The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Dave Rogers]

You stated:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers
Your faith in the determination of the Islamic world to support American interests is rather surprising


I.e. the Islamic world is antipathetic to US interests. Hence my comment.

Then I think I begin to see your problem. You see, this is all about interpretation, and the problem with disputing someone's interpretation is the uncertainty about what the original speaker actually meant. The one exception, as in this case, is when the original speaker is the one disputing the interpretation. There's a difference between saying that the Islamic world is unwilling to support American interests, saying that the Islamic world is antipathetic to American interests, and saying muslims hate America. There have been times when, for example, Britain has been unwilling to support American interests, without any actual antipathy - simply because American interests are not necessarily British interests, and sometimes they conflict. My original statement was not meant to mean "Muslims hate America", or even anything close to it; simply that their interests are not America's interests, and there is no reason why they should choose to make them so.

However, clearly when the sentence "Your faith in the determination of the Islamic world to support American interests is rather surprising" is placed before you, you see the sentence "Muslims hate America". That's not exactly surprising - we live in a world of soundbite news and superficial analysis so that the latest bulletin can fit in the 60 seconds allocated - but it seems to colour your judgement, so that the sentence "The process, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor - will necessarily be a slow one" appears to you as "We need a new Pearl Harbor to speed up change", and a vague suggestion of trial in an unspecified third country by a group of Islamic clerics, at least one of whom may be expected to be hostile to American interests, becomes a firm offer of handover of custody to the USA.

As I say, I can understand why you would reduce subtle gradations of meaning to a simple black-and-white analysis like this, but it's not surprising that your drastic oversimplifications lead to some quite unsupportable conclusions.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

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.

Actually, you think that AQ cells may be in the US and plotting a terrorist attack somewhere, at some time.

A statement of intent, or somethin that could be construed as such, would be deemed evidence in most courts.

If only you could produce that statement, eh ? So far you've argued it was "propitious", but not that they claimed they would do it.

 

[Belz...]

Hold on to your knickers....

Er... what were we talking about, just now ? I forgot.

 

[Belz...]

Firstly, this is an instance of an inference being made. All the points here that are accusing me of dealing with "interpretation", and thus my points have no value, since they don't deal with "facts" are stating that making an argument based on elementary inference is inadmissible to debate. My example instances the stupidity of such a point, which is little more than dolled up evasion.

But your point IS based on interpretation and interpolation, entirely. Whenever you see something you ADD more stuff to it. The document, the interview, etc. You keep thinking that there's more to it than you can see. Stick to what's actually there, please.

2ndly, for the millionth time, I am not saying that the statement alone is evidence enough to convict.

Yeah, you did. I answered that just a few posts ago.

1 word- propitious.

1 word- irrelevant.

 

[Belz...]

Then I think I begin to see your problem. You see, this is all about interpretation, and the problem with disputing someone's interpretation is the uncertainty about what the original speaker actually meant. The one exception, as in this case, is when the original speaker is the one disputing the interpretation. There's a difference between saying that the Islamic world is unwilling to support American interests, saying that the Islamic world is antipathetic to American interests, and saying muslims hate America. There have been times when, for example, Britain has been unwilling to support American interests, without any actual antipathy - simply because American interests are not necessarily British interests, and sometimes they conflict. My original statement was not meant to mean "Muslims hate America", or even anything close to it; simply that their interests are not America's interests, and there is no reason why they should choose to make them so.

However, clearly when the sentence "Your faith in the determination of the Islamic world to support American interests is rather surprising" is placed before you, you see the sentence "Muslims hate America". That's not exactly surprising - we live in a world of soundbite news and superficial analysis so that the latest bulletin can fit in the 60 seconds allocated - but it seems to colour your judgement, so that the sentence "The process, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor - will necessarily be a slow one" appears to you as "We need a new Pearl Harbor to speed up change", and a vague suggestion of trial in an unspecified third country by a group of Islamic clerics, at least one of whom may be expected to be hostile to American interests, becomes a firm offer of handover of custody to the USA.

As I say, I can understand why you would reduce subtle gradations of meaning to a simple black-and-white analysis like this, but it's not surprising that your drastic oversimplifications lead to some quite unsupportable conclusions.

Dave

A fine post, sir.

 

[JonnyFive]

This is answered in the video. There was no further recorded effort as to ascertain that answer made by the gov. They did nothing, as has been said many times already.

So if they don't answer that proves that it's true? That's an odd way of looking at it.

It is not not returning a question. It is a request from the Taleban, relayed by an, apparently, Afghan journalist, regarding the handover of the biggest terror threat to the US to a US client state. Is it a fact? It has been reported as fact by MSNBC, Counterpunch and others. All of these are more reputable news sources than you. You will have to show me how these reports are untrue, by other means than asking me to "prove" MSM press reports.

I have to show that third-party reports about something unverifiable are not true or you will automatically assume they are facts?

That is utterly bizarre. By the way, I never claimed to be a "news source," I simply asked you to provide substantiation for this story. Saying that the story was reported on MSNBC doesn't make it more true.

Look, some other people reported on it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,587849,00.html

Kind of lean on details though. Not very impressive.

But wait a minute, then there are statements like this:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/

In Afghanistan, a spokesman for the ruling Taliban, Mullah Abdullah, said that "bin Laden is safe and no damage has been done to any of his companions." Bin Laden has been living in Afghanistan with the permission of the Taliban, a fundamentalist Islamic group that controls most of the country.

And what abou this:
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CI13Ag03.html

In the wake of the bombings in Africa, the Taliban gave the Americans three options. The first was that the US government present concrete evidence showing bin Laden's involvement in terrorist activities, in which case he would be handed over. Secondly, if no evidence was forthcoming, the Taliban would try him in their own courts under Islamic law. If found guilty, he would be punished accordingly. The third option was to gather Islamic scholars from around the world to decide on the case.

The United States rejected all of these, and countered that bin Laden be handed to a country other than the US, where he would stand trial. The Taliban government found this unacceptable.

So the Taliban may have, and I should stress may here, been willing to hand over Bin Laden if and only if their standards of "concrete evidence" were met. This is the theocratic, repressive, internationally combative Taliban we're talking about, so how likely do you think it is they're working with a "reasonable doubt" standard of evidence? The other two options are similar BS - ways for the Taliban to save face without having to actually do anything. Unless, you know, you actually think the Islamic courts in Afghanistan would have found Bin Laden guilty. Somehow, I find that unlikely. Bin Laden enjoyed the hospitality of the Taliban government until it was displaced by the US invasion, so I somehow doubt they would suddenly try and convict him because the US wanted it.

And, of course, they utterly rejected the idea of the neutral-third-party option.

But you, on the unanswered question of some guy, have decided that this whole offer was totally legit. Never mind that it is inconsistent with Taliban behavior or past policy. Never mind that, even if the offer was made, the chances of it having been legitimate are basically nil. So the Taliban, which had been harboring Bin Laden and his group for years, is going to suddenly switch sides and hand him over? Maybe they'll clean up their brutal theocracy while they're at it. Oh wait, that makes no good goddamn sense.

If you're going to argue from your predefined point of view without considering alternatives, mjd, you could at least be subtle about it. I asked you for more definite proof that this story was true, and you responded by parroting the claims you already made and saying basically that if it weren't proven to be false, it is essentially true.

Well, I look at it a bit differently (and I suspect that most of the people here share my view on this). I see that you haven't shown much in the way of evidence for your claim. Moreover, the behavior you ascribe to the Taliban is inconsistent with their past policies or actions, especially with regards to Bin Laden. Thus, your claim (that the US being offered a handover was both factually correct and legitimate) is extraordinary, and requires concrete evidence. Government memos, direct statements, historical accounts from first-person sources.

 

[mjd1982]

The problem is that in our opinion the sum total of ALL your evidence isn't enough to even prompt a new investigation, much less convict.

You may think otherwise, and that's your right. You seem to think that you pretty much have it all figured out, so if your evidence is so strong the next step is to convince somebody who has the power to subpoena witnesses and punish people who lie on the stand that you have enough evidence to power a new investigation.

You also need to prepare yourself for the very real possibility that nobody who has any power to actually conduct a real investigation will think your evidence is very compelling.

That's a fantastic argument, well done.

In short, it is reflective of about 90% of the posts here~ "You think your right, but your wrong".

If you have a germane point to make, make it. A post like that is worthless.

 

[mjd1982]

I'd like to check this out. Who is this reporter?

I dont know his name

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

 

[mjd1982]

Just so you know - prior to 9/11 it was not illegal to belong to al Qaeda in the US. It was only after the Congress passed the Authorization For Use Of Military Force (which is a de facto declaration of war) post-9/11 that the US could arrest someone merely for being a member of al Qaeda. But it is not against the law in the US for someone to merely be a member of a criminal gang, nor are there outlawed groups or political parties such as you have in Europe and elsewhere in the world.

They dont have to be arrested. Just an attempt to locate them, track them etc. This is not hard to understand.

Your own sources say this was already underway, hence the warnings.

No, they knew there were cells, different.

It was already as tight as it was going to get in the pre-9/11 world. No way the public would have accepted post-9/11 airport style security pre-9/11. Many campaign against it even now.

And it still happens, so it doesnt matter.

 

[mjd1982]

No, it is still only one source - the India Globe. No matter how many other papers report it, they were merely repeating the India Globe story, as was the journalist at the White House press conference apparently.

Hahaha... accordng to who is it one source?

 

[mjd1982]

NO you read.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html

Ok, so you are not going to read the link I posted you, a translation done by myself which answers your question.

Such makes it pretty clear why you believe the tripe you do.

It goes on pal, try getting off your conspiracy web sites and look at the real world, the real warnings, many more than just 40.

I didnt say 40 warnngs, I said 40 PDBs. Read more carefully.

Now your article. It proves precisely what I was saying. Tell me where in that mass is there a detail of what the Bush admin did to combat the unprecedented terror warnings. They moved some ships once, okay. Apart from that? Nothing. The other quotes just show what I was saying- there were loads of warnings, but they didnt care to listen to them.

Try looking at what

they actually tried to do about them. Maybe you could save your arrogance for somebody gives a monkeys what you think.

That's not really english; in any case, as above

You plot, speculation and almost laughable delusions are worthy a Hollywood movie, good luck with your script, maybe you can get your youtube up soon. It is easy to pretend and imagine you have stumped onto something, act all arrogant because people dismiss you

dismissal is arrogance. I present the facts, the odd simple interpolation, and ask people to debate them. They dont. Very simple.

and pretend you are the real investigator. You are not, you are some guy who reads too much junk on conspiracy web sites,

911blogger, that's it, infowars occasionally

comes up with poorly worded scripts and tries to make out that the US

aided Al Qaeda. You accuse the [/COLOR]US of doing nothing although they tried their hardest,

Hahaha.. yeh, doing nothing is very diligent!

you accuse their intelligence services of not only failing to protect but purposefully failing.

I havent accused the intel of anything, i dont think

Reality is pal, there was a lot going on at the time, lots of warnings and lots of actions actually taken to protect you.

such as?

The protection that you take for granted was done by real people, who love their country and their fellow country men far more than you ever will.

errr... substance please

You accuse them of purposefully allowing 911 to happen; you accuse them of being party to it. You do so on wide speculation. The possibility of anything else is beyond you.

Then debate it. My points are clearly listed, try and argue them.

 

[mjd1982]

mjd, I can see what you are attempting to do here for making a case, but the evidence needed to connect PNAC to 9/11 needs to be more than an adjective.

Oh boy... All the PNAC doc does is give a basis. A new PH was deemed propitious. Simple. This then allows us to view the 9 mths of ignored warnings of such with clarity.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

An event that takes place (such as writing a document called PNAC) before an election is not a conspiracy to make 9/11 propitious to a noted exception..

A conspiracy to make something propitious? Doesnt make sense my friend, think before you write please.

i.e. an exception to the spirit of the document. You are smart enough to understand what PNAC intended; The long term is specified, UNLESS...something disastrous occurs or the USA is attacked.

Wrong. The changes would not necessarily not be long term, they would just happen quicker. Big difference.

There is no evidence to connect PNAC to 9/11... UNLESS, as you reiterate, adjectives referring to conditions as favorable is what is construed as evidence.

As above. They deemed it propitious; they ignored a LITANY of warnings for 9mths leadig up to it.

If you want to debate the former point, its #493. The latter, is at the top of this section. Obviously, very few want to touch either.


The reason I referred you to read Myriads post is because of the obstacles facing you regarding a new investigation. I will quote some for you;

Why are you posting Myriads quote again asking for answers, when I have already given you such answers? Please read what I send you,

 

[mjd1982]

You completely mischaracterize the August 6, 2001 PDB. It was an update on Al Qaeda put together specifically because Bush asked that it be put together. So they compiled an intelligence summary and a list of the various threats that had been registered - all of which arrived long before he was president. Get it? This was not new information. There was absolutely no indication of anything suddenly being imminent as of August 6, or any time preceding it.

If the intelligence was so actionable on August 6, 2001, why wasn't it actionable back in 1997 - 1999 when it first came in?

Please clarify.

Right. Not new information.

FBI information since that time indicates patterns of FBI information since that time indicates patterns of
suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for
hijackings or other types of attacks

What is your point? Why is this so hard for you to research?

And this is one PDB of 40

 

[Augustine]

Too precious. Ok, let's start by asking where the hell have I ever mentioned the "India Globe"?

What a silly post. So we have something that is reported by multiple mainstream sources, but you are refusing to believe it because you cannot find a corroborative public statement on it from the Taleban from 6 years ago? How utterly deluded you must be. This has been reported by multiple sources. I will tell you again- MSNBC, Counterpunch, and yes, the India Globe, are far more reputable news collection sources than you. Or me. If you want to dispute what they have collected and reported as news, which has been also captured on tape by an (apparently) Afghan journalist, who presumably will have ties with the Taleban, you have a hell of a lot of work to do. Go and do it, I will wait.
....
Haha... nice gag.

Please tell us why you are basing this argument on your "one source" argument, when you have zero evidence for it? You are just making this up, I am well aware, so maybe you can tell us all why?

Frankly, I am not surprised that you do not understand the source of your own claims. You must have been absent the day critical thinking and evaluation of sources was taught at Oxford. (Or you are as intellectually dishonest as Chomsky.) The original story was in the India Globe. The question at the press conference was not from an Afghani journalist, which is sheer fantasy on your part, but was based on the India Globe story. In fact, the part Olbermann omits (in an act of intellectual dishonesty) is the beginning where the reporter starts, "Ari, according to the India Globe...". (This is why Olbermann is a partisan hack.) What do you know about the India Globe, or Raghubir Goyal? What is his circulation? Is he a suddenly reputable news source because you like that report? How delusional.

The simple fact is that it would defy logic that the Taliban would make this offer, in opposition to all previous indicators, ostensibly for the purpose of lifting UN sanctions, and then NEVER COMPLAIN to the UN that they were willing to comply!! You STILL have no rational explanation for this. Why? You have NO corroborating source. You have NOTHING but a fantasy that the press conference was an imaginary Afghani journalist relaying a Taliban offer....this would be amusing if it wasn't so sad.

My friend, I answer almost every point of every post here. The ones I dont, are because they have no relevance, or I think the poster is not being serious. I can guarantee that your question here has no relevance. Tell me how it does, and if I am wrong, I will answer it for you.

Why don't you include the full quote so others can judge its relevance, Junior Olbermann?

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?

The point here is that if you examine historical defense transformations that occurred due to a catastrophic, catalyzing event, in almost no case would people choose the catastrophic, catalyzing event IF they could have identified the necessary transformation without it. Your underlying premise is flawed, and consequently you evade this question.

No, he didnt perform the exact same duties, he no longer dealt with the principals. This is because he was demoted to dealiing with deputies. Accept it and move on.

He performed the exact same duties. Dealing with principals was never in the job description. His position was not a Cabinet-level position. It also was not a position where confirmation was required, it was an appointed position. The fact that Bush followed protocol more than Clinton does not represent a demotion.

 

[mjd1982]

REALLY???????? Isn't it what you asked for? Provide an instance. I did and you didn't like it. Would you like me to quote you again where you asked for this exact thing? I can if you would like.

EVERYONE here has been telling you OVER AND OVER again how your argument is flawed. 34 pages. ALL of your responses are to these people who are saying YOUR ARGUMENT IS FLAWED. 900+ posts of people telling you that you are wrong, your argument is flawed. So, the instance I provided IS OF VALUE. You just don't want it to be. Why is it of zero value now, you asked for an instance? Oh I know...because you are WRONG.

Wrong...look it up in the dictionary, it is "astonishingly elementary."

No, I said to instance how what the poster said was true, i.e. that all my rebuttals are whatever. Showing one example of one thing is neither here nor there, since it is not germane to the accusation. This is pretty simple.

The rest of your post is typical of what is posted here, as I have just said ~ "You think you're right, but you're not".

If you have something of value to write, i.e. a direct refutation to an argument (a la debate), then go ahead. If not, what you write will continue to be,yes, worthless.

 

[Augustine]

Oh, and the reporter states it as fact. "The Taleban in Afghanistan they have offered that they are ready to hand over OBL..."

The reporter does not state it as fact. He qualifies it. In the full press conference clip, the reporter starts with "Ari, according to the India Globe, ..."

THINK AND RESEARCH BEFORE YOU POST.

 

[mjd1982]

I lost the thread of your last post, if u can be more clear maybe Ill have more of a chance. Now...

Lets go through this slowly step by step...
1. First you tried to show an example of how in some cases you can assume something so clearly that it can be acceoted as fact.

Hmmm.... more or less. Maybe not quite fact, but something that is overwhelmingly likely.

2. You use an exaple using a staement that you really want to play football tomorrow but you can't if it rains, and say that this is clearly your desire that it not rain tomorrow.
3. I point out at least one circumstance where you could want it to rain more than your desire to play football, showing once again what happens when you assume.

Pfff... this is pointless to the totality of the notion, but go on

4. Then you switch to the statement "if we can kill Jimmy blah blah blah propitous to my plan" and say that this is an example of the undeniable assumption.
5. I point out that your statement does not call for an assumption since it is plainly stated "if we" as opposed to "if someone were". The PNAC does not say "if we can cause a new PH", it says lacking a new PH (no specific on who causes it)

Wrong. Nowhere in the statement does it say "We want to kill Jimmy." (i.e. the "assumption" being made). I.e. the assumption is not stated, it is inferred, very simply.

Similarly, PNAC states something, we make an inference, and come to a conclusion. This is the notion at stake here, not anything else. The most common argument made here is that inference is not something that can be used in debate- clearly stupid, and clearly evasive. This exchange is intended to illustrate that stupidity, so we can proceed sensibly.

6. Then you ask if your "if we kill jimmy" statement is a worthwhile indicator, yes or no, but this is not what we are debating on this point. We are debating if the statement requires an assumption, not whether or not it states your desire to kill Jimmy.

Right, which desire can only be ascertained by making said "assumption".

So yes or no.

7. So yes it would be a worthwile indicator that you want to kill Jimmy, but it is not an assumption so it is meaningless to our discussion.

1st part good, 2nd part, yes it is, since nowhere does the person state "I want to kill Jimmy". We interpret this due to our assumption that he wants money, power etc, that he is still murderously inclned, and that scumbag is not an affectionate term for a mate, rather a perjorative term for someone he mght want killed. Simple.

8. proving that you still can't assume anything as being certain.

as above

Extra credit question
Jimmy has received multiple warnings that MJD1982 want to kill him, but has done absolutly nothing to stop him. Does that mean it is propitous to Jimmy to be killed?

This is neither here nor there, but the answer cannot be transmuted to 911, since Jimmy has no legal duty to protect himself from death, a duty that cannot be vitiated by any other factors, moreover.

 

[mjd1982]

A better anaolgy is the mob boss saying, "If Jimmy wasn't around any more we'd find it a lot easier." To extend it would be when Jimmy gets killed in a plane crash 6 months later and the offical report concludes that ice build up on the wings due to the snow that was falling while it waited on the taxiway, lead to the plane failing to get enough lift on take off which lead to it failing to clear the row of trees beyond the runway, a bunch of CT's start shouting that the mob shot the plane down to kill off Jimmy.

No, since all we are illustrating here is the validity or not of using inference in debate.

 

[mjd1982]

That's perfect.

The founder of this fine thread keeps acting as if no investigation into the cause of 9/11 has ever been done, and that we're starting from a blank slate. If that were true, maybe the PNAC statement would actually be a lead.

But once the mountain of evidence is built in the other direction, you dismiss it.

I don't see what's so hard about that.

This has been illustrated almost at the start of the thread, how the 911 commission was inept, and insufficient as an investigation. Please keep up.

 

[mjd1982]

Then I think I begin to see your problem. You see, this is all about interpretation, and the problem with disputing someone's interpretation is the uncertainty about what the original speaker actually meant. The one exception, as in this case, is when the original speaker is the one disputing the interpretation. There's a difference between saying that the Islamic world is unwilling to support American interests, saying that the Islamic world is antipathetic to American interests, and saying muslims hate America. There have been times when, for example, Britain has been unwilling to support American interests, without any actual antipathy - simply because American interests are not necessarily British interests, and sometimes they conflict. My original statement was not meant to mean "Muslims hate America", or even anything close to it; simply that their interests are not America's interests, and there is no reason why they should choose to make them so.

However, clearly when the sentence "Your faith in the determination of the Islamic world to support American interests is rather surprising" is placed before you, you see the sentence "Muslims hate America". That's not exactly surprising - we live in a world of soundbite news and superficial analysis so that the latest bulletin can fit in the 60 seconds allocated - but it seems to colour your judgement, so that the sentence "The process, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor - will necessarily be a slow one" appears to you as "We need a new Pearl Harbor to speed up change", and a vague suggestion of trial in an unspecified third country by a group of Islamic clerics, at least one of whom may be expected to be hostile to American interests, becomes a firm offer of handover of custody to the USA.

As I say, I can understand why you would reduce subtle gradations of meaning to a simple black-and-white analysis like this, but it's not surprising that your drastic oversimplifications lead to some quite unsupportable conclusions.

Dave

I accept this was perhaps a bit of a hasty interpolation, and I apologise for it.

This of course has no bearing on any of the rest of the argument.