The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[stateofgrace]

My point was about the idea of an "Islamic world" hating the US.

I addressed your point about "coming clean" to someone else with a link here

In short, how do they know that its an inside job.

I never once said the Islamic world hated the US. I have stated repeatedly that radicalised fundamentalists dislike US foreign policy. Unlike yourself who as now tried to categorise the entire Muslim community as US haters I carry no such beliefs. In the same way I would never blame the entire catholic community for the actions of the IRA, I would never blame the entire Islamic world for the actions of a few. I take it you fail to understand that the only thing on this planet that is stopping the spread of the ideology of Al Qaeda is the Muslim community. The very people that you seem to think hates us are the thin line that by enlarge rejects Al Qaeda and actually stops it from spreading.

I read a poll recently, I cannot get my hands on it at the moment but it suggested that something like 16% of young Muslims in the UK, between the ages of 18 and 25 agreed with Al Qaeda and supported the notion of another 911 style attack on the US. Does that not bother you? Are you not concerned by this? I am, I would like to know why so many would support this and I would like to know what the polices makers in the UK are doing to stop it. But here is a thought, maybe just maybe they feel this way is because fools accuse the entire Islamic world of hating us, they dismiss people who promote and subscribe to this ideology as being stupid and dismiss the history behind it. Just maybe being ignored and not listening to is actually one of the biggest reasons the ideology of Al Qaeda is spreading. Makes you wonder does it not?

Equally so are you seriously suggesting that the very people who spread this ideology are blissfully unaware they are being framed for the attack on the US? I kind of get the impression your arrogance is getting the better of you and to state such a thing is to simply dismiss these people as fools and idiots who have no idea what is going on in the world. By making such a suggestion you are claiming to know better then them and you are far more knowledgeable then those who subscribe to the Al Qaeda ideology, in fact you have just dismissed a small portion of Muslims who subscribe to it and an ever larger potion that try their hardest to stop its' spread.

 

[Billdave2]

There is a difference between and assumption and an interpretation. I am taking this comment, which is the only statement in the doc regarding "How, soon", and interpreted it, reaching a pretty robust conclusion as evinced by the 3 statements above. If you wish to differ with these conclusions, it is completely worthless to state "Its an interpretation/assumption" unless you are willing to proffer your own to challenge it.

To give 1 example of how basically wrong and completely warped a piece of reasoning yours is, look at a scenario where we know that a gangland boss has stated "If we can kill that insignificant scumbag Jimmy, who I hate unreservedly, everything will be ours- the money, the power, the prestige. How fantastic that will all be." Anyone would interpret this to mean tht the dude wants Jimmy dead. However, under your twisted "rules", as followed by many others on this forum, we cannot say that, since it would be an "assumption", worthless, and as such there is no evidence of preference on the dude's behalf as to whether Jimmy should live or die, simply because it is not stated in so many words. Moreover, such a comment cannot even be debated, since it would be debating assumptions. And thus, this is zero evidence for any intent.

Well I see you have tried to change your example of a situation where an assumption can be taken for fact. Unfortunantly I do not beleive this is applicable either unless you can show where in the PNAC it says "if we can cause or let a New Pearl Harbor happen we will get what we want". This example doesn't even call for speculation. The fact is anytime you have to speculate or try to determine what someone else is implying, you do not have fact. Evidence of fact and assumption/speculation are mutually exculsive ideas. You can debate assumptions if you like, you just have to aknowledge the hypothetical nature, and not leap to conclusions and call you assumptions facts.

 

[Billdave2]

Once again, I will ask you to respond to #493, otherwise you are just repeating your own point, instead of addressing mine.

I would also advise you to read, since you do not seem to be clear on what the WOT is actually entailing.

You asked me how a slow build up could be preferable to the quicker new PH version and I answered your question. Now that I have answered your question you send me back to post #493 which is where we started. Do you see the circular logic here?

As to the WOT, so far it has mostly involved ground troops invading and holding enemy territory, while trying to physically destroy any enemy we find. I would say that is about as radical and new as cavemen throwing rocks at each other, so how does this meet the goals of the PNAC calling for massive R&D to develop high tech weapons?

 

[T.A.M.]

Welcome to the forum Billdave2.

TAM

 

[Billdave2]

The 911 Comm report. It states that despite 40 pdb's stating that AQ were plotting an imminent attack on US interests, including that there were AQ cells in the country plotting hijackings, nothing was done by the pres.

In terms of what to do, order that measures be taken to find the hijackers, step up airport security, accept OBL's hand over to Saudi. I have stated this many many many times here.

And your evidence that no one was doing anything to prevent the attacks (You said "nothing was done")? Also how many other warnings did they recieve about attacks in other places/ways? 40 warnings out of 40 I would say how could they not do more to stop this, but 40 out of 4000 (which is much closer to the real world) and how do they separate the wheat from the chaff? The old saying that hindsight is 20/20 is an old saying for a reason.

 

[JonnyFive]

yes, it is a recording of that exchange.

Please tell me how this could be more

Well, it could actually involve some kind of direct statement that implies that the event in question actually happened.

Perhaps, for you, "no comment" = "that is true" but for me it means that this recording you present as proof is proof of absolutely nothing. At the most, all you can do is insinuate that by refusing to flatly deny the question (something routinely done to avoid talking about irrelevant issues) the representative has something to hide.

That's pretty damn weak, mjd. Do you have anything else to back that accusation up? You're using the "fact" that the government "turned down" OBL as a talking point, and you can't even back it with more than a paranoid insinuation?

 

[nicepants]

If you know that AQ cells are in the US and plotting a terrorist attack, deemed a "Hiroshima on US soil", it is very very hard to do nothing. That takes ~effort.

What, specifically, should have been done? You know there are AQ terror cells in the us...SOMEWHERE. How do you find them, and neutralize the threat, all while avoiding violating the constitutional rights of your other citizens, and abiding by US law?

 

[JonnyFive]

What, specifically, should have been done? You know there are AQ terror cells in the us...SOMEWHERE. How do you find them, and neutralize the threat, all while avoiding violating the constitutional rights of your other citizens, and abiding by US law?

If I were the President, I would've just called Jack Bauer around 8:00 am on September 10^th, 2001.

Oh, wait, you said avoiding violating Constitutional rights. Never mind then, I've got nothing.

 

[mjd1982]

I never once said the Islamic world hated the US. I have stated repeatedly that radicalised fundamentalists dislike US foreign policy. Unlike yourself who as now tried to categorise the entire Muslim community as US haters I carry no such beliefs. In the same way I would never blame the entire catholic community for the actions of the IRA, I would never blame the entire Islamic world for the actions of a few. I take it you fail to understand that the only thing on this planet that is stopping the spread of the ideology of Al Qaeda is the Muslim community. The very people that you seem to think hates us are the thin line that by enlarge rejects Al Qaeda and actually stops it from spreading.

Please read the post to which you are referring before you post, it will save you and others a lot of time.

The original point was that the OBL offer was pointless since trying him in an Islamic country (if that was indeed the offer) is going to go his way, since muslims hate the US, according to Dave Rogers (?). I disputed this, ~#1200.

Oh, and I am a Muslim.

I read a poll recently, I cannot get my hands on it at the moment but it suggested that something like 16% of young Muslims in the UK, between the ages of 18 and 25 agreed with Al Qaeda and supported the notion of another 911 style attack on the US. Does that not bother you? Are you not concerned by this? I am, I would like to know why so many would support this and I would like to know what the polices makers in the UK are doing to stop it. But here is a thought, maybe just maybe they feel this way is because fools accuse the entire Islamic world of hating us, they dismiss people who promote and subscribe to this ideology as being stupid and dismiss the history behind it. Just maybe being ignored and not listening to is actually one of the biggest reasons the ideology of Al Qaeda is spreading. Makes you wonder does it not?

Do your research please:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article682599.ece

Equally so are you seriously suggesting that the very people who spread this ideology are blissfully unaware they are being framed for the attack on the US? I kind of get the impression your arrogance is getting the better of you and to state such a thing is to simply dismiss these people as fools and idiots who have no idea what is going on in the world. By making such a suggestion you are claiming to know better then them and you are far more knowledgeable then those who subscribe to the Al Qaeda ideology, in fact you have just dismissed a small portion of Muslims who subscribe to it and an ever larger potion that try their hardest to stop its' spread.

They are not being framed, they did it. They were just assisted.

This should not be hard to understand.

 

[mjd1982]

Well I see you have tried to change your example of a situation where an assumption can be taken for fact. Unfortunantly I do not beleive this is applicable either unless you can show where in the PNAC it says "if we can cause or let a New Pearl Harbor happen we will get what we want". This example doesn't even call for speculation. The fact is anytime you have to speculate or try to determine what someone else is implying, you do not have fact. Evidence of fact and assumption/speculation are mutually exculsive ideas. You can debate assumptions if you like, you just have to aknowledge the hypothetical nature, and not leap to conclusions and call you assumptions facts.

Good. So you are stating that in the example I have listed, the comment is worthless as an indicator of intent? Yes or no please.

 

[mjd1982]

You asked me how a slow build up could be preferable to the quicker new PH version and I answered your question. Now that I have answered your question you send me back to post #493 which is where we started. Do you see the circular logic here?

As to the WOT, so far it has mostly involved ground troops invading and holding enemy territory, while trying to physically destroy any enemy we find. I would say that is about as radical and new as cavemen throwing rocks at each other, so how does this meet the goals of the PNAC calling for massive R&D to develop high tech weapons?

Again, just ridiculous, I'm sorry. I started at #493, but you clearly didnt, since you have not addressed that post. You have addressed its broad import, i.e. that the attacks were deemed propitious, but you have chosen not to address the points. Please go back and do this, bearing in mind what I have told you about differentiating between assumption and interpretation.

Finally, again to illustrate your intransigence in doing the most simple research, I gave you a link where I have shown what the WOT is actually entailing, but you have decided to ignore that, and regurgitate your opinion. If you want to know what the WOT is entailing, go and read that link please.

 

[mjd1982]

And your evidence that no one was doing anything to prevent the attacks (You said "nothing was done")? Also how many other warnings did they recieve about attacks in other places/ways? 40 warnings out of 40 I would say how could they not do more to stop this, but 40 out of 4000 (which is much closer to the real world) and how do they separate the wheat from the chaff? The old saying that hindsight is 20/20 is an old saying for a reason.

This has been dealt with time and time again. 1stly, I said nothing was done by Bush et al in response to the terror warnings. This is stated by the 911 Comm. Please don't ask me to prove that they are not lying.

2ndly, you do not appear to know what a PDB is. Every weekday morning, the president and some principals meet with the DCI (Director of Central Intelligence), who triangulates the most important intel for them to hear. ~30 weeks b4 911, and 40 warnings. I.e. he was told more than once every 4 days that AQ were planning an attack on US interests; zero follow up. These warnings were "unprecedented" in their scale, according to Tenet.

 

[mjd1982]

Well, it could actually involve some kind of direct statement that implies that the event in question actually happened.

Perhaps, for you, "no comment" = "that is true" but for me it means that this recording you present as proof is proof of absolutely nothing. At the most, all you can do is insinuate that by refusing to flatly deny the question (something routinely done to avoid talking about irrelevant issues) the representative has something to hide.

That's pretty damn weak, mjd. Do you have anything else to back that accusation up? You're using the "fact" that the government "turned down" OBL as a talking point, and you can't even back it with more than a paranoid insinuation?

Sorry, but what are you talking about? Where does "no comment" come into this?

We have video of a journalist asking the WH what they are going to do about the Taleban's offer of OBL on a plate. The WH state, "We'll get back to you", and then they do absolutely nothing, never. This offer was reported on and endorsed by Olbermann and Cockburn amongst others.

What more do you want? How can anyone who questions this not be living in la-la land?

 

[JonnyFive]

Sorry, but what are you talking about? Where does "no comment" come into this?

We have video of a journalist asking the WH what they are going to do about the Taleban's offer of OBL on a plate. The WH state, "We'll get back to you", and then they do absolutely nothing, never. This offer was reported on and endorsed by Olbermann and Cockburn amongst others.

Mjd, when a public relations rep tells someone they will "get back to you" on something and never does, they're either "no commenting" the question and never intend to answer, or they genuinely checked, got laughed at for asking a dumb question, and do not intend to justify said dumb question with a response.

Any word on whether or not the reporter in question tried to follow-up on the story? Did they ever track down any evidence that such a claim was actually true or not? If so, did they find evidence that such an offer would be valid?

What more do you want? How can anyone who questions this not be living in la-la land?

Something concrete, mjd. Someone not returning a question from some random reporter isn't proof enough to elevate your claim to "fact" status.

Of course, maybe it does in this "la-la land" you speak of. I wouldn't know, I've never been.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The original point was that the OBL offer was pointless since trying him in an Islamic country (if that was indeed the offer) is going to go his way, since muslims hate the US, according to Dave Rogers (?). I disputed this, ~#1200.

Perhaps you could remind me of the post in which I stated that Muslims hate the US - perhaps by giving the post number, or a link, or some such.

Dave

 

[Unsecured Coins]

Perhaps you could remind me of the post in which I stated that Muslims hate the US - perhaps by giving the post number, or a link, or some such.

Dave

Said hate of Muslims towards Americans was implied in the PNAC doc, Dave! Didn't you read it? Because if you had, then you agree that Muslims hate Americans because it was in there. Yeah.

 

[gumboot]

This has been dealt with time and time again. 1stly, I said nothing was done by Bush et al in response to the terror warnings. This is stated by the 911 Comm. Please don't ask me to prove that they are not lying.

2ndly, you do not appear to know what a PDB is. Every weekday morning, the president and some principals meet with the DCI (Director of Central Intelligence), who triangulates the most important intel for them to hear. ~30 weeks b4 911, and 40 warnings. I.e. he was told more than once every 4 days that AQ were planning an attack on US interests; zero follow up. These warnings were "unprecedented" in their scale, according to Tenet.

And yet the Presidential Daily Briefing only five weeks prior to the attacks contained only a historic reference to Osama Bin Laden's three year old declaration that he wanted to strike within the USA.

Unless the US intelligence advisers are utterly inept, it stands to reason that as late as five weeks before the attacks the US Intelligence Community had no current intelligence indicating Al Qaeda was planning a major terrorist attack.

-Gumboot

 

[nicepants]

They are not being framed, they did it. They were just assisted.
This should not be hard to understand.

Oh, I get it. Al-queda hates america and americans, yet decided to co-operate with the US-government on this attack.

And how were they "assisted"? Oh, right..they weren't stopped.

So if you don't or can't stop someone from committing a crime, you're assisting, or "massaging".

 

[Augustine]

The offer was not to have him tried by some Taliban clerics under Shariah law in Afghanistan. It was to have him tried in a US client/proxy state, Saudi Arabia. How this could realistically be a much more favourable offer, i would like to know.

What is your source for this? The India Globe. The question in the press conference is not corroborating evidence, it is still based on a report in the India Globe. Olbermann replays the press conference clip, it is still based on ONE SOURCE, the India Globe.

Let me ask you a question. Supposedly the Taliban’s motivation for all this is the effect the UN sanctions were having, yes? (Do you even know what the UN Resolutions were?) Now, according to you, based on your one source, the Taliban made an offer that would have complied with the Resolution and lifted the sanctions. Yet, YOU CANNOT CITE A SINGLE GOVERNMENT STATEMENT FROM THE TALIBAN that this offer existed!!! Why?? You would think they would be screaming this at the UN, because it would LIFT SANCTIONS! They are willing to comply, LIFT SANCTIONS! And yet….nothing. Silence. Why do you think this is? The most obvious explanation, and the simplest, and the one which most accurately explains why this offer disappears immediately, is that there never was an offer which complied with the resolution. It was to try UBL under Islamic Law, not to turn him over.

Well, you may be right. Though I would perhaps be interesting in reading non neo con military strategy docs at some point, since this has nothing to do with the point at hand, it is of little interest to me now. I will explain this to you again.

Just because such ideas had been conceived, or even if such ideas had started to be implemented, this does not mean that 911 would not have been propitious to policy. If, as I think you have acknowledged at another point, you realise that changes happen quicker in a time of "deadly war", than in peace, then you will understand both my point, and that of PNAC when they state that such changes need a new PH to happen in quicker time.

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?

Oh, and your "evasion will be noted by all".

if you want to argue the points,go ahead. If not, your evasion wil be noted by all.

Your circular reasoning has already been noted by all.
It is ironic that there was exponentially greater evidence of WMDs in Iraq than your evidence of PNAC being a precursor for 9/11.

Since this point has zero value, there is no need to address it and my original point remains uncontested

Your original point had zero value. Word-search the 1997 QDR for “radical”. Better yet, read it.

Demotion by title is meaningless, effectively. Demotion by role is all that matters.

This should not be hard to understant.

So that is all your evidence for demotion. He kept the exact same job title, performed the exact same job, and was paid the exact same salary. Some demotion.

Good. So if it is such lousy evidence, you should have no problem debunking it. I will, and have been, waiting for such.

While your at it, you may want to get in touch with MSNBC and let them know about the gross mendacity of ther lead anchor. Until you do, your argument is yet the more worthless.

Read above. There is still only one source. Olbermann is not the MSNBC lead anchor, BTW. Why does my writing a letter to MSNBC have any bearing on my pointing out that the story is still based on one single source? Logic, my little friend, USE it.

 

[Augustine]

Of course, such reasoning implies that were you president and told that AQ had cells in the US and were plotting to attack the US, you would do nothing.
Please confirm this is the case

It would depend on what “actionable intelligence” I had. Very little can be done with vague indicators. Sounds like you would have enacted the Patriot Act right after being sworn in. I take it you support it? Please confirm this is the case.

Errr... excuse me, but this is unadulterated, steaming, stinking nonsense.

I have a 10 minute editorial piece from the lead anchor of one of the biggest news orgs in the world. You have posted an article yourself, and there is also one, according to Pomeroo, from Alex Cockburn, the editor of the Nation. So it was widely reported. Now, what you are arguing, is that if there were strings attached, then that means that the press had no need to report it; nothing, nowhere. This is of course, garbage, since the press reports trivialities day after day after day. The offer of the biggest single human threat to civilian life in the US being offered on trial in a US client state, or anywhere else for that matter, is news I'm afraid, and if you want to know a more likely explanation why everyone does not know about it, you may want to read the many books and vids I have linked you and others to re: mass media as propaganda.

In any case, you still have to explain why you, in your position of relative total ignorance are calling Cockburn and Olbermann liars.

Read previous post. (Cockburn is not editor of Nation, BTW. Research!) Still single source story. (Also, didn’t Chomsky tell you not to trust propaganda? Or is that just propaganda that you don’t like? Google Operation Tailwind and retraction. Or maybe just Dan Rather.) Single source. No peep from Taliban government. No complaints to UN, no evidence of readiness to comply with sanctions.

P.S. I have not called Cockburn or Olbermann liars. They are merely repeating a single source story that has never been corroborated. Liars? More like sloppy, partisan reporters. You don't see me quoting Drudge as a single source do you?

Even if Mullah Omar had "promised", the offer would still be possible, since the reneging of it would not be impossible. Brain is your friend, us it.

This is like Bugs Bunny. You are so eager to argue you will argue in a circle against yourself. Need I remind you that you were arguing against my use of the word "possible" to describe the offer?