The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Belz...]

Well, not significant suspicion anyway. There will be sufficient people who will accept any subterfuge in order not to believe that their government has done this.

Oh, please. How many people in the US do you think actually trust politicians ?

Who could disbelieve that Bush could let an attack happen in order to further his own goals ?

But where's the evidence ? That's the rub.

Such subterfuges are all too evident on this board. That, combined with the western propaganda system that i have touched upon a few times here, means that any suspicion will not be significant, i.e. it will never do anything. You can extend this to all of 911.

This is just preaching on your part.

Not 40 warnings, 40 times at PDB's that the topic came up. 40 times nothing was done by Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Rice.

Source, please.

Yeah, IF you know WHERE they'll strike.

If you know people are planning to rob your house inthe next week, do you do nothing, because youdont know when/who/where theyre gonna come from? Of course not.

Yes, that is PRECISELY what I said. IF you know WHERE they'll strike.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Hubris: Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance

I will state that I do believe that those who are not “Truthers” fall into 2 categories- ill informed (~90%) and deluded (the rest). I mean deluded not as some blind pejorative, rather in the strict sense of the word- they will ignore, manipulate and select evidence in order to squeeze it into a story that fits nicely with their preconceived, but ultimately baseless view of how the world might work. This has been illustrated time and again on the SLC, but I hope will not be the case here.

I am saying that this shows that a catastrophic and catalysing event was deemed propitious to policy by a significant number of neo cons who would be charged with running and protecting the US on and up to 911. That is all.

What I'm asking here is are you implying that the Neocons, who put together this PNAC document, had no intention of a long term plan, as spelled out in the document, but they also made a decision and allegedly knew in the midst of writing it that this would happen quicker if there was a catastrophic and catalyzing event and secretly planned how to go about it, or what it would take for the event to happen? Or did the Bush Administration, with many of the Neocons who signed the document, plan to make it happen after the election?
What you are showing and telling Me is one or the other....In your interpretation of this document, you are trying to prove that the intent of the neocons was favorable toward a catastrophic and catalyzing event so that transformation would take place sooner. So it had to be planned; When
and how was it planned and who made these decisions? Where is the evidence for this?

 

[volatile]

I know that someone is coming to steal my neighbours car at 12.00. I ensure that my cars arent parked in their usual spacea, crammed 1 in front and 1 behind, to ensure that they can indeed nick it. I then walk away, hands in pockets, not informing anyone of whatis going to happen. So I LIHOP abd MIHOP. Lets have no more on this; its irrelevant.

It isn't irrelevant at all... it's at the core of your argument. I'd like to see you spell out what you think happened on 9/11 without analogy (how did the government "massage" the events, exactly?), but nevertheless, let's address the one above.

The above example is LIHOP. Had warnings, did nothing. A more plausible MIHOP example would involve you calling the robbers directly to tell them your neighbour's car was unlocked, or indeed you stealing your neighbour's car yourself. This seems to be more like what you're accusing the US government of in relation to 911.

I'll ask again for clarification on exactly your version of events. You said you didn't doubt Al-Qaeda's involvement - how were they involved? You said the USG "massaged" the events? How did they massage them?

Please be clear and concise - otherwise we'll be none the wiser.

 

[WildCat]

Is every warning accurate? Is he supposed to act on each one? Do you know how many other warnings he got during the same time?

I asked mjd1982 this many times at SLC. How many warnings in the 5 years before 9/11, how many after? How many is typical? He will not answer these questions, instead he will ignore them and go off on a tangent.

All puff, no substance with this one.

 

[Jocce]

1. All else being equal, people want good things to happen sooner rather than later. PNAC dee, the transformation to be good, thus they want it to happen sooner rather than later.

You obviously didn't bother to read or try to comprehend why I bolded some parts earlier. You're wrong on point 1. Fast is not always better. Deal with it.

 

[mjd1982]

I'm just gonna respond to a few for the moment

Because they were presented the same list of intelligence screw-ups and came to a conclusion different from yours.

No they werent. If you have a source that shows otherwise, please show me.

About 10²⁴ molecules in a glass of water. That's also a lot.
It tells us nothing at all however. It's only useful if you know how many of the total amount of warnings were actually relevant and specific to 9/11.
I would believe without trouble that intelligence agencies receive 40 warnings a week of similar nature.

NO- not 40 intel warnings; 40 times the president was warned of the immininent threat. You know what aPDB is? A distillation of the most pressing intel reports from the DCI. 40 times the imminent threat of an AQ attack was
on the agenda; 40 times nothing was done.

Missed that, sorry. I'll have a look. On a related note: I must say I'm in awe of your posting ability.

I'm still catching up, sorry.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A

What? I fail to see the semblance between the two. The relation between the Indonesian government and army, and East Timor is very different from the relation between the US government and New York city. No countrymen, no conspiracy, no relevance.

They are both examples of the US engaging, indirectly, in mass murder; Timor on a far greater scale than 911. And nobody really giving a s***. That is the point.

ETA- Ur point is ~that mass murderers for geo political gain couldnt be running the US with impunity, that such a phenomenon woudlnt be so comon, I'm telling you that it never hasnt happened.

You're going to tell me the massacres in Rwanda are also a good example next, right?

The US's role was much different there from in Timor.

 

[mjd1982]

Now that was funny.

Ok...instead of a single house, let's say they're going to rob your neighborhood. Say there's 50 houses in the neighborhood. You get intel that someone will rob one of these houses, someday...but you're not sure when, which house, how, or who the robber(s) are exactly. Doesn't this seem to fit your scenario a little better than someone robbing a single home?

Good. So u own all 50 houses. You know someone is going to ransack one of them imminently. I guess u do nothing?

 

[WildCat]

NO- not 40 intel warnings; 40 times the president was warned of the immininent threat. You know what aPDB is? A distillation of the most pressing intel reports from the DCI. 40 times the imminent threat of an AQ attack was
on the agenda; 40 times nothing was done.

How many warnings are typical? How many were there in, say, the last 5 years?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A

Which is just Olbermann commenting on the same question from the Pakistani reporter. It's already been addressed by Augustine why this wasn't an offer to "turn him over to the US". Once again, you are 100% wrong with your interpretation of events.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Wait until we get to WTC 7, when mjd1982 claims the FDNY knew the buildings were to be demolished with pre-planted explosives, put in place where the conspirators knew there would be no fires! It's priceless!

 

[mjd1982]

This is tiresome, proving something and then you retreat and I have to prove it all over again. Would defense transformation have occurred regardless? Was it already underway? If you say it would not have, then why not? Justify.

It may or may not have done. I cannot say. Were certain elements of it underway? Please show me.

To the contrary, it is quite relevant. You might appreciate this if you actually did some reading on strategy.



In addition to your strategic studies, I would suggest you include reading comprehension. In much of military history, catastrophic and catalyzing events were required for military transformation (can you think of any pre-1982?). The purpose of strategists is to anticipate the future and spur transformation without the catastrophic and catalyzing event occurring.

Identify a catastrophic and catalyzing event prior to 1982. Was it "propitious to policy"? If the transformation that it engendered could have been undertaken without the event occurring, would that have been preferable?

If policy was, in the eyes of policymakers, a radical overhaul of military stance, then it may have been that such an event would have been propitious to policy. Perhaps. Although if this was not stated, then we do not know whether the people in charge would have thought the same, which is all that mattters.

The GWOT has not been the prime driver behind any element of transformation. Most elements of transformation were in place prior to the GWOT. The GWOT is a prolonged campaign; the military is but one element, and must remain ready, capable, and positioned to perform any number of other missions.

Right fine.

1. Control the new international commons of cyberspace

From the National Strategy to Cyberspace:

A Case for Action
The terrorist attacks against the United States
that took place on September 11, 2001, had a
profound impact on our Nation. The federal
government and society as a whole have been
forced to reexamine conceptions of security on
our home soil, with many understanding only
for the first time the lengths to which selfdesignated
enemies of our country are willing to
go to inflict debilitating damage.
We must move forward with the understanding
that there are enemies who seek to inflict
damage on our way of life. They are ready to
attack us on our own soil, and they have shown
a willingness to use unconventional means to
execute those attacks.While the attacks of
September 11 were physical attacks, we are
facing increasing threats from hostile adversaries
in the realm of cyberspace as well.

Individual and National Risk
Management
Until recently overseas terrorist networks had
caused limited damage in the United States. On
September 11, 2001, that quickly changed. One
estimate places the increase in cost to our
economy from attacks to U.S. information
systems at 400 percent over four years.While
those losses remain relatively limited, that too
could change abruptly.
Every day in the United States individual
companies, and home computer users, suffer
damage from cyber attacks that, to the victims,
represent significant losses. Conditions likewise
exist for relative measures of damage to occur
on a national level, affecting the networks and
systems on which the Nation depends:
• Potential adversaries have the intent;
• Tools that support malicious activities are
broadly available; and,
• Vulnerabilities of the Nation’s systems are
many and well known.

2. Transform the DoD

From the DoD website

TRANSFORMATION OVERVIEW

The Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States accelerated the need to transform to better meet the challenges of the 21st century, thus, sustain American competitive advantage in warfare.

3. Provide sufficient budgetary allocations

From the 2007 Army budget overview

Themes

- Win the long war

4. Maintain Nuclear Strategic Superiority

From the 2005 budget presentation to congress

"Nuclear weapons will remain a critical element in U.S. national security," U.S. National Nuclear Security Administrator Linton Brooks said Tuesday at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

The Bush administration has operated under that premise, working to expand research on new kinds of nuclear bombs.

"While we will reduce the number of deployed (nuclear) forces, we have to plan against an uncertain future," Brooks said.

The first step of the new plan came with the Nuclear Posture Review submitted to Congress by the Bush Pentagon in December 2001.

The review states: "Terrorists or rogue states armed with weapons of mass destruction will likely test America's security commitments to its allies and friends. In response, we will need a range of capabilities to assure friend and foe alike of U.S. resolve. A broader array of capability is needed to dissuade states from undertaking political, military or technical courses of action that would threaten U.S. and allied security."

And of course:

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.

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.

The 1st lines of said QDR:

On September 11, 2001, the United States came under vicious,
bloody attack. Americans died in their places of work. They died
on American soil. They died not as combatants, but as innocent
victims. They died not from traditional armies waging traditional
campaigns, but from the brutal, faceless weapons of terror. They died as
the victims of war - a war that many had feared but whose sheer horror
took America by surprise.
The war the nation fights today is not a war of America's choosing. It is a
war that was brought violently and brutally to America's shores by the evil
forces of terror. It is a war against America and America's way of life. It is
a war against all that America holds dear. It is a war against freedom itself.
The attack on the United States and the war that has been visited upon us
highlights a fundamental condition of our circumstances: we cannot and
will not know precisely where and when America's interests will be
threatened, when America will come under attack, or when Americans
might die as the result of aggression. We can be clear about trends, but
uncertain about events. We can identify threats, but cannot know when
or where America or its friends will be attacked. We should try mightily to
avoid surprise, but we must also learn to expect it. We must constantly
strive to get better intelligence, but we must also remember that there will
always be gaps in our intelligence. Adapting to surprise - adapting quickly
and decisively - must therefore be a condition of planning.
...
the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001 will require us to move forward more rapidly in these directions, even while we are engaged in
the war against terrorism.

And of course, I could go on.

So as you see, there are a number of action that are being pursued under the specific aegis of 911. Whether they would have been done or not is immaterial; the fact is that they are being pursued as part of the WOT.

P.S. Clarke was never demoted.

I know you know better than him, but Bill Clinton disagrees

"When I left, i left a comprehensive counter terror strategy, and the best guy, Dick Clarke, who got demoted"

Research, then post please.

P.S.S. The Taliban never offered to turn over Bin Laden to the U.S. in February 2001. They offered to have him tried for the 1998 Embassy bombings (which he had been convicted of in 1998) by a group of Muslim clerics. It was hardly a serious offer, and given how Al Qaeda had used our courtroom evidence in the 1993 trial to tighten their own security measures against us, it would have been lunacy for the U.S. to accept the offer. Additionally, this gives the lie to their offers in late 2001 - it took them some 2-1/2 years of international pressure after UBL's conviction just to give us a worthless offer; why wait another 2+ years after 9/11 to go through the same bs?

Wrong. 1stly, post sources if you want me to take ur assertions seriously. 2ndly, watch and learn:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A

 

[WildCat]

Good. So u own all 50 houses. You know someone is going to ransack one of them imminently. I guess u do nothing?

I guarantee you someone will rob a bank in the Chicago metropolitan area within the next week, what should be done mjd1982?

I can also guarantee that there will be a gang murder this weekend in Chicago, what should be done? Can you answer these questions?

 

[mjd1982]

I disagree. To pull of this conspiracy there have to be as few as possible Americans doing dirty jobs. Rigging buildings with secret fire-proof explosives is not going to help.
They would need to know exactly who would strike when, where and how, depending on the extent of the massage (read demolitions) they would have to know how likely it would be that the buildings would collapse by themselves, or fall onto other buidings enough to make it plausible enough to implode it without any experts suspecting anything.

I can go along with that up to the point of controlled demolitions.

No, since as I said, the evidence i have presented stands as and of itself, i.e. my point can be proved simply on those 2 points, intent and foreknowledge. One can not believe the rest, and still agree with the thrust of the argument

The entire list of forewarnings. The senate committee, whose judgment you choose to ignore, does not construe this as machinations of an infallible intelligence apparatus but rather the shortcomings of a scattered unprepared intelligence community.

I am not dealing with the intel community (just 1 of the 4 points).

 

[mjd1982]

Your analogy contradicts itself!

In your analogy we know WHERE and WHEN, and the TYPE of attack. (Your house, next week, robbery)

Did bush know WHAT TYPE of attack, and WHERE and WHEN said attacks would take place?

What do you think he should have done?



So someone warned you that your house was going to be broken into...But you'd also received similar warnings about your car, office, and house in the months prior, none of which resulted in the warned-of attack being carried out, and you're supposed to act on this warning moreso than the others?

Is every warning accurate? Is he supposed to act on each one? Do you know how many other warnings he got during the same time?

Hmmm... so lets expand, as done before. You own 50 houses in a neighbourhood. You know that 1 of them is about to be savagely attacked imminently. What do you do?

What should Bush have done? Listen to what Bob Kerrey from the 911 Comm suggests:

,“y the way, there’s a credible case that the president’s own negligence prior to 9/11 at least in part contributed to the disaster in the first place.… n the summer of 2001, the government ignored repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and didn’t do anything to harden our border security, didn’t do anything to harden airport country, didn’t do anything to engage local law enforcement, didn’t do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and didn’t warn the American people. The famous presidential daily briefing on August 6, we say in the report that the briefing officers believed that there was a considerable sense of urgency and it was current. So there was a case to be made that wasn’t made.… The president says, if I had only known that 19 Islamic men would come into the United States of America and on the morning of 11 September hijack four American aircraft, fly two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into an unknown Pennsylvania that crashed in Shanksville, I would have moved heaven and earth. That’s what he said. Mr. President, you don’t need to know that. This is an Islamic Jihadist movement that has been organized since the early 1990s, declared war on the United States twice, in ‘96 and ‘98. You knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat. And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission.”

 

[mjd1982]

You could have said the same you did here in 4300 words in a mere two and spared us all a lot of time: "Cui bono"?

Instead, my wordprocessor counts 17 occurrences of the word "fact", 6 occurences of the word "facts" and 6 occurences of the word "evidence" in your original post, not counting similar verbage like "Coincidence? No." or "this is almost certain".

However, the repetition of the word "truth" ad infinitum does truth not automatically make. For the excessive use of the word "fact" and it's various derivates, your OP, albeit equally excessive, curiously lacks the actual existence of such, with the exception of the basic evidence we all agree upon (that there was an attack on 9/11 for example).

I would also like to point out to you that there is a difference between "advance warning" and "foreknowledge". I can warn you that you might get hit by a flash when you go outside, but foreknowledge implies that I KNOW you are going to get hit, which I certainly don't. As such, there was no "foreknowledge" of 9/11.

Stylistically I would advice you to drop your somewhat patronizing tone. The stuff you have posted here is nothing new, and is more or less a rehash of things you can find on Indymedia and similar outlets. The peope who post it there generally don't gloat about either, because it's but another rehash of something they found elsewhere. To give you credit, your mastery of the english language is rather impressive (unlike mine, but i am not a native speaker) and the post is indeed well written.

In essence, however, your OP relies to a great part on (politically motivated?) conjecture and 20/20 hindsight and has the signature CT "outside-in" design: conclusion exists (NWO, New PH), now let's wade through the evidence and cherry pick the pieces that corroberate this. All investigations that were conducted, however, have been done so from the inside out: facts first, conclusions afterwards. That's how investigations are normally run, and I think even an "independent" one has to be conducted in that fashion to be taken seriously.

I doubt, though, that you Truthers will be able to pull this off. This event is too important for you to leave it up to mundane fact-finding. 9/11 has become the campfire for all those who have lost their orientation and it is THE opportunity of the 21. Century to reunite all the "lost souls", frustrated by the demise of socialism and the challenges of globalization, and mold a "movement" out of them which becomes the stronger the more distinct and clearer the enemy. An enemy who has to be larger than life, and eviler than evil, against which every tiny act of dissent has to look like a heroic gesture and a fight for the TRUTH.

This is not a fact, BTW, but only my opinion.

Errr... well, all I would reply to this post has been nicely encapsulated by the author in its last line.

 

[WildCat]

I know you know better than him, but Bill Clinton disagrees

So how come al Qaeda still existed after 8 years of President Clinton? How did most of the planning for 9/11 take place during the Clinton Administration and Clarke's tenure?

 

[mjd1982]

Oh, please. How many people in the US do you think actually trust politicians ?

Who could disbelieve that Bush could let an attack happen in order to further his own goals ?

But where's the evidence ? That's the rub.



This is just preaching on your part.



Source, please.



Yes, that is PRECISELY what I said. IF you know WHERE they'll strike.

1. To believe he lied about Iraq? Yes. That he killed 3000 US? No

2. Hmmm... maybe

3. The 911 comm report; you really should have read that by now

4. Analogy as above

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Still wondering what one has to do with the other...I guess I'm just dense..

As for the warnings, prior to 9/11 the President (not just Bush) would receive 100s of warnings a day on possible threats. Knowing which ones to take seriously is not easy.

Tomorrow a crime will be committed. There you have your warning, now go stop it.

 

[WildCat]

Hmmm... so lets expand, as done before. You own 50 houses in a neighbourhood. You know that 1 of them is about to be savagely attacked imminently. What do you do?

If you want to be more accurate, your number should be (conservatively) at least 50,000. That's just US-affiliated targets throughout the world.

 

[mjd1982]

Hubris: Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance

What I'm asking here is are you implying that the Neocons, who put together this PNAC document, had no intention of a long term plan, as spelled out in the document,

The WOT is a long term plan, by definition pretty much. It was just implemented, and the platform for it, created soon.

but they also made a decision and allegedly knew in the midst of writing it that this would happen quicker if there was a catastrophic and catalyzing event

this is true

and secretly planned how to go about it, or what it would take for the event to happen?Or did the Bush Administration, with many of the Neocons who signed the document, plan to make it happen after the election?

I dont know when they planned it

What you are showing and telling Me is one or the other....In your interpretation of this document, you are trying to prove that the intent of the neocons was favorable toward a catastrophic and catalyzing event so that transformation would take place sooner.

yes

So it had to be planned; When
and how was it planned and who made these decisions? Where is the evidence for this?

Such minutiae will be determined by the investigation i call for

 

[mjd1982]

It isn't irrelevant at all... it's at the core of your argument. I'd like to see you spell out what you think happened on 9/11 without analogy (how did the government "massage" the events, exactly?), but nevertheless, let's address the one above.

The above example is LIHOP. Had warnings, did nothing. A more plausible MIHOP example would involve you calling the robbers directly to tell them your neighbour's car was unlocked, or indeed you stealing your neighbour's car yourself. This seems to be more like what you're accusing the US government of in relation to 911.

I'll ask again for clarification on exactly your version of events. You said you didn't doubt Al-Qaeda's involvement - how were they involved? You said the USG "massaged" the events? How did they massage them?

Please be clear and concise - otherwise we'll be none the wiser.

- Deemed the events propitiousness
- Did nothing to stop it; acted to ensure it would not be hindered (Clarke demotion; OBL not handed over; no retaliation for Cole)
- Attack massaged in order to have it happen at the right time and place, via an insider, a la the french
- Attacks aggravated, through implosion of wtc7 (for sure), others, I'm not sure

 

[mjd1982]

You obviously didn't bother to read or try to comprehend why I bolded some parts earlier. You're wrong on point 1. Fast is not always better. Deal with it.

all else being equal

think before u post please