The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[DGM]

"The Taliban has been given the opportunity to surrender all the terrorists in Afghanistan and to close down their camps and operations," the president said. "Full warning has been given, and time is running out."

"The president made clear his demands," said an administration official, who asked not to be identified. "Those demands are not subject to negotiation and it is time for the Taliban to act now."

How do you get did nothing out of that article?

 

[Gravy]

How many Nazi leaders planned the Holocaust?

Many.

How many actively participated in it?

Many thousands.

How long did it take this massive conspiracy to be exposed?

Having broken the German codes, the British were aware of the systematic mass-elimination of Jews by the autumn of 1941.

Your point?

 

[Swing Dangler]

Many.

I agree. Many, but a number would be nice.

Many thousands.

Debatable but acceptable.

Having broken the German codes, the British were aware of the systematic mass-elimination of Jews by the autumn of 1941.
Your point?

My point? Well now it is your point. As your own point proves this is not factual:

Belz-Because to do so would require many, many people, and that, historically, even very, very small conspiracies break down quickly.

A large conspiracy involving possibly thousands didn't break down, it was discovered by a country outside of the conspiracy, specifically as you state, the British. And the Holocaust conspiracy continued after the discovery of outside sources. Thank you Gravy, you helped me prove Belz's point wrong.

Taking Belz's logic and proving it wrong with an historical example shows that 9/11 even if it did require many, many, many people, does not mean it couldn't take place because it would break down quickly.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Errr... well 1stly its not their "website" Mr Clueless, but their biennial policy white paper.

I notice that, having failed in his attempt to pretend to address the arguments, he has now reverted to the typical troofer tactic of making fun of screen names and/or avatars.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Having broken the German codes, the British were aware of the systematic mass-elimination of Jews by the autumn of 1941.

After accepting this statement as fact, I decided to check. I'm not so sure this your statement is factual.

Wartime Codebreakers Missed Clues to Holocaust
Coded Nazi messages intercepted by Britain could have exposed the scope of the Holocaust years before the liberation of the death camps, but Allied codebreakers failed to fully understand the information they had, according to United States government analysis of intelligence from the era.
Source: Guardian Unlimited, via Buzzle.com

Reports of massacres, but not a report of the entire scope of the holocaust.

 

[Gravy]

A large conspiracy involving possibly thousands didn't break down, it was discovered by a country outside of the conspiracy, specifically as you state, the British.

I see I must quote you again, with emphasis:

How long did it take this massive conspiracy to be exposed?

And the Holocaust conspiracy continued after the discovery of outside sources.

It seems you have neglected to consider that small interposing factor, THE WORLD WAR.

Thank you Gravy, you helped me prove Belz's point wrong.

No, I showed that you are profoundly ignorant of history (but we already knew that), and that you wouldn't know a ridiculous logical fallacy if it bit you on the ass.

 

[H'ethetheth]

You state it would require many, many, people. What proof do you have?

Lets look at history?

How many Nazi leaders planned the Holocaust? How many actively participated in it? How long did it take this massive conspiracy to be exposed?

Hmmm let's see: Other than the fact that I wouldn't call the holocaust a conspiracy so much I'd say: Some 15, at the very least several hundreds, and at most three years respectively.

ETA: Crap, too late.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Lets look at history?

How many Nazi leaders planned the Holocaust? How many actively participated in it? How long did it take this massive conspiracy to be exposed?

Was Nazi Germany an open or closed society, in comparison to the US in 2001?

Yes or no?

 

[Gravy]

After accepting this statement as fact, I decided to check. I'm not so sure this your statement is factual.

Wartime Codebreakers Missed Clues to Holocaust
Coded Nazi messages intercepted by Britain could have exposed the scope of the Holocaust years before the liberation of the death camps, but Allied codebreakers failed to fully understand the information they had, according to United States government analysis of intelligence from the era.
Source: Guardian Unlimited, via Buzzle.com

Reports of massacres, but not a report of the entire scope of the holocaust.

..

RICHARD BREITMAN: This is an area that requires further research, and I have not been working in London. I've been working here. But what I have seen here indicates that these particular decodes were distributed to a range of offices within the British Secret Service, to the Air Ministry, to the Ministry of Economic Warfare, and a summary of some items was passed up to Prime Minister Churchill's office to the point where by mid September a British intelligence analyst wrote, we do not propose to continue sending reports about atrocities in the Soviet Union to the prime minister--and I'm paraphrasing, rather than giving you a direct quote--because it is perfectly obvious that the Nazis are killing every Jew that they can lay their hands on. Source

(Edit) From your link:

One particularly chilling memorandum, written by a British official on September 11 1941, refers to German massacres in the Soviet Union and concludes: "The fact that the police are killing all Jews that fall into their hands should now be sufficiently well appreciated. It is not therefore proposed to continue reporting these butcheries unless so requested."

 

[SpitfireIX]

The big question, of course, is - B, C or E wing? Four 303's throw a lot of bullets around but there's no real stopping power; do you trade for the two extra cannon or the two 0.50's?

Dave

From what I've read, the Spitfire IXc couldn't carry the two extra cannon, because of its heavier engine. My preferred armament is 2x20mm and 4x.303in--the 2x20mm and 2x.50in just seems so, so, well . . . American.

ETA If I had it to do over, I would use the nick Spitfire IXc (or Spitfire_IXc for sites that don't allow spaces in nicks). But I've used SpitfireIX on too many sites already (though my YouTube nick is SpitfireIXb, as SpitfireIX and SpitfireIXc had already been taken ).

 

[aggle-rithm]

After accepting this statement as fact, I decided to check. I'm not so sure this your statement is factual.

Wartime Codebreakers Missed Clues to Holocaust
Coded Nazi messages intercepted by Britain could have exposed the scope of the Holocaust years before the liberation of the death camps, but Allied codebreakers failed to fully understand the information they had, according to United States government analysis of intelligence from the era.
Source: Guardian Unlimited, via Buzzle.com

Reports of massacres, but not a report of the entire scope of the holocaust.

You have to keep things in perspective. At the same time six million Jews were being killed in Europe, 20 million Chinese were being slaughtered by the Japanese.

Why didn't someone do something?!?

 

[H'ethetheth]

A large conspiracy involving possibly thousands didn't break down, it was discovered by a country outside of the conspiracy, specifically as you state, the British. And the Holocaust conspiracy continued after the discovery of outside sources. Thank you Gravy, you helped me prove Belz's point wrong.

You think the allies found out before most Germans did? Do you have a source for that?

 

[aggle-rithm]

While we're looking at WWII, it's important to remember what an insane time that was in world history. There is NO comparison to the political situation in 2001. If an event the size of 9/11 had occured during the war, it would have been a burp in the wind (the only reason Pearl Harbor is so well remembered is its timing).

You want failure to defend territory? The loss of the Phillipines makes the intelligence failures of 9/11 look like tiddlywinks. General MacArthur knew WHO was going to attack, WHEN they were going to attack, and WHERE they were coming from, and he STILL got caught with his pants down! Where's the conspiracy there?

You want body count? Imagine ten times the number of people killed in 9/11, and imagine it happening every day for five years.

You want LIHOP? The Allies frequently allowed their own people to be attacked so the Germans would not realize their codes had been broken. In those days, it was easy to trade a few lives for many.

These were extreme times, and they called for extreme sacrifices. There is no way you can claim that an event during this time is a historical precedent for the peacetime world sixty years later. Such a claim is, frankly, insane.

 

[Swing Dangler]

You've posted two links that don't say what you claim they say. One is an offer from the Taliban that if the US stopped bombing Afghanistan they would talk about handing over Bin Laden to an unspecified third country, and the other is an offer to put Bin Laden on trial in Afghanistan, under Islamic law. Nowhere is there a clear offer to hand over Bin Laden, and both of these efforts look like simple bluff by the Taliban to save their skins without committing themselves to anything. I hate to compliment the man, but it looks like Bush was right to reject these non-offers.
Dave

Did Bush choose to allow the handover of Bin Laden, yes or no? If the answer is no, you should contact the author of the article and have them correct the historical record. If the answer is yes, then all should read to understand the article itself.

Yep. And within the world of diplomacy, negotiations between two countries require talks. I did not state the handover would be unconditional without negotiations of say the lifting of sanctions prior to the attack on the country, etc. The point was, Bush rejected the first offer that had conditions associated with it and went to war. Then Bush rejected a second offer by the Taliban to try to stop the destruction as one of the conditions of their country. In the second article, Bush states he doesn't have to offer evidence or prove anything of Bin Laden's guilt. "We know he did it."
Would the same standard apply to America, if another country required the handover of major political figure for crimes without offering evidence of said crimes? Of course not.

As an American, I want OBL's head on a plate, whether it is here, there, or most appropriately, the World Court. See NWO. But instead we get the war in Afghanistan, American men and women in body bags, the destruction of that country and it's innocent civilians, a temporary weaking of the Taliban, and finally, no Bin Laden and the war goes on.

Explaining to me how Bush was right in rejecting all diplomatic offers and pulling the trigger of America's military might?

 

[Belz...]

You state it would require many, many, people. What proof do you have?

The simple fact that hundreds of people would have to be involved in the demolitions; that many, many more would have to be involved in planning the false hijackings and, according to some, replacing the planes with military ones. That every structural expert in the world would have to be paid off, etc. That's thousands of people, Swing, if not tens of thousands.

How many Nazi leaders planned the Holocaust? How many actively participated in it? How long did it take this massive conspiracy to be exposed?

When was this a secret ?

The Nazi agenda included discrimination against the Jews and there was no
doubt that they were being rounded up and shot.

A large conspiracy involving possibly thousands didn't break down

It's the SECRET part of the conspiracy that breaks down. The Nazi plan wasn't secret for long.

Thank you Gravy, you helped me prove Belz's point wrong.

I'm sorry you don't understand my point, then.

 

[Belz...]

As an American, I want OBL's head on a plate, whether it is here, there, or most appropriately, the World Court. See NWO. But instead we get the war in Afghanistan, American men and women in body bags, the destruction of that country and it's innocent civilians, a temporary weaking of the Taliban, and finally, no Bin Laden and the war goes on.

How would YOU have caught him ?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Did Bush choose to allow the handover of Bin Laden, yes or no? If the answer is no, you should contact the author of the article and have them correct the historical record. If the answer is yes, then all should read to understand the article itself.

As I said, your sources make it clear that there was no realistic offer of a handover. Bush (or more likely his advisors) appears to have concluded that the Taliban was not making an offer in good faith, and that there was no point responding.

Yep. And within the world of diplomacy, negotiations between two countries require talks. I did not state the handover would be unconditional without negotiations of say the lifting of sanctions prior to the attack on the country, etc. The point was, Bush rejected the first offer that had conditions associated with it and went to war. Then Bush rejected a second offer by the Taliban to try to stop the destruction as one of the conditions of their country. In the second article, Bush states he doesn't have to offer evidence or prove anything of Bin Laden's guilt. "We know he did it."
Would the same standard apply to America, if another country required the handover of major political figure for crimes without offering evidence of said crimes? Of course not.

Most of this is irrelevant, especially speculation about what America would or would not have done had it been Afghanistan. You've implied that there was a clear offer made in good faith to hand Bin Laden over to America, and clearly there was not, or anything like it; your opinion that no such offer should have been made, or would have been expected to be made, doesn't change the fact that it wasn't made. Once you get into negotiations, it's no longer a simple decision, it's a matter for judgement. So Bush chose to ignore an offer that would have left Afghanistan free to continue hosting Al-Qaeda's training organisation and wouldn't have even compelled them to hand over Bin Laden; hardly a no-brainer to accept.

Dave

 

[Kage]

I think that the PNAC --> 9/11 has problems the same way that the lack of WMD in Iraq means no conspiracy.

Well that's good, since I never said PNAC --> 9/11 (if i understand u right)

I thought that was what we spent the first 20 odd pages of this thread discussing? Maybe I was a bit unclear. The symbol "-->" is "implies." I more or less mean, "PNAC implies that 9/11 was an inside job or was let to happen on purpose." This is false for many reasons that have been pointed out to you.

An evil organization would not have done 9/11 if their goals had been spelled out by PNAC, just as they would have faked WMDs had they faked 9/11.

Sorry, what's your basis for either of these assertions?

The basis is the fact that the WOT does less for transformation than a war with a nation such as North Korea, Iran, or a limited exchange with China. Each of these are achievable with less effort than 9/11, and the result of these types of PH will be closer to the transformation described by PNAC.

People get hung up on the "Pearl Harbor" line, and 9/11 was our generation's Pearl Harbor, but 9/11 was not the Pearl Harbor specified by PNAC.

They didnt specify a new PH strictly, they specified a catastrophic and catalysing event. 911 killed ~3000 people, therefore was catastrophic; it cataysed the WOT, therefore was catalysing. End of.

Somewhat the same as above. The WOT generally puts the most money into very low tech equipment and units, such as infantry and SOF, and takes away money from the Air Force and the like. Multiple expensive programs have been scrapped, and Rumsfelds Net Centric Warfare isn't going anywhere. This would be the opposite effect of a limited war with a more technicaly adept enemy. You harp on catalysing and catastrophic but aren't paying attention to what 9/11 was catalysing into.

Intel failures present another issue. We would like to think of our Intel services as an all knowing big brother with the skills of James Bond and super huge resources, but they are not perfect. As good as the NSA is they have orders of magnitude less processing power than google. Are such failures serious? Defintely. Presenting a nefarious reason why these failures happened creates a huge lower bound for the size of the conspiracy.

1stly, the intel failures were 1 of 4 sections I listed. Why do you not address the other 3?

Further, i am simply stating that in light of zero action in face of unprecedented warning, followed by not even a demotion, should necessitate an investigation into complicity, when viewed with the other facts I have presented but people here chose not to discuss seriously.

If I get your point, intel failures are they key way the Bush admin let/made 9/11 happen. Therefore I think it is a key point to adress. These posts are getting encyclopedic in length, and i want to avoid carpal tunnel syndrome.

I'm not going to argue with this, given that I think the intel failures were unacceptable. I'm no fan of the Bush admin and dislike their take on accountability. I just don't see how this means they made it happen or let it happen on purpose.

If you make the conspiracy too small then the intel can get high enough and thwart the conspiracy. If you make it too big it becomes impossible to keep the conspiracy a secret.

I have stated what would need to be done- get a few heads of food chains in line, and then stifle action from the top down. People will get frustrated, threaten to quit, run round with their hair on fire stating something huge is about to happen, or someone's plotting to fly a plane into the WTC, and nothing will happen, since the people at the top, not necessarily many, know whats going on.

For starters, Tenet probably would have to have been in on it, yet he is where you get some of those warnings from. How does that work?

I think that you are also misunderstanding the way intel angencies work on the analyst side. All PDBs and other documents are consensus efforts that go through huge amounts of collaboration and revision. One person "at the top of the food chain" in an agency is certainly not enuogh to let/make 9/11 happen on purpose.

Subsequently, you gag a few people, and those who are in the plot will not squeal, for the very least reason since it would be their ticket to the firing squad.

And of course, to state that no suspects have squealed (yet) therefore theyre all innocent, is not a serious argument.

Well, you would need a large enough conspiracy to send people to the firing squad, and you would need to be able to do it without their letters and proof getting to say, the NYT. Not easily done in the age of the internet.

A more ridiculus argument is that nobody has come forward, therefore it is a conspiracy. I have no burden to prove the negative.

Pomeroo puts the statistics nicely, so I wont step on his toes with that argument.

I havent seen this.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2697273#post2697273

It will take more than intel failures and PNAC to prove 9/11 was LIHOP or MIHOP. I rephrase my problem with your argument:

1 - PNAC
2 - Intel failures
3 - ?
4 - 9/11?!

I am not trying to prove it was an inside job, merely present sufficient evidence to illustarte the necessity of a new investigation into gov complicity. Hence stated intent-> gross criminal negligence in failing to prevent subject of stated intent -> investigation into complicity.

I really dont think this is very controversial.

I still don't understand whether you think that the Bush admin let or made 9/11 happen. You say that the Bush admin did not respond to intel in order to let 9/11 happen, then you say that they did not respond to the USS Cole bombing in order to wait for 9/11. How did they know the bigger event was coming? How did they get this to work over two administrations? How did they plan it to fit in with the DOD review? I can't tell if you are a LIHOPper or a MIHOPper, and you should probably clarify.

Personally I'd like to know where Rove's emails have gone, but that has nothing to do with 9/11.

BTW -- Let's keep it to smaller posts in the future. This takes way too long.

 

[Augustine]

What the hell does this matter? Who cares one jot about what strategists have been saying- it is about implementation

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you willful ignorance.

The strategists matter because they are the ones who originate the plans and policy which get implemented – THAT IS WHY YOU SHOULD STUDY THEM. So you do not wind up some Chicken Little, "sky-is-falling", paranoid type who reads sinister world conspiracy implications in what is a rather mundane policy document. When strategists are all tending to point in the same direction on a particular policy, it’s going to GET IMPLEMENTED. PNAC Rebuilding America’s Defenses is really little more than a rewrite of draft Defense Policy Guidance from 1992, which came out to refocus defense planning after the Cold War, produced under SecDef Cheney. Little surprise that his ideas would be implemented when an administration that he was a prime member of came into power, is it? I mean, for 99% of the population, this is common sense. Why are you having such a hard time grasping this?

How do I know it would have been implemented regardless? Because I am actually in the U.S. Military, and I watch what is coming down the pike, and read the Strategic Studies coming out of the AWC, CSS, Carlisle, etc. - in short I try to stay informed, which I highly recommend you give a try. It will require you to give up your crazy conspiracy theories , but it is so much more enjoyable to reside in the real world . If you choose to believe PNAC Rebuilding America's Defenses was some super-sinister conspiracy master plan, well....have fun with that!! Let me know how that works out for you! Cheers!

 

[Augustine]

Do you have a source for this?

History. Are you challenging any aspect of that statement?