The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[WildCat]

and to find out about US control of oil read...

...this!

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

Excuse me? Do you have anything that actually reflects reality today instead of speculation from 3-4 years ago?

 

[Foolmewunz]

...this!

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

Well, I'm not real smart like you, so rather than having me strain my already overburdened brain, why don't you summarize the bits you want to point out. It's a gazillion word opinion piece with some references in the footnotes, frankly. We're really not hear to do your homework assignments. If you have something to say.... Say it!

 

[WildCat]

And that is just the 1st 4 references to "Persian Gulf" in the doc.

But your claim was that the PNAC document specifically called for permanent bases in Iraq, not "permanent bases or on
rotational deployments" somewhere in the Persian Gulf region.

eta: and the US already had bases in the Gulf region prior to 9/11.

So your claim is false.

 

[DGM]

OK, you did! Then, quite simply, you have some pretty severe comprehension problems. The question was:



WC said:



You might wanna sit the next few out my friend.

I get it! Approving what questions are asked in an investigation is NOT a lead role.

 

[WildCat]

I get it! Approving what questions are asked in an investigation is NOT a lead role.

It's understanding just such complex minutia that separates Oxford Humanities grads from the rest of us ignorant unwashed masses.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Incidentally, another interesting fact about 9/11 is that the owner of the WTC complex, Larry Silverstein, had his offices on the 88th floor of the North Tower. But by a surprising coincidence, on this day, Larry didn’t make it in, as he had a doctor’s appointment, and his 2 kids, Lisa and Roger, who worked with him, didn’t make it either- they were running late.

Luck of the devil I guess.

My uncle had a meeting at WTC2 that morning. It was postponed the night before. I guess my uncle's a shill. Funny, I never realized that about him.

As well as falling foul of the problems I listed above, as has been shown compelling by Chomsky and Herman, the mainstream media, certainly in the US, functions as a tool of government propaganda; there is little reason to believe the UK press functions otherwise. I may write another post on this later, I think it’s pretty important, but should you wish to find out more about it, please read “Manufacturing Consent” by the aforementioned authors; it is generally recognised as one of Chomsky’s most important works. 9/11 could not be a stronger instance of the self censoring function of the mass media at work- 2 startling examples have already been listed in the William Rodriguez testimony and the WTC 7 story.

Yes, the mainstream media is a tool of government propaganda. That's why you never see articles critical of the government in the newspapers or on TV. That's why the talking heads always back whoever's in power. That's why Jay Leno never makes political jokes. That's why Woodward and Bernstein were silenced and blackballed. That's why not a single paper in the country has an ed-op page....

Oh, wait.

 

[Foolmewunz]

<snip>



Yes, the mainstream media is a tool of government propaganda. That's why you never see articles critical of the government in the newspapers or on TV. That's why the talking heads always back whoever's in power. That's why Jay Leno never makes political jokes. That's why Woodward and Bernstein were silenced and blackballed. That's why not a single paper in the country has an ed-op page....

Oh, wait.

That's why Alex Jones was bagged and murdered four years ago. That's why Dylan Avery is no longer with us. That's why Killtown is an anoymous idiot... (Oh wait, that one's not a caricature).

 

[Vincent Vega]

We already asked him that over at SLC. His answer was "anyone independant of the investigation" and "privately funded"

So why doesn't he/they bug Gore Vidal and George Soros for some cashola and stop whining already!

I mean they dumped howmany millions into the last two Democratic Presidential campaigns whats a few hundred more?

 

[aggle-rithm]

...this!

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

That article was written in 2003 and largely speculative. It did get one thing right, though:

It is plausible that the aftermath of the Iraq war and a U.S. occupation of Iraq could increase Al-Qaeda sponsored terrorism against U.S. targets, or more likely create guerilla warfare in a post-war Iraq.

So THAT's how they're controlling the oil in Iraq!

Don't you see it? You'll never be a conspiracy theorist at this rate! You see, with all this increased terrorism, we now have an excuse to get into MORE wars, which will create more terrorism, which in turn will create MORE wars, all of which lead to control of oil. Somehow.

BWA-HA-HA-HA! Soon we'll all be rich, rich, RICH!!!!

 

[Myriad]

Ok, that is a hell of a lot of replies.

Unfortunately, very few of them touch on the point at hand, which is, for the moment, PNAC.

Sorry, no. The point at hand, for this moment and all moments for the foreseeable future, is "so what?"

You want an entirely independent investigation whose questions are agreed upon by Alex Jones? You've just done one. You think the results of that investigation, which you've presented here, warrant another investigation? Go right ahead, do another one. You can keep that up forever if you want to. No need to get our or anyone else's approval, or really, bother us about it at all.

Since you don't seem to be satisfied with that, it appears that you want more than just an independent investigation, which anyone (newspaper reporters, a technical study group, you, me) is free to do any time they want. You want your investigators to have some or all of the following, don't you?

- the power to subpoena witnesses
- the power to compel witnesses to appear, to take oaths to answer questions truthfully, and to answer questions they might not want to answer, by penalizing them for failing to do so, such as via the threat of contempt of court charges, perjury charges, or similar punitive action (just to be clear on what "the power to subpoena witnesses" really means)
- the security clearance necessary to permit witnesses to testify about national security secrets which they have sworn oaths not to reveal
- the power to force the U.S. military to make classified documents available for examination
- the power to press criminal charges
- the power to arrest and try individuals on those charges, and mete out punishment

If you don't want these things, then you've already got your independent investigations, as many of them as you feel like conducting, so I don't see what you're complaining about.

If you do want any of those things, then you've got a problem. Because in the U.S. the authority to do those things is vested, under the U.S. Constitution, in various branches of the U.S. Government. (State and local governments too, and police forces acting under their auspices, but their jurisdiction is limited, under the Federal Constitution, in ways that would make it difficult conduct an effective 9/11 investigation. However, that might be your best option available, to demand a new investigation by, for instance, the City or State of New York.) If anyone else -- Alex Jones or Judge Judy or Ban Ki-moon or Scooby-Doo -- sends me a subpoena, I can (and will) throw it in the trash, or show up at their "hearing" and recite the script from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and there's nothing they can do about it.

Either the investigators' authority derives from the government, or they're a bunch of private individuals or gangsters or foreign agents who have no authority, and to whom revealing national security secrets would itself be a crime.

So again, I ask you to answer these questions about how you want this new "independent" investigation to be conducted. Others have posted things you've said on other forums about this question, but I'd rather have it from you first hand and fully in context than from hearsay.

1. Under what constitutional authority should the investigation derive the legal powers (such as subpoenaing witnesses and obtaining access to highly classified information) it would need for conducting an effective investigation?

2. Who should lead the investigation?

3. Who should participate in, and provide manpower and technical consultation for, the investigation?

4. If the investigation reveals evidence of crimes, who should have responsibility for charging and prosecuting the accused? Under what court system?

5. If the evidence against an accused person derives from classified sources as it likely would, or is itself classified, how do you guarantee the accused the right to a fair trial without compromising national security?

6. Who should decide the answers to the above questions, under what authority?

Unless you can answer all of these questions, or at least 1, 2, 3, and 6, I put it to you that your calls for an investigation are useless and irrelevant, and would be so even if you were right about your accusations.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Belz...]

And that is just the 1st 4 references to "Persian Gulf" in the doc. Please dont post to me again until you start doing some research.

How does that help you ? So far you've not supported your assertion that this document shows anything about 9/11.

 

[Belz...]

If you do want any of those things, then you've got a problem. Because in the U.S. the authority to do those things is vested, under the U.S. Constitution, in various branches of the U.S. Government. (State and local governments too, and police forces acting under their auspices, but their jurisdiction is limited, under the Federal Constitution, in ways that would make it difficult conduct an effective 9/11 investigation. However, that might be your best option available, to demand a new investigation by, for instance, the City or State of New York.) If anyone else -- Alex Jones or Judge Judy or Ban Ki-moon or Scooby-Doo -- sends me a subpoena, I can (and will) throw it in the trash, or show up at their "hearing" and recite the script from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and there's nothing they can do about it.

Either the investigators' authority derives from the government, or they're a bunch of private individuals or gangsters or foreign agents who have no authority, and to whom revealing national security secrets would itself be a crime.

Devastating, Myriad. Simply devastating.

 

[JonnyFive]

If you do want any of those things, then you've got a problem. Because in the U.S. the authority to do those things is vested, under the U.S. Constitution, in various branches of the U.S. Government. (State and local governments too, and police forces acting under their auspices, but their jurisdiction is limited, under the Federal Constitution, in ways that would make it difficult conduct an effective 9/11 investigation. However, that might be your best option available, to demand a new investigation by, for instance, the City or State of New York.) If anyone else -- Alex Jones or Judge Judy or Ban Ki-moon or Scooby-Doo -- sends me a subpoena, I can (and will) throw it in the trash, or show up at their "hearing" and recite the script from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and there's nothing they can do about it.

Either the investigators' authority derives from the government, or they're a bunch of private individuals or gangsters or foreign agents who have no authority, and to whom revealing national security secrets would itself be a crime.

I's is gon' nomernate you fer that!

 

[Cuddles]

That article was written in 2003 and largely speculative. It did get one thing right, though:



So THAT's how they're controlling the oil in Iraq!

Don't you see it? You'll never be a conspiracy theorist at this rate! You see, with all this increased terrorism, we now have an excuse to get into MORE wars, which will create more terrorism, which in turn will create MORE wars, all of which lead to control of oil. Somehow.

BWA-HA-HA-HA! Soon we'll all be rich, rich, RICH!!!!

1) Start wars.
2)
3) Money!!!

It's foolproof.

 

[JonnyFive]

1) Start wars.
2)
3) Money!!!

It's foolproof.

Let's see...

1) Start wars.
2) Spend hundreds of billions on wars.
3) Obtain a few billion in oil.
4) Money!!!

I think I made a mistake somewhere.

 

[mjd1982]

Sorry, no. The point at hand, for this moment and all moments for the foreseeable future, is "so what?"

You want an entirely independent investigation whose questions are agreed upon by Alex Jones? You've just done one. You think the results of that investigation, which you've presented here, warrant another investigation? Go right ahead, do another one. You can keep that up forever if you want to. No need to get our or anyone else's approval, or really, bother us about it at all.

Since you don't seem to be satisfied with that, it appears that you want more than just an independent investigation, which anyone (newspaper reporters, a technical study group, you, me) is free to do any time they want. You want your investigators to have some or all of the following, don't you?

- the power to subpoena witnesses
- the power to compel witnesses to appear, to take oaths to answer questions truthfully, and to answer questions they might not want to answer, by penalizing them for failing to do so, such as via the threat of contempt of court charges, perjury charges, or similar punitive action (just to be clear on what "the power to subpoena witnesses" really means)
- the security clearance necessary to permit witnesses to testify about national security secrets which they have sworn oaths not to reveal
- the power to force the U.S. military to make classified documents available for examination
- the power to press criminal charges
- the power to arrest and try individuals on those charges, and mete out punishment

If you don't want these things, then you've already got your independent investigations, as many of them as you feel like conducting, so I don't see what you're complaining about.

If you do want any of those things, then you've got a problem. Because in the U.S. the authority to do those things is vested, under the U.S. Constitution, in various branches of the U.S. Government. (State and local governments too, and police forces acting under their auspices, but their jurisdiction is limited, under the Federal Constitution, in ways that would make it difficult conduct an effective 9/11 investigation. However, that might be your best option available, to demand a new investigation by, for instance, the City or State of New York.) If anyone else -- Alex Jones or Judge Judy or Ban Ki-moon or Scooby-Doo -- sends me a subpoena, I can (and will) throw it in the trash, or show up at their "hearing" and recite the script from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and there's nothing they can do about it.

Either the investigators' authority derives from the government, or they're a bunch of private individuals or gangsters or foreign agents who have no authority, and to whom revealing national security secrets would itself be a crime.

So again, I ask you to answer these questions about how you want this new "independent" investigation to be conducted. Others have posted things you've said on other forums about this question, but I'd rather have it from you first hand and fully in context than from hearsay.

You do make some good points. However, the thrust of you post is neither here nor there. The performance of an independent investigation, shouldn't be hard to carry out. The main thing is to ensure a) transparency, b) its corrollary, accountability and c) Impartiality. This will discourage dependence, and ensure, to a great degree, that the right people are appointed to the right positions, that all the correct issues are addressed, and that there is follow through. If not, and the 3 characteristics I have pointed out are truly present, then there will be suitable uproar from a significant part of the populace. This will at least serve to get things out into the open.

The 911 Comm report, although many of the hearings were public, was vitiated due to lack of transparency in its selection of members. Appointing the likes of Zelikow and Kissinger to important posts is not something that will serve in the bes interests of either of the 3 points. How will the appointment process take place? Well, it could be done by vote. This would get round the problem of having the government choose who would be investigating the government.

Of course, absent all of this, you have provided your own answer, in that it could be performed by a state/local government.

I wil go through your points:

1. Under what constitutional authority should the investigation derive the legal powers (such as subpoenaing witnesses and obtaining access to highly classified information) it would need for conducting an effective investigation?

I think this is dealt with

2. Who should lead the investigation?

Transparency and accountability should ensure that the person who will lead it is not someone who is closely affiliated with the government; there should be no conflicts of interest.

3. Who should participate in, and provide manpower and technical consultation for, the investigation?

The committee (possibly a House Select Committee?) would decide this.

4. If the investigation reveals evidence of crimes, who should have responsibility for charging and prosecuting the accused? Under what court system?

Under the US court system

5. If the evidence against an accused person derives from classified sources as it likely would, or is itself classified, how do you guarantee the accused the right to a fair trial without compromising national security?

If you are saying that by producing incriminating evidence that would compromise national security, should such evidence be produced (?) well, the answer would depend on the issue at stake. Be careful; "national security" is an easy smokescreen to allow governments to protect themselves.

6. Who should decide the answers to the above questions, under what authority?

I think this is dealt with.

Unless you can answer all of these questions, or at least 1, 2, 3, and 6, I put it to you that your calls for an investigation are useless and irrelevant, and would be so even if you were right about your accusations.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Good. Now we can address the points perhaps. Anyone?

 

[Stellafane]

...This will discourage dependence, and ensure, to a great degree, that the right people are appointed to the right positions

I think herein lies the crux of the issue between us. I personally am satisfied that a thorough, credible investigation of 9/11 has already been carried out. You apparently are not. A cynic may attribute our difference of opinion to the fact that the 9/11 report did not reach the conclusions you wanted it to, but let's assume that you have a more valid reason, namely that you didn't like the membership of the group that conducted the investigation and believe their findings are therefore biased and invalid. The problem is, who instead should be part of the investigation team (or as you phrase it, "the right people...appointed to the right positions")? I suspect that a lot of 9/11 CTers would argue that any 9/11 research should include the likes of Jones and Griffin and Judy Wood and the rest of that crowd. I, on the other hand, consider these people for the most part to be lunatics and opportunists with a very shaky grasp of reality, who couldn't conduct a valid investigation of a 7/11 break in, never mind 9/11.

I think this issue is unsolvable. I don't believe CTers will ever be satisfied with any investigation not conducted by fellow CTers, and that does not endorse what they already want to believe happened on 9/11. I, on the other hand, am always going to be skeptical of research done by anyone who is already deeply invested in the 9/11 conspiracy community. And based on their previous track record, I think I'm emminently justified in doing so.

 

[rwguinn]

You do make some good points. However, the thrust of you post is neither here nor there. The performance of an independent investigation, shouldn't be hard to carry out. The main thing is to ensure a) transparency, b) its corrollary, accountability and c) Impartiality. This will discourage dependence, and ensure, to a great degree, that the right people are appointed to the right positions, that all the correct issues are addressed, and that there is follow through. If not, and the 3 characteristics I have pointed out are truly present, then there will be suitable uproar from a significant part of the populace. This will at least serve to get things out into the open.

The 911 Comm report, although many of the hearings were public, was vitiated due to lack of transparency in its selection of members. Appointing the likes of Zelikow and Kissinger to important posts is not something that will serve in the bes interests of either of the 3 points. How will the appointment process take place? Well, it could be done by vote. This would get round the problem of having the government choose who would be investigating the government.

Of course, absent all of this, you have provided your own answer, in that it could be performed by a state/local government.

I wil go through your points:



I think this is dealt with

How?

Transparency and accountability should ensure that the person who will lead it is not someone who is closely affiliated with the government; there should be no conflicts of interest.

a person chosen by the government, appointed by the government is not affiliated with the government? How does this work?

The committee (possibly a House Select Committee?) would decide this.

Independennt of government?

Under the US court system

This is independent and not affiliated with the gubmint in what way?

If you are saying that by producing incriminating evidence that would compromise national security, should such evidence be produced (?) well, the answer would depend on the issue at stake. Be careful; "national security" is an easy smokescreen to allow governments to protect themselves.



I think this is dealt with.

coherence and reality are not on speaking terms with you, are they? What did you do to p!$$ them off so much?

Good. Now we can address the points perhaps. Anyone?

When you make one, we can discuss it. So far all we have seen from you is assertion, disconnect from reality, and a lack of demonstrable education in science, economics, civics, and logic.

 

[pgwenthold]

This thread has drifted a bit, and I want to bring it back to "facts," as they are asserted in the OP. In particular, I find these three claims:

- September 10, 2001: NSA Intercepts: ‘The Match Begins Tomorrow’ and ‘Tomorrow Is Zero Hour’
- September 10, 2001: US Intercepts: ‘Watch the News’ and ‘Tomorrow Will Be a Great Day for Us’
- September 10, 2001: US Generals Warned Not to Fly on Morning of 9/11

Can anyone provide details on them? Was the information in the supposed "intercepts" actually available on Sept 10 (assuming it is real)? Because ISTR that the NSA is generally a couple days behind in translating things they intercept. These are only relevent if they were translated on before Sept 11. If not, then they were not available intel.

And were generals warned not to fly on the morning of 9/11, and if they were, WHY were they so warned?

 

[mjd1982]

Oh, sorry, i notice we do have 1 post in ~150 that tries to address the points. Well done to you sir for your courage! Shame about the content...

Uh-oh. Mjd thinks that old debunked points, in his hands, will do wonders.
How does that say they're going to murder their own people ?

It doesnt. It states that a new PH would be propitious for policy. If you dispute this, well, then read the post, think about it for a little while, and then post again.

And they print it for the public to see ? Oh, wait, when did they say they would MAKE it happen ?

Oh you're right, yep. The fact that they did say it, means that because they wouldnt, they didnt!

What an intrepid bunch you are!

No, it isn't. You're making it say more than it does.

What an excellent command of rhetoric you have. You would have noticed, wereyour reading comp skills above that of a 7 year old, that the doc says that the changes called for must be crystallised by October 2001. It also says that such transformations will not take place in a timely fashion, absent a new PH. Hence we (grown ups) conclude that they deem a new PH propitious to policy.

It really is quite simple.

Only to the untrained one. Only someone with the most rudimentary knowledge of physics, politics, sociology, psychology and statistics could think that 9/11 was an inside job.

Don't worry. You're not the first to think you're smarter than all these other people who didn't spot it, and you won't be the last.

Ahhh... how true. What a fine intellectual specimen you are proving yourslef to be! Keep it up!

Yeah. International terrorists ram jets into buildings. That is SO Bush!

No, "so Bush" is, among other things, excitedly stating the propitiousness of a new PH to the world, 12 mths before one happens.

Not realising the significance of this, is also pretty standard for you and your ilk.

And how is this, a result of the 9/11 attacks, show foreknowledge or an inside job ?

You are a charmingly empty headed one, no? It is not intended to show that, it shows how a new PH would be propitious to policy.

Once again, this should not be hard to understand, but don't worry.

Iraq, at present. No relation with 9/11. Why ?

Ask the governemnt. Even today, Joe Liebermann is out there stating that we need to fight "the people who attacked us on 911" in Iraq. The tenuousness/non existence of this link just makes the catalyst of the new PH all the more clear.

That doesn't follow. Defense <> attack.

Oh boy... please read what I have said next time, or I wont bother with you!

The wars in Iraq /Afghanistan are one fraction of the WOT. I have outlined the others, go do some research.

What I appreciate is that you can't read.

Ooohhh...that hurts.

So well done for "bravery", but you might wanna brush up on the content. Please don't waste your time here, with me at least, until your willing to do that.