9.11はアメリカ政府の内部犯行＠土木・建築
>>588
調査委員会は、政府麾下の組織（CIAやFBI,FAA,NORAD等）の不手際や失態を検証することにならざるを得ないんだから
各組織の「組織防衛」のための強硬な抵抗にあうことは想像に難くない。
ジョン・ファーマーの「Ground Truth」でも、FAAの抵抗に直面して、いかに調査が難航したかが詳述されている。
その結果として、充分に調査され尽くしたとは言いきれないかもしれないが、
キミの挙げているLee Hamilton 自身が、以下のインタビューでこう述べているぞ。
http://web.archive.org/web/20070108233707/http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html
＞We had two responsibilities - first, tell the story of 9/11; I think we've done that reasonably well.
＞We worked very hard at it; I don’t know that we’ve told the definitive story of 9/11,
＞but surely anybody in the future who tackles that job will begin with the 9/11 Commission Report.
＞I think we’ve been reasonably successful in telling the story.
完璧な調査結果を提示できているかどうかは分からないが、現行の報告書の内容に虚偽や捏造があるとは考えていない、
ということだ。氏は、陰謀論者についてもこう語っているよ。
＞The only thing I ask in the future is that the conspiracy theory people do not apply a double standard.
＞That is to say, they want us to make an airtight case for any assertion we make.
＞On the other hand, when they make an assertion they do it often on very flimsy evidence.
＞A lot of the people that have doubts about the report - not all of them - are strongly anti-Bush,
＞for a variety of reasons.
＞Many of them are just anti-government, in other words, they don't believe anything the government says.
＞All I ask of these people is: give me your evidence.
＞If you thought George Bush or Lee Hamilton or Tom Kean blew up those buildings, let’s see the evidence.
調査委員会は、政府麾下の組織（CIAやFBI,FAA,NORAD等）の不手際や失態を検証することにならざるを得ないんだから
各組織の「組織防衛」のための強硬な抵抗にあうことは想像に難くない。
ジョン・ファーマーの「Ground Truth」でも、FAAの抵抗に直面して、いかに調査が難航したかが詳述されている。
その結果として、充分に調査され尽くしたとは言いきれないかもしれないが、
キミの挙げているLee Hamilton 自身が、以下のインタビューでこう述べているぞ。
http://web.archive.org/web/20070108233707/http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html
＞We had two responsibilities - first, tell the story of 9/11; I think we've done that reasonably well.
＞We worked very hard at it; I don’t know that we’ve told the definitive story of 9/11,
＞but surely anybody in the future who tackles that job will begin with the 9/11 Commission Report.
＞I think we’ve been reasonably successful in telling the story.
完璧な調査結果を提示できているかどうかは分からないが、現行の報告書の内容に虚偽や捏造があるとは考えていない、
ということだ。氏は、陰謀論者についてもこう語っているよ。
＞The only thing I ask in the future is that the conspiracy theory people do not apply a double standard.
＞That is to say, they want us to make an airtight case for any assertion we make.
＞On the other hand, when they make an assertion they do it often on very flimsy evidence.
＞A lot of the people that have doubts about the report - not all of them - are strongly anti-Bush,
＞for a variety of reasons.
＞Many of them are just anti-government, in other words, they don't believe anything the government says.
＞All I ask of these people is: give me your evidence.
＞If you thought George Bush or Lee Hamilton or Tom Kean blew up those buildings, let’s see the evidence.
|
|
|
（続き）
>>589で挙げたインタビューで、調査が「失敗だ」という見解を示しているのは、
調査結果に基づいた各組織への「勧告」が充分に実行されなかったことを指している。
＞Our second task was to make recommendations; thus far, about half of our recommendations
＞have been enacted into law, the other half have not been enacted.
＞So we've got a ways to go. In a quantitative sense, we’ve had about 50% success there.
＞In a qualitative sense, you could judge it many different ways.
＞But we still have some very important recommendations that we think have not yet been enacted
＞that should be.
キミが挙げたWikiの記述は、「陰謀論」とまでは言わないが、ハミルトン氏言うところの
「just anti-government, in other words, they don't believe anything the government says」
という視座に偏ってるんじゃないか？
Wikiの記述が必ずしも信用できない場合もある、という一例だなｗ
>>589で挙げたインタビューで、調査が「失敗だ」という見解を示しているのは、
調査結果に基づいた各組織への「勧告」が充分に実行されなかったことを指している。
＞Our second task was to make recommendations; thus far, about half of our recommendations
＞have been enacted into law, the other half have not been enacted.
＞So we've got a ways to go. In a quantitative sense, we’ve had about 50% success there.
＞In a qualitative sense, you could judge it many different ways.
＞But we still have some very important recommendations that we think have not yet been enacted
＞that should be.
キミが挙げたWikiの記述は、「陰謀論」とまでは言わないが、ハミルトン氏言うところの
「just anti-government, in other words, they don't believe anything the government says」
という視座に偏ってるんじゃないか？
Wikiの記述が必ずしも信用できない場合もある、という一例だなｗ