The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[lapman]

This has been dealt with time and time again. 1stly, I said nothing was done by Bush et al in response to the terror warnings. This is stated by the 911 Comm. Please don't ask me to prove that they are not lying.

2ndly, you do not appear to know what a PDB is. Every weekday morning, the president and some principals meet with the DCI (Director of Central Intelligence), who triangulates the most important intel for them to hear. ~30 weeks b4 911, and 40 warnings. I.e. he was told more than once every 4 days that AQ were planning an attack on US interests; zero follow up. These warnings were "unprecedented" in their scale, according to Tenet.

In your OP, you talk about the 33 threats of "imminent attacks." Since when does imminent mean sometime in the next 2 to 4 months? Since when does "US interests" mean specifically the WTC? If they had round up everyone on the watch list, what do you think people like the ACLU and CT'ers like yourself would have said? It certainly would not have been, "Great job guys!"

 

[mjd1982]

Mjd, when a public relations rep tells someone they will "get back to you" on something and never does, they're either "no commenting" the question and never intend to answer, or they genuinely checked, got laughed at for asking a dumb question, and do not intend to justify said dumb question with a response.

Any word on whether or not the reporter in question tried to follow-up on the story? Did they ever track down any evidence that such a claim was actually true or not? If so, did they find evidence that such an offer would be valid?

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

Something concrete, mjd. Someone not returning a question from some random reporter isn't proof enough to elevate your claim to "fact" status.

Of course, maybe it does in this "la-la land" you speak of. I wouldn't know, I've never been.

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

 

[mjd1982]

Perhaps you could remind me of the post in which I stated that Muslims hate the US - perhaps by giving the post number, or a link, or some such.

Dave

You stated:

Your faith in the determination of the Islamic world to support American interests is rather surprising

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

 

[Unsecured Coins]

I don't see "Muslims hate Americans" anywhere in that post. You're projecting yet again...

 

[mjd1982]

And yet the Presidential Daily Briefing only five weeks prior to the attacks contained only a historic reference to Osama Bin Laden's three year old declaration that he wanted to strike within the USA.

Unless the US intelligence advisers are utterly inept, it stands to reason that as late as five weeks before the attacks the US Intelligence Community had no current intelligence indicating Al Qaeda was planning a major terrorist attack.

-Gumboot

What are you talking about? I suggest you read the PDB:

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

To give but 1 quote. So what is your point?

 

[mjd1982]

Oh, I get it. Al-queda hates america and americans, yet decided to co-operate with the US-government on this attack.

And how were they "assisted"? Oh, right..they weren't stopped.

So if you don't or can't stop someone from committing a crime, you're assisting, or "massaging".

Oh boy... please read the links I send you

http://www.911blogger.com/node/7948

 

[DGM]

It has been reported as fact by MSNBC, Counterpunch and others

I just had to watch it again. Olbermann refers to it as a "report of" not an actual fact.

 

[mjd1982]

What is your source for this? The India Globe. The question in the press conference is not corroborating evidence, it is still based on a report in the India Globe. Olbermann replays the press conference clip, it is still based on ONE SOURCE, the India Globe.

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

Let me ask you a question. Supposedly the Taliban’s motivation for all this is the effect the UN sanctions were having, yes? (Do you even know what the UN Resolutions were?) Now, according to you, based on your one source, the Taliban made an offer that would have complied with the Resolution and lifted the sanctions. Yet, YOU CANNOT CITE A SINGLE GOVERNMENT STATEMENT FROM THE TALIBAN that this offer existed!!! Why?? You would think they would be screaming this at the UN, because it would LIFT SANCTIONS! They are willing to comply, LIFT SANCTIONS! And yet….nothing. Silence. Why do you think this is? The most obvious explanation, and the simplest, and the one which most accurately explains why this offer disappears immediately, is that there never was an offer which complied with the resolution. It was to try UBL under Islamic Law, not to turn him over.

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

Oh, and your "evasion will be noted by all".

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

Your circular reasoning has already been noted by all.
It is ironic that there was exponentially greater evidence of WMDs in Iraq than your evidence of PNAC being a precursor for 9/11.

Well a) How is that ironic? and b), this is what we are debating. Feel free to engage at any point.

Your original point had zero value. Word-search the 1997 QDR for “radical”. Better yet, read it.

This is a tad pathetic.

It matters not an iota whether the people in 97 thought that the changes they were envisaging were radical, which is what such a search would illustrate, nothing more.

Please think before you post.

So that is all your evidence for demotion. He kept the exact same job title, performed the exact same job, and was paid the exact same salary. Some demotion.

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

Read above. There is still only one source.

No

Olbermann is not the MSNBC lead anchor, BTW.

my bad

Why does my writing a letter to MSNBC have any bearing on my pointing out that the story is still based on one single source? Logic, my little friend, USE it.

Haha... nice gag.

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

 

[mjd1982]

It would depend on what “actionable intelligence” I had. Very little can be done with vague indicators. Sounds like you would have enacted the Patriot Act right after being sworn in. I take it you support it? Please confirm this is the case.

Right, well this depends on what actionable means. It does not need to say "There are AQ cells at this this and this address" for it to be actionable. Actionable is simply, there are AQ cells, and they are plotting a terrorist attack using hijackings. This should lead to action. Get to work in trying to find the AQ cells, get to work trying to increase airport/airplane security. Very easy

Read previous post. (Cockburn is not editor of Nation, BTW. Research!) Still single source story.

My bad for Cockburn. Single source story? Evidence please? (This will help your cause not very much btw, but its fun to see you squirm)

(Also, didn’t Chomsky tell you not to trust propaganda? Or is that just propaganda that you don’t like? Google Operation Tailwind and retraction. Or maybe just Dan Rather.)

Errr... excuse me? Propaganda on whose part? What the hell does Rather or Tailwind have to do with this? (ps- I'm betting you have misunderstood the propaganda model)

Single source.

Ur source?

No peep from Taliban government.

??? Other than one of their journalists, not that this is relevant anyway

No complaints to UN,

complaining about what?

no evidence of readiness to comply with sanctions.

other than the OBL offer?

P.S. I have not called Cockburn or Olbermann liars. They are merely repeating a single source story that has never been corroborated. Liars? More like sloppy, partisan reporters. You don't see me quoting Drudge as a single source do you?

Hilarious! Go and a) illustrate how they have got their info from this mysterous "single source", and then show how you are more reliable than this source in this matter.

This is like Bugs Bunny. You are so eager to argue you will argue in a circle against yourself. Need I remind you that you were arguing against my use of the word "possible" to describe the offer?

Oh God. Read carefully. You denigrated the seriousness of the offer through describing it as "possible". I stated that by that use of the word "possible", even a written contract would have still rendered the handover "possible".

Think before you post

 

[mjd1982]

So what? I am Christian, so what? I have friends who are Muslim; they reject totally the ideas of Al Qaeda. If you are inducing this statement in anyway to imply that I am racist or in anyway made a racist remark, I want an apology from you, I have not. If you believe I have then point it out. I have made all the effort I can you understand the concerns of the Muslim community in the UK, a country which makes every effort to integrate foreign nationals, differant faiths and cultures into society. I don't care whether you are Muslim or not, I care for the fact you are trying accuses innocent people of being involved in mass murder. I condemn outright atrocities and acts of violence irrespective of the faith of the individuals involved.



I have done the research and by enlarge the vast majority of Muslims reject Al Qaeda.


Back to the nub of the topic. Assisted by whom? Are now seriously suggesting that America would willingly assist people who had declared war on then back in 1998 and that this assistance would go unnoticed by these people? That Al Qaeda who hate America would be totally oblivious to being assisted and would be for the last five years?

And keeep quiet about it ?

Ok, the first 2 segs, I have no idea what you are on about.

The latter, I will ask you again, to read this to discover how infiltration can take place.

Please dont make me ask you again.

 

[mjd1982]

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnazium.html

???

 

[mjd1982]

The example you uses does not call for speculation. You state "if we can kill" not "if he was killed" therefore it is not an valid example. To ask me to say if it is a worthless indicator, yes or no, is a strawman. It is the same as if I ask you if you have stopped beating your wife, yes or no please?

No, it is a perfect example, because it is inferring a conclusion from a statement where that conclusion is not stated explicitly. It is exactly the same as what is being done here. I have no idea why you would say this is a straw man, please explain why/ address my yes/no question.

 

[mjd1982]

So let me get this straight they should have been able to determine exactly how to foil the 9/11 plotters based on being told that "AQ were planning an attack on US interests" with no other information?

I have never said that anywhere.

I have to say that I do not think that we would be having such an elementary discussion were this not a matter in which so much fervour has been invested. I do find it quite astonishing.

I have said that there are countless, unprecedented warnings of a mass terror attack by AQ people who are in your country. If you cannot understand that from that, a President should do something, then you are in another world, I would say.

Well, being able to carry that statement to the next logical conclusion that therefore 19 arab men were planning on highjacking planes on 9/11 would have certainly been propitous, wouldn't it? The fact is "AQ were planning an attack on US interests" is a next to meaningless piece of information. To use the bank robbing analogy from earlier it isn't even as detailed as someone is planning on robbing a bank in Chicago. It is more like if I told you someone is going to do something to a bank that has some connection to US interests. How should they have reacted, put extra security on every US interest in the world? Even if you say that highjacking a plane was included in the threat, do they put extra security at every airport in the world? Maybe we should have shut down airtravel world wide until the end of time. Just tell me what COULD they have done without knowing more than "AQ were planning an attack on US interests" that doesn't require hindsight? I can confidently say that even now AQ is still planning an attack on US interests, what should we be doing to stop this next attack?

As above

 

[mjd1982]

Well, hmmm, kind of seems like you did it within this very post.

No, that is an attack on the post, not the poster.

But with regard to a direct attack on a poster, as you wish....

http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=2694007&postcount=668

This post had a direct personal attack. Unfortunately it was removed by moderators so we cannot see what was said. But obviously it did exist at some point for the mods to remove it.

Disgusting and despicable lie? Doesn't seem like a lie at all now does it?

Yes, it does, because the original post was as follows:

In each of the cases where these flaws in your theory are pointed out, you avoid a direct response, and prefer to respond with non-sequitors, unsupported contradiction, or direct attacks on the poster.

I.e. when a "flaw" in my theory has been pointed out, I have either responded via non sequitur, unsupported contradiction, or direct attacks on the poster. Pointing out one instance where I may have attacked a poster, to my discredit, is of zero value to this point.

This is astonishingly elementary. Please think before you write.

 

[mjd1982]

Are you saying that the PNAC is worded just as unambiguously as your little example??

Also, let's say a lot of people hate that scumbag Jimmy and would profit from his death. If Jimmy is killed, but no corroborating evidence existed that your gangland boss was responsible, should a court of law convict him because of his statement alone? Should he even be brought to trial at all?

Guys, please.

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

2ndly, for the millionth time, I am not saying that the statement alone is evidence enough to convict. 1 word- propitious.

 

[mjd1982]

In your OP, you talk about the 33 threats of "imminent attacks."

no i dont, but anyway...

Since when does imminent mean sometime in the next 2 to 4 months? Since when does "US interests" mean specifically the WTC?

How is either of this relevant? Please follow my argument. I am not saying that they should have known tht 19 hijackers would crash planes into wherever on 9/11. I am saying that there was an unprecedented terror threat, this was communicated over and over again to the gov, and they did zero in response. R u american? Does this not irritate you?

If they had round up everyone on the watch list, what do you think people like the ACLU

?

and CT'ers like yourself would have said?

??

It certainly would not have been, "Great job guys!"

why not?

 

[mjd1982]

I just had to watch it again. Olbermann refers to it as a "report of" not an actual fact.

Right! Now show how you know more than them. If not, accept the report please.

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

 

[DGM]

I have said that there are countless, unprecedented warnings of a mass terror attack by AQ people who are in your country. If you cannot understand that from that, a President should do something, then you are in another world, I would say.

Wow! It's up to countless now.

 

[twinstead]

Guys, please.

2ndly, for the millionth time, I am not saying that the statement alone is evidence enough to convict. 1 word- propitious.

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

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

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

 

[DGM]

Right! Now show how you know more than them. If not, accept the report please.

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

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