The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[David Wong]

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 ?

Or Hillary Clinton, or John Kerry, or Al Gore, or Ronald Reagan or JFK, or anyone else. Evidence says all are equally likely to allow an attack in order to further "their own goals."

Evidence... or lack of.

 

[nicepants]

So, mjd....if you were the president, and received reports that an attack from Al Queda was "eminent"....what would you do to stop it?

 

[David Wong]

I predict his aswer will be:


"Increase security."




He'll run away before he has to provide any actual details, such as how long the security crackdown will last. And he will desperately avoid any discussion of loss of rights and outrage from citizens when they find out it's taking them 3 hours to board a plane because of some vague threat that an attack might happen sometime somewhere possibly involving planes.

Though it's fascinating to see someone from the Truther side basically saying something like the Patriot Act - or another act that does exactly the same thing - should have been implemented even sooner than it actually was. After all, if he's not talking about increased powers for investigators to stop terrorism, then what's he talking about?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Okay so I skipped the last 4 pages. Has mjd1982 actually posted any facts yet?

 

[AZCat]

I predict his aswer will be:


"Increase security."




He'll run away before he has to provide any actual details, such as how long the security crackdown will last. And he will desperately avoid any discussion of loss of rights and outrage from citizens when they find out it's taking them 3 hours to board a plane because of some vague threat that an attack might happen sometime somewhere possibly involving planes.

Though it's fascinating to see someone from the Truther side basically saying something like the Patriot Act - or another act that does exactly the same thing - should have been implemented even sooner than it actually was. After all, if he's not talking about increased powers for investigators to stop terrorism, then what's he talking about?

Maybe they would have called it the "Antici-Patriot Act"?

 

[MIKILLINI]

Godwin's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Mjd's theory; keep the circular reasoning going, enough to go beyond 1100 posts. Thats just part 1 out of 4.

It's time to move on to the next area of his conspiracy theory.

 

[H'ethetheth]

I'm just gonna respond to a few for the moment
No they werent. If you have a source that shows otherwise, please show me.

I'm going to dig through the senate committee reports when I get back from my vacation. I hope I'll still be able to add something to this discussion then though.

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.

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

I'm going to need to do some reading in the 9/11 commission report as well, I guess.

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.

Not my point, it isn't.
My point is that it is difficult to recruit people to be responsible for killing 10,000 of their own. People that could be their family and friends. That's my point.
You're talking about people selling guns to, and allowing people to fight that are both far away and unrelated. I don't think people in Oregon would generally shrug if New York were to invade Pennsylvania.

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.

And that's where you're wrong. I'm not at all concerned with the US specifically. I'm concerned with the difficulty of getting people to murder their own.

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

Again, the role of the US is completely immaterial to the point I'm trying to get across. The reason why you personally would not be recruited to be responsible for killing 10,000 innocent Americans is the same reason why very few Americans would. Normal people don't do that, and depending on the amount and form of 'massage', you will need quite a few Americans willing to do just that to pull off this conspiracy.

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

No, I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. Your "Massaged It into Happening Exactly As Planned" (MIHEAP) theory is only remotely plausible if very few Americans have blood on their hands. The advance warning evidence is possibly consistent with that, I can't tell until I read up. On the other hand, anything that involves controlled demolition on that scale and in secret requires a lot of low level conspirators that are very directly going to be responsible for killing people.

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

Fine, I'm not up to speed there anyway, as it appears, and on vacation for the next week and a half.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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. 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.

So you're saying that PNAC were so confident that nobody could possibly suspect them that they included a statement in their document, that didn't need to be there in order to justify the aims of their policy, that gave away the whole conspiracy? The statement that, according you, is the primary cause of suspicion against them? Why are they leaving such obvious clues? You see, this is the contradiction at the heart of all conspiracy theories - that the conspiracy is so secret that nobody can penetrate the inner circle, so efficient that they can manipulate the entire world to follow their will without knowing it, and yet so careless that they leave obvious clues when there was no benefit to be derived from doing so. It requires simultaneous postulates of infallibility and stupidity.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Bush was then offered OBL by the Taliban in Feb. He said no thanks.

I checked this out, as you requested. The Taliban offered to put OBL on trial in an Islamic court, presided over by three Islamic clerics, in a third country. Bush declined.

OK, so we have three offers: twice to put OBL on trial under Islamic law in a third country, where there is a distinct possibility, given careful choice of judges, that OBL could admit all his actions, claim that they were justified under Islamic law, and not only get off scot free but be able to claim double jeopardy against any future attempts at prosecution; and finally, after the bombing had started, to talk about extradition on the condition that the bombing stop immediately.

You've argued that all these offers were reasonable from the point of view of the Taliban, but that's missing the point by a substantial margin. If you stand by your statement that Bush's first priority should have been the capture of Bin Laden (and not, for example, dismantling the substantial Al-Qaeda infrastructure in Afghanistan), and that therefore he should have taken one of these offers, then you should be able to see that none of these offers represented a certain handover of OBL to the USA, so there was judgement to be exercised in whether to accept, or even seriously consider, any of them. As long as there's a judgement call to be made, making it one way or the other cannot be seen as proof of unwillingness to capture OBL. All Bush's actions can equally well be explained as total distrust of the Taliban, itself not an entirely unreasonable position.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

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

Yeah. Heaven forbit that intelligent people might reach different conclusions when presented with the same information.

If policy was, in the eyes of policymakers, a radical overhaul of military stance

Hold it, right there, slick. Did they actually say that they needed a radical overhaul ?

Whether they would have been done or not is immaterial; the fact is that they are being pursued as part of the WOT.

It's quite material. If they would have been done anyway means that the fact that they are being pursued is IRRELEVANT.

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

Don't be obtuse. Reference, please.

Such minutiae will be determined by the investigation i call for

Evidence is minutiae ? Interesting.

 

[Belz...]

- Deemed the events propitiousness

Wrong.

- Did nothing to stop it; acted to ensure it would not be hindered (Clarke demotion; OBL not handed over; no retaliation for Cole)

These have already been answered, and yet you continue to use them. Do you actually have the ability to learn ?

Attack massaged in order to have it happen at the right time and place, via an insider, a la the french

Hmmm..... massaged...

- Attacks aggravated, through implosion of wtc7 (for sure), others, I'm not sure

"For sure" ? Who in the world cared about 7 WTC collapsing ? How was the attack aggravated by it ? How is it an "implosion" "for sure" ?

Look. You have a document. It is, to an astonishing degree, a blueprint for the WOT (War On Terror).

That's your conclusion, not a premise. Circular reasoning. Unless they mention the war on terror in the document.

it should be crystalised in decision makers bminds by Oct 2001

They asked for a PLAN within a certain number of months, not for the transformations to be underway. You quoted that part, yourself.

and that they will take a long time absent a catastrophic and catalysing event like a new PH.

Wrong. Those were about the transformations, not the plan.

Bush was then offered OBL by the Taliban in Feb. He said no thanks.

Did you read why ?

 

[Belz...]

Or Hillary Clinton, or John Kerry, or Al Gore, or Ronald Reagan or JFK, or anyone else. Evidence says all are equally likely to allow an attack in order to further "their own goals."

Evidence... or lack of.

What I meant was that whether you believe that Bush is evil and quite capable of doing such a thing is irrelevant without evidence that he DID.

 

[twinstead]

I would submit that every one of these truthers who have come on this board and demanded a 'new investigation' would reject any conclusion other than 'it was an inside job'.

This new investigation stuff is just lip service; their minds are already made up.

Besides, exactly who would perform this investigation? Loose change? The government? The Scholars for Truth? The crack investigative team at PrisonPlanet? Mrs. Johnson's 3rd grade class at Lincoln Elementary School?

 

[Belz...]

This new investigation stuff is just lip service; their minds are already made up.

No! NO! Say it is not so, twinstead!! They SAID they had an open mind!!

 

[WildCat]

Okay so I skipped the last 4 pages. Has mjd1982 actually posted any facts yet?

Perhaps this will be the big day!

 

[volatile]

- 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

This post is very, very important. For the first time, we have something approaching a clear statement of opinion from Mr D, and it's now his full ideas are beginning to emerge that we also can start to see them unravel...

It seems he believes that Al-Qaeda did indeed propagate the attacks, but when their plans were uncovered, the US government infiltrated. This infiltration was not to undermine the operation, but to ensure its success.

MjD, here is issue #1 - you expect us to accept that the infiltrator and his handlers are fully aware of the plan, and showed no qualms as to its intent. Which one of the planners was the insider? Atta? Zarqawi? OBL himself? Please elaborate, MjD.

Here's issue #2 - if Al-Qaeda were going to attack anyway - something which would still have been unprecedented - why go to the risk of "massaging"? It defies logical sense to set up a massive covert, risky, illegal, immoral and absurd plan to aid something that was going to happen anyway.

Here's Issue #3 - See your point re: "warnings". Which parts of the government are complicit, and which ones aren't? Quite simply, if the government were involved in the plot, there'd be no need for warnings, would there? That is to say - if clear and concise warnings were given, they were presumably given by someone not involved in the massaging plot you allege, which implies there is a branch of the FBI separate from the perpetrators. If this is the case, where are the people who gave these warnings now? Why have they not spoken out? Which people are in and which are out?

Here's Issue #4 - Why implode WTC7? Most people who aren't involved in the 911 debunking / conspiracy discussion aren't even aware of WTC7 and its collapse. If you've already massaged the attack such as to ensure its success (ie that plans would hit the Towers) , why go to the extra risk of aggravating it, seeing as the collapse of the towers itself is clearly important and shocking enough as to overshadow the WTC7 collapse in the minds of the populace anyway?



Those are just some of the reasons why your conflation of LIHOP and MIHOP conspiracies fall apart at the briefest and most cursory of glances...

 

[stateofgrace]

Of course MDG you want to believe that this entire event was staged and that all the warnings were purposefully ignored to allow it to happen. Nothing at all was happening in the world in the run up to 911, there were nothing else to worry about and the US were not receiving any other warning from anywhere at the time. The US, its security forces, the CIA, the FBI did not have to worry about state sponsored terrorism, countries like Syria, Iran, Korea or any other would be sponsors of terrorism. They were not in the slightest bit concerned at other world events that were going on at the time, poverty did not exist, the Aids crisis was not there, the effects of global warning was a non issue. They did have to worry about Africa, Asia, the Middle East or Russia and of course the USG did not have bother whatsoever about a thing that was happening in Europe. Pakistan and Afghanistan were non issues even though they were recognised as major sites of terrorist activity. Israel and the Palestinians were non issues and deserved no attention. The US government did not have concentrate on any domestic issues at all; they were simply mundane things that sorted themselves out. Things like abortion, gun laws, violent crime, white supremacists and neo Nazi groups and other forms of social issues did not need addressing, not did the health care system and the education system. All the US had to concentrate on at the time was forty warnings of a possible terrorist attack from some mad man thousands of miles away. Every single event beyond this is completely incidental and beside the point because there were no other issues to worry about at all. Warnings that were so clear and so precise it is beyond belief, according to MDG, that they missed them, not only that they ignored them. According to you MDG there is no mitigation, nothing else to worry about, no excuse. They should have gone out and done something about it, arrested them; they should have got their man.

It is so easy with the benefit hindsight to condemn isn’t it MGD? Jesus, you don’t even live in the real world, you simply pick out the bits you want to use to condemn, and simply ignore everything else. You know something I don’t smoke but people do, they are warned everyday to stop or it will kill them ,they don’t they continue to smoke, maybe we should condemn such people, stop any form of medical care, after all they warned, everyday in fact. Hey while we are at let’s stopping any form of medical treatment for HIV sufferers, they were warned, not to have unsafe sex but they ignored it. People are warned everyday, people miss these warning, people have other things going on around them, they live in a false sense of security will means they get on with their life’s and ignore clear and precise warning. Warnings that with the benefit of hindsight they should have seen but missed. Heck while we are at it lets stop treating alcoholics after all it is their entire fault they missed the warnings, they did not take any notice of the warnings.

I get fed up with you guys spewing your self righteous condemnation onto internet forums, picking out the bits you want and concentrating on these only. As though those involved with these warnings could not possibly feel any worse than they already do, they now have to put up with internet conspiracy theories accusing them of not only missing these warning but doing so on purposes. They have to live with their mistakes for the rest of their lifes, you do not. You can simply pick and choose which ever bits you want and roundly condemn for failing to protect and failing in their duty. Sitting back in some smug self satisfaction that you would never have done something like this, after all you never miss a warning, never make a mistake; you are super man, the saviour of humanity that wants to bang everybody up for missing the warning sings. Maybe you should start with HIV sufferers, alcoholics and smokers who develop cancer first, I am sure these unfortunate individuals deserve the same treatment you wish upon anybody else who makes a mistake and misses the warnings.

Individuals that despite their best efforts were unable to stop this dreadful event from happening are the people you choose to target, you choose to punish. I thought I would have my rant before I went out and enjoyed myself tonight, after all it is friday night and I will in all probably have a few too many and enjoy myself tonight. I will ignore all the warnings that alcohol is bad for me and actually enjoy myself, maybe you should try it once in awhile, opps sorry forgot you never miss the warnings.

 

[mjd1982]

And how will this be done? You do know there's more banks than police available to guard them, don't you? The same applies to guarding potential terrorist targets...

You make an effort. If you succeed, you succeed, if you fail, uve tried.

If you dont even try, then you are criminally negligent. Simple.

 

[mjd1982]

What?

Are you implying that since the police in Chicago know that a bank will be robbed, all they have to do is 'strengthen security in banks' to prevent it?

Does that also mean that if another bank is robbed, which we KNOW will happen, that means there is some kind of conspiracy afoot? I mean seriously, all they had to do was strengthen security.

They knew one of the finite number of banks in the Chicago metro area was going to be robbed. The fact that one was still robbed despite this knowledge certainly is suspicious.

Its not about preventing it; its about trying to prevent it. This is the job of any agency whose task it is to protect something.

Understand that, and this will become a lot clearer for u.

 

[Augustine]

Were certain elements of it underway? Please show me.

I have pointed you in the right direction several times now. You are covering your ears, closing your eyes, and singing "LALALALA"...review national strategy documents and defense documents from the previous administration - specifically identify which precise programs and policies were suddenly magically implemented Sept 12, 2001 or afterwards which had never been mentioned before except in the PNAC document. You will find none.

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.

This was not a "radical overhaul" of military stance. Review the 1997 QDR and the National Defense Panel report. Transformation had been underway for some time, pretty much since we realized that the Cold War was over, and basing troops in Western Europe to defend against the Soviet Hordes was a concept we needed to abandon. Configuring our forces to mirror another superpower that we might conceivably face in a grand air/land/sea battle was also something we needed to review. This was known since the early 1990's, and underway prior to the PNAC document being published. PNAC did not represent a radical overhaul of the 1997 QDR, although it certainly contained a few differences - unsurprising, since its authors were members of the opposing party, and making their own pitch for inclusion into the 2001 QDR should their party win. Again, not much substantial difference from 1992 Defense Policy Guidance draft floated under SecDef Cheney.

1. Control the new international commons of cyberspace

2. Transform the DoD

3. Provide sufficient budgetary allocations

4. Maintain Nuclear Strategic Superiority

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.

Don't be fatuous. Do you expect national security documents produced after 9/11 to contain no mention of 9/11?? Of course not, don't be silly. "Maintain nuclear strategic superiority" has been a mainstay of national strategic policy for longer than you've been alive, junior, it did not spring from PNAC's paper into being. "Transform the DoD" has been around since 1997 QDR, sorry, nothing new to see here. (BTW, "Global missile defense" that you were prattling about back on page 3, has also been around since Reagan, and renewed under Clinton's 1997 QDR - even your hero Chomsky was railing against Clinton's Missile Defense. Nothing new there either.) Cyberspace - again, see Richard Clarke, Clinton administration, QDR 1997 and more. These elements are not a part of the GWOT; if the GWOT ended tomorrow, they would continue.

I know you know better than him, but Bill Clinton disagrees
Research, then post please.

Oh ho, the master researcher himself has chastized me!!
Wow, Bill Clinton, in an interview with Chris Wallace, what a source!!
Let me be more precise, Richard Clarke was not demoted prior to 9/11, as you implied. Following 9/11, Richard Clarke was given a new position, which some viewed as a demotion. Clinton may be thinking of this - or he may simply be being defensive and lashing out (Bill Clinton is not exactly known for being "rigorous with the truth"). Perhaps you could be more precise as well. How was Richard Clarke demoted? When? Why?

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

Keith Olbermann?? Oh, I am crying from laughing so hard!! I have truly learned the extent of your research skills today!!!

Cheers, junior! Look forward to reading more of your "work"!