than 50 material witnesses since Sept. 11.

Clarke said yesterday that the furor over the flights of Saudi citizens is much ado about nothing.

“This is a tempest in a teapot,” he said, adding that, since the attacks, the FBI has never said that any of the passengers aboard the flight shouldn’t have been allowed to leave or were wanted for further investigation.

He said that many members of the bin Laden family had been subjects of FBI surveillance for years before the attacks and were well-known to law-enforcement officials.

“It’s very funny that people on the Hill are now trying to second-guess the FBI investigation.”

The Sept. 11 commission released a statement last month declaring that six chartered flights that evacuated close to 140 Saudi citizens were handled properly by the Bush administration"

What have we here? In one statement, Clarke claims responsibility. In another:

"And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don’t know. The two — since you press me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State or the White House chief of staff’s office.”

Looks like your source isn't the reliable witness you think he is.

Flame away, numbnuts.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-06-27 02:47am

Actually, it has to do with a lack of desire to watch overtly one-sided propaganda, whilst paying for the priviledge.

And you came to this conclusion based on your thorough evaluation of the film?

...no, actually, you heard that Michael Moore was far left-wing and thus decided to dismiss everything he said, sight unseen.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2004-06-27 05:16am

jegs2 wrote:Actually, it has to do with a lack of desire to watch overtly one-sided propaganda, whilst paying for the priviledge.

IIRC you have said that you like to watch FOXNews.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-06-27 11:34am

Sir Sirius wrote:IIRC you have said that you like to watch FOXNews.

They tend to show both sides of an argument. I don't watch programs on Fox News that don't (O'Reilley Factor). I don't have to dish out money for a ticket to see it.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-06-27 11:46am

jegs2 wrote: They tend to show both sides of an argument.

What, with Hannity and Colmes?

Fox News' right-wing tilt isn't so much in its straight reporting (with the exception of its utterly shameful antics during the war in Iraq), as in its pundity- every single one of its pundits is a right-wing partisan, with the exception of Colmes, who may as well not exist, hes such a big pussy.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-27 12:37pm

jegs2 wrote:
Sir Sirius wrote:IIRC you have said that you like to watch FOXNews.
They tend to show both sides of an argument. I don't watch programs on Fox News that don't (O'Reilley Factor).

I only see the online content of FOXNews rather than its direct broadcasts, but I have never gotten that impression. They're quite propagandistic.

I don't have to dish out money for a ticket to see it.

That's why I plan to wait until Farenheit 9/11 comes out on video and then rent it, just as I did with Bowling for Columbine.

Post by **Zaia** » 2004-06-27 01:41pm

Darth Wong wrote:That's why I plan to wait until Farenheit 9/11 comes out on video and then rent it, just as I did with Bowling for Columbine.

I originally was going to do that as well, but too many damn people keep talking to me about how it's chock full of lies and deceit when they've seen nothing more than the trailer, and it's really irritating me. I'm going to see it this evening so I'll have more ammo for when I argue with them next.

PS: FOXNews is full of propaganda, both on TV and online.

PPS: Why is it that the people reviewing and/or slandering Moore's movie think that making fun of his weight is at all relevant to their complaints about his movie? I just read another article about it, this one by David Edelstein, that includes the line "Moore is largely off-screen (no pun intended), but as narrator he's always there, sneering and tsk-tsking." So mature. Heaven forbid we actually address the issues presented instead of resorting to grade-school mockery.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-27 04:53pm

Elfdart wrote:I was under the impression that a "retard" is someone who has low intelligence. Stormbringer uses the word to describe someone who just got the better of him in an argument. If I'm a "retard", what does it say for his intellect?

Another term Stormbringer misuses is "Cabinet" as in Cabinet-level official. I would suggest:

www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html

Was Clarke a member of Bush's Cabinet? At this point, you're just making shit up. But I'll continue because I'm always entertained and impressed when people flame me with very big letters!

I had to use big text since you kept ignoring the point and for that matter still are.

As for Clarke, you are right, he's not a secretary. I must have confused him with the recent resigned Treasury Secretary. However the various czars are among the people considered to be Cabinet Rank (along with officials such as the Nation Security Advisor and the like) by most sources.

The point still stands that he'd be in a much better position to know the full story than would be a simple FBI Agent.

Elfdart wrote:The problem you have is that citing Clarke means that you're relying on a witness who can't keep his story straight:

www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx

Except he's never denied that the Bin Laden family was flown around or that they were released. In fact, you'll note that the source I sited contains the same information and more besides.

Your own article wrote:But Clarke yesterday appeared to put an end to the mystery.

“It didn’t get any higher than me,” he said. “On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn’t get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.”

You'll note the portion in bold, which torpedoes the idea that they were spirited away with out FBI knowledge. So I find it rather hard to give credence to the idea that this article proves that Clarke is lying about the rest of it.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-06-27 08:49pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Elfdart wrote:I was under the impression that a "retard" is someone who has low intelligence. Stormbringer uses the word to describe someone who just got the better of him in an argument. If I'm a "retard", what does it say for his intellect?

Another term Stormbringer misuses is "Cabinet" as in Cabinet-level official. I would suggest:

www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html

Was Clarke a member of Bush's Cabinet? At this point, you're just making shit up. But I'll continue because I'm always entertained and impressed when people flame me with very big letters!
I had to use big text since you kept ignoring the point and for that matter still are.

As for Clarke, you are right, he's not a secretary. I must have confused him with the recent resigned Treasury Secretary. However the various czars are among the people considered to be Cabinet Rank (along with officials such as the Nation Security Advisor and the like) by most sources.

The point still stands that he'd be in a much better position to know the full story than would be a simple FBI Agent.

Elfdart wrote:The problem you have is that citing Clarke means that you're relying on a witness who can't keep his story straight:

www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx
Except he's never denied that the Bin Laden family was flown around or that they were released. In fact, you'll note that the source I sited contains the same information and more besides.

Your own article wrote:But Clarke yesterday appeared to put an end to the mystery.

“It didn’t get any higher than me,” he said. “On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn’t get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.”
You'll note the portion in bold, which torpedoes the idea that they were spirited away with out FBI knowledge. So I find it rather hard to give credence to the idea that this article proves that Clarke is lying about the rest of it.

But the FBI denies that they approved the flights. Clarke claims in one statement that he and he alone made the decision, then he claims it was in conjunction with the White House and FBI, which denies Clarke's story. Somebody either has a bad memory or is LYING!

As for Cloonan vs. Clarke, if Cloonan were an agent assigned to bank robberies, you'd have a point. But he was part of a special FBI-CIA task force that was created for the purpose of getting rid of Al-Queda. Clarke was in charge of counterterrorism in general, not just Al Queda -though Bin Laden should have been the #1 priority. For an overview of administration policy toward terrorism, I'd go with Clarke. But for procedures on dealing with potential witnesses or informants, I'd ask Cloonan.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-27 09:08pm

Elfdart wrote:But the FBI denies that they approved the flights. Clarke claims in one statement that he and he alone made the decision, then he claims it was in conjunction with the White House and FBI, which denies Clarke's story. Somebody either has a bad memory or is LYING!

Please provide that statement where in he says that he made the decision with out the FBI knowing. Because right now, you're taking a speech where in he takes full responsiblity and taking it to mean he did it all himself, with out any one else. Even with regards to the article you posted, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Your own article wrote:“The FBI cleared the names [of the passengers on the flights] and Clarke’s CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] team cleared the departure,” Hamilton said.

From yet another source with in your article. It really doesn't seem your interpertation holds water.

Elfdart wrote:As for Cloonan vs. Clarke, if Cloonan were an agent assigned to bank robberies, you'd have a point. But he was part of a special FBI-CIA task force that was created for the purpose of getting rid of Al-Queda.

And this would of course be the first time ever that some one didn't have all the facts. Because Cthuhlu know that's memos are never misfiled, reports ignored, or people not listened to.

Of course all that presumes that Cloonan's allegations were reported accurately, not necessarily a given.

Elfdart wrote:Clarke was in charge of counterterrorism in general, not just Al Queda -though Bin Laden should have been the #1 priority. For an overview of administration policy toward terrorism, I'd go with Clarke. But for procedures on dealing with potential witnesses or informants, I'd ask Cloonan.

And for major policy decisions made in the wake of the worst terrorist attacks in US history? Funny, it seems the guy with acess to the White House, the Cabinet, and all the other high level offices would be the one to talk to not a FBI agent of moderate standing.