Who is Behind 9/11 and Why? (Chomsky)

[trustbutverify]

I wonder if Clayton thinks Chomsky is an Orthodox neo-con, a Connservative neo-con, or a Reform neo-con?

My apologies if I don't get the sectarian designations correct. Hopefully, Clayton as an evidently accomplished scholar of all things neo-con can figure it out.

I've heard alot of them are non-practicing neo-cons.

 

[LSSBB]

I've heard alot of them are non-practicing neo-cons.

Yes, and that always makes me wonder, if they are non-practicing neo-cons, do they really count? What if your grandma was a neo-con, and no one else in your family, are you a quarter neo-con and do you still count as one?

 

[Axxman300]

The main reason the US - and by extension its subordinates in Europe - has a beef with Iran is because it has leadership Washington does not approve of.

We wish we had subordinates in Europe. We really really do. We have allies, and they tend to do whatever they wish regardless of our goals. Washington doesn't approve of Iran because it reflects the feelings of the American people on that matter. We elected Ronald Reagan as a result of the Iranian hostage crisis. Iran threatened Saudi Arabia causing President Carter to make "The free flow of oil" through the Persian Gulf in the direct interest of US National Security.

This was NEVER a secret, he state this on national TV in a live speech.

If anything the US Government has been more patient with Iran than the American people would prefer. Ask around.

They have been bitter about 'losing' Iran after their stooge, Shah Pahlavi, was overthrown by the revolution of 1979.

Not entirely true. We were glad to see him go. The Cold War put us in a position where we backed some really sleazy people....as did the Soviets. That was how it went.


"Whilst there may be some underlying bitterness about the hostages,"

Bitterness? Most Americans would have been happy to see Tehran vanish in a mushroom cloud. Bitter is putting it lightly.

"the main source of consternation is the loss of control over Iran's enormous oil and gas reserves. For further reading I recommend the chapters on this episode in the textbook edited by David W. Lesch, The Middle East and the United States: a historical and political reassessment."

Except that it isn't any more. We have replaced Iranian imports with oil from other nations, and we continue to reduce our dependency on imported oil.

The Iran discussion is something of a digression in the context of this discussion, however, as I was merely using them as an example.

A bad example too. Iran has been a state sponsor of terror since 1980, and the United States has had many legitimate opportunities to drop a few bombs on them, and we have not.

The point is that the US government assassinates alleged terrorists who it claims present a threat to the United States. Applying this same rule to all would mean US politicians being fair game for Iranian hit squads. But, of course, applying the same standards to ourselves as we do ors is almost unthinkable.

Technically, US government officials are legitimate targets for any enemy of the country. Hence the CIA, NSA, FBI, the US. Army, USAF, Marines, and Navy. Just like other countries have their defenses.

That was the genius of the Al Qaeda plot. They went through the front door, bought tickets, and hijacked four planes using pocket knives and box cutters. We are lucky that they didn't further rub it in our faces by forming a 200-piece marching band of suicide bombers to play Louie Louie as the marched up Pennsylvania Avenue in D.C. before detonating their vests.

Al Qaeda exploited our blind-side.

Have we overreacted? Yup.

I can't even begin to credit the notion that the United States deserves praise for not committing genocide as opposed to just killing large numbers of civilians.

Of course you can't. You've chosen sides.

The fact you have attempted to relativise US crimes in such a way tells its own story. It's very easy to be glib about the suffering of others when it's not your countIry being bombed or occupied.

And the fact that you see our actions as crime while ignoring the fact our enemies (The Taliban and Al Qaeda) almost exclusively target civilians also reveals much about where you are coming from.

Fine. Come at me with facts. 9/11 was not a US government conspiracy. By saying so you invalidate every other point you want to make. It is one thing to point out that the Bush administration used 9/11 to invade Iraq, but to say that they staged 9/11 so that they could justify an invasion is just silly.

In the summer of 2001 Iraq had made their usual threats after shooting at our planes in the No-Fly-Zone, and Bush and his folks started talking war. That weekend Bush's father and members of the first Bush Admin's NSC take George W out to Camp David. Their message was to "cool it" on war with Iraq. Bush got the message, and the week of 9/11 his administration issued its position paper on terrorism. It focused mostly on Central America and Colombia. On 9/10 most people would have told you Bush was looking for trouble in South America, not the Middle East.

These are the facts.

9/11 Truth has undermined the anti-war effort in the United States. If I was still a conspiracy nut I'd be more interested in the people behind it and how they have profited by allowing the wars to continue unabated.

 

[RepresentativePress]

I agree of course that 9/11 was not a US government conspiracy. But the sad thing is that conspiracy deflects from serious questions. To get right to the point, concerning the intel warning of an attack, see my blog post called: "Neoconservative deviousness put us at risk and paved the way for 9/11" (I am quoting a NYT article which is linked from there):

"the Aug. 6 document... is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it. The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real. “The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack," OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR The Deafness Before the Storm By KURT EICHENWALD Published: September 10, 2012

You are not going to get these men to say, "Yeah, we sat back, ignored the warnings, so that when an attack happened we could use it as a pretext for our agenda to attack Iraq." BUT their excuses for why the President should ignore the warnings he was being given are so contrived and self-serving that it basically exposes what they were up to.

Think about the parts in bold, it is stomach turning. "Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein," That is such a contrived and dishonest argument for why the intel should be ignored, it telegraphs their agenda! And the audacity to argue the intel shouldn't be taken seriously!

 

[Dog Town]

I agree ... !

2007, and five?

 

[RepresentativePress]

extreme procrastination

2007, and five?

I know, only five posts in all these years, nearly 6 years. I am amazed because I planned to debunk to put an end to the cruel distraction known as "9/11 Truth" and had planned on a lot more posts. I'll post more (still can't post links yet but) here are the titles to some important ones: "Gage's Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Fraud. WTC7 "small fires" lie EXPOSED!" (and this one also talks about the real "why" for the 9/11 attack.)

"See Your "9/11 Expert" in Action. THIS is your "9/11 Truth"?"

"See How Richard Gage Dupes People: 9/11 Truth FRAUD"

This is a good one too:
"On 9/11, WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern (controlled demolition debunked)"

 

[carlitos]

But the sad thing is that conspiracy deflects from serious questions.

Yup.

 

[beachnut]

I agree of course that 9/11 was not a US government conspiracy. But the sad thing is that conspiracy deflects from serious questions. To get right to the point, concerning the intel warning of an attack, see my blog post called: "Neoconservative deviousness put us at risk and paved the way for 9/11" (I am quoting a NYT article which is linked from there):

"the Aug. 6 document... is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it. The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001.... !

Wow. Did they say they would kill the pilots and take the planes? How many scenarios were there? BTW, UBL said he would kill USA citizens to include women and children in the 90s. Monday morning quarterbacking fails again. Why did you fail to stop 911? Right

 

[Clayton Moore]

I wonder if Clayton thinks Chomsky is an Orthodox neo-con, a Connservative neo-con, or a Reform neo-con?

My apologies if I don't get the sectarian designations correct. Hopefully, Clayton as an evidently accomplished scholar of all things neo-con can figure it out.

Chomsky knows who's buttering his bread. And the cardinal rule, NO SNITCHING.

 

[Clayton Moore]

You can condition anything all you want or you can simply add 2 and 2 together and get the answers. Facts are the ME was occupied soon after 911. Remember W swinging the axe left and right, big daddy and all. Did they benefit from 911? Of course. Did they benefit from the 911 crash physics? There you go. There sure additinal profits were squzzed out but to claim 3000 people had to die to take down asbestos ridden buildings is overkill.

Residual benefits.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I agree of course that 9/11 was not a US government conspiracy. But the sad thing is that conspiracy deflects from serious questions. To get right to the point, concerning the intel warning of an attack, see my blog post called: "Neoconservative deviousness put us at risk and paved the way for 9/11" (I am quoting a NYT article which is linked from there):

"the Aug. 6 document... is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it. The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real. “The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack," OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR The Deafness Before the Storm By KURT EICHENWALD Published: September 10, 2012

You are not going to get these men to say, "Yeah, we sat back, ignored the warnings, so that when an attack happened we could use it as a pretext for our agenda to attack Iraq." BUT their excuses for why the President should ignore the warnings he was being given are so contrived and self-serving that it basically exposes what they were up to.

Think about the parts in bold, it is stomach turning. "Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein," That is such a contrived and dishonest argument for why the intel should be ignored, it telegraphs their agenda! And the audacity to argue the intel shouldn't be taken seriously!

So the neocons won the day by having more convincing intel than the CIA?

:

 

[RepresentativePress]

what are you arguing? convincing to whom? the point is that neocons were pushing what I think (and I would think most would) a dishonest argument. Just because they "won the day" doesn't mean that their arguments were "more convincing." If there is an agenda, it doesn't matter what argument has more merit. I think you need to work on your logic and reasoning skills.

I haven't followed other things you posted put your nonsensical response screams out that you are a "truther." Is that right?

 

[Clayton Moore]

what are you arguing? convincing to whom? the point is that neocons were pushing what I think (and I would think most would) a dishonest argument. Just because they "won the day" doesn't mean that their arguments were "more convincing." If there is an agenda, it doesn't matter what argument has more merit. I think you need to work on your logic and reasoning skills.

If the CIA was in cahoots with the neocons it would submit a feeble protest to save face with LATER.

So when you say Pentagon you mean Rumsfeld and you say the White House you mean Cheney, both notorious neocons.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

Tenet was in charge of the CIA on 9/11. I like this telling pic of Tenet briefing the President yet everyone is focused on Cheney.

 

[dafydd]

Chomsky knows who's buttering his bread. And the cardinal rule, NO SNITCHING.

Are you still a no-planer?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Are you still a no-planer?

Do you still believe, without explosives, 3 huge buildings became a pile of rubble and dust in less than a minute? Less than 20 seconds each?

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Do you still believe 3 huge buildings became a pile of rubble and dust in less than a minute? Less than 20 seconds each?

Do your eyes tell you something different from the above? My eyes tell me it all started when planes crashed into two of them.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I agree of course that 9/11 was not a US government conspiracy. But the sad thing is that conspiracy deflects from serious questions. To get right to the point, concerning the intel warning of an attack, see my blog post called: "Neoconservative deviousness put us at risk and paved the way for 9/11" (I am quoting a NYT article which is linked from there):

"the Aug. 6 document... is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it. The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real. “The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack," OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR The Deafness Before the Storm By KURT EICHENWALD Published: September 10, 2012

You are not going to get these men to say, "Yeah, we sat back, ignored the warnings, so that when an attack happened we could use it as a pretext for our agenda to attack Iraq." BUT their excuses for why the President should ignore the warnings he was being given are so contrived and self-serving that it basically exposes what they were up to.

Think about the parts in bold, it is stomach turning. "Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein," That is such a contrived and dishonest argument for why the intel should be ignored, it telegraphs their agenda! And the audacity to argue the intel shouldn't be taken seriously!

Who was the CIA talking to when you say the White House? The problem with that is that I'm sure the CIA didn't need White House permission to fulfill their mission statement.

Would you please name some of the neoconservatives you're speaking about?

 

[RepresentativePress]

I said I am quoting from the NYT, I am not doing the speaking.

And what in the world are you arguing? That the 9/11 attacks were "faked"? So you think they faked the intel too? For what possible reason? to make themselves look bad?
And if neocons were "engineering 9/11" as I see your footnote claims, then why the hell didn't they make it look like the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan were behind it?
Nothing you claim makes sense. As far as the buildings, there were clear signs of a fire induced collapse so why would it be a mystery why they collapsed? Does that make any sense at all given all the tell tale signs of fire induced weakening? Maybe you don't understand what "potential energy" is? You link to Richard Gage BS but he has been exposed as a fraud, see videos:
"Gage's Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Fraud. WTC7 "small fires" lie EXPOSED!"
"See Your "9/11 Expert" in Action. THIS is your "9/11 Truth"?"
"See How Richard Gage Dupes People: 9/11 Truth FRAUD"
This is a good one too:
"On 9/11, WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern (controlled demolition debunked)"

 

[LSSBB]

Chomsky knows who's buttering his bread. And the cardinal rule, NO SNITCHING.

I don't think you are talking about the same Chomsky as everyone else. Do you have a friend named Fred Chomsky?

 

[Clayton Moore]

I said I am quoting from the NYT, I am not doing the speaking.

And what in the world are you arguing? That the 9/11 attacks were "faked"? So you think they faked the intel too? For what possible reason? to make themselves look bad?
And if neocons were "engineering 9/11" as I see your footnote claims, then why the hell didn't they make it look like the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan were behind it?
Nothing you claim makes sense. As far as the buildings, there were clear signs of a fire induced collapse so why would it be a mystery why they collapsed? Does that make any sense at all given all the tell tale signs of fire induced weakening? Maybe you don't understand what "potential energy" is? You link to Richard Gage BS but he has been exposed as a fraud, see videos:
"Gage's Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Fraud. WTC7 "small fires" lie EXPOSED!"
"See Your "9/11 Expert" in Action. THIS is your "9/11 Truth"?"
"See How Richard Gage Dupes People: 9/11 Truth FRAUD"
This is a good one too:
"On 9/11, WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern (controlled demolition debunked)"

Fire is erratic and damages unevenly.