The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Gravy]

I said "I wasnt sure", because I couldnt find any information on it either way.

Yes, it sure is hard to Google "JSF." In fact, that last sentence took me three hours to type correctly.

It may be a roadblock, but clearly doesnt stop the overwhelming preponderance of their desired military plans.

It's even harder to Google "roadblock." How is one to divine the meaning of such a word? Are we wizards?

 

[ConspiRaider]

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

BART
Man, why you do that to yourself?

WACO KID
Oh, you don't really want to know.

BART
I do, I do!

WACO KID
Well, if you must know...

BART
I must, I must!

WACO KID
Well, it got so that every two-bit gunslinger around would come into town just to shoot it out with The Waco Kid. I must have killed more people than Cecil B. DeMille. It got pretty gritty. And then one day I was just walking down the street when I heard from behind me: "Reach for it, mister!". So I turned around, and there I was, face to face: With a six-year-old kid! I just threw my guns down and walked away. Little bastard shot me in the ass! So, I opened up a whiskey bottle, crawled inside, and I've been there ever since. So what about you? What's a dazzling urbanite like you doing in a rustic setting like this?

 

[mjd1982]

I think herein lies the crux of the issue between us. I personally am satisfied that a thorough, credible investigation of 9/11 has already been carried out. You apparently are not. A cynic may attribute our difference of opinion to the fact that the 9/11 report did not reach the conclusions you wanted it to, but let's assume that you have a more valid reason, namely that you didn't like the membership of the group that conducted the investigation and believe their findings are therefore biased and invalid. The problem is, who instead should be part of the investigation team (or as you phrase it, "the right people...appointed to the right positions")? I suspect that a lot of 9/11 CTers would argue that any 9/11 research should include the likes of Jones and Griffin and Judy Wood and the rest of that crowd. I, on the other hand, consider these people for the most part to be lunatics and opportunists with a very shaky grasp of reality, who couldn't conduct a valid investigation of a 7/11 break in, never mind 9/11.

I think this issue is unsolvable. I don't believe CTers will ever be satisfied with any investigation not conducted by fellow CTers, and that does not endorse what they already want to believe happened on 9/11. I, on the other hand, am always going to be skeptical of research done by anyone who is already deeply invested in the 9/11 conspiracy community. And based on their previous track record, I think I'm emminently justified in doing so.

Thank you Stella.

I should say first, please don't impute any characteristic of a standard CTer, i.e. saying I will not be satisfied, that I want Jones investigating etc etc. If i havent said so, then no. Or you can always ask first.

Now, regarding the issue of the 9/11 Commission, to state that it did a good job, is a valid opinion, unless you are paying attention to the facts. There is a simple way to assess their work, in terms of completeness and efficacy- let's see what the Commission themself had to say.

Let's look at Lee Hamilton, vice chair (interviewed by Evan Solomon on CBC):

Solomon: You write.. the first chapter of the book is 'the Commission was set up to fail.' - my goodness, for the critics - who suggest that it was indeed set up to fail as some kind of obfuscation - you certainly dangled a juicy piece of bait out there in the river. Why do you think you were set up to fail?

Hamilton: Well, for a number of reasons: Tom Kean and I were substitutes - Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell were the first choices; we got started late; we had a very short time frame- indeed, we had to get it extended; we did not have enough money - 3 million dollars to conduct an extensive investigation. We needed more, we got more, but it took us a while to get it.

We had a lot of skeptics out there, who really did not want the Commission formed. Politicians don’t like somebody looking back to see if they made a mistake.
The Commission had to report right, just a few days before the Democratic National Convention met, in other words, right in the middle of a political campaign. We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. We knew the history of commissions; the history of commissions were they.. nobody paid much attention to 'em.

So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail. We decided that if we were going to have any success, we had to have a unanimous report, otherwise the Commission report would simply be filed.

Solomon: I guess the question is, you know, if forty odd million dollars were spent investigating President Bill Clinton’s sexual infidelities, why did the American people and the world have to wait 441 days for a commission that was originally budgeted for 3 million dollars and given barely a year, and as you write in the book and document so well, was... had to fight to get access to even use its subpoena power very judiciously, for fear that there'd be a backlash against the Commission. I mean, an event as cataclysmic as 9/11, it begs the question: why was the administration so unwilling to budget this thing, and then Congress so unwilling to give money and let you guys go whole hog to do more?

Hamilton: (Laughs) I think basically it’s because they were afraid we were going to hang somebody, that we would point the finger, right in the middle of a presidential campaign - 'Mr. Bush, this was your fault' - or even Mr. Clinton. President Clinton was wary about this report too.

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html

And there's more in that interview too.

Now, let's look at another Commissioner, Max Cleland. He, as you perhaps know, resigned from the Comm in protest at the way it was conducted, stating he could not look any american in the eye:

"If this decision stands, I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/23/1546256

And more

That's not the staff director's fault, it is the White House's fault. It's president Bush's fault. President Bush personally has nixed the effort of the 9-11 Commission to get all the documents in the White House, especially the Presidential daily briefs, which basically tell the Commission and the American people what the President knew and when he knew it in regards to the potential attack on 9-11 and the attack itself and the follow-up. He has personally nixed that information coming to 9-11.

So therefore they didn't want the 9/11 commission to get going. What you have is the fear from the White House that the commission would uncover pretty quickly the fact that one of four legs that the war stood on was nonexistent. So they slow-walked it, and they continue to slow-walk it. They want to kick this can down past the elections. We should not be making any deals; we should stick to our original timetable of [completing the final report by] May. However, we're coming up on Thanksgiving here and we're still struggling over access issues. It should be a national scandal.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/112303A.shtml

I think this testimony gives us good reason to believe that the 911 Comm Report was ineffectual, incomprehensive, and insufficient.

But we can do more. We can also look at the opinions of those who were instrumental in having it set up- the Jersey Widows and the Family Steering Committee. As you know, they put 167 questions to the Commission , of which only 27 were answered. This further reinforces the point about gross incompleteness. Let's see what they have to say:

The 9/11 Commission was derelict in its duties. What we needed from them was a thorough investigation into the events of September 11th. Inexcusably, five years later, we still do.

In short, whatever your/my opinion, we have from a great deal of reliable and authoratative sources, including the commission itself, admission that the Commission was, in effect not good enough. This should be good enough to settle this point.

 

[mjd1982]

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

Sorry, where have i asked for that?

 

[HeyLeroy]

(snip)
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.

That's nice to know; however, I'm not at all impressed with the quality of your arguments, or your comprehension of the data you use in them.

I can read maps quite well, thanks. Iraq's access to the Persian Gulf proper is at best nominal:

Iraq's egress to the gulf is narrow and easily blockaded consisting of the marshy river delta of Shatt_al-Arab_(Arvandrud)^WP, which carries the waters of theEuphrates and the Tigris Rivers, where the left (East) bank is held by Iran.
Persian_Gulf^WP

although it is generally accepted as a Persian Gulf State:

The Persian Gulf States (also known as the Gulf States), are the countries in Southwest_Asia^WP or the Middle_East which border the Persian_Gulf^WP. These nations are Bahrain^WP, Iraq^WP, Kuwait^WP, Oman^WP, Qatar^WP, Saudi_Arabia^WP, and the United_Arab_Emirates^WP.^[1] Iran^WP is sometimes included, however it is deliberately excluded from the GCC for not being Arab^WP.^[2]WP. These nations are Bahrain^WP, Iraq^WP, Kuwait^WP, Oman^WP, Qatar^WP, Saudi_Arabia^WP, and the United_Arab_Emirates^WP.^[1] Iran^WP is sometimes included, however it is deliberately excluded from the GCC for not being Arab^WP.^[2]" target="_blank">WP^WP. These nations are Bahrain^WP, Iraq^WP, Kuwait^WP, Oman^WP, Qatar^WP, Saudi_Arabia^WP, and the United_Arab_Emirates^WP.^[1] Iran^WP is sometimes included, however it is deliberately excluded from the GCC for not being Arab^WP.^[2]WP. These nations are Bahrain^WP, Iraq^WP, Kuwait^WP, Oman^WP, Qatar^WP, Saudi_Arabia^WP, and the United_Arab_Emirates^WP.^[1] Iran^WP is sometimes included, however it is deliberately excluded from the GCC for not being Arab^WP.^[2]" target="_blank">WP" target="_blank">WP

Iraq's tenuous connection to the Gulf was one of the main reasons it invaded Kuwait, hence my point: while Iraq may generally be considered a Persian Gulf State, you'd need to redraw a map to considere it connected to the Gulf in a physical sense.

You argued that the PNAC called for a military base in Iraq, yet your included documentation doesn't support your argument; it calls for a base in the "Persian Gulf". The US has maintained a base in Saudi Arabia since at least 1991 (again, one of the main reasons Usama bin Ladin has issued many fatwas calling for the killing of any Americans anywhere). The map I included was to show you the different Persian Gulf states, in case you weren't familiar with them.

{ "lightbox_close": "Close", "lightbox_next": "Next", "lightbox_previous": "Previous", "lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.", "lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow", "lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow", "lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen", "lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails", "lightbox_download": "Download", "lightbox_share": "Share", "lightbox_zoom": "Zoom", "lightbox_new_window": "New window", "lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar" }

" target="_blank">WP { "lightbox_close": "Close", "lightbox_next": "Next", "lightbox_previous": "Previous", "lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.", "lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow", "lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow", "lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen", "lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails", "lightbox_download": "Download", "lightbox_share": "Share", "lightbox_zoom": "Zoom", "lightbox_new_window": "New window", "lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar" }

{ "lightbox_close": "Close", "lightbox_next": "Next", "lightbox_previous": "Previous", "lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.", "lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow", "lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow", "lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen", "lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails", "lightbox_download": "Download", "lightbox_share": "Share", "lightbox_zoom": "Zoom", "lightbox_new_window": "New window", "lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar" }

" target="_blank">WP" target="_blank">WP

 

[Quad4_72]

Hmmm. I see mjd is getting owned in here worse than over at SLC. Honestly, he bores me now *YAWN*. I am done playing with him.

 

[aggle-rithm]

This:

Secondly, the issue of civility/condescension etc. I would want nothing more than a civil debate of the facts.

Followed by this:

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.

Subtlety does not impart civility. In fact, I consider this type of sniping to be less civil than an outright insult, because it's underhanded and cowardly.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

aren't you supposed to be learning how to jump from an airplane while in flight right about now anyway?

 

[Quad4_72]

This:


Followed by this:


Subtlety does not impart civility. In fact, I consider this type of sniping to be less civil than an outright insult, because it's underhanded and cowardly.

Yeah thats just normal for him. When he knows he is losing a debate very badly he gets embarrassed. So he responds with insults.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Now, regarding the issue of the 9/11 Commission, to state that it did a good job, is a valid opinion, unless you are paying attention to the facts.

How could it possibly be a valid opinion? If you're correct, and the perpetrators of 9/11 were bumbling fools, how could any investigation fail to uncover the conspiracy, as was easily done with Watergate, the Iran-Contra Affair, Clinton's infidelity, etc, etc?

Unless you're...dare I say it...WRONG?

 

[Quad4_72]

aren't you supposed to be learning how to jump from an airplane while in flight right about now anyway?

I leave Thursday

 

[HeyLeroy]

This:

Secondly, the issue of civility/condescension etc. I would want nothing more than a civil debate of the facts.

Followed by this:

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.

Subtlety does not impart civility. In fact, I consider this type of sniping to be less civil than an outright insult, because it's underhanded and cowardly.

In the interest of full disclosure, mjd1982 and I have a history and we don't much like each other. Don't take his sniping at me as an insult toward the rest of you. To me his insults, however thinly veiled, are like water off a duck's back.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

I leave Thursday

Remember it's never the fall that kills you. It's the sudden deceleration upon contact with the ground that does it.

 

[mjd1982]

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

Correct. So the question is, did they want the changes to happen in a "longer" timeframe (specified later as "several decades"), or shorter, i.e., presumably, monthr or years?

So we can already make the qualification that given that such a crucial transformation taking mths/yrs, is preferable to it taking decades, then a new PH is propitious to policy. This should not be controversial, or hard to understand.

But let's look closer at the doc. For we are told that not only are such policies crucial, but we are warned repeatedly of the importance the the 2001QDR to the implementation of such policies:

Our report is published in a presidential
election year. The new administration will
need to produce a second Quadrennial
Defense Review shortly after it takes office.
We hope that the Project’s report will be
useful as a road map for the nation’s
immediate and future defense plans.

The need for the necessity of such changes to be impressed on the new government before October 2001, is thus drastic. This is underline even further later on:

This leaves the next
president of the United States with an
enormous challenge: he must increase
military spending to preserve American
geopolitical leadership, or he must pull back
from the security commitments that are the
measure of America’s position as the
world’s sole superpower and the final
guarantee of security, democratic freedoms
and individual political rights. This choice
will be among the first to confront the
president: new legislation requires the
incoming administration to fashion a
national security strategy within six months
of assuming office, as opposed to waiting a
full year, and to complete another
quadrennial defense review three months
after that. In a larger sense, the new
president will choose whether today’s
“unipolar moment,” to use columnist
Charles Krauthammer’s phrase for
America’s current geopolitical preeminence,
will be extended along with the peace and
prosperity that it provides.

So we can already see that the doc is stating quite clearly the need, urgent, for the necessity for the changes proposed in the doc to be crystalised in POTUS's mind, by October 2001. And concomitantly, the need for whatever other decision making bodies, Congress, Senate, the people, to be on board, by October 2001. Further fuel to the flame.

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.

Errr... other than PH was a terror attack on US soil by foreigners killing thousands of US, burned on the public;s mind, that catalysed the US into drastic military action. Remind you of something?

I think everything else is dealt with.

Reminder that the aim of my points re PNAC is to show that there was clearly stated intent for a new PH to happen on the part of the neo cons, with the implication that such should happen before October 2001.

Once we establish this, not too hard to understand fact, we can proceed with a useful framework.

 

[MG1962]

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!

Ohh you proactive type you....... I'd just be the town drunk wandering around in circles wondering what all the commotion was about

 

[Unsecured Coins]

more royal we's.

 

[nicepants]

Correct. So the question is, did they want the changes to happen in a "longer" timeframe (specified later as "several decades"), or shorter, i.e., presumably, monthr or years?

So we can already make the qualification that given that such a crucial transformation taking mths/yrs, is preferable to it taking decades, then a new PH is propitious to policy. This should not be controversial, or hard to understand.

Back to the quite-fitting analogy posted earlier in this thread.

If a stop sign would be installed in about 3-4 years, absent a multiple-fatality accident, and even if she would rather have the stop sign now, that doesn't mean she would deliberately cause a multiple-fatality accident in the sole interest of adding a stop sign to prevent those such types of accidents.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Remember it's never the fall that kills you. It's the sudden deceleration upon contact with the ground that does it.

Deceleration trauma?

(snip)
Correct. So the question is, did they want the changes to happen in a "longer" timeframe (specified later as "several decades"), or shorter, i.e., presumably, monthr or years?

Ofcourse they'd like it to happen sooner. That doesn't mean they necessarily wanted a 'Pearl Harbor' -type attack to occur.

(Snip)
The need for the necessity of such changes to be impressed on the new government before October 2001, is thus drastic. This is underline even further later on:

So we can already see that the doc is stating quite clearly the need, urgent, for the necessity for the changes proposed in the doc to be crystalised in POTUS's mind, by October 2001. And concomitantly, the need for whatever other decision making bodies, Congress, Senate, the people, to be on board, by October 2001. Further fuel to the flame.

(snip)

You've already been asked to cite the passage asserting this date.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

anyone notice the similarities between this and that other guy who expected to be met with praise and fanfare that that other director's forum?

 

[The Almond]

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

Correct. So the question is, did they want the changes to happen in a "longer" timeframe (specified later as "several decades"), or shorter, i.e., presumably, monthr or years?

False. The question is, "Did they make it happen." Their wants and desires have no bearing (other than being a fallacious appeal to motive) on their actual actions.

So we can already make the qualification that given that such a crucial transformation taking mths/yrs, is preferable to it taking decades, then a new PH is propitious to policy. This should not be controversial, or hard to understand. [...]

Straw man combined with a false premise. The premise your argument operates on is the idea that the PNAC would maliciously advocate their goals so as to choose the most expedient option. That, once again, is something you have yet to show, yet underscores all of your arguments.