Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Michael Hogan]

David, as you know, the 9/11 Commission devoted barely one page to Atta, the man they called the ringleader of the plot.

[…]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=137774

No comment.

Out of context by you again - a response directly to David, not you, in response to his comments about Atta's religious beliefs. Not surprising of you not to address the quotation contained in my last post nor acknowledge it when it was presented to you.. It was public record on this thread.

Can your game get any weaker?

[Guest David Guyatt]

David

I don’t know how to make this any plainer.

...He said, making it plainer in one stroke.

[Len Colby]

David, as you know, the 9/11 Commission devoted barely one page to Atta, the man they called the ringleader of the plot.

[…]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=137774

No comment.

Out of context by you again - a response directly to David, not you, in response to his comments about Atta's religious beliefs.

First you claimed that you never made the statement I ascribed to you. You claimed I had used “bogus quotation marks” and had not “accurately quote[d]” you. All that of course was incorrect. But now without even acknowledging your error you claim that I quoted you “out of context” but that is inaccurate as well. Yes you said that “in response to his comments” but there was no indication your blanket statement only referred to “Atta's religious beliefs”. The report however didn’t dedicate a page to that subject, there was a short bio (about a page long) up to and concentrating on his years in Hamburg but only a few sentences were about his “religious beliefs”, his increasing radicalization was addressed there and in a later section.

Not surprising of you not to address the quotation contained in my last post nor acknowledge it when it was presented to you.

I didn’t address it at the time because the question at hand (in my mind at least) was whether or nor I had accurately quoted you.

Your statement that “the whole account of Atta's recruitment takes scarcely a page” was also marked by your characteristic inaccuracy. His turn toward radical Islam was mentioned in his bio, the sections “Forming a Cell” and “Going to Afghanistan” go from the bottom of pg 163 to the middle of pg 167 i.e. about 3 ½ pages and there’s probably a page of additional info in the footnotes.

http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/US/9-11/911Report.htm#n722r

Your comment that it “is documented by uncorroborated hearsay.” Is wrong as well. It was based on:

• the statements of a few people, mostly members of Atta’s cell/his roomates recounting events they had (presumably) witnessed
  
• German and American government reports that you (presumably) don’t have access to and thus (presumably) have no idea what was contained there with in.
  
• An intercepted phone call and captured documents, computer disks and a videotape.
  

There is very little that qualifies as hearsay. What sort of documentary material did you expect concerning the activities of a short lived secretive proto-terrorist cell with perhaps a dozen or so members (the report named 8 but indicated there were others) especially the four “core members” three of who were dead? The minutes of their meetings?

Did you actually read the report or were your comments based on Griffen or someone else of his ilk?

Your LHO analogy is a poor one. The WCR was based on the theory (questionable as that might be) that he was solely responsible for the assassination hus it made sense to delve into his past in depth. They did spend more time on OBL, KSM and other top AQ commanders who were the ones for conceiving and planning 9/11 which would have happened (or tempted at least) Atta or no Atta. Another obvious major difference is that LHO grew up in the USA making it a lot easier to investigate his background.

“…a response directly to David, not you…”

How is whom you address your response to relevant? Should I “speak only when spoken to”? Does the same rule apply to other forum members? Does it apply to Mike Hogan?

Can your game get any weaker?

Rhetorical as it may have been a question better directed by me to you, care to respond?

[Len Colby]

A few questions for David Peter, Mike and anyone else that believes Keller’s (twice retracted) claim that her “Mohamed” was Atta.

Why would Atta who spoke fluent German and lived in Germany off and on for 8 years claim to be French, when we have no indication he had ever been to the country or even spoke the language?

How do you explain the huge discrepancy between how he was described by people who knew him 1992 – 9 in Hamburg and the way he was described by Keller (and to a lesser extent others) who knew him 2000 – 1?

How do you explain that the description given by the student at Huffman was close to that of the one given by the Germans? How do you explain the other discrepancies between the “two” (height, skin, date of commercial license, claimed to be from France and have son there).

Another example the LaConca’s said “Mohamed” was “very polite”, Dru Voss Atta and Shehhi’s initial landlady at the flight school “evicted [them] due to rudeness” according to a journalist who spoke to them.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20060.../MULTIMEDIA0201

Another journalist who spoke to her wrote “Dru Voss said the men…were very secretive, claiming to be from Germany” and quoted her as saying "I didn't really care for their attitude, their personality was nothing to care for. They kept to themselves." (In this version they got booted for being slobs)

http://www.freedomdomain.com/Templemount/9_13d.html

Voss’ description matches that of Atta’s roommates in Hamburg they “were "so aggravated" with Atta, who almost never cleaned, seldom washed dishes, and such behavior. Atta would walk in and out of a room "without acknowledging anyone else in it". His roommates described Atta's personality as "complete, almost aggressive insularity"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta#...mcdermott-p25_0

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/006058470X...ords=insularity

What would the theory be, Atta suddenly and radically changed personalities sometime after fall 1999 to become “Keller’s Atta” March – June 2000 then suddenly became the “Hamburg Atta” again July – November and then by February 2001 was “Keller’s Atta” again?

Doesn’t Keller omitting she was back with “Mohamed” in February 2001 after she claimed to have last seen him after a bitter breakup (including public humiliation and killing of pets) in mid June 2000 further undermine her credibility?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Julie Christie should have got the Oscar, although I have no idea what here views on 911 are.

[Guest David Guyatt]

First you claimed that you never made the statement I ascribed to you. You claimed I had used “bogus quotation marks” and had not “accurately quote[d]” you. All that of course was incorrect.

Allow me to intrude with a salient point.

Michael's post above (No85) concerning your bogus quotation marks is clarity itself. He posted what you had written quoting him, then he posted what he had actually written (with the necessary citations), thus allowing other readers to judge for themselves the accuracy of his (very understandable) grievance about your unethical spinning and mangling of his words. Your response is to say, with a bald face, "all that of course was incorrect" and then simply move on.

Address the charge. Refute it with facts. Show Michael is mistaken or quoting you incorrectly. Or acknowledge your mistakes--- perhaps even apologize for them.

But you can't deal with the facts because they stand the test of time -- so we are treated to yet more doses of your disagreeable spin and the usual intellectual, ethical and moral dishonesty that we have all become so accustomed to.

And so here comes the salient point I was speaking of.

It leaves me astonished at your nerve for criticizing others (in this case Daniel Hopsicker) for errors that you are yourself not just prone to, but wallow in.

Glass houses, throwing stones etc.

Have you no shame? None?

[Guest David Guyatt]

Is Robert Charles-Dunne one of them? Oh, I forgot. It was he that exposed you when you tried to bring your foolishness over to the JFK section.

Would some of those private emails you get come from Mark Stapleton, David Healy, Craig Lamson, Sid Walker, Jack White, Peter Lemkin, Charles Drago, David Guyatt, Dawn Meredith, Richard Welser, Terry Mauro? Want me to search the archives and get a dozen more members that probably haven't sent you many emails disagreeing with me. Oh. let me add Bill Kelly to the list.

I know Len, you have claimed you almost never provoke people, you don't engage in semantic battles, you document most everything you say, the only reason people constantly get into it with you is because you are a conspiracy debunker, To hear you put it, it's always the other guy's fault. With apologies to Churchill, Len, you're a very modest man. Indeed you have a lot to be modest about.

Michael, is it possible to post a link to Robert Charles-Dune's deconstruction post please, as I haven't yet read it?

Thanks

David

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark and I have sharp ideological differences and he seems to have been particularly bothered that I challenged him to document a wild claim.

Scuse me?

What wild claim? If you're alluding to the Fisher/Ford issue, then I don't think there's anything wild about it.

Could a wealthy, influential and generous donor to the Republican Party influence and control a feeble-minded mediocrity like Ford, also from Michigan? More of a certainty than a wild claim, imo.

Edited March 3, 2008 by Mark Stapleton

[Guest David Guyatt]

A few questions for David Peter, Mike and anyone else that believes Keller’s (twice retracted) claim that her “Mohamed” was Atta.

Why would Atta who spoke fluent German and lived in Germany off and on for 8 years claim to be French, when we have no indication he had ever been to the country or even spoke the language?

Whaddyathink? He was a narcotics smuggler/dealer who consorted with criminals...

How do you explain the huge discrepancy between how he was described by people who knew him 1992 – 9 in Hamburg and the way he was described by Keller (and to a lesser extent others) who knew him 2000 – 1?

He was a narcotics smuggler/dealer who consorted with criminals... People who use coke have mood swings...

How do you explain that the description given by the student at Huffman was close to that of the one given by the Germans? How do you explain the other discrepancies between the “two” (height, skin, date of commercial license, claimed to be from France and have son there).

Another example the LaConca’s said “Mohamed” was “very polite”, Dru Voss Atta and Shehhi’s initial landlady at the flight school “evicted [them] due to rudeness” according to a journalist who spoke to them.

You switch between being polite one moment and then very rude the next.

Maybe you're Mohamed Atta?

Another journalist who spoke to her wrote “Dru Voss said the men…were very secretive, claiming to be from Germany” and quoted her as saying "I didn't really care for their attitude, their personality was nothing to care for. They kept to themselves." (In this version they got booted for being slobs)

Yup, sounds like someone who uses/deals in drugs

Voss’ description matches that of Atta’s roommates in Hamburg they “were "so aggravated" with Atta, who almost never cleaned, seldom washed dishes, and such behavior. Atta would walk in and out of a room "without acknowledging anyone else in it". His roommates described Atta's personality as "complete, almost aggressive insularity"

Yup, sounds like someone who uses/deals in drugs

Doesn’t Keller omitting she was back with “Mohamed” in February 2001 after she claimed to have last seen him after a bitter breakup (including public humiliation and killing of pets) in mid June 2000 further undermine her credibility?

My advice is to stay well away from credibility issues ---- you're not exactly in a position to climb up the high moral ground mountain and shout down righteously at those below -- what with the various factual errors, misstatements, word spinning/slanting and other unpleasant contrivances which pepper your posts on this and other threads.

Just my two cents though... since you asked.

Edited March 3, 2008 by David Guyatt

[Mark Stapleton]

Tell us again about how the 9/11 C. Report had “barely a page about Atta” (Approximate quote).

NOTE: I won’t respond to you any further until you address this point.

I'm going to give you exactly what you're asking for. Let it serve as a perfect example of your ways.

Without taking the time to accurately quote me, your other "approximate" quote of me consisted of this:

....So Mike do think it would be fair to say that your declaration that “the 9/11 Commission devoted barely one page to Atta, the man they called the ringleader of the plot.” when in fact his name appears well over three hundred times on dozens of pages in the report was “typical of your limited mindset”?

Your practice of using bogus quotation marks referring to what I said speaks for itself. This is in fact what I said, and you could have quoted:

The

whole account of Atta's recruitment takes scarcely a page

and is documented by uncorroborated hearsay.

Just as the members of the President's Commission had trouble ascribing a motive to Lee Oswald, the 9/11 Commission was unable to assign a motive to Atta, other than an

account of his background and increasingly fanatical beliefs that took up all of one page.

Unlike the Warren Report that dwelled incessantly on Lee Oswald's childhood and background, The 9/11 Commission was incredibly succinct in their examination of Atta.

Just going to the index, and reading every single word

they write about the man they call the tactical leader of the plot takes

no more than twenty or thirty minutes at the most

. Their basis for most information comes from "friends" or "acquaintances" of Atta's

It's really a damn shame what a shoddy job they did. History will not judge 9/11 Commission kindly, just as it has not the Warren Report.

(bold added for Colby's comprehension)

The above is exactly why you don't get much respect around here.

You got him bang to rights, Mike. Good post.

[Len Colby]

First you claimed that you never made the statement I ascribed to you. You claimed I had used “bogus quotation marks” and had not “accurately quote[d]” you. All that of course was incorrect.

Allow me to intrude with a salient point.

Michael's post above (No85) concerning your bogus quotation marks is clarity itself. He posted what you had written quoting him, then he posted what he had actually written (with the necessary citations), thus allowing other readers to judge for themselves the accuracy of his (very understandable) grievance about your unethical spinning and mangling of his words. Your response is to say, with a bald face, "all that of course was incorrect" and then simply move on.

Address the charge. Refute it with facts. Show Michael is mistaken or quoting you incorrectly. Or acknowledge your mistakes--- perhaps even apologize for them.

But you can't deal with the facts because they stand the test of time -- so we are treated to yet more doses of your disagreeable spin and the usual intellectual, ethical and moral dishonesty that we have all become so accustomed to.

And so here comes the salient point I was speaking of.

It leaves me astonished at your nerve for criticizing others (in this case Daniel Hopsicker) for errors that you are yourself not just prone to, but wallow in.

Glass houses, throwing stones etc.

Have you no shame? None?

I know you often missed these kinds of details David but we’re talking about 2 similar but different quotes Mike made. One from 2006 the other a few days ago. He apparently forgot about the more recent one and claimed not to have said what I quoted him as saying even though I quoted his exact words a few times starting 6 days after he replied to you.

I provided a link to the more recent quote in which he used the exact words quoted him in. People are free to draw there own conclusions about your respective mental faculties based his memory lapse and yet another reading comprehension error on your part.

I’d love respond to your “brilliant” analysis of the questions I asked you but I just accepted a big rush translation job and won’t be able to comment here much for the next day or two.

[Len Colby]

Mark and I have sharp ideological differences and he seems to have been particularly bothered that I challenged him to document a wild claim.

Scuse me?

What wild claim? If you're alluding to the Fisher/Ford issue, then I don't think there's anything wild about it.

Could a wealthy, influential and generous donor to the Republican Party influence and control a feeble-minded mediocrity like Ford, also from Michigan? More of a certainty than a wild claim, imo.

You do under the difference between 'could' and 'did'? You have been unable to produce any evidence he did.

[Len Colby]

Tell us again about how the 9/11 C. Report had “barely a page about Atta” (Approximate quote).

NOTE: I won’t respond to you any further until you address this point.

I'm going to give you exactly what you're asking for. Let it serve as a perfect example of your ways.

Without taking the time to accurately quote me, your other "approximate" quote of me consisted of this:

....So Mike do think it would be fair to say that your declaration that “the 9/11 Commission devoted barely one page to Atta, the man they called the ringleader of the plot.” when in fact his name appears well over three hundred times on dozens of pages in the report was “typical of your limited mindset”?

Your practice of using bogus quotation marks referring to what I said speaks for itself. This is in fact what I said, and you could have quoted:

The

whole account of Atta's recruitment takes scarcely a page

and is documented by uncorroborated hearsay.

Just as the members of the President's Commission had trouble ascribing a motive to Lee Oswald, the 9/11 Commission was unable to assign a motive to Atta, other than an

account of his background and increasingly fanatical beliefs that took up all of one page.

Unlike the Warren Report that dwelled incessantly on Lee Oswald's childhood and background, The 9/11 Commission was incredibly succinct in their examination of Atta.

Just going to the index, and reading every single word

they write about the man they call the tactical leader of the plot takes

no more than twenty or thirty minutes at the most

. Their basis for most information comes from "friends" or "acquaintances" of Atta's

It's really a damn shame what a shoddy job they did. History will not judge 9/11 Commission kindly, just as it has not the Warren Report.

(bold added for Colby's comprehension)

The above is exactly why you don't get much respect around here.

You got him bang to rights, Mike. Good post.

Too bad he didn't have his facts straight.

[Guest David Guyatt]

I know you often missed these kinds of details David but we’re talking about 2 similar but different quotes Mike made. One from 2006 the other a few days ago. He apparently forgot about the more recent one and claimed not to have said what I quoted him as saying even though I quoted his exact words a few times starting 6 days after he replied to you.

I provided a link to the more recent quote in which he used the exact words quoted him in. People are free to draw there own conclusions about your respective mental faculties based his memory lapse and yet another reading comprehension error on your part.

When you return from your temporary escape and evasion exercise, please be good enough to post the link (or should we say "a" link?) to the numbered forum post where Michael Hogan explicitly states:

Quote:

“the 9/11 Commission devoted barely one page to Atta, the man they called the ringleader of the plot.”

Unquote

The foregoing was extracted from Michael Hogan's post No. 85 in this thread.

Michael has accused you of using bogus quotation marks. You have yet to prove this accusation unfounded, despite two opportunities to do so.

[Len Colby]

I know you often missed these kinds of details David but we’re talking about 2 similar but different quotes Mike made. One from 2006 the other a few days ago. He apparently forgot about the more recent one and claimed not to have said what I quoted him as saying even though I quoted his exact words a few times starting 6 days after he replied to you.

I provided a link to the more recent quote in which he used the exact words quoted him in. People are free to draw there own conclusions about your respective mental faculties based his memory lapse and yet another reading comprehension error on your part.

When you return from your temporary escape and evasion exercise, please be good enough to post the link (or should we say "a" link?) to the numbered forum post where Michael Hogan explicitly states:

Quote:

“the 9/11 Commission devoted barely one page to Atta, the man they called the ringleader of the plot.”

Unquote

The foregoing was extracted from Michael Hogan's post No. 85 in this thread.

Michael has accused you of using bogus quotation marks. You have yet to prove this accusation unfounded, despite two opportunities to do so.

Well I popped in quickly Dave. Sorry I forgot I'm dealing with members who are intelectually challenged. You are having another one of your 'where is your bio?'/'where is the Mineta link' moments. In a previous post I provided this link

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry137774

Which should lead you to post # 16 on another thread

Before you accuse me of being evasive and/or not providing evidence for my claims try and do a better job of getting your facts straight

NOTE TO THE MODS - without some sort of intervention I see this thread getting very ugly, but as long as my detractors toss cheap and unfounded insults at me I will respond as I see fit.

Edited March 4, 2008 by Len Colby