Home

Blog

P.L. 110-53, The Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007 (23 comments ↓ | 7 wiki edits: view article ↓)

  • This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.

H.R. 1 would provide for the implementation of the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

(read more ↓)
[68 views]

Learn More

What bills affect this law?

Visitor Comments Comments Feed for This Bill

tedbohne

January 8, 2007, 3:36pm (report abuse)

Why this bill is rubbish. It contains nothing relevant to 911. It's authors penned a bill that assumes the 911 commission's report was actually factual and complete, neither of which is true!

This bill is nothing more that Congressional sewage.

justin-scott

January 11, 2007, 7:53pm (report abuse)

I agree with tedbohne on this one. Here is idea:before waging a "war on terror", why don't you actually PROVE to the American people that the attacks of 9/11 were in fact carried out by "extremist" under the leadership of bin Laden instead of simply telling us repeatedly that the official account is the only account - without any credible evidence. How about a bill to REOPEN 9/11 by issuing a TRULY INDEPENDENT investigation into the events of that tragic day. Explain the collapse of tower 7 which was not struck by a plane. Explain how the "pancake theory of collapse" supports the fact that all three buildings fell at nearly FREE-FALL SPEED. The NIST report is absolute speculative rubbish, but what do you expect from a group whose web site ends with ".GOV"? Explain to the American people why we allowed Bin Laden to escape at Tora-Bora! Explain to the American people the connections with the Carlyle group! Explain to the American people how a plane caused a second hole in the Pentagon on the opposite side of where the alleged plane struck the pentagon...although, logically a missile of some sort seems to be the more intellectual theory. We want a NEW INVESTIGATION, NOT POLICE STATE LEGISLATION!!!

Austin

January 22, 2007, 6:39am (report abuse)

Your an idiot

Preston

February 9, 2007, 7:01am (report abuse)

Sounds like someones been reading too many conspiracy theories.

"The Government is behind 9/11! I just know it. They teamed up with Iraq and Osama to kill our own people. It's the only thing that makes sense! How do you explain the buildings falling down after having huge explosions in the middle of them with thousands of tons of pressure pushing down on them. That makes no sense!"

I'm giving you three choices.

1. Take a physics class and a political science class.

2. Read "America's Secret War", which contains "a TRULY INDEPENDENT investigation into the events of that tragic day" by a major non-governmental intelligence agency.

3. Shut up and smoke more of your weed, you hippie.

Oh, and

"Explain to the American people" how your brain left you for another man. I hear it's an interesting story.

Preston

February 9, 2007, 7:08am (report abuse)

And just an FYI, I'm only 17, don't really care about politics and all that, and yet I somehow know more about this than you. That is just so sad.

:)

Preston

February 10, 2007, 1:41am (report abuse)

Oh, and also, you like men

simon lomax

February 18, 2007, 11:25am (report abuse)

Austin's original comment of "you're an idiot" is so indicative of the way the government owned media has handled anybody who dare talk about the lack of evidence supporting the official conspiracy story.i'm talking about fox news corporation, the blair broadcasting corporation and sky news mainly here. Once you take isaac newtons laws of falling objects and apply them to the collapse of the three steel framed buildings in manhattan the rest of the government sponsored conspiracy theory dissolves before your eyes. why do we not see the hundreds of eye and ear witnesses of that day being represented in the offical 9/11 commission. is it because they report hearing explosions throughout the duration of the attacks or because i'm in fact like o'reilly would say a conspiracy nut and needs sending to a loony house..i'm guessing i already know what austin's response to this will be.

Preston

February 23, 2007, 1:39am (report abuse)

it would be

"you're an idiot and a conspiracy nut that needs to get sent to a loony house"

which is somewhat close to my response...

"shut up."

Preston

February 23, 2007, 1:41am (report abuse)

BTW, read this article, it should clear some things up for you:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Barry

May 7, 2007, 11:17pm (report abuse)

There's plenty of things that have yet to be explained about 9/11. It's not at all clear that the official story is the correct one.

Try the documentary "Loose Change".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change+recut

Brian

May 11, 2007, 4:59am (report abuse)

you like men Barry. unless you're a girl. in that case you like women.

Sawyer

May 24, 2007, 2:11pm (report abuse)

Is there a policy analyst in DC or something similar who can provide inside information on this bill and what it means, because the existing comments on this bill are juvenile. Is this the best this wiki has to offer?

webmaster

May 24, 2007, 6:22pm (report abuse)

The wiki article has a summary of the bill. Scroll up to the top of the page and click on "read more" in the lower right-hand corner of the box.

@Barry

May 24, 2007, 8:28pm (report abuse)

I saw the doc, "loose change" and I didn't find it completely convincing. I'm not saying that it doesn't make some good points though. I think its more likely that the administration had something to do with 9/11 happening by its complete inability to focus on anything besides lining the pockets of the people that helped them get into office and giving massive tax breaks to the obscenely wealthy.

Preston

June 7, 2007, 9:47pm (report abuse)

Sawyer, I'm sorry I didn't provide any information about the bill. I actually wrote a paper about the bill if you're really that interested. The paper was the reason I got on here. But yeah, comment if you want me to send it to you. I got a 4.0 on it, from a hard teacher, so... it's good.

And Barry, I've seen loose change. It may have "good points" but I didn't see any. All I'm saying is that people who actually think the government was behind 9/11 are insane. If loose change was true the stupid kid who made it would be kidnapped or dead. You think the government would just let people expose a conspiracy?

I think not.

Shoalcreek

July 11, 2007, 3:41am (report abuse)

Preston, I have taken physics and political science, both at the college level. It was my experience in physics that made me question the official 9/11 story. The official "pancake collapse" of the towers could not possibly happen at free fall speeds. It is a mathematical impossibility. Furthermore, it is my knowledge of history and political science that explains why the government may be trying to hide the real story. While I don't buy what most political conspiracy theories say, I do believe that a significant portion of those who hold large interests in the U.S. debt may have very strong reasons for hiding the real story. At the same time, the people that own the U.S. debt also hold the means of silencing the government and the press on the issue. The more I dig about who owns the media and who owns the national debts of numerous countries, the more I am amazed that the same names keep popping up over and over. I don't believe that is by accident.

Joe

October 25, 2007, 11:29pm (report abuse)

Barry is a man and a lesbian.

Preston

November 3, 2007, 4:46am (report abuse)

Shoalcreek. Go watch History Channel's 9/11 Conspiracies program. You'll understand it all then.

The Popular Mechanics guys proved basically all the conspiracies wrong. You think you're smarter than them? You're not.

Sadie

November 3, 2007, 4:50am (report abuse)

Brian likes men!!!

webmaster

November 3, 2007, 1:54pm (report abuse)

A reminder: Comments that are impolite, off-topic, violations of others' rights, or advertisements are likely to be removed. Please refrain from personal attacks and foul language, which do not help site visitors form opinions of this legislation.

Mikee

December 14, 2007, 2:35pm (report abuse)

My company lost 300 people on 9/11, many of whom were good friends of mine. Additionally, my career is in crisis management so hopefully my perspective has some merit. I watched testimony of the PhDs assigned by both federal government and community resources. I have read countless articles and whole books on the subject (I really liked Why America Slept which is more of an analysis of how we got to the point where it could be successful).

In my opinion, none of the conspiracy theories hold the slightest bit of water, both because the science doesnt support them and becuase the other things that would have to happen for the conspircies to be true are not plausable.

My view on this bill is that it's not really that helpful because it simply codifies the 9/11 Commission into law and that report was biased and flawed. You only had to watch the publicly televised hearings to see how inept or biased most of the committee members were.

Preston

March 30, 2008, 8:32pm (report abuse)

I would like to apologize for my impolite comments. I just seriously find people who believe in 9/11 conspiracies to be, not only idiotic fanatics, which it is their right to be, but I find them and their theories to be disrespectful to those who suffered from 9/11. Rather than let the victims of 9/11 simply remain victims, they persist in trying to prove all kinds of lies about these people's deaths. They persist to bring up the event, rather than just let it settle. It's rude.

As for the bill, in my paper i concluded that the bill had good intentions and COULD achieve it's goal of safety, but that it had a lot of bumps and problems with it that needed to be smoothed out. The benefits it offered did not seem to match up with the costs and disruptions. There is a Senate Bill known as S4 which is similar to this bill except the senate one seems more promising. Although, neither is perfect, and we shouldn't start spending tax dollars till our plan is as good as it can get.

divco

April 21, 2008, 12:36am (report abuse)

Shoalcreek: You are ignorant at best and incompetent at worst when it comes to your theory on a pancake collapse at the speed at which it happened being "physically impossible". It actually is very physically possible. One floor falls, overloading instantaneously the rated capacity of the floor below. Force = mass times acceleration...measured in hmmm...pound/feet or for old school...foot/pounds. Acceleration due to gravity IS free fall you knucklehead. Once the lbs/ft squared rating of the floor below is exceeded (by the weight * acceleration of the floor above), it becomes free fall. Go take an engineering class.

RSS Feeds for This Bill

Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)