FBI dropped the ball wrt Mossaoui

[JSanderO]

You are forgetting the standards of evidence that are in play. Standards differ depending on context.

In criminal court, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.

In many civil courts, the standard is preponderance of evidence.

In conspiracy land, the standard is cui bono. If you can prove someone benefited, then they did it. Thus, the PNAC document is conclusive by the relevant standard.

Standards of evidence and what evidence IS depends on the context. But there is no conspiracy land of course...

Bui Bono is hardly evidence of causality but the perp of a crime does it to benefit from his crime... One could argue that police benefit from crime because it means that their jobs are not in jeopardy... or the companies which make police shields and uniforms benefit from crime.

The main problem with truth "thinking" or logic... is that they begin with a conclusion and then find what they think is evidence to support the conclusion... the evidence is questionable and they exclude what doesn't fit.

 

[BStrong]

You're just in contempt of the fact French Intelligence told Rowley Moussaoui was positively ID'd as being a member of the Al Qaeda terrorist group that tried to use an Air France Airbus to crash into the Eifel Tower.

There's a reason why they flagrantly avoided investigating Moussaoui and it wasn't lack of proof.

What I'm in contempt of is the perfect performance conceit that you and other CT hawkers are so in love with.

I've explained more than once in this thread how agencies actually work - you wish to place all information now known into a framework where superior officers in the agencies in question had foreknowledge of the end results, and ignored the warnings of investigators.

It's ********.

The investigators were doing their jobs, and the supervisors were acting pretty much in line with human SOP - the supervisor didn't originate the specific investigation and had more pressing concerns than the information presented to them by their investigators, and acted like most administrators do in these types of situation - they disregarded the info and told their investigators to get on with what the administrator was interested in.

Your assertion that FBI administrators ignored Moussaoui as part of a conspiracy simply ignores the facts about how the FBI (and LEA's) actually work - the fact that your version of reality is based at it's core on lack of knowledge of how agencies function doesn't surprise me - reality is boring but CT world is full of hero's and villain's and good v. evil. When you come to realize that good v. evil is more fiction than fact, you might begin to understand reality with a little more insight.

To save space and time, your interpretation of the facts wrt Tonkin are on the same level as your version of pre-9/11 intell. failures.

If the agency wanted a war, they could have had one w/o all the Hollywood drama, but then many CT hawkers wouldn't have anything to make themselves feel special.

If DESOTO was meant to justify the introduction of major US forces, there absolutely no reason for the Navy not to run the op until they were attacked for real - and your explanation above makes -0- sense- the CIA wanted a war, wanted to dummy up an attack, but were worried a real attack would be, oh I don't know, too good a reason to start the war?

Are you reading what you post?

 

[000063]

Jetty, why does almost every one of your posts start with some sort of personal remark?

 

[BStrong]

Uh huh. I need to ask: Have you ever been to Dallas?

I used to be a JFK Conspiracy loon too, but then I went to Dallas to the JFK museum there at the old Schoolbook Depository.

It was an easy shot. A real easy shot.

To rule in a conspiracy you first have to rule out Oswald - and you just can not do that.

9/11 was an easy operation for Al Qaeda to pull off. Having 19 guys willing to die for the cause made the plan simple. If they took only on plane = WIN. 2 planes = WIN. Even if both planes are shot down = WIN. There were enough institutional blindspots between the CIA, FBI, Immigration and US Customs to literally fly four jumbo jets through.

You site the Gulf of Tonkin, which has a parallel to 9/11 in that both incidents were used by the White House to commit to questionable wars. In each case the incidents stand by themselves. The Maddox was confused by radar, but the Captain filed an initial report to fleet. By the time his report was amended it was too late.

Here's the thing, by 1965 most Americans (certainly college students) knew that the Gulf of Tonkin was a white elephant. How did they know this? The crew was interviewed. Nobody could point to any damage from enemy gunfire, and LBJ was known by everyone in D.C - including the White House press corps - as a huge liar. The truth was that Johnson was looking for an excuse to escalate our involvement in Vietnam.

12 years after 9/11 none of the important facts about the attacks, or the intel failures that lead up to them have changed. Not a single allegation by any troofer has been proven.

The joke is on you...

Good post.

What a bland world it would be for certain people if they came to understand how many things happen in life due to laziness, ignorance and poor comprehension skills.

Sometimes when I read these CT wetdreams people have, I think about the story behind the making of the movie The Marathon Man

http://www.simplydustinhoffman.com/tryactingdearboy.htm

In all of these stories JFK/VN/MLK/RFK/9/11 the assertion that the CIA (fill in the blank, each story is wilder than the one that came before it) and these evil plots have been exposed by this-or-that "investigator" that connects the dots.

What all of these stories (and that's what they are, just stories) ignore is the fact that when any competent person plans anything from a dinner to a vacation to a purchase of a vehicle to a run for political office to whatever, they assess chances for things turning out well, and things turning out badly and make their plans accordingly.

To believe the CT's in question, you need to believe that an omnipotent agency exists that considers human life to be expendable in every possible context, that has an army of sociopaths and psychopaths that will carry out their orders w/o question and w/o fail, and that the agency in question will make plans that are unbelievably complicated (multiple shooters on cue, multiple hijackings, multiple targets) exposing the operations to exposure during the op through the multiple conspirators involved, as well as exposure after the fact due to after action regret on the part of participants (oh, they get around that by killing off everybody after the op, but still have loyal minions to carry out the next atrocity) but guys yakking on the interwebs with "proof" of the conspiracy evidently are safe...

When you can look at these same incidents and easily come up with narratives consistent with the average everyday behaviors and known actions carried out by civilians. the military, politicians and LEA's that explain in a reasonable fashion the incidents in question, it may not be exciting, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense to understand someone in a Navy ship at night thought they were under attack, the Captain over reacted, and the truth took a while to be determined rather than "Dr. Evil wanted to start a war..."

When I question JB about why the Navy simply didn't cruise until they were attacked if that was what DESOTO was intended to do, he had to up the ante - there is no reasonable explanation as to why the conspirators simply don't let matters take their course when in fact what the assertions is that the incident was designed from the ground up to be false.

We know the NV's would fire on US warships or aircraft, there was -0-reason to dummy up any attack, just like there was -0- reason to assassinate the POTUS to allow the war to run. All of JB's after the fact assertions that JFK would have pulled the troops out if elected to a second term is disputed by...RFK, from a review of the book JB's married to, JFK and unspeakable:

Unfortunately for Douglass, and every other conspiracy theorist who has ever tried to link the assassination with Vietnam, when it really counted—that is, before the war became contentious and unpopular—RFK said something quite different. On April 30, 1964, he was interviewed by John Bartlow Martin as part of the John F. Kennedy Library’s official oral history project. The date is important because the introduction of ground combat troops was more than a year away, and neither elite nor mass opinion had turned against US intervention. In fact, the overweening concern in Washington was doing everything necessary to save the Saigon government, as it was teetering badly in the wake of President Ngo Dinh Diem’s November 1963 assassination.

The clear thrust of RFK’s recollection was that if Lyndon Johnson failed to hold onto South Vietnam, he would be diverging from JFK’s true policy.



Kennedy: [The president] had a strong, overwhelming reason for being in Vietnam and that we should win the war in Vietnam.

Martin: What was the overwhelming reason?

Kennedy: Just the loss of all of Southeast Asia if you lost Vietnam. I think everybody was quite clear that the rest of Southeast Asia would fall.

Martin: What if it did?

Kennedy: Just have profound effects as far as our position throughout the world, and our position in a rather vital part of the world. Also, it would affect what happened in India, of course, which in turn has an effect on the Middle East. Just, it would have, everybody felt, a very adverse effect. It would have an effect on Indonesia, hundred million population. All of these countries would be affected by the fall of Vietnam to the Communists, particularly as we had made such a fuss in the United States both under President Eisenhower and President Kennedy about the preservation of the integrity of Vietnam.

Martin: There was never any consideration given to pulling out?

Kennedy: No.

Martin: But the same time, no disposition to go in all . . .

Kennedy: No . . .

Martin: . . . in an all out way as we went into Korea. We were trying to avoid a Korea, is that correct?

Kennedy: Yes, because I, everybody including General MacArthur felt that land conflict between our troops, white troops and Asian, would only lead to, end in disaster. So it was. . . . We went in as advisers, but to try to get the Vietnamese to fight themselves, because we couldn’t win the war for them. They had to win the war for themselves.

Martin: It’s generally true all over the world, whether it’s in a shooting war or a different kind of a war. But the president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there . . .

Kennedy: Yes.

Martin: . . . and couldn’t lose it.

Kennedy: Yes.

Martin: And if Vietnamese were about to lose it, would he propose to go in on land if he had to?

Kennedy: Well, we’d face that when we came to it.[21]

By John McAdams, 2009

So - if you accept that the goal was to expand the war, there was no need to ding POTUS, and if some snake wanted to invent an incident that would lead to an expansion, such a thing would be much easier to accomplishment w/o disclosure in a conflict zone, rather than in Dealey Plaza.

 

[ozeco41]

Jetty, why does almost every one of your posts start with some sort of personal remark?

Trial Lawyer's Maxim:

"If you have no case - attack the witnesses"

(Inevitable corollary:
"If they attack the witnesses they have no case.")

1) Where is Jetblast's claim and where is the supporting evidence and arguments?
2) So why are we responding to trolling as if he is making legitimate claims?

 

[ozeco41]

It's ********.

You are probably being too generous.

It's more like @#^&%(%$.

 

[BStrong]

You are probably being too generous.

It's more like @#^&%(%$.

I'm trying to (reasonably) express myself within the restrictions of the TOS.

The old story wrt facts etc is:

If you have the facts on your side, pound on the facts.

If you have the law on your side, pound on the law.

If you've got nothing, pound on the table.

I have a feeling there is a poster in this thread with a very swollen hand.

 

[Jetblast]

Good post.

What a bland world it would be for certain people if they came to understand how many things happen in life due to laziness, ignorance and poor comprehension skills.

Sometimes when I read these CT wetdreams people have, I think about the story behind the making of the movie The Marathon Man

http://www.simplydustinhoffman.com/tryactingdearboy.htm

In all of these stories JFK/VN/MLK/RFK/9/11 the assertion that the CIA (fill in the blank, each story is wilder than the one that came before it) and these evil plots have been exposed by this-or-that "investigator" that connects the dots.

What all of these stories (and that's what they are, just stories) ignore is the fact that when any competent person plans anything from a dinner to a vacation to a purchase of a vehicle to a run for political office to whatever, they assess chances for things turning out well, and things turning out badly and make their plans accordingly.

To believe the CT's in question, you need to believe that an omnipotent agency exists that considers human life to be expendable in every possible context, that has an army of sociopaths and psychopaths that will carry out their orders w/o question and w/o fail, and that the agency in question will make plans that are unbelievably complicated (multiple shooters on cue, multiple hijackings, multiple targets) exposing the operations to exposure during the op through the multiple conspirators involved, as well as exposure after the fact due to after action regret on the part of participants (oh, they get around that by killing off everybody after the op, but still have loyal minions to carry out the next atrocity) but guys yakking on the interwebs with "proof" of the conspiracy evidently are safe...

When you can look at these same incidents and easily come up with narratives consistent with the average everyday behaviors and known actions carried out by civilians. the military, politicians and LEA's that explain in a reasonable fashion the incidents in question, it may not be exciting, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense to understand someone in a Navy ship at night thought they were under attack, the Captain over reacted, and the truth took a while to be determined rather than "Dr. Evil wanted to start a war..."

When I question JB about why the Navy simply didn't cruise until they were attacked if that was what DESOTO was intended to do, he had to up the ante - there is no reasonable explanation as to why the conspirators simply don't let matters take their course when in fact what the assertions is that the incident was designed from the ground up to be false.

We know the NV's would fire on US warships or aircraft, there was -0-reason to dummy up any attack, just like there was -0- reason to assassinate the POTUS to allow the war to run. All of JB's after the fact assertions that JFK would have pulled the troops out if elected to a second term is disputed by...RFK, from a review of the book JB's married to, JFK and unspeakable:

Unfortunately for Douglass, and every other conspiracy theorist who has ever tried to link the assassination with Vietnam, when it really counted—that is, before the war became contentious and unpopular—RFK said something quite different. On April 30, 1964, he was interviewed by John Bartlow Martin as part of the John F. Kennedy Library’s official oral history project. The date is important because the introduction of ground combat troops was more than a year away, and neither elite nor mass opinion had turned against US intervention. In fact, the overweening concern in Washington was doing everything necessary to save the Saigon government, as it was teetering badly in the wake of President Ngo Dinh Diem’s November 1963 assassination.

The clear thrust of RFK’s recollection was that if Lyndon Johnson failed to hold onto South Vietnam, he would be diverging from JFK’s true policy.



Kennedy: [The president] had a strong, overwhelming reason for being in Vietnam and that we should win the war in Vietnam.

Martin: What was the overwhelming reason?

Kennedy: Just the loss of all of Southeast Asia if you lost Vietnam. I think everybody was quite clear that the rest of Southeast Asia would fall.

Martin: What if it did?

Kennedy: Just have profound effects as far as our position throughout the world, and our position in a rather vital part of the world. Also, it would affect what happened in India, of course, which in turn has an effect on the Middle East. Just, it would have, everybody felt, a very adverse effect. It would have an effect on Indonesia, hundred million population. All of these countries would be affected by the fall of Vietnam to the Communists, particularly as we had made such a fuss in the United States both under President Eisenhower and President Kennedy about the preservation of the integrity of Vietnam.

Martin: There was never any consideration given to pulling out?

Kennedy: No.

Martin: But the same time, no disposition to go in all . . .

Kennedy: No . . .

Martin: . . . in an all out way as we went into Korea. We were trying to avoid a Korea, is that correct?

Kennedy: Yes, because I, everybody including General MacArthur felt that land conflict between our troops, white troops and Asian, would only lead to, end in disaster. So it was. . . . We went in as advisers, but to try to get the Vietnamese to fight themselves, because we couldn’t win the war for them. They had to win the war for themselves.

Martin: It’s generally true all over the world, whether it’s in a shooting war or a different kind of a war. But the president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there . . .

Kennedy: Yes.

Martin: . . . and couldn’t lose it.

Kennedy: Yes.

Martin: And if Vietnamese were about to lose it, would he propose to go in on land if he had to?

Kennedy: Well, we’d face that when we came to it.[21]

By John McAdams, 2009

So - if you accept that the goal was to expand the war, there was no need to ding POTUS, and if some snake wanted to invent an incident that would lead to an expansion, such a thing would be much easier to accomplishment w/o disclosure in a conflict zone, rather than in Dealey Plaza.

Deniers are experts at shifting the subject into long ruminations designed to get around the facts they can't answer. The Buddhists were exploded by CIA plastique and it was blamed on the commies. No matter how much disingenuous filler BStrong writes he won't get around that. BStrong writes a lot but in the end he shows nothing that disproves the Gulf Of Tonkin Incident wasn't a prime example of US false flags used to get the US into major conflicts. US has a record of this kind of authority abuse and sleazy criminality at the highest levels usually directly associated with the CIA and military like in all fascist states.

McAdams is a well-known disinformationist. Whether he works directly for CIA or not his background is from the Deep South right wing precincts that were bastions of anti-Kennedy hate at the time. If you Google Black Ops Radio you'll find a debate between James DiEugenio and John McAdams where McAdams offers the same kind of evasive filibuster as BStrong, but it's clear who's winning the debate.

More honest evaluations of Bobby Kennedy would show, just like Jack, he pandered to prevailing political sympathies to stay politically viable. If you look at Jack's record he also pandered to the Cold War sympathies of the right early in his presidency. It's all in Douglass. Bobby was smart like Jack. He knew he had to get elected first before he could do what he really intended. Any voicing of his true feelings towards the war would automatically exclude him from being elected. While he was on the campaign trail he privately said was going to use the office of the president to investigate what happened to his brother. If you are honest, you'll see BStrong's and McAdam's strawman doesn't answer the documented evidence of the NSAM documents and witnesses to Kennedy's intentions. McAdams is dishonest to the point of being a liar because instead of choosing Bobby, who was the Attorney General, he could have easily cited those who were involved in the withdrawal like McNamara or General Taylor, or even cited the NSAM 263 document itself. No, McAdams and deniers show a pattern of intentional deception in their methods that serves as some of the best evidence of the withdrawal itself.


As far as Sandero, I see he resorts to theoretical generalities instead of viewing this through the direct germane examples like Moussaoui. In any debate look at the people who go from direct examples to generalities and theory as a good indicator of who has the more credible opinion and who is honestly seeking the truth. These people literally show you in their actions a desire to move away from truth towards that which gets them around what they don't want to admit to be true. If you have a good knowledge of Deep Politics the red flags and warning signs are all there for government involvement in 9-11. Deniers admit CIA practices underhanded dirty stuff, so how sincere and believable is it to offer the honest government BStrong does? I mean are you really saying it stops at CIA and everyone else is honest?

Deniers will sincerely offer you a full bowl of weak gruel as if they seriously believe it and as if it was a serious counter to the obvious facts. McAdams doesn't hesitate to mention Diem, but then forgets to include the fact CIA murdered Diem against Kennedy's wishes and had CIA's E Howard Hunt forge telegrams making it look like it was JFK's intention. No problem for deniers. Not even worth mentioning in their sincere entries...

 

[Jetblast]

To rule in a conspiracy you first have to rule out Oswald - and you just can not do that.

Depository secretary Carolyn Arnold told FBI she saw Oswald in the lunchroom at 12:25. Years later researchers showed Mrs Arnold a copy of her FBI statement where they switched it to 12:15. FBI took the liberty to switch it under the assumption that Oswald couldn't be downstairs at 12:25 because he had to be up on the 6th floor. What is obvious to any rational person is that Oswald was in the lunchroom at 12:25 when Mrs Arnold witnessed it, was in there during the shooting, and was there 90 seconds after when Officer Baker encountered him.

Here's the thing, by 1965 most Americans (certainly college students) knew that the Gulf of Tonkin was a white elephant. How did they know this? The crew was interviewed. Nobody could point to any damage from enemy gunfire, and LBJ was known by everyone in D.C - including the White House press corps - as a huge liar. The truth was that Johnson was looking for an excuse to escalate our involvement in Vietnam.

OK, so while you admit Operation DESOTO was a provocational operation you're saying the 'radar shadows' were a genuine mistake?

Gee, OK.

No chance that huge liar was swung into the vice presidency as a hedge against Nixon possibly losing to JFK? Johnson blackmailed his way into office.

12 years after 9/11 none of the important facts about the attacks, or the intel failures that lead up to them have changed. Not a single allegation by any troofer has been proven.

The joke is on you...

So far no one has really given a credible response for what exactly FBI and CIA didn't understand about a French intel-confirmed airliner terrorist???

 

[BStrong]

Deniers are experts at shifting the subject into long ruminations designed to get around the facts they can't answer. The Buddhists were exploded by CIA plastique and it was blamed on the commies. No matter how much disingenuous filler BStrong writes he won't get around that. BStrong writes a lot but in the end he shows nothing that disproves the Gulf Of Tonkin Incident wasn't a prime example of US false flags used to get the US into major conflicts. US has a record of this kind of authority abuse and sleazy criminality at the highest levels usually directly associated with the CIA and military like in all fascist states.

McAdams is a well-known disinformationist. Whether he works directly for CIA or not his background is from the Deep South right wing precincts that were bastions of anti-Kennedy hate at the time. If you Google Black Ops Radio you'll find a debate between James DiEugenio and John McAdams where McAdams offers the same kind of evasive filibuster as BStrong, but it's clear who's winning the debate.

More honest evaluations of Bobby Kennedy would show, just like Jack, he pandered to prevailing political sympathies to stay politically viable. If you look at Jack's record he also pandered to the Cold War sympathies of the right early in his presidency. It's all in Douglass. Bobby was smart like Jack. He knew he had to get elected first before he could do what he really intended. Any voicing of his true feelings towards the war would automatically exclude him from being elected. While he was on the campaign trail he privately said was going to use the office of the president to investigate what happened to his brother. If you are honest, you'll see BStrong's and McAdam's strawman doesn't answer the documented evidence of the NSAM documents and witnesses to Kennedy's intentions. McAdams is dishonest to the point of being a liar because instead of choosing Bobby, who was the Attorney General, he could have easily cited those who were involved in the withdrawal like McNamara or General Taylor, or even cited the NSAM 263 document itself. No, McAdams and deniers show a pattern of intentional deception in their methods that serves as some of the best evidence of the withdrawal itself.


As far as Sandero, I see he resorts to theoretical generalities instead of viewing this through the direct germane examples like Moussaoui. In any debate look at the people who go from direct examples to generalities and theory as a good indicator of who has the more credible opinion and who is honestly seeking the truth. These people literally show you in their actions a desire to move away from truth towards that which gets them around what they don't want to admit to be true. If you have a good knowledge of Deep Politics the red flags and warning signs are all there for government involvement in 9-11. Deniers admit CIA practices underhanded dirty stuff, so how sincere and believable is it to offer the honest government as BStrong does? I mean are you really saying it stops at CIA and everyone else is honest?

Deniers will sincerely offer you a full bowl of weak gruel as if they seriously believe it and as if it was a serious counter to the obvious facts. McAdams doesn't hesitate to mention Diem, but then forgets to include the fact CIA murdered Diem against Kennedy's wishes and had CIA's E Howard Hunt forge telegrams making it look like it was JFK's intention. No problem for deniers. Not even worth mentioning in their sincere entries...

How's that hand healing up fella?

So, the gist is that we should disregard primary sources (RFK) for opinion writers? Bobby himself isn't reliable but writers years later opining about what He Really Meant... should be considered authoritative?

What you fail to overcome is reality - there's no reason to dummy up an attack when the enemy is more than happy to fire on you, and there is no reason to do in broad daylight in America w/ a Busby Berkeley production that isn't needed to get the end result desired - all this " JFK will bring the troops home" rationale for the assassination is a conclusion looking for a cause.

I'll post in the JFK thread a little later today explaining how you fail in your assessment there as well.

Have fun, I'm off to ride my bike.

 

[Robrob]

Ever notice CT loons can't seem to focus on one topic much less one point of evidence?

 

[ozeco41]

Ever notice CT loons can't seem to focus on one topic much less one point of evidence?

Yes. Most of them are "divergent thinkers". 9/11 was a complex event. Comprehending even the simple fact of no CD at WTC requires consideration of many factors. And those factors have to be arranged into logically structured explanations linking the relevant bits and setting aside the irrelevant bits.

That process is called "convergent thinking" - it fits all the bits together rationally, objectively and converges to a valid solution. "Divergent thinkers" simply keep adding more and more irrelevant bits. The more they "think" the further they get from any valid outcome. They are always heading the wrong way.

In fact the description "divergent thinking" is a bit of politically correct diplomacy. They really cannot think in the sense of using rational processes of reasoning to work out a conclusion. Do you notice how the usual truther "argument" runs? "Here is something (thermXte dust; loud banging noises, anything to do with physics of collapse...) I don't understand THEREFORE you prove it wasn't CD.

AND "they" never put forward any reasoned argument - because they are incapable of the process of reasoning. So the two demographic groups are "those who can think" and "those who cannot think". (Sure with some wandering in middle ground)

BUT the big "eureka" point comes when we realise that "truthers cannot think" is not the causal relationship. That puts causality backwards. It is not "they cannot think because they are truthers". Rather the causality is "they are truthers because they cannot think". Think about that. (And pity the truthers for whom the argument is circular - "think about why you cannot think..." )

The second characteristic of most truthers is loathing of established governance. And that probably comes from the same base reasons.

Imagine going through life with little or no thinking skills. So much stuff you can never understand. So obviously you cannot be to blame - it must be someone else's fault. Who can you blame...aha - the government or the authorities or those in power. Those folk who cannot think build a lifetime resentment of authority, a habit of blaming others for their own shortcoming and limited life skills. Then along comes 9/11. they have the grand daddy of "complex hard to understand" events with massive human costs and an attached reason for war. They cannot avoid being truthers.

So it is not "truthers cannot think" despite that being a truism. It is "those who cannot think are pre-biased to become truthers".

And the converse is true. Those who have some skill at convergent reasoning can assimilate that there was no CD so those who can think have no need to become truthers on that aspect of CD.

So take all of that and test it against the truther posting practices we have seen over the years. It is a glove fit to most truthers.

And I'm not talking about trolls....they have other problems also. I'll save them for another rant.

 

[Robrob]

So take all of that and test it against the truther posting practices we have seen over the years. It is a glove fit to most truthers.

It does explain their strange compulsion to find the most complex and least likely of all explanations for their theories. E.G. LIHOP vs MIHOP.

 

[ozeco41]

It does explain their strange compulsion to find the most complex and least likely of all explanations for their theories. E.G. LIHOP vs MIHOP.

Yes. But........

LIHOP and MIHOP usually raise a different error - one of logical structure. And both sides are guilty. The central error is in treating the "IT" of LIHOP and MIHOP as if "IT" was an homogeneous single entity. So "they" either made/let "IT" happen or they didn't make/let "IT" happen. Nothing could be further from the truth.

9/11 was a complex event, with lots of sub-portions of the actual technical happenings. But also lots of agencies and sections of agencies involved. Each agency or part of agency having some aspects of control, influence or knowledge of some part or parts. And with overlaps and gaps between agencies and parts of agencies. Plus timing and delay dimensions.

So put simply, it is inconceivable that one master commander could control the lot down to the level of details. Conversely those agencies and subsections of agencies could affect their own part of the picture which may or may not have any effect either up or across the whole.

And we have missed out LIHOOI which will always be present with these complex events. If everything went right on 9/11 (whatever that means ) there would still have been bits of LIHOOI, LIHOP and MIHOP scattered across the dozens hundreds of sub portions of the events. BUT no overall control in the domains of MIHOP/LIHOP. It is simply not possible for a single central control to prevent something going wrong in some corner or the other.

And we know - we have extensively discussed - a lot of "bits" of wrong choices or incompetence. So we know that bits of XIHOP seem to have been scattered all over the 9/11 events.

So the big logic error with LIHOP/MIHOP polarised discussions is that "IT" cannot be one single homogeneous entity. And both sides of the polarity fail to deal with that reality. And you can bet there was both LIHOP and MIHOP down at middle and front line detail levels. LIHOP is in fact the default activity by most agencies when another agency has the ball. "Say nothing and let them stuff it up".

So, until someone, truther or debunker, says what bit or bits of 9/11 they are claiming or denying XIHOP - ask them "what bit are you talking about" otherwise they are talking out of their nether orifice.

 

[BStrong]

Yes. Most of them are "divergent thinkers". 9/11 was a complex event. Comprehending even the simple fact of no CD at WTC requires consideration of many factors. And those factors have to be arranged into logically structured explanations linking the relevant bits and setting aside the irrelevant bits.

That process is called "convergent thinking" - it fits all the bits together rationally, objectively and converges to a valid solution. "Divergent thinkers" simply keep adding more and more irrelevant bits. The more they "think" the further they get from any valid outcome. They are always heading the wrong way.

In fact the description "divergent thinking" is a bit of politically correct diplomacy. They really cannot think in the sense of using rational processes of reasoning to work out a conclusion. Do you notice how the usual truther "argument" runs? "Here is something (thermXte dust; loud banging noises, anything to do with physics of collapse...) I don't understand THEREFORE you prove it wasn't CD.

AND "they" never put forward any reasoned argument - because they are incapable of the process of reasoning. So the two demographic groups are "those who can think" and "those who cannot think". (Sure with some wandering in middle ground)

BUT the big "eureka" point comes when we realise that "truthers cannot think" is not the causal relationship. That puts causality backwards. It is not "they cannot think because they are truthers". Rather the causality is "they are truthers because they cannot think". Think about that. (And pity the truthers for whom the argument is circular - "think about why you cannot think..." )

The second characteristic of most truthers is loathing of established governance. And that probably comes from the same base reasons.

Imagine going through life with little or no thinking skills. So much stuff you can never understand. So obviously you cannot be to blame - it must be someone else's fault. Who can you blame...aha - the government or the authorities or those in power. Those folk who cannot think build a lifetime resentment of authority, a habit of blaming others for their own shortcoming and limited life skills. Then along comes 9/11. they have the grand daddy of "complex hard to understand" events with massive human costs and an attached reason for war. They cannot avoid being truthers.

So it is not "truthers cannot think" despite that being a truism. It is "those who cannot think are pre-biased to become truthers".

And the converse is true. Those who have some skill at convergent reasoning can assimilate that there was no CD so those who can think have no need to become truthers on that aspect of CD.

So take all of that and test it against the truther posting practices we have seen over the years. It is a glove fit to most truthers.

And I'm not talking about trolls....they have other problems also. I'll save them for another rant.

Excellent post.

 

[JSanderO]

Yes. But........

LIHOP and MIHOP usually raise a different error - one of logical structure. And both sides are guilty. The central error is in treating the "IT" of LIHOP and MIHOP as if "IT" was an homogeneous single entity. So "they" either made/let "IT" happen or they didn't make/let "IT" happen. Nothing could be further from the truth.
.....

So the big logic error with LIHOP/MIHOP polarised discussions is that "IT" cannot be one single homogeneous entity. And both sides of the polarity fail to deal with that reality. And you can bet there was both LIHOP and MIHOP down at middle and front line detail levels. LIHOP is in fact the default activity by most agencies when another agency has the ball. "Say nothing and let them stuff it up".

So, until someone, truther or debunker, says what bit or bits of 9/11 they are claiming or denying XIHOP - ask them "what bit are you talking about" otherwise they are talking out of their nether orifice.

This is brilliant. Whenever reductionism rears its head all manner of meaning is tossed overboard. Ozzie's reference to complexity, which is accurate flies in the face of those who try to reduce the complexity to an *it*.

 

[jaydeehess]

Depository secretary Carolyn Arnold told FBI she saw Oswald in the lunchroom at 12:25. Years later researchers showed Mrs Arnold a copy of her FBI statement where they switched it to 12:15. FBI took the liberty to switch it under the assumption that Oswald couldn't be downstairs at 12:25 because he had to be up on the 6th floor. What is obvious to any rational person is that Oswald was in the lunchroom at 12:25 when Mrs Arnold witnessed it, was in there during the shooting, and was there 90 seconds after when Officer Baker encountered him.

Or she was simply wrong about identifying the person she saw as Oswald, or she was wrong about the time.

OK, so while you admit Operation DESOTO was a provocational operation you're saying the 'radar shadows' were a genuine mistake?

Gee, OK.

No chance that huge liar was swung into the vice presidency as a hedge against Nixon possibly losing to JFK? Johnson blackmailed his way into office.

Gee, OK. No chance that your speculation of an enormous treasonous, decades long, conspiracy of the CIA to subvert the gov't and direct resources to its own criminal agenda is simply a result of a paranoid world view?

See, OK. No chance that you are connecting dots that do not really have any relation to each other?

So far no one has really given a credible response for what exactly FBI and CIA didn't understand about a French intel-confirmed airliner terrorist???

No one is disputing the idea that the French gave intel to the FBI and CIA.

You have not bothered to respond at all to the outline above of how LEA actually work.

You have not bothered to even consider the fact that the CIA was, until recently, woefully behind in the use of electronic technology known as computers, specifically because it allowed more secure isolation between even members of its own organization let alone between CIA and FBI. In short the people in charge at the CIA mistrusted computers. That alone made dissemination of intel slow.

 

[BStrong]

Moussaoui and Coleen Rowley say otherwise. Sorry Sandero, you're on the wrong side on this. Look up the Wikipedia entry for "Phoenix Memo". Both Rowley and Williams were practically pounding on FBI and CIA's door telling them suicide pilots were getting busy. There's lots of evidence for it if you have a good working knowledge of the Bojinka scenario and FBI and CIA's knowledge of Al Qaeda attempts to use airliners as weapons prior to 9-11. It doesn't take much to link the PNAC call for a new Pearl Harbor and this overt evidence of deliberate FBI indifference. What you are doing is like sincerely asking where is the evidence Bush deliberately lied about WMD. Sorry, but you obviously have a lot to learn about the Deep Political modus operandi of those who benefited. By the way, some of those disco bombings were false flags.

When did Rowley state that 9/11 was a false flag attack?

Hint: she didn't.

Rowley quite rightly pointed out that the FBI mishandled pre 9/11 intelligence - that's a far cry from false flag, and as I've pointed out, pretty much sop in the LE world. If it doesn't come down from above, the administrators could care less what a street investigator brings in.

 

[Jetblast]

How's that hand healing up fella?

So, the gist is that we should disregard primary sources (RFK) for opinion writers? Bobby himself isn't reliable but writers years later opining about what He Really Meant... should be considered authoritative?

What you fail to overcome is reality - there's no reason to dummy up an attack when the enemy is more than happy to fire on you, and there is no reason to do in broad daylight in America w/ a Busby Berkeley production that isn't needed to get the end result desired - all this " JFK will bring the troops home" rationale for the assassination is a conclusion looking for a cause.

I'll post in the JFK thread a little later today explaining how you fail in your assessment there as well.

Have fun, I'm off to ride my bike.

I love seeing a refuted false propagandist flopping. What I wrote wasn't opinions from writers it was the truthful record of the events backed by documented fact. I think it's clear you couldn't answer it.

VietNam was not interested in provoking the huge war-force of the American army into their national conflict. You once again enter false information. Meanwhile there is evidence forces within the government were enlisting government members like VietNam ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge and National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy to work against JFK. Johnson was a ringer. VietNam was CIA's war and if you are saying CIA didn't use its infamous practices to create that war you are simply rowing against the tide with a weak paddle.

 

[Jetblast]

This is brilliant. Whenever reductionism rears its head all manner of meaning is tossed overboard. Ozzie's reference to complexity, which is accurate flies in the face of those who try to reduce the complexity to an *it*.

Pure sophistry that noticeably avoids all the main facts.