The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is an excellent illustration of why the US rejected the Taliban's offer.

If you are 1stly clear on what the offer was, which you arent.

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

If I was a fool, I would immediately begin working on a reading list for Junior1982, despite the fact that I have strewn numerous clues throughout my posts already. However, when I delivered said list, he would ignore it, and say that they "aren't germane" (as he has done every time prior in this thread when I urged him to study the development of national-level strategic documents). "Why should I care", "irrelevant", other ignorant excuses. However, I see that this is not a sincere request for guidance on reading, so I disregard it.

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

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

Precisely why I will not waste time preparing a "Strategy Primer" for Junior. It will not fit into his circular reasoning. Where are those goalposts again? Oh, right, moved again...

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

Perhaps if your analysis was more than word-searching the document, you might have a better understanding. Oxford, was it? Oh well....

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

What was his title? "One of Dealing With Principals"? Or something else? Do you know? Is that all you have to support this "demotion"?

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

This should not be hard to understant.

Right, post a youtube video, call it "evidence", do a victory lap while I am still scratching my head at the decline of Western education. What next, wikipedia? Conspiracy website? Prisonplanet?

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

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

 

[mjd1982]

Wow!! That sounds so much better, like you have a real plan or something!

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

If this was such an ironclad, straightforward offer from the Taliban government with no conditions, why is the only evidence you can find of it a question asked at a press conference based on a report in the India Globe and corroborated nowhere else?
(Or for your reading skills: y? B cuz it wuz not 4 reals.)

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

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

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

No promises were made. Possible. Dictionary is your friend, use it.

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

 

[Unsecured Coins]

yes, not too dissimilar from Katrina, as i understand

you mean... we took away their ability to get out WAAAAY before the storm so we could watch them die on CNN?


bawahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....


That's rich.

 

[mjd1982]

Which means that you have no evidence for an "insider", and you've just made it up. Right?

No, it means that there are certain small details which I will not know. I do not know who suggested the idea from PNAC, I dont know who pulled what strings etc etc... these details are inconsequential, and have no bearing on anything of relevance here.

Etc? So, you're now trying to tell us that the US found out about an Al-Qaeda plot, but that they realised it was a terrible plot and they could do a better job themselves?

No, I am speculating that they massaged elements of the plot so that it would fit in to their scheme. That I am speculating about this has again no relevance to the thrust of my argument.

If someone gave an unambiguous warning, as you suggest, and if another branch of the government deliberately ignored the warning (well, "ignored" isn't the right word, seeing as they were involved in the plot), where is that someone now? Why haven't they come out and say "I told Mr X on 1/9/01 that an attack was to be carried out in manner X,Y and Z - nothing was done AT ALL"? Indeed, this "someone" is likely to be a team and hierarchy of people. No cracks yet. Why ever not?

Once again, this is of zero logical value. That no one has come out and volunteered themselves for the firing squad is meaningless, and should not be used in any serious debate on the matter.

Which is this secret branch of the government / security services which is able to carry out subterfuge, infiltration, explosive demolition and mass murder without any of the other branches of government knowing about it? Where are they based? How are they funded? How are they equipped? Which members of the executive know? Which members of the judiciary? You're making this up as you go along, you've seen too many movies.

I'm not saying that there is a secret branch of the government that does these things. I think that the meat of the work is done by the principals (PNAC et al), and the rest is probably done by parts of the FBI/CIA, as any black ops (Ajax, PBSUCCESS etc) are.

If you have EVIDENCE (not speculation) that WTC7 was brought down by explosive devices planted by or in collusion with a branch of the US government, why the hell are you waiting to tell us. Write an article, tell Interpol, win the Pulitzer Prize!

What's stopping you?

We are not debating that yet

 

[Unsecured Coins]

Brain is your friend, us it.

Humility is a tool. Learn from it. Stundie Nominated for over use of the irony.

 

[mjd1982]

The questions was



You dodged them with this load of rubbish.



Al Qaeda as sworn to over throw the Saudi Arabian Royal family, they want Saudi returning to a pure Islamic state. UBL is no ally to the Saudi Royal family so your special relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia does not wash and does not in anyway answer the questions. They stand and until you provide a coherent answer you are dismissed as a cter who is simply making BS up.

Stop making stuff up and answer the questions.

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

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

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

 

[mjd1982]

What does that mean? Conspirators unknown "aggravated" the 7 World Trade Center collapse with pre-planted explosives? You've "aggravated" your stance? What?







Who pays?

whoever is meant to.

If u cant afford to, you do what you can.

 

[mjd1982]

That's it? That's the only source you have for this claim you keep stating as absolute fact?

Please tell me you have something more substantial than a White House "no comment" about a potential Taliban deal. At least tell me that the video has the actual recording of that exchange rather than some jerk just talking about how it might've happened.

yes, it is a recording of that exchange.

Please tell me how this could be more

 

[mjd1982]

(ETA- Response to Jonnyfive (?))

yes, it is a recording of that exchange.

Please tell me how this could be more.

 

[mjd1982]

But I have just as much proof that you are a farmer as you have that the writer's of th PNAC knew about 9/11 in advance.

You have stated that some statements can be assumed to mean something simply because it is propitous for a goal you have (ex you want to play football, but say you can't if it rains, i.e. you don't want it to rain).
I have shown how there is it least one circumstance where that would be false. Likewise to say that 9/11 was propitious to the PNAC assumes that NOT having a 9/11 attack would not be even more propitous to the PNAC. It is a baseless assumuption.

Yes, except that to continue with your analogy, to do such with PNAC requires wrenching something out of its context. I don't think your analogy is at all correct- the fact that I have immediately followed the expression of desire to play football, with the comment about rain preventing me from playing gives a strong suggestion as to what I am desiring. In any case, re: PNAC, you would have to show that there was a similar cause for obfuscation - i.e. if I do actually want it to rain because I am a farmer, then why do PNAC want a slow rate of transformation? I have addrssed why they would in 3 parts, a few pages back, and again in post #493

 

[MIKILLINI]

A parallel to PNAC: A real group, that I will rename BASE, released several "white papers" saying that they desired to cause the US to become entangled in multiple long term military engagements in the mideast, thus weakening America's ability to control political realities in the region and allowing BASE to strike US military assets via asymmetric means. BASE hopes to use mideast turmoil to create a large number of failed states which can then become controlled under a larger government more suitable to BASE's idiology. BASE also released a "white paper" calling for large scale attacks against American interests.

BASE found the 9/11 attacks completely propitious to their ends, and I conclude probably would have done everything they could to cause 9/11 to happen.

Casually, I would say BASE is a much more likely force behind 9/11 than PNAC.

Kage this is a good post and it would indicate, by using mjd's logic, the Neocons pulled off an inside job that worked perfectly into Al-Queda's plan and the Neocons own project. Or it would be Al-Queda pulled off their plan so that the Neocons, who allowed it to happen, could take advantage of PNAC to make transformations sooner. In other words,using mjd's logic, this is propitious to both sides.

 

[mjd1982]

Not hard ? When you don't have an actual clue of WHERE or WHEN the attack is coming, it's actually VERY hard to even try to stop something like that.

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.

The evidence is not being debated at all. We're debating if it was "propitious" to policy. So far it wouldn't matter if it were, because we have NO EVIDENCE THAT they made it or let it happen.

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

 

[Unsecured Coins]

We are not debating that yet

so the main reason you haven't went to the world court with all this smoking gun slam dunk evidence yet is because...

you haven't discussed it on the internet just yet.

I stopped taking you seriously a few weeks ago.

 

[mjd1982]

So then you are just making conjecture as I have pointed out. No, of course Alex Jones could not have caused such a thing, because he's not a "bad guy". He doesn't fit the stereo type of evil people who control everything. PNAC fits your stereo type so we can make all the wild assumptions and conjecture and speculation we want.

How well do you think your argument would hold up in a court of law?

"Well your honor, it sounds like what we want to hear, so therefore the party is guilty. Evidence? Well no sir, but just look at how they fit our stereo type."

Errr...

He couldnt do it because he's a radio host Jonny. Please now.

 

[mjd1982]

I must really be stupid. 31 pages and I still don't see a connection made between 9/11 and PNAC. Yet I am just told to read through the thread. Is there a certain number of times of reading through before it becomes clear? Is this like one of those pictures you have to stair at to see the sailboat?

I just don't think I am cut out for this mental exercise...

Maybe not, but we can try again.
1. They state a catastrophic terror attack is propitious
2. They get unprecedented warnings of such and do absolutely nothing.
3. They are thus rightly suspected of complicity, and an investigation is launched to deal with this.

Kapish?

 

[Unsecured Coins]

it's capiche, and you're still making stuff up.

 

[Hokulele]

Maybe not, but we can try again.

OK

1. They state a catastrophic terror attack is propitious

Stop right there. Where do they state this? Everything you have written so far indicates that you assume this, but nowhere has it been stated that they believe this.

Kapish?

No. Especially since it should be spelled "capisce".

 

[Unsecured Coins]

He couldnt do it because he's a radio host Jonny. Please now.

On that note, it would also impossible for say, a man to, oh, say, talk his others into a suicide operation simply because he's a man of the cloth? That is just retarded to say AJ couldn't have done it because of his job

 

[mjd1982]

Read some Chomsky. Then you will learn that if you believe anything Western governments/the U.S./Israel say, you are brainwashed by propaganda. However, when you swallow unquestioningly every piece of drivel from the enemies of Western governments/the U.S./Israel, you are an intellectual. Hardly surprising the woo-woos love him. After all, bombing an empty pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was much much worse than whatever was done to us on 9/11 (which we deserved of course).

Is there a vomit smilie?

Again, more drivel. If you want to include substance in your posts, then go ahead. To state that something is wrong because you think it is is worthless. If you want to illustrate how/why the propaganda model is false, go ahead.

To give a case in point of evident ignorance, the bombing of the Al Shifa plant, which thus destroying 90% of all Sudanese medicines, was completely illegal, an act of terror, and led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Sudanese civilians. Thus it may not be legitimate to make a comparison betweem that and 911, but for the opposite of the reasons you state. Nowhere has Chomsky stated that the US deserved 911. Please tell me why you have lied.

 

[mjd1982]

Chomsky is very, very anti-911 conspiracy theories, though! He certainly doesn't believe in government conspiracy.

I have corresponded with him a number of times on this; all I can say is, nobody's perfect.