[Apache]

Myself, i'm thinking D-. It didn't resolve anything! Maybe it did. It covered everbodys' butts that were involved. Working Policy makers and politicians have seemed to have escasped with little consequence. No amount of poly correct thought will convince me that passenger airliners and jet fuel would have melted four steel frame buildings designed to withstand 150 m.p.h. ocean winds! Building 7 wasn't even hit by anything!
:confused:
In fact, now that I've found the following site you'll be hard pressed to convince me that a commercial airliner did the damage to the pentagon!
[url]http://www.thepowerhour.com911articles.htm/

[Reno]

Building 7, as an "emergency shelter" for the mayor had a couple 55 gallon drums of fuel for a generator. They managed to ignite, and it took down the building.

I haven't read the report, and I doubt I will, but from what I've heard it doesn't say much more than there were intelligence failures, and we're still at risk. And it took 'em how much time and money to come up with that?

[Leatherneck]

you'll be hard pressed to convince me that a commercial airliner did the damage to the pentagon!
Please trust me on this. An airliner did the damage. I was here. :rolleyes:

TC
TFL Survivor

[crucible]

An airliner didn't to all the damage that was done? Millions saw the NYC hits, many, including people that worked for me at the time saw the Pentagon hit and the plane flying around before it rammed into it.

I suppose all the people on that plane and thier families are all a part of the vast conspiracy too?

You gotta be ????ting me.

Cruc

(Semper Fi Leatherneck)

[RWK]

Myself, i'm thinking D-. It didn't resolve anything!

Apache,

With respect, the 9-11 Commission is not -- and was never -- intended to resolve anything. It’s job was to provide a bi-partisan, TOP-LEVEL, investigation -- and associated recommendations -- that could then be used by the Legislative and Executive Branches of the Federal government to develop/enact new policy, supporting plans and budgets, and concomitant changes to our bureaucratic organizations. As a 35+ year National Security professional, I believe they admirably fulfilled this charter; I would give them an A- or a B+.

Now, with this said, I have GRAVE doubts if the politicians -- on the Hill, in any Administration, and entrenched within the senior levels of the bureaucracy -- have the fortitude or the intelligence to make the dramatic types of changes that are required (and that were highlighted in the Commission’s report). The reason for this is unfortunately simple: Power. Few of these very high-ranking and prominent individuals are willing to reduce their authority, their budgets, their control, or their influence, even if doing so streamlines the government, enhances our counter-terrorist capabilities, and provides improved protection for the United States and its citizens. THAT, HOWEVER, IS NOT THE COMMISSION'S FAULT OT PROBLEM; but is something we should all be very concerned with and should seriously consider if/when the subject of term limits is again addressed.

[cracked butt]

For the 9/11 commission I would give them a 'D' for duh!

How much money was spent on this investigation and what real conclusions did they come up with that anyone with 2 brain cells rubbing together hadn't figured out at least 2 years ago?

From what I read, the main conclusion was that the FBI and CIA dropped the ball and had poor communications between agencies. No sh@* Sherlock!

I wonder why the INS was never blamed for much of this, they were the agency issuing student visas to men with terorist ties so that they can learn to fly crop dusters and passenger planes. I guess its politically incorrect to blame an agency whose sole purpose has been to turn a blind eye to the illegals coming through our porous borders.

[Rebar]

I agree with cracked, except I'd put more of the blame on the INS and our insane immigration policy. We should be building fences like the Israelies did, patroling our border with military units, and checking each and every "legal" immigrant backwards and forwards.

[flatrock]

I'd rate it as a huge waste of taxpayer money. There was likely some useful information learned in the process, but it was lost among all the political grandstanding.

For efficiency at the task they were assigned to do, I give them a D-.

[Hkmp5sd]

95% of the information they released has been known and written about for over two years. Several books written in the last two years go much farther into documenting the failures in preventing 9/11. About the only new information the report gives is the supposed actions of the terrorists aboard the aircraft during the hijacking. It glosses over many major causes for the intelligence failure.

[Bruce H]

There was more than one person on the commission that should have been in the witness chair. The commission makeup wasn't tailored to asking hard questions. The commission should have been made up of hard headed civilians without any conection to the Washington D.C. establishment. It should have been bloody and brutal, instead it was a staged production for photo opportunities. Lots of money spent and very little learned. Typical washington BS.

[AZRickD]

They missed a lot... but got some and they glossed over Ms Gorelick's role in the "Wall."

Byron York in National Review.com (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200407230835.asp)
It also modifies the original "no collaborative relationship" description, now saying there was "no collaborative operational relationship" (emphasis added) between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And it suggests a significant amount of contact and communication between the regime of Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization headed by Osama bin Laden.

The report describes a time in 1996 when bin Laden, newly arrived in Afghanistan, could not be sure "that the Taliban would be his best bet as an ally." In 1997, the report says, bin Laden began making his Taliban sponsors nervous with a number of flamboyant and militant statements. At the time it seemed possible that bin Laden, who had gone to Afghanistan after being forced out of Sudan, might find himself at odds with his new hosts. What then? The report says bin Laden appears to have reached out to Saddam Hussein:

There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.

Since Saddam wasn't interested, the report says, nothing came of the contacts. But by the next year, Saddam, struggling under increasing pressure from the United States, appeared to have changed his mind, and there were more talks:

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

The meetings went on, the report says, until Iraq offered to formalize its relationship with al Qaeda:

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States.

The report goes on to say that the September 11 investigators found "no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship." It also says that the commission did not find any "evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

[TheEgg]

The commission was designed from the start to be a political exercise, to convince the sheep that our government was "doing something" about the 9/11 event.

As usually the main result is a set of obvious conclusions and to recommend that in order to eliminate organizational ineptitude, we must add another layer of empty suits to the management of intelligence.

Come again on that last one?:scrutiny:

[JPL]

I'm thinking that to give the commission a grade before reading and digesting the report, simply relying on the drivel that the media is spouting, is premature and irresponsible.

I'll refrain from grading until such time that I read the report.

[Hkmp5sd]

I'll refrain from grading until such time that I read the report.
You haven't read it yet? What'cha waitin' on? :) You've had 23.5 hours since it was released.

Complete 9/11 Commission Report (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf)

[Bubbles]

I've only read Chapter 1 of the report so far, which details the timeline for that morning - when the events happened, who (as in agencies and/or people) knew what, when did they know it, what decisions were made based on the information available, what agencies were communicating with each other, etc. I hadn't seen this comprehensive a timeline printed in the media.

So far, the report does contain both mistakes and failures to act that were made by officials. It also lists breakdowns in communication between agencies. While there is no "blame" assigned for these failures on 9/11/2001, I believe that our public officials should be run out of town on a rail if the same failures are likely to occur today, almost three years later.

Apache - I live in northern VA and have friends who saw the plane hit the Pentagon while on their way to work. It was one of the very few times they didn't mind they'd been stuck in traffic that morning...

[Akurat]

In fact, now that I've found the following site you'll be hard pressed to convince me that a commercial airliner did the damage to the pentagon!

That has got to be the most ridiculous conspiracy theorist site I have seen to date. Amazing to me that people actually buy into this junk. Some kid in his basement sure is getting a kick out of all the hits though... :eek:

[JPL]

You know, something just dawned on me...

If we had a government in which every department and group could communicate seamlessly, in real time, with no drop outs, we'd be screaming bloody murder about the power and efficiency of the Federal government...

[JPL]

"In fact, now that I've found the following site you'll be hard pressed to convince me that a commercial airliner did the damage to the pentagon!"

I've showed that site around to coworkers in my group a year or two ago.

You know, people who have bachelors, masters, and even PhDs in architecture, civil, mechanical, and structural engineering, physics...

You know, people who have a little knowledge.

To a man (and women) those who haven't died laughing have had some very rude things to say about the qualifications, education, and even parentage of the individual who runs this site and offers it up as "evidence."

It is, in their opinions, as well as mine, indicative of nothing more than abject stupidity.

Another of my coworkers (someone whom I don't work with, but who works for the same company) also witnessed the plane strike the Pentagon, as did his wife and the person they car pool with.

Believe whatever you want, Apache, but rest assured that what's being touted as "proof" on this website is nothing more than paranoia and ignorance.

[Master Blaster]

Now I dont want to pull a John Kerry or talk like a politician by saying that I will implement all of the recommendations.

I have only heard third hand on the News (they never lie or distort things):barf: what the report says. As soon as I get my copy, I will let youknow what I think of what they said.

President Bush made the most intellegent comments about it of any I have seen:

He said he would study the recommendations and after giving it some thought take the appropriate action.

Its a 700 page report, Kerry hasnt even read what it says, and he says he will implement the whole thing. PUUULEESE give me a break.

[Drjones]

I give them a "T" for Treasonous.

I give them an "A" for Anti-American and Aiding and Abetting terrorists.

[Waitone]

i haven't read the report so I'll refrain from grading.

I will however offer observations that must be taken into consideration onece I get around to grading.

--Jamie Gorelick was a member of the commission, author and implementer of the wall, and was specifically kept on the commission. Screaming conflict of interest.

--To the best of my knowledge there was no tab on the report devoted to imvestigating the role of congress. Not the oversight stuff. I refer to the legislative stuff starting with the Church Commission and ranging all the way through the Torracelli protocol. Congress took us out of the business of human intel and that is where the failure was. Congress' actions are a direct contributor yet to the best of my knowledge uninvestigated.

--The intel apparatus is a vestage of the cold war. Its current make up has been in existence since the mid 1970's. The commission studies 911 for 20+ months and immediately wants to congress to implement earthquake changes RIGHT NOW. The only time government move fast is when it is puling a fast one on the tax payer. Patriot Act is the most recent example. It takes 10 years to execute someone in this country yet the federales busted its butt killing Timothy McVey. PA would not have passed had the public known what it contained. I think McVey was killed to shut him up about middle east participation in OKC. And I suspect the bum's rush to implement the commission changes hides something at variance with the best interests of the tax payer.

I gladly accept the title "skeptical."

[Standing Wolf]

F minus. The commission was just another horrendously expensive government committee whose only function was finger-pointing in an election year.