The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

I don't know too much about this stuff. Could you point me to the part where PNAC says that 911 was deemed propitious to policy? And what is the significance of that. Thanks!

Yes sure. 2nd page of ch 5, 1st full para.

That is all you need to understand for now. Tell me when you have.

 

[mjd1982]

Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true!

It does,in terms of this thread, unless it is fully contested, which it has not been.

 

[WildCat]

No, they did investigate in some scenarios. I have posted about this to you many times.

Ok...

The point in this instance is that even if not, the fact is that he did not sanction any actions. If the President is told that there are AQ cells in the US, and that they are plotting an act of terror, doing zero is not justifiable. According to you and your mates, it is. Why do you do this?

Now you've just contradicted yourself. You can't say the FBI knew about, but did not pursue the al Qaeda terrorists in the US because they didn't get explicit permission from Bush to do so. The FBI doesn't work that way...

ps- didnt you say this board would be a "challenge"?!

Your inability to understand how badly you are failing here in no way negates the fact that you are failing here in a big way.

 

[DGM]

It does,in terms of this thread, unless it is fully contested, which it has not been.

Or has been fully proved. Which it has not.

 

[DGM]

ps- didnt you say this board would be a "challenge"?!

You have accomplished nothing in 25 pages. How is that not a challenge?

 

[Kage]

A simple note, but MJD, you've quoted me as aggle-rithm in your reply.


If Tenet wasn't in on it how would it work? Did they just do nothing at the CIA? The intel failures on thwarting the actual plan happened at very low levels. How many people do you need to run this conspiracy? Other conspiracies (such as Iran-Contra) were exposed rather quickly.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes sure. 2nd page of ch 5, 1st full para.

That is all you need to understand for now. Tell me when you have.

I'm not sure what book I should be looking in for the page and chapter. Is there a PDF available? I see the web site for PNAC, but don't know how to refer to chapters or pages, or which report on their site those refer to.

Thanks.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I'm not sure what book I should be looking in for the page and chapter. Is there a PDF available? I see the web site for PNAC, but don't know how to refer to chapters or pages, or which report on their site those refer to.

Thanks.

I think I may have found the part being referenced possibly. but that talks about Pearl Harbor, not 9/11. And that chapter is talking about getting new technology to be better prepared for that type of event. So I am confused as to what the issue is here.

I'm looking at a PDF called "Building America's Defenses", so it could be I am looking at the wrong paper.

It's basically saying that we need to update our technology and get around the problem which is that making such a transformation takes a long time short of some big event happening. It's not saying anything about creating such an event, it's saying we shouldn't wait for such an event to make things happen faster.

The big point being keeping the most up to date technology without wasting money.

 

[Augustine]

Good. So the changes in RAD would have been implemented regardless.

Now, please tell me where this has been denied? For, as you will surely be aware, and as I have pointed out to you, the point is not whether they would have been implemented at some point, rather whether they would have been done sooner rather than later. This is why RAD talks about a catastrophic and catalysing event, to aid that it happens sooner.

Where has this been denied? Hmmm.....

Originally Posted by Augustine
911 was not the catalyst for those changes; they would have occurred regardless.

a) How do you know this?
b) Why do u think they woudl have been pursued with the vigour that they are now with this cataclysmic "war" as its justification?

Now why would you have challenged me on "how I knew this", if you agreed with it? It must be so hard being misinformed, you forget where your stance should be....anyhoo, so we agree the defense transformation would have occurred regardless of the occurrence of 9/11.

Now, what exactly happened sooner? Please compare and contrast nuclear policy and global missile defense with Clinton National Security policy, outline the differences and when they occurred. Also, when exactly was Army Space Command established? Who was President then? What exactly was the transformation that occurred sooner than it would have (regardless as we both agree) with regard to Space? Again, please reference pre-2001 national security strategy documents in your response. Thanks, cheers! (You may learn something yet!)

 

[Kage]

A parallel to PNAC: A real group, that I will rename BASE, released several "white papers" saying that they desired to cause the US to become entangled in multiple long term military engagements in the mideast, thus weakening America's ability to control political realities in the region and allowing BASE to strike US military assets via asymmetric means. BASE hopes to use mideast turmoil to create a large number of failed states which can then become controlled under a larger government more suitable to BASE's idiology. BASE also released a "white paper" calling for large scale attacks against American interests.

BASE found the 9/11 attacks completely propitious to their ends, and I conclude probably would have done everything they could to cause 9/11 to happen.

Casually, I would say BASE is a much more likely force behind 9/11 than PNAC.

 

[DGM]

I think I may have found the part being referenced possibly. but that talks about Pearl Harbor, not 9/11. And that chapter is talking about getting new technology to be better prepared for that type of event. So I am confused as to what the issue is here.

I'm looking at a PDF called "Building America's Defenses", so it could be I am looking at the wrong paper.

It's basically saying that we need to update our technology and get around the problem which is that making such a transformation takes a long time short of some big event happening. It's not saying anything about creating such an event, it's saying we shouldn't wait for such an event to make things happen faster.

The big point being keeping the most up to date technology without wasting money.

Your in the right place . The only problem is you need to read the whole thing to really get the jist of it. Hey it's only 90ish pages. Not what I call light reading but try the NIST report sometime.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Coincidence? No. All design and no luck; that is almost certain. For the document is very specific about how such transformations should be achieved. They should not occur one by one by one; that would be useless. There needs to be a global framework for all these changes, aligned, moreover, with domestic policy. How long will it take for these crucial changes to happen? Many decades; we as readers can gauge that this would potentially vitiate the goal of the 21st Century being an American one; so how to do it quickly? Well, the document does tell us.

Yes the document tells us what is going to be done to make the 21st Century
an American one. But here is your plausibility problem;

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

You are saying this snippet here is the heart of the matter of your hubris...i.e. some of the signatories of this document were already intending to allow a catastrophic and catalyzing occurrence to happen, that they were formulating design, possibly terrorism, to happen on American soil, of course keeping in mind that many of these signatories are/were part and parcel of the Bush Administration?
I'll wait for your answer to respond

 

[gumboot]

A parallel to PNAC: A real group, that I will rename BASE, released several "white papers" saying that they desired to cause the US to become entangled in multiple long term military engagements in the mideast, thus weakening America's ability to control political realities in the region and allowing BASE to strike US military assets via asymmetric means. BASE hopes to use mideast turmoil to create a large number of failed states which can then become controlled under a larger government more suitable to BASE's idiology. BASE also released a "white paper" calling for large scale attacks against American interests.

BASE found the 9/11 attacks completely propitious to their ends, and I conclude probably would have done everything they could to cause 9/11 to happen.

Casually, I would say BASE is a much more likely force behind 9/11 than PNAC.

Well said.

-Gumboot

 

[AZCat]

A parallel to PNAC: A real group, that I will rename BASE, released several "white papers" saying that they desired to cause the US to become entangled in multiple long term military engagements in the mideast, thus weakening America's ability to control political realities in the region and allowing BASE to strike US military assets via asymmetric means. BASE hopes to use mideast turmoil to create a large number of failed states which can then become controlled under a larger government more suitable to BASE's idiology. BASE also released a "white paper" calling for large scale attacks against American interests.

BASE found the 9/11 attacks completely propitious to their ends, and I conclude probably would have done everything they could to cause 9/11 to happen.

Casually, I would say BASE is a much more likely force behind 9/11 than PNAC.

This "BASE" group sounds dangerous; perhaps we should be keeping an eye on them?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Your in the right place . The only problem is you need to read the whole thing to really get the jist of it. Hey it's only 90ish pages. Not what I call light reading but try the NIST report sometime.

NIST is too big and over my head for me. That's why we have experts, they can deal with that stuff. I did a search of the PNAC paper and found no references to 9/11 though. Maybe I could have just missed it.

 

[R.Mackey]

A parallel to PNAC: A real group, that I will rename BASE, released several "white papers" saying that they desired to cause the US to become entangled in multiple long term military engagements in the mideast, thus weakening America's ability to control political realities in the region and allowing BASE to strike US military assets via asymmetric means. BASE hopes to use mideast turmoil to create a large number of failed states which can then become controlled under a larger government more suitable to BASE's idiology. BASE also released a "white paper" calling for large scale attacks against American interests.

BASE found the 9/11 attacks completely propitious to their ends, and I conclude probably would have done everything they could to cause 9/11 to happen.

Casually, I would say BASE is a much more likely force behind 9/11 than PNAC.

I agree, that's very well put, and knocks the heck out of the retarded PNAC argument. Pity that some people will never stop to consider this, simply because it doesn't reinforce their own biases.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Excuse me? Where are the "all kinds of classified documents"? What have they published?

The list you supplied, the one with the forewarnings, contains information from declassified documents. (Yes, I Googled "Paul Thompson's 911 Timeline-> Warning Signs", like you said). To me this conveys that the documents were probably classified at some point.

So an ipso facto argument from incredulity. Need I remind you, that the boggling of your mind does not have any bearing on facts.

And i should state here, how depressing, and unsurprising yet disappointing it is, that already, the arguments being proffered by the purported guardians of the facts, are descending into arguments from incredulity. Look at many of the posts now. "It would have been too big" "How do you keep people quiet?" "How many people do you think were involved" etc. No. This is of zero relevance, and has zero worth. That you think they wouldnt have been stupid enough to state the propitiousness of a new PH, so they didnt, is worthless as an argument. That you think it would have been too big a plot so it didnt happen, is again, worthless as an argument. So stop with these primitive arguments, start respecting facts and their logical corrollaries.

I'll be the first to admit that my credulity is lacking in favour of a US government conspiracy.
However, demanding a new investigation after the one that has brought to light the very list of 'suspect' forewarnings you base your demand on, seems a bit odd. But say I go along with the fact that the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks is suspect, what is your reason to don't trust the previous investigators to come to the conclusion you come to?

No. What the hell is your point?

Take a wild guess. Even better, I'll save you the effort: Normal people don't do that. The odds that the conspirators were able to recruit enough sociopaths among the ranks of government agencies to pull off such a conspiracy and not screw up are vanishingly small. In fact, you clearly contend that they totally screwed up their homicidal conspiracy by both publically announcing their plans beforehand and publishing the screw-ups afterward. I contend that they just screwed up their intelligence gathering.
Who's arguing from incredulity here?

But I think I see what kind of conspiracy you think may have happened. It would have to be a conspiracy where the conspirators
1. recruit some maniacs to fly aircraft into buildings or
2. allow existing maniacs to fly their airplanes into buildings, because they were going to anyway.

Am I right?

Hahaha... oh boy, what a seeker of truth you are.

Please go through my list, and explain how they are all just screw ups, warranting no further investigation.

I can't tell without knowing who exactly got the warnings, or knowing how the different intelligence agencies communicate with eachother, or how many unrelated warnings about other terror attacks with trains, car bombs, ships, dirty nukes, anthrax, small pox, doomsday machines or space lasers gave more specific information and demanded more immediate action at the time.
Do you?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, but if you read the link that I provided, you will see that a prior offer occurred in feb 01, for him to be handed over to the Saudis, to be given to the US. Why did Bush refuse?

I'm losing track of this thread - can you re-post the link please?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Right (although the 0.303 isn't a cannon), but a Hurri against a Mustang? I don't think so. Anyway, if you just want firepower, take a Beaufighter - four 20mm cannon, six 0.303 MG's and eigh 60lb rockets. Not a dogfighter by any stretch, though.

Dave

 

[H'ethetheth]

Some additions to my latest post, mjd.

I must admit that I found only one declassified document here. The point however stands that intelligence information is always classified at some point. The media only get what they get because someone in the intelligence industry wants them to.

I also found this interesting. Behind this snippet:

Aug 27, 2001: An FBI supervisor says he’s trying to keep a hijacker from “flying a plane into the WTC.” [Senate Report (Hill #2), 10/17/02] Headquarters chastises him for notifying the CIA.

If you read the Senate report Hill #1 you will encounter this in their concluding remarks:

These changes to the law [the partiot act], and the shock of September 11 itself, have had some beneficial impacts on the ability and willingness of the Intelligence agencies and their personnel to share information with one another and with non-Intelligence Community agencies and personnel. Whether and to what extent this impact can be sustained remains to be seen.

and

As this review suggests, the Intelligence Community made several impressive
advances in fighting terrorism since the end of the Cold War, but many fundamental steps were not taken. Individual components of the Community scored impressive successes or strengthened their effort against terrorism, but important gaps remained. These included many problems outside the control or responsibility of the Intelligence Community, such as the sanctuary terrorists enjoyed in Afghanistan and legal limits on information sharing between intelligence and law enforcement officials.

However, another major contributing factor was that the Intelligence Community did not fully learn the lessons of past attacks. On September 11, 2001 al-Qa’ida was able to exploit the gaps in the U.S. counterterrorism structure, some of which were remeditable, to carry out its devastating attacks.

Is the senate committee in on it too? Or are they just not intelligent enough to see these screw ups for what you think they are?

Ook?