The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

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

Yes, information since 1998. Nothing new or, more importantly, actionable here.



Wrong. It was the only PDB specifically about AQ and Bin Laden. There were 40 other "articles" concerning AQ, where it was just one of several topics covered in a particular PDB. Which is completely different. But I think you knew that.

And it's not surprising they were a frequent topic. It's not like they'd been flying below the radar. And chatter had apparently been building throughout 2000 and 2001. Your problem is that you conflate chatter with actionable intelligence.

Not that I expect you to acknowledge the difference. You seem to have taken a right turn out of reality somewhere along the way.

You point to the 70 AQ related FBI investigations as a sign that they weren't taking things seriously; that they were ignoring actionable intelligence and sitting on their hands.

Think about that for a second.

Since 98, i.e. still ongoing, indicates patterns of activity consistent with hijackings, ie. activity which is happening now; hijackings to happen soon. Pretty basic reading comp.

2ndly, this is, unless I am very much mistaken, 1 document from 6th August PDB, which are the summation of all the previous days intel. Hence the point that at 40 such PDB's, there were intel reports of similar import, i.e. that AQ were plotting an imminent attack on US interests. Bush did nothing, but you, nor your colleagues, seem to have a problem with this. What a responsible alert citizen you seem to be. Well done!

Oh, and also, yes there had been chatter in 2000, and a hell of a lot had been done back then. This was then turned off on Jan 20 2001. U read Clarke's book? Read it, it will be instructive to you. Also watch this for more.

And your penultimate para, I have no idea what you are talking about. Explain it if u like.

 

[mjd1982]

Really? Tripe like this?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Al-Qaeda-True-Story-Radical-Islam/dp/0141019123/ref=pd_bowtega_2/026-1524121-9995632?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182870861&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Looming-Tower-Al-Qaeda-Road-11/dp/037541486X/ref=sr_1_7/026-1524121-9995632?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182870861&sr=1-7

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ghost-Wars-Secret-History-Afghanistan/dp/0141020806/ref=pd_bowtega_1/026-1524121-9995632?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182870924&sr=1-1

All independent researchers, none of whom agree with you.

Welcome to ignore, you are first person to ever go on it, I have neither the time nor patience to bother responding to the rest of your drivel. You are accusing the President of the United States of being party to mass murder of 3000 US citizens.

Errr, then what the hell are you doing on a 911 related forum?! The question has to be asked; I dont expect a sobre answer, dont worry.

 

[HyJinX]

I'll see your hotness and raise you Lacey Chebert
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/12_26_06.jpg


and lest we forget,
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/9O2lxWHdfnCbfpEWN3Xvo0.jpg

ALL IN!

This will put a chink in the Armor...

 

[Augustine]

So you dont have the clip, its something we should just believe since you say it.

As such, it is worthless, and for the purposes of this argument, since you cannot present it, it doesnt exist. India Globe out of the window, you may start again.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/20010227.html

Facts are facts. Obviously $40 is too expensive for the truth. Or you cannot let go of your fantasies.

P.S. There is more to research than YouTube.

 

[Corsair 115]

Where does thousands come from?

Plus, monitor them, track suspicious activity, phonecalls, meetings etc. Not hard!

Sure, it's not hard at all... if you're watching CSI or Law & Order. The real world, on the other hand, tends to be more complicated and operates nowhere as smoothly or as easily as the world depicted on television dramas.

 

[mjd1982]

I would argue that it does. Your entire argument is based on your personal interpretations of certain statements, and the originators of those statements are not here to correct you.

Dave

They are based on interpretations in part, this is true. As I have stated many times now, to state that inference is inadmissible to debate is not a comment that can be taken seriously. THerefore said inference should be debated, if you are on here to debate. If you are here to post hackneyed opinions, elaborated versions of "You're wrong", then go ahead. If you are here to debate, you, and the rest of your ilk, must realise that inference is a critical part of such, and you should go ahead and debate.

 

[Augustine]

Hahaha, no, it's his claim! He is claiming that before the interview started, te journalist said something. None of us can see this, he is just claiming it. As such, it is his claim, backed by zero, and as such, worthless. End of.

Ignorance. Misrepresentation. Not an interview, Junior, a press briefing by Ari Fleischer prior to President Bush's Address to Joint Session of Congress. 30 minute press briefing, question comes around halfway through. Follow-up was a question on human rights and China.

 

[mjd1982]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/20010227.html

Facts are facts. Obviously $40 is too expensive for the truth. Or you cannot let go of your fantasies.

P.S. There is more to research than YouTube.

Good, thank you. Now, you have 2 further tasks to perform if you want your view to be taken seriously. 1, Debunk Cockburn's article on the same, or show it came from the same source, 2. Show that the India Globe, a much more reputable news gathering source than you, is wrong here.

 

[mjd1982]

Sure, it's not hard at all... if you're watching CSI or Law & Order. The real world, on the other hand, tends to be more complicated and operates nowhere as smoothly or as easily as the world depicted on television dramas.

Of course. But in the real world, when a president is getting unprecedented terror threats communicated to him once every 4 PDBs, he should do something. In the real world. In the world you live in, its perfectly ok if he does nothing. As I have told one of your colleagues, you are a responsible bunch of citizens here.

 

[Augustine]

Good, thank you. Now, you have 2 further tasks to perform if you want your view to be taken seriously. 1, Debunk Cockburn's article on the same, or show it came from the same source, 2. Show that the India Globe, a much more reputable news gathering source than you, is wrong here.

Do you think I give two cents whether you "take my view seriously"?? You have drunk so much of the paranoid conspiracy Kool-Aid, you should be busting through walls yelling "Oh Yeah!!"



You were the bonehead that didn't even realize your source was the India Globe, now they're a paragon of journalistic achievement!!

 

[mjd1982]

Do you think I give two cents whether you take my view seriously?? You have drunk so much of the paranoid conspiracy Kool-Aid, you should be busting through walls yelling "Oh Yeah!!"



You were the bonehead that didn't even realize your source was the India Globe, now they're a paragon of journalistic achievement!!

No, they are just a better news gathering organisation than you. Until you can dispute this instance of such successfully, you will have to accept their report, for the purposes of this debate at least.

 

[JonnyFive]

Hahaha, no, it's his claim! He is claiming that before the interview started, te journalist said something. None of us can see this, he is just claiming it. As such, it is his claim, backed by zero, and as such, worthless. End of.

I was clearly referring to your original claim that this snippet of questioning and the subsequent follow-up is somehow evidence that:

1) The Taliban offered to hand over OBL to the US.
2) Such an offer was both genuine and legitimate, without serious politcal ramnifications that would render any gains null and void.

And thus somehow suspicious in some way. So far the only support you've given for this is some conjecture in the news media backed up by nothing more than speculation.

And wait, there's more, Augustine apparently just linked you to the transcript of the conversation. So it looks like all this garbage leads back to a single source, and it's not a primary source, or a source with a position to have significant insider knowledge and be highly credible.

Why does everyone have to do your work for you, mjd?

But wait, I'm sure you have lots of concrete evidence of this supposed handover deal that the US stupidly or maliciously turned down. I don't know why you're not posting some of it. It's so hard to find credible sources for the claim... almost like they don't exist.

 

[Augustine]

No, they are just a better news gathering organisation than you. Until you can dispute this instance of such successfully, you will have to accept their report, for the purposes of this debate at least.

For India, the 2006 National Readership Survey findings showed the largest read local language newspapers to be Dainik Jagran (with 21.2 million readers) and Dainik Bhaskar (with 21.0 million readers), both published in Hindi. The Times of India is the most widely read English newspaper (7.9 million), followed by The Hindu (4.05 million), and Hindustan Times (3.85 million).

Pop Quiz, Junior Researcher: What is the circulation for the India Globe? Answer in 5 minutes...

 

[Corsair 115]

Of course. But in the real world, when a president is getting unprecedented terror threats communicated to him once every 4 PDBs, he should do something.

That was not the point you were making in the post of yours which I replied to. You specifically said certain tracking and monitoring actions would be easy. How do you determine it would be easy to do?

 

[mjd1982]

I was clearly referring to your original claim

not clearly, but never mind

that this snippet of questioning and the subsequent follow-up is somehow evidence that:

1) The Taliban offered to hand over OBL to the US.

Right. This is sourced, so far as we can tell, from the India Globe, and Counterpunch (unless the latter can be proved otherwise). Now, you will have to show that both or either of these organisations are disreputable in this instance/ you are more reliable than they are as new gathering bodies. If something is reported in the NY Times, it will be accepted unless there is proof that it is false. The same applies here. I will await your proof.

2) Such an offer was both genuine and legitimate, without serious politcal ramnifications that would render any gains null and void.

No, since the issue here is not that the offer was not accepted, so much as there was no evidence of anything having even been done to follow up on it.

And thus somehow suspicious in some way. So far the only support you've given for this is some conjecture in the news media backed up by nothing more than speculation.

as above. Your contempt for msm news with zero basis for being falsehood, save for the fact it goes against your belief, should alarm you.

And wait, there's more, Augustine apparently just linked you to the transcript of the conversation. So it looks like all this garbage leads back to a single source, and it's not a primary source, or a source with a position to have significant insider knowledge and be highly credible.

Hahaha, garbage, nice gag. So this is garbage, why? Because you dont agree with it.

For the rest, as above.

Why does everyone have to do your work for you, mjd?

?

But wait, I'm sure you have lots of concrete evidence of this supposed handover deal that the US stupidly or maliciously turned down. I don't know why you're not posting some of it. It's so hard to find credible sources for the claim... almost like they don't exist.

LMAO...Oh dear. Only in your head my friend. Look. This is reported by, let's say just the India Globe. You have to go and prove that it is false. It is not my duty to prove that something reported in a mainstream media source from a country pretty much next to Afghanistan on Afghanistan is true. That ball is in your court. Go.

 

[JonnyFive]

No, they are just a better news gathering organisation than you. Until you can dispute this instance of such successfully, you will have to accept their report, for the purposes of this debate at least.

A news story is only as good as its sources, regardless of how good a news gathering organization prints it. Or perhaps you think all that stuff Jason Blair wrote should be considered true because the New York Times is a really good news gathering organization.

Since there don't seem to be any, why should anyone treat this story as true for any purposes without independent verification?

You really are being very silly. You've managed to pack an appeal to authority ("accept it because the India Globe is a good news-gathering organization") with asking everyone to prove a negative ("Prove the handover deal was never offered and/or wasn't legitimate").

How about, instead, you actually provide evidence of this claim? Until then, I think everyone here except you is going to assume that claim is a load of garbage.

 

[mjd1982]

That was not the point you were making in the post of yours which I replied to. You specifically said certain tracking and monitoring actions would be easy. How do you determine it would be easy to do?

I'm sorry if I wasnt clear. My point is, and always has been, that it is the effort that is the telling point. If sufficient is made, and nothing is achieved, you can pin incompetence. If nothing is made, then, given the mass of "unprecedented" warnings, you have to ask other questions.

 

[Augustine]

For India, the 2006 National Readership Survey findings showed the largest read local language newspapers to be Dainik Jagran (with 21.2 million readers) and Dainik Bhaskar (with 21.0 million readers), both published in Hindi. The Times of India is the most widely read English newspaper (7.9 million), followed by The Hindu (4.05 million), and Hindustan Times (3.85 million).

Pop Quiz, Junior Researcher: What is the circulation for the India Globe? Answer in 5 minutes...

Too late, Junior!! Actually, it's around 10,000. It's actually been referred to as an "obscure" Indian newspaper (really newsletter).

You can redeem yourself, however! How large is the India Globe editorial staff?

 

[stateofgrace]

Errr, then what the hell are you doing on a 911 related forum?! The question has to be asked; I dont expect a sobre answer, dont worry.

Wait!!! Some guy claims that President of the United States is responsible for mass murder of 3000 of his own, with zero evidence, zero facts and absolutely nothing to back his claims and then accuses me of being drunk.

Sun beam I don't know what drugs you are on but maybe you should give them up.

Cheerio, you are not worth the effort.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

ALL IN!

Call