The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Belz...]

The performance of an independent investigation, shouldn't be hard to carry out.

- Where do you get the money to fund this investigation ?
- Where do you get the investigators ?
- Where do you get the experts ?
- Where do you get the evidence ?
- Where do you get the rest of what you need ?

If you answered "the government" to all these questions, then you are correct. In short, any investigation of such a scale will be carried out by the government.

Transparency and accountability should ensure that the person who will lead it is not someone who is closely affiliated with the government; there should be no conflicts of interest.

How do you ensure transparency and accountability if all you have is independent wannabes ?

If you are saying that by producing incriminating evidence that would compromise national security, should such evidence be produced (?) well, the answer would depend on the issue at stake. Be careful; "national security" is an easy smokescreen to allow governments to protect themselves.

It doesn't change the fact that matters of national security are not to be discussed. How do you go around that ?

 

[aggle-rithm]

You are a charmingly empty headed one, no?

Your patronizing arrogance is noted.

It is not intended to show that, it shows how a new PH would be propitious to policy.

Once again, this should not be hard to understand, but don't worry.

Try out this scenario in your head:

Say a woman named Mrs. Smith writes a letter to the editor of her local newspaper, complaining about a dangerous intersection near her home. In the letter, she states, "Someone will have to be killed there before the city will put up a stop sign!"

A couple of years later, someone dies in an accident. The city quickly puts up a stop sign.

Question: Was the accident "propituous" for Mrs. Smith's campaign to have a stop sign installed at the intersection? If so, do you think there is sufficient evidence to charge Mrs. Smith for murder?

Is there ANY reason at all to think that she had something to do with the accident?

You may think so, but most people aren't sufficiently suspicious and/or paranoid to accuse others of crimes without reason.

 

[Belz...]

It doesnt. It states that a new PH would be propitious for policy. If you dispute this, well, then read the post, think about it for a little while, and then post again.

Actually, it says that, short of such an event, it could take longer for those changes to occur.

And even if it DID say what you say it says, it still wouldn't be related to 9/11. I'm still waiting on that.

Oh you're right, yep. The fact that they did say it, means that because they wouldnt, they didnt!

Strawman. I never said such a thing. But if you're going to claim that something means anything, it would be good if you could support your statements.

What an excellent command of rhetoric you have.

You're making stuff up. How is that rhetoric ?

You would have noticed, wereyour reading comp skills above that of a 7 year old

Well at least my writing skills are on par with yours.

that the doc says that the changes called for must be crystallised by October 2001.

Citation please.

It also says that such transformations will not take place in a timely fashion, absent a new PH.

Yes, that is the meat of what it says.

Hence we (grown ups) conclude that they deem a new PH propitious to policy.

Non sequitur. You can read, but you can't understand the intent. You're adding words that aren't there.

"Absent a catastrophy, the required changes to policy will take decades to occur."

Does NOT equal:

"We've got to make that catastrophy happen."

Ahhh... how true. What a fine intellectual specimen you are proving yourslef to be! Keep it up!

Somehow that doesn't refute what I said.

No, "so Bush" is, among other things, excitedly stating the propitiousness of a new PH to the world, 12 mths before one happens.

Well, since you don't seem to want to chalk that one up as a coincidence, it's your burden of proof to show that it isn't one.

Not realising the significance of this, is also pretty standard for you and your ilk.

I don't play "connect the dots". Either present relevant evidence or withdraw your statements.

You are a charmingly empty headed one, no?

Reported.

Ask the governemnt.

I'm asking YOU. How is the war in Iraq related to 9/11 and why did you bring it up ?

Even today, Joe Liebermann is out there stating that we need to fight "the people who attacked us on 911" in Iraq. The tenuousness/non existence of this link just makes the catalyst of the new PH all the more clear.

All it shows is their ability to use political leverage.

Oh boy... please read what I have said next time, or I wont bother with you!

The wars in Iraq /Afghanistan are one fraction of the WOT. I have outlined the others, go do some research.

Defense <> Attack. Do you deny this ?

Please don't waste your time here, with me at least, until your willing to do that.

It seems obvious that you are incapable of adressing my points without empty phrases such as "you're stupid" or "you didn't read" or "but it DOES mean that, wahh! waah!" Either that, or you have no intention of actually understanding this issue.

 

[T.A.M.]

If it is Gravy you wish to discuss/debate the issues with, than that is great. He can hand you your arse as well or better than anyone here, should he choose to do so.

So far, i haven't really seen you focus in on a particular point or issue, which is about the only way you are going to get anyone here to discuss anything with you.

TAM

 

[aggle-rithm]

Under the US court system

Yes, that will do it! The US Court System is completely independent of the Executive Branch!

So here's how it will play out:

1. The Court System finds everyone in the Bush administration guilty of mass murder.
2. Bush pardons everyone and resigns.
3. Cheney, having been previously pardoned, pardons Bush, then selects Bush as his new Vice President.
4. Cheney resigns, Bush becomes President again.
5. Bush selects Cheney as his Vice President.

Whew! Glad that's over with. Aren't you glad we spent billions on a new investigation?

 

[ConspiRaider]

If it is Gravy you wish to discuss/debate the issues with, than that is great. He can hand you your arse as well or better than anyone here, should he choose to do so.

So far, i haven't really seen you focus in on a particular point or issue, which is about the only way you are going to get anyone here to discuss anything with you.

TAM

Roger that, Doc. Exactly what I said in the very beginning. Why is ANYONE wasting their time on this guy?

 

[pgwenthold]

Roger that, Doc. Exactly what I said in the very beginning. Why is ANYONE wasting their time on this guy?

Hey, I resemble that remark!

In fact, I did exactly what TAM suggested. Out of the original mess, I pulled out three assertions and have asked for them to be expanded upon.

I agree that these issues have to much more narrowly focused in order to have any reasonable discussion about them. We'll see how that goes.

 

[jab712]

Your patronizing arrogance is noted.



Try out this scenario in your head:

Say a woman named Mrs. Smith writes a letter to the editor of her local newspaper, complaining about a dangerous intersection near her home. In the letter, she states, "Someone will have to be killed there before the city will put up a stop sign!"

A couple of years later, someone dies in an accident. The city quickly puts up a stop sign.

Question: Was the accident "propituous" for Mrs. Smith's campaign to have a stop sign installed at the intersection? If so, do you think there is sufficient evidence to charge Mrs. Smith for murder?

Is there ANY reason at all to think that she had something to do with the accident?

You may think so, but most people aren't sufficiently suspicious and/or paranoid to accuse others of crimes without reason.

You mean one shouldn't assume that Mrs. Smith actually made it happen??? Of course she made it happen, she wanted that dang stop sign!!

Excellent analogy.

 

[SpitfireIX]

. . . Yet the first of the new class of carriers - the USS Gerald R Ford (CVN-78) is scheduled to be laid down in 2009.

Sadly the ship is to replace the USS Enterprise; raising the question of what will be the next Enterprise?

-Gumboot

Unfortunately, the naming of American warships, particularly aircraft carriers, has become highly politicized in the past generation. CVN-75 was originally to be name the USS United States; however, a political row developed over the naming of CVN-76. Democrats wanted the ship named in honor of Harry Truman; Republicans wanted her named for Ronald Reagan. Eventually the Navy decided to rename CVN-75 the USS Harry Truman, allowing both parties to have their way. At the time an admiral remarked, "The United States didn't have much of a constituency."

The situation has not been helped by the fact that six consecutive US Presidents are/were World War II Navy veterans, starting with John F. Kennedy (though Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, Washington, Truman, and Reagan were all Army veterans). To date, three of these (Kennedy, Bush the Elder, and Ford) have had aircraft carriers named after them. A nuclear submarine has been named for Jimmy Carter, a former submariner. The naming of any new carriers for for Nixon or LBJ seems unlikely, due to their lack of combat or sea service, plus their associated political baggage. Naming of a new carrier for Bill Clinton (political baggage and alleged to have dodged the draft) or Bush the Younger (same problems, plus name is already taken) anytime soon is even more unlikely.

The USS America veterans association (see here) had been attempting to get CVN-78 named America, and I think that would be a fine name for the next carrier. So here's hoping that the politicians will give it a rest for a while, and CVN-79 will be named USS America, and CVN-80 will be named USS Enterprise.

 

[pgwenthold]

And were generals warned not to fly on the morning of 9/11, and if they were, WHY were they so warned?

I found this one on 911myths.com. As I expected, the reality of the situation is nothing even close to "Generals warned not to fly the morning of 9/11" as is asserted. The brief answer:

There was an report in Newsweek based on unnamed sources that claim that top Pentagon officials (possibly generals, but it is not specified) cancelled 9/11 flights the day before. No named sources contacted could confirm any warning, although it was known that there had been a warning that had gone out on Sept 7, and apparently came through channels on 9/10. However, these threats were based on suspicions of activity in east asia, and had nothing to do with domestic terror threats. Moreover, they did not say anything specific about Sept 11 (had the pentagon brass intended to fly on Sept 8, it would have equally applied (although they might not have received it in time)).

In short, this claim, "Generals warned not to fly the morning of 9/11" does not support the contention that the US government ignored intelligence saying it was going to happen.

 

[The Almond]

You do make some good points. However, the thrust of you post is neither here nor there.

Perhaps I could be so bold as to summarize Myriad's post for you. He is stating that the investigation you call for is poorly conceived, illegal, unconstitutional and impossible given your criteria. He made this point quite clearly.

The performance of an independent investigation, shouldn't be hard to carry out.

This is an opinion, and it has nothing to do with the veracity of your position.

The main thing is to ensure a) transparency, b) its corrollary, accountability and c) Impartiality. This will discourage dependence, and ensure, to a great degree, that the right people are appointed to the right positions, that all the correct issues are addressed, and that there is follow through.

Your enthymeme here is that the investigations carried out post 9/11 had none of these characteristics. That, however, is not a commonly accepted pretense on this forum or in this thread, no matter how much you want it to be.

If not, and the 3 characteristics I have pointed out are truly present, then there will be suitable uproar from a significant part of the populace. This will at least serve to get things out into the open.

This is odd. Your statement would seem to indicate that you believe public opinion to be an appropriate judge of said characteristics. Given that criteria, since the majority of the American populace believes that the terrorists on 9/11 acted alone, can I therefore assume that previous investigations were sufficiently impartial to render such an extra investigation useless?

The 911 Comm report, although many of the hearings were public, was vitiated due to lack of transparency in its selection of members. Appointing the likes of Zelikow and Kissinger to important posts is not something that will serve in the bes interests of either of the 3 points.

Why?

How will the appointment process take place? Well, it could be done by vote.

You mean the same vote/confirmation process that got us wonders like John Ashcroft and Antonin Scalia? Sorry my friend, just because a quorum of people agree on a candidate, that doesn't make them impartial.

This would get round the problem of having the government choose who would be investigating the government.

Ahh, so your intention is to have a group of...what exactly? Concerned voters? Political officers? The League of Women Voters? So some group of people with no power to subpoena, and no money to give towards investigation would choose some other group of people on the basis of their definition of impartiality?

Of course, absent all of this, you have provided your own answer, in that it could be performed by a state/local government.

Why should the state of Vermont choose such a commission? Or are you making the preposterous suggestion that each state selects a group of people for such a commission?

I wil go through your points:
I think this is dealt with
Transparency and accountability should ensure that the person who will lead it is not someone who is closely affiliated with the government; there should be no conflicts of interest.

Also, all politicians should be honest, and fathers should read to their children. You have outlined great intentions with no way of accomplishing them, thereby failing to address Myriad's comments.

The committee (possibly a House Select Committee?) would decide this.

That's great! How does the fact that the House selects the candidate ensure that he/she is impartial?

Under the US court system

Independent of the federal government?

If you are saying that by producing incriminating evidence that would compromise national security, should such evidence be produced (?) well, the answer would depend on the issue at stake.

That's a poorly disguised dodge.

Be careful; "national security" is an easy smokescreen to allow governments to protect themselves.

And a valid concern for all governments. Red herring.

I think this is dealt with.

However poorly.

 

[nicepants]

The 911 Comm report, although many of the hearings were public, was vitiated due to lack of transparency in its selection of members. Appointing the likes of Zelikow and Kissinger to important posts is not something that will serve in the bes interests of either of the 3 points. How will the appointment process take place? Well, it could be done by vote. This would get round the problem of having the government choose who would be investigating the government.

And who do you propose would oversee this voting process?

And considering the number of americans who are unhappy with Bush/Cheney, despite them winning the election, what makes you think that a winning vote for one candidate will shut up the opposing side?

 

[HeyLeroy]

(snip)PNAC wanted, with regards to Iraq 2 things- a permanent military base there (done),(snip)

On which page of the document is this stated?
(snip)

the Clinton Administration has continued the fiction that the operations of American forces in the Persian Gulf are merely temporary duties...
Although the no-fly-zone air operations over northern and southern Iraq have continued without pause for almost a decade, they remain an essential element in U.S. strategy and force posture in the Persian Gulf region. Ending these operations would hand Saddam Hussein an important victory, something any American leader would be loath to do...
Further, these constabulary missions are far more complex and likely to generate
violence than traditional “peacekeeping” missions...the preponderance of
American power is so great and its global interests so wide that it cannot pretend to be
indifferent to the political outcome in the...the Persian Gulf...
Whether established in permanent bases or on rotational deployments, the operations of
U.S. and allied forces abroad provide the first line of defense of what may be described as the “American security perimeter."...In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units, has become a semipermanent fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its
major allies to a region of vital importance.

(snip)

That doesn't support your contention that the PNAC paper calls specifically for a base in Iraq:

...but I'm guessing that cartography isn't covered in an Oxford Arts and Humanities curriculum.

The US has had a base in Saudi Arabia since Desert Storm; that's what pissed off bin Ladin in the first place!

My uncle had a meeting at WTC2 that morning. It was postponed the night before. I guess my uncle's a shill. Funny, I never realized that about him.
(snip)

Apparently Jackie Chan was due to start shooting a film atop one of the towers on 9/11/01 but decided to drop that project for another. Was Mr. Chan a part of the plot?

PS:

Oook!

ETA: Resized for any NASA chimp who's lookin' for an avatar:

 

[Myriad]

Thank you, mjd, for addressing the question of how your proposed new investigation would be legally constituted. To my knowledge you're the first 9/11 conspiracy theory proponent to have done so on this forum. You've gained some credibility in my estimation. If only your evidence were better, we might find some common ground in the LIHOI area.

To see if I understand your proposal correctly, let me rephrase it in my own words. Leaving aside for now the possibility of an investigation consitututed under city or state level authority (and the profound constitutional and jurisdictional difficulties inherent therein), you want the investigation conducted under Congressional authority, just as the original 9/11 Commission was, but with different personnel. Since the majority party in both houses has changed since the original Commission was formed, if a new Commission were formed today this would likely happen as a matter of course. However, by "by vote" I assume you mean some sort of public referendum on the makeup and/or leadership of the new Commission (correct me if I'm wrong). Since such a referendum would have to be legislated into existence by Congress, it would still be under Congressional authority in the end.

I would need two things before supporting such an investigation.

1. Evidence of LIHOP or MIHOP, OR some legal precedent that LIHOI misdeeds (such as, downplaying terrorist security threats for partisan political reasons such as not wanting to be seen as validating the previous administration's anti-terrorism efforts that the Republicans had earlier derided as "wag the dog") could be established as indictable offenses if they indeed occurred.

2. A reason to trust that the conclusions of the new investigations would be accepted, regardless of what they were, by the people now calling for it. I could see paying for one more investigation, it might even be worth the money if there were a reasonable chance it could shorten the war, but it would be the last one.

Transparency and accountability should ensure that the person who will lead it is not someone who is closely affiliated with the government; there should be no conflicts of interest.

The moment anyone on earth is selected to lead the investigation, he or she immediately becomes closely affiliated with the government. And negatives being difficult to prove, there is no way to satisfy people that the selection process was not rigged, and/or the person selected was a secret government agent all along. If there's a public referendum, that means a whole process of nominations, party support, campaign contributions, etc. Do you trust that process to result in members free of conflicts of interest?

Who would be accepted as having no conflicts of interest? A retired ex-general? ("Military loyalty!") A University president? ("Depends on the government for research grants!") An investigative journalist? ("In on it!" or "Doesn't want to make his profession look bad by going against the official story!") A complete unknown selected out of the blue? ("He must be connected somehow, or why would they choose him?") How about our own Mark Roberts (Gravy), who's not associated with government and has invaluable knowledge of witnesses, timelines, and other key issues for the investigation? Or perhaps Jeff Probst, the host of Survivor -- popular, non-partisan, intimately familiar with conspiracies and alliances, though since he has no government experience his knowledge of intelligence procedures might be lacking, what do you think?

If you are saying that by producing incriminating evidence that would compromise national security, should such evidence be produced (?) well, the answer would depend on the issue at stake. Be careful; "national security" is an easy smokescreen to allow governments to protect themselves.

Exactly, which is why to be able to conduct an effective investigation of these particular allegations, the investigators would have to have unprecedented clearance to examine every detail of U.S. security, military, and intelligence apparatus. They'd have to be highly trusted by the government, without being connected to the government -- somehow. And in any case it greatly narrows the range of whom I'd trust to be on that commission.

Good. Now we can address the points perhaps. Anyone?

You've established that the events of 9/11 might have furthered someone's stated political objectives, if those statements are interpreted in certain ways. Everything that happens, ever, furthers someone's political objectives (stated or otherwise). This is not proof, or even strong evidence, for active wrongdoing.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Corsair 115]

Still waiting for an answer to this, mjd:

Uh, if the U.S. controls Iraqi oil, then why isn't it being sent to the U.S.? The U.S. imported 30% less oil from Iraq in 2006 than it did in 2001. That wouldn't seem to be very good control, at least in terms of it making the oil available for American consumption.

Last year, Canada was the #1 supplier of petroleum to the U.S. accounting for 17.66% (that's over one-sixth) of the total. Mexico was #2. Combined, Mexico and Canada supplied one-third of all U.S. petroleum imports.

So why is the U.S. focused on Iraqi oil when there are more friendly and secure sources much closer to home?

Sadly the ship is to replace the USS Enterprise; raising the question of what will be the next Enterprise?

Uh, would it be NCC-1701-F?

Unfortunately, the naming of American warships, particularly aircraft carriers, has become highly politicized in the past generation.

Was their ever any official change in naming procedures? From what I recall, in the years before and including WWII, naming ships was fairly straightforward: battleships were named after states, aircraft carriers named after battles, cruisers named after cities, and destroyers named after persons.

 

[mjd1982]

Ok good. Now we have 2 1/2 points that need addressing:
1 (preliminary). The investigation
2. PNAC
1/2. The validity/effectiveness of the 911 Commission

Just to frame where we are at.

To deal with a couple of other issues 1st that I dont wanna leave lying- there seem to be a couple of people here who post constantly, telling people not to post, e.g. Conspiraider and TAM. Why are you doing this? If you dont want to debate me, then don't. There are plenty of other threads. Go on them.

Secondly, the issue of civility/condescension etc. I would want nothing more than a civil debate of the facts. Hence my opening few posts. But this was not to be from certain members here. This was no surprise, since I have seen the discourtesy you display towards those who disagree with you. This is fine; we can have it either way. Just don't complain when it gets thrown back at you, a little harder.

Oh, and one other thing- HeyLeroy, though I am impressed at your use of a big word like cartography, please learn to read maps before typing it.

 

[MG1962]

If it is Gravy you wish to discuss/debate the issues with, than that is great. He can hand you your arse as well or better than anyone here, should he choose to do so.

I think it is a little akin to the Old West. Young punks comming into town, want to make an instant name for themselves by calling out the old gunslinger

 

[nicepants]

Ok good. Now we have 2 1/2 points that need addressing:.....

Enough dilly-dally...how about addressing our questions?

 

[mjd1982]

Thank you, mjd, for addressing the question of how your proposed new investigation would be legally constituted. To my knowledge you're the first 9/11 conspiracy theory proponent to have done so on this forum. You've gained some credibility in my estimation.

If only your evidence were better, we might find some common ground in the LIHOI area.

Well, this is what we are here to discuss

To see if I understand your proposal correctly, let me rephrase it in my own words. Leaving aside for now the possibility of an investigation consitututed under city or state level authority (and the profound constitutional and jurisdictional difficulties inherent therein),

But perhaps of telling use nonetheless...

you want the investigation conducted under Congressional authority, just as the original 9/11 Commission was, but with different personnel. Since the majority party in both houses has changed since the original Commission was formed, if a new Commission were formed today this would likely happen as a matter of course. However, by "by vote" I assume you mean some sort of public referendum on the makeup and/or leadership of the new Commission (correct me if I'm wrong).

That might be an option; or a congressional vote, equally. The family steering committee should have more of a role, i.e. get listened to more as well, i would say.

Since such a referendum would have to be legislated into existence by Congress, it would still be under Congressional authority in the end.

good

I would need two things before supporting such an investigation.

1. Evidence of LIHOP or MIHOP, OR some legal precedent that LIHOI misdeeds (such as, downplaying terrorist security threats for partisan political reasons such as not wanting to be seen as validating the previous administration's anti-terrorism efforts that the Republicans had earlier derided as "wag the dog") could be established as indictable offenses if they indeed occurred.

I dont know what LIHOI is, but again, this is what we can now, i hope discuss.

2. A reason to trust that the conclusions of the new investigations would be accepted, regardless of what they were, by the people now calling for it. I could see paying for one more investigation, it might even be worth the money if there were a reasonable chance it could shorten the war, but it would be the last one.

The ultimate litmus test is public opinion. Right now, it is firmly in my court, not yours

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

This hasnt happened, I would venture, as result of some social obsesson with CTs, but because there are questions that need answering, re: gov complicity. If such questions get answered by the new investigation, either way, then the poll numbers will be reduced drastically, and people like yourself and myself will probably not need to be debating this issue in any case.

The moment anyone on earth is selected to lead the investigation, he or she immediately becomes closely affiliated with the government. And negatives being difficult to prove, there is no way to satisfy people that the selection process was not rigged, and/or the person selected was a secret government agent all along. If there's a public referendum, that means a whole process of nominations, party support, campaign contributions, etc. Do you trust that process to result in members free of conflicts of interest?

Hence the importance of transparency and accountability. Incidentally, if the Dems win in 08, links with the government will prove irrelevant. I believe Obama has stated that he feels the Bush admin were criminally negligent in failing to prevent 911, incidentally.

Who would be accepted as having no conflicts of interest? A retired ex-general? ("Military loyalty!") A University president? ("Depends on the government for research grants!") An investigative journalist? ("In on it!" or "Doesn't want to make his profession look bad by going against the official story!") A complete unknown selected out of the blue? ("He must be connected somehow, or why would they choose him?") How about our own Mark Roberts (Gravy), who's not associated with government and has invaluable knowledge of witnesses, timelines, and other key issues for the investigation? Or perhaps Jeff Probst, the host of Survivor -- popular, non-partisan, intimately familiar with conspiracies and alliances, though since he has no government experience his knowledge of intelligence procedures might be lacking, what do you think?

None of the people you have listed are de facto partisan. With transparency, and a strong role given to an oversight committee like the family steering committee, then any mishaps, conflicts of interest etc will be flagged. This was done, incidentally, when Kissinger was appointed as Chair. But it was ineffective when they tried to remove Zelikow due to the fact tht he had clear conflicts of interest. So they need to be given a greater role.

Incidentally, this is an more accurate rendition of the point i made on SLC.

Exactly, which is why to be able to conduct an effective investigation of these particular allegations, the investigators would have to have unprecedented clearance to examine every detail of U.S. security, military, and intelligence apparatus. They'd have to be highly trusted by the government, without being connected to the government -- somehow. And in any case it greatly narrows the range of whom I'd trust to be on that commission.

When addressing the issue of partisanship, we havea good example already in Max Cleland. He was deemed sufficient in every regard to be on the commission, yet he was independent enough to speak out against its "scandal". So it can happen, quite easily. Public groundswell is important, since this increases consciousness within private power, a steering committee is important, since it provides a go between between the public and private power, and transparency, accountability, and impartiality should underpin everything.

You've established that the events of 9/11 might have furthered someone's stated political objectives, if those statements are interpreted in certain ways. Everything that happens, ever, furthers someone's political objectives (stated or otherwise). This is not proof, or even strong evidence, for active wrongdoing.

Respectfully,
Myriad

The 2nd half is correct. But the import misses a long way.

I will address the poster re: the 911 commission, and then post on PNAC, if that's ok.

 

[Corsair 115]

I think it is a little akin to the Old West. Young punks comming into town, want to make an instant name for themselves by calling out the old gunslinger

Hmmm, in that analogy, I'd be the townsperson who shows up with his rifle after the gunslinger has already run the bad guys out of town but fires off a shot at the departing bad guys anyway...

Ah well, at least it's still a role in the story!