The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

H'ethetheth said:
You think the allies found out before most Germans did? Do you have a source for that?
Click to expand...

No. Your misunderstanding is not the context of the statement. Please refer to Belz's comment about the nature of conspiracies and the breakdown of such conspiracies from within.
Was Nazi Germany an open or closed society, in comparison to the US in 2001?

Yes or no?
Click to expand...
That is a little vague. Could you place a date on the question.
aggle-rithm While we're looking at WWII, it's important to remember what an insane time that was in world history. There is NO comparison to the political situation in 2001. If an event the size of 9/11 had occured during the war, it would have been a burp in the wind (the only reason Pearl Harbor is so well remembered is its timing).
Click to expand...
The mental state of the time and the political climate is essentially irrelevant to Belz's point.

You have to keep things in perspective. At the same time six million Jews were being killed in Europe, 20 million Chinese were being slaughtered by the Japanese. Why didn't someone do something?!?
Click to expand...
Excellent question.

There is no way you can claim that an event during this time is a historical precedent for the peacetime world sixty years later. Such a claim is, frankly, insane.
Click to expand...
Please re-read this
Belz-Because to do so would require many, many people, and that, historically, even very, very small conspiracies break down quickly.
Click to expand...
In the case of the possibility of 9/11 as inside job and stating that as a conspiracy it would breakdown because of the number of people that might be involved has be proven a fallacy because of a single historical example, the Holocaust. And now I suppose we can throw in the conspiracy to kill 20 million Chinese that did not break down.


Thanks again, Gravy: Although atrocities were known, there is no direct evidence of the systematic conspiracy to murder very Jew. Even Breitman within the context of his conversation uses what appears to be hindsight.
...and I'm paraphrasing, rather than giving you a direct quote--because it is perfectly obvious that the Nazis are killing every Jew that they can lay their hands on.
Click to expand...
Yes, knowing what we now know it is perfectly obvious. But then, there were reports of atrocities, but not total knowlege of the conspiracy. Even so, the conspiracy according to the theory that the size or numbers of the conspiratros is to large so it would "break down quickly" still takes place.
Breitman reinforces this idea as his comment from your source below:

RICHARD BREITMAN: I wouldn't go that far, no. I would say that Hitler, Himmler, other top officials were extremely determined to kill as many Jews as they could. I don't think--barring internal political turmoil-(that whole falling from within break down early thing)-that the outside world could have persuaded them not to go ahead.

I do think, however, that a serious publicity offensive might have caused problems for them at least in alerting Jews across Europe that this might be their fate and in reducing the level of innocent sort of cooperation with the Nazis, because people were--many people were deported to extermination camps, not knowing what lay ahead of them. And had there been a publicity offensive, it is quite possible that the sweeps that occurred and the deportations that occurred would have been much less efficient.
Click to expand...

Again, you would expect this last bit to happen had the conspiracy broke down early but sadly for Jews and many others, this did not happen.
 
Dave Rogers said:
As I said, your sources make it clear that there was no realistic offer of a handover. Bush (or more likely his advisors) appears to have concluded that the Taliban was not making an offer in good faith, and that there was no point responding.
Click to expand...

Appear to have concluded? No that is pure speculation and presenting an unsupported excuse for refusing to negotiate terms instead of waging war. In fact, it would have been excellent press material to present to the world this "turn over" offer if it would have been shady or in anyway not in good faith.

Most of this is irrelevant, especially speculation about what Americawould or would not have done had it been Afghanistan. You've implied that there was a clear offer made in good faith to hand Bin Laden over to America, and clearly there was not, or anything like it; your opinion that no such offer should have been made, or would have been expected to be made, doesn't change the fact that it wasn't made.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I pointed out the speculation in your own comment.
No what I stated is posted below. Trying to assert an implication(to America/in good faith) when there is no such implication.
Your statement is not genuine as you can read exactly what I stated below.
Once you get into negotiations, it's no longer a simple decision, it's a matter for judgement.
Click to expand...
I agree. Your problem is that there were no negotiations with the Taliban. It was an outright refusal for a handover.

So Bush chose to ignore an offer that would have left Afghanistan free to continue hosting Al-Qaeda's training organisation and wouldn't have even compelled them to hand over Bin Laden; hardly a no-brainer to accept.
Dave
Click to expand...
Of course now you are speculating as you falsely accused me of doing, as you have no idea what would have been brought to the table by either side since no diplomacy was used; no negotiations. Your speculation is trying to attach a hypothetical positive moral value to the decision to not accept Bin Laden.
The one thing the Taliban asked for on each attempt was evidence of Bin Laden's involvement.
The simple fact that hundreds of people would have to be involved in the demolitions; that many, many more would have to be involved in planning the false hijackings and, according to some, replacing the planes with military ones. That every structural expert in the world would have to be paid off, etc. That's thousands of people, Swing, if not tens of thousands.
Click to expand...
Complete and utter speculation to support your contention that if 9/11 as an inside job conspiracy can't not take place because of the speculative size of the conspirators.

Belz-
It's the SECRET part of the conspiracy that breaks down. The Nazi plan wasn't secret for long.
Click to expand...
Interesting, because you didn't state that in your original comment. Apparently the secret of the conspiracy, which is the actual planning of the event didn't break down, as the plan was put into practice and the holocaust took place. Sure people witnessed discrimination, random killings, etc. But how much of the public actually knew what was taking place in the death camps?
The point is if many people have to be involved in a conspiracy, then the conspiracy will break down is a fallacy.
How would YOU have caught him ?
Click to expand...
1. I would have put into position U.S. armed forces to invade Afghanistan.
2. I would have presented to the United Nations and the World Court all of the evidence against Bin Laden, proving without a doubt he was responsible for 9/11.
3. After presenting every detail, I would have offered the following condition to the world and Afghanistan: "Now that the world has seen the evidence of Bin Laden's involvement with 9/11, and the fact that his involvement has violated Islamic law, secular law, and International law, you will have until this time frame to hand over Bin Laden to the proper authorities, be it the UN, the US, etc. If you do not, we will consider the actions of Afghanistan as an act of war."

By doing so you display to the Islamic world the true character of Bin Laden thereby stifling any resistance by true Muslims. You use war as the last resort because it is American's coming home in body bags and innocent civilians being buried there. You provide a clear case to our own Armed Forces and our own population and why they are sacrificing their lives in a foreign war with the goal of capturing a man.
And finally it prevents things like this being said:
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
 
mjd1982 said:
Oh boy, this is getting ridiculous (but all the more hilarious for it!)

It is stated- they did not follow up on the offer. I.e. they rejected it, either tacitly or explicity. This is the fact. You are giving gross, myopic and blinkered speculation as to why this was, and in that scenario, it would be criminally negligent too, which proves my point again.

Please be honest, respect facts, truth, and let these lead you to your conclusions.
Click to expand...


Ignorance laughs in the face of knowledge.
 
Swing Dangler said:
In the case of the possibility of 9/11 as inside job and stating that as a conspiracy it would breakdown because of the number of people that might be involved has be proven a fallacy because of a single historical example, the Holocaust. And now I suppose we can throw in the conspiracy to kill 20 million Chinese that did not break down.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point that I and other posters are trying to make: You can't take occurances from an EXTREME period in history, when whole societies were engaged in life-or-death struggles, and use them as a precedent for speculative atrocities supposedly committed by American leaders in 2001. Many things that were accepted without a thought in those days would be unthinkable in today's world, unless you begin with a pre-conceived notion that our leaders are more evil and manipulative (and COMPETENT) than they appear to be.

In fact, even if you compare post-9/11 with WWII, it's a different world, despite the fact that we are at war as we were then. In WWII, it was accepted as a matter of course that you bombed the crap out of civilians in order to break the national will to wage war. Today, we are extremely careful to avoid non-combatant casualties.

How do you reconcile this with the notion that American leaders think nothing of killing thousands of their OWN civilians?
 
Swing Dangler said:
By doing so you display to the Islamic world the true character of Bin Laden thereby stifling any resistance by true Muslims.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, most Muslims in the hot spots of the world are probably not what you would define as "true" Muslims. Do you REALLY think they will make such a radical change in their world-view just because they are presented with evidence?

YOU don't. Why would they?
 
Swing Dangler said:
You state it would require many, many, people. What proof do you have?

Lets look at history?

How many Nazi leaders planned the Holocaust? How many actively participated in it? How long did it take this massive conspiracy to be exposed?
Click to expand...

When the war ended.

It was of curse the jews own fault.

They goaded the germans to kill them.
 
SpitfireIX said:
From what I've read, the Spitfire IXc couldn't carry the two extra cannon, because of its heavier engine. My preferred armament is 2x20mm and 4x.303in--the 2x20mm and 2x.50in just seems so, so, well . . . American. :blush:

ETA If I had it to do over, I would use the nick Spitfire IXc (or Spitfire_IXc for sites that don't allow spaces in nicks). But I've used SpitfireIX on too many sites already (though my YouTube nick is SpitfireIXb, as SpitfireIX and SpitfireIXc had already been taken :().
Click to expand...

How does Mustang vs Spitfire match up?
 
Swing Dangler said:
Please re-read this In the case of the possibility of 9/11 as inside job and stating that as a conspiracy it would breakdown because of the number of people that might be involved has be proven a fallacy because of a single historical example, the Holocaust.
Click to expand...

Have you been reading the responses to this examples ? It seems you haven't.

Once the plan was underway, there was NO REASON to keep it a secret. And make no mistake, every single person that was involved in carrying out this plan was IN ON IT. It was huge, and it was not secret by any stretch of the imagination. Your example fails, Swing.

Again, you would expect this last bit to happen had the conspiracy broke down early
Click to expand...

Do you even know what I meant by "break down" ?
 
mjd1982 said:
Ha... because if it wasnt propitious, they would have stopped it. You know, stopped it?
Click to expand...

Logical fallacy.

"It happened, therefore, they let it happen"

You must prove that it would have been impossible for these attacks to take place in such a way that the government would either not know about it in time or otherwise would not be able to stop said attack.
 
Last edited:
Swing Dangler said:
[...]

Please re-read this In the case of the possibility of 9/11 as inside job and stating that as a conspiracy it would breakdown because of the number of people that might be involved has be proven a fallacy because of a single historical example, the Holocaust. And now I suppose we can throw in the conspiracy to kill 20 million Chinese that did not break down.
Click to expand...

I might be late into this discussion, but I've noticed that your definition of conspiracy is a bit vague. For me, a conspiracy is a plan of action, carried out by a group of people in secret, whose purpose is to commit a crime, and then not be punished for the consequences, either by supplying false evidence or by maintaining utter secrecy about the actions and plans of the conspirators.

Military actions, by definition, are not conspiracies. They are certainly not carried out in secret, and history shows that neither group perpetrating the action have escaped punishment. In arguing that the Holocaust was a conspiracy, you operate on the idea that because people didn't know about it, it was supposed to be a secret. That's a non-sequitor. Hitler's invasion of Poland and establishment of the Warsaw ghettos were not the actions of a conspiracy, despite the fact that the plans to do so were kept secret.
 
Have we gotten to 7WTC and the foreknowledge of exactly where the fires would burn/exactly where the falling pieces of the Tower would impact yet?
 
for that, I direct you to that group over there, the ones that wait for the next Guns and Roses CD. They can tell you all about it
 
I'm pretty sure that people had knowledge of the concentration camps by 1942, given that the subject comes up in Casablanca. As far as the knowledge of the extent of the final solution, I have no idea what they knew in advance of the liberations of the camps. I don't think that the germans were that concerned about keeping it secret.
 
SpitfireIX said:
From what I've read, the Spitfire IXc couldn't carry the two extra cannon, because of its heavier engine. My preferred armament is 2x20mm and 4x.303in--the 2x20mm and 2x.50in just seems so, so, well . . . American. :blush:

ETA If I had it to do over, I would use the nick Spitfire IXc (or Spitfire_IXc for sites that don't allow spaces in nicks). But I've used SpitfireIX on too many sites already (though my YouTube nick is SpitfireIXb, as SpitfireIX and SpitfireIXc had already been taken :().
Click to expand...

You could've have used the Hawker Hurricane, I believe the Mark I's were fitted with the 8x 0.303 cannon and the Merlin II or III engine with a Rotol 3 bladed prop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom