The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[MIKILLINI]

The P-51 mustang is just a flat out better plane. (He said holding a large "biased" sign over his head.)

But those Brits let Packard use the Merlin engine design for it.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Is this how it goes? PNAC signees "off the record" speak;whispering, conspiring. Hey guys, listen..Terrorist threats are increasing every day and it looks like this persistant one..Osama Bin Laden appears to be the most prevalent; But isn't that the son of...shhhh!! Doesn't matter if she does business with the Carlyle group. She thinks Osama is still a good boy, but thats beside the point, he's just misunderstood. Well listen, if we just let things ride...and keep things blocked toward the FBI...maybe that Osama will come here and hijack a plane himself...We can then have our catastrophic event...quicker with full spectrum dominance. But Rummy, quit going on about Iraq, we would have to bomb Afghanistan first...what? Iraq has better targets? Ok we have to find out which airports are the most lax on security, and make sure they are airports who will look the other way at box cutters.
ok , the match begins tomorrow.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

You mean the Velvet Revolver new album?

July the 3rd

Touche!

 

[mjd1982]

mjd1982, I asked you two specific questions in my post 752

Please respond.

Excuse me. Your 1st question:

How do you know the government could "fairly easily connive" in this case?

That is speculation on my part, but it is based in fairly sound reasoning. 1stly, all major actiond (e.g accepting the hand over of OBL; dealing with the CSG etc) will be done by the Executive Branch. People lower down the chain can kick and scream, and did, but this comes to nothing if the people at the top of this particular tree are committed to doing nothing.
Further, you can repeat this at other organisations such as the FBI. I have already stated that, according to Dick Clarke, Louis Freeh had "back channels" to certain parts of the GOP, which would create a perfectly reasonable scenario for his involvement, even absent "subversion". And of course, with him at the top of the organisation for 8 years, it is probable that his senior subordinates would have been of a similar mindset to him, having been selected by him

How many people would have to have been subverted?

Now this is a silly question. Are you expecting me to pull a number out of a hat? The reason for calling for a new investigation is to determine minutiae such as that; as you will be aware, stating that the conspiracy would have had >100 people involved is zero basis for stating that it did not happen.

What if some of them said "no?"

Ditto the above.

Are you advocating LIHOP or MIHOP? If LIHOP, how could "they" affect the timing of the attack to make it right before the QDR?? If MIHOP, why would there have been any actionable warnings?? Please explain this apparent contradiction in your "theory."

Again, something that would be ascertained in an investigation. One way it could have happened would have been for an organisation to have had a man on the inside of AQ, as French Intel did, who could have informed the US what was happening when, and maybe influenced events favourably to what the US wanted.

This is just an example of how it could have worked. There are many others.

I have little time for acronyms, as they dont have much serious value.

 

[mjd1982]

Okay.

You have to establish the "and only in" part of that argument. Otherwise, as you know, even if your other premises are accepted, any attempt to conclude that a conspiracy exists, from those statements, would be a simple affirming the consequent logical fallacy. (A conspiracy would cause X to happen, X happened, therefore a conspiracy exists.)

So, everything hinges on the "...and only in..." part of that argument. You must show that 9/11 could not have happened without a conspiracy. To do that you must, at the very least, show that conspirators in the U.S. Government performed specific acts that caused or allowed 9/11 to happen.

If you can't do that, your argument is a logical fallacy that goes nowhere.

And if by some chance you can do it, then you have no need of your speculative "plausible scenario" regarding PNAC, you'd have actual evidence of a conspiracy.

So, after all this arguing about whether or not 9/11 is like Pearl Harbor and whether or not PNAC wanted such an event to happen, you're back in the same boat with every other truther: needing to show evidence of what the conspirators did, in order for your argument to go anywhere.

Congratulations. After 20 21 pages of arguing, you've reached you're still on Square One.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Loath though I am to waste time re-explaining elementary details to people too lazy to look, the "plausible scenario" comment relates to the sequence of foreknowledge that I spent a lot of time outlining; not to the fact of 911 being an inside job. This is astonishingly basic.

To recap in any case, that Bush should reject the offer of OBL on a plate; that he should demote the one organisation that is most likely to stop AQ, who he has been told are an urgent and deadly threat, upon their submission to him of strategies to combat them, offering no explanation; and that he should be warned 40 times of the imminent threat of an AQ attack on US interests, and do nothing is a scenario so extreme, that it points only to complicity in AQ interests, on one level or another. Even if there are alternative explanations, such behaviour is at the very least, criminal negligence; when viewed in light of PNAC, sensible and honest people will come to sensible and honest conclusions.

 

[HeyLeroy]

(snip)
I have little time for acronyms, as they dont have much serious value.

Is that sarcasm?

 

[mjd1982]

You're still twisting the wording to reflect your own interpretation. Nowhere in PNAC is this called for. It's hard to take you seriously when you keep doing that.

This has been dealt with. You responded. I responded back. If you want to contest the point, then respond back again (=debate), rather than just repeating your point.

 

[mjd1982]

Very simple. If you're right, they failed to keep it a secret. In fact, if you're right, they outright announced that they thought it would be a good thing if it happened

right

and proceded to publish all the foreknowledge they could have acted upon to stop it, including all kinds of classified documents.

Excuse me? Where are the "all kinds of classified documents"? What have they published?

The mind boggles.

So an ipso facto argument from incredulity. Need I remind you, that the boggling of your mind does not have any bearing on facts.

And i should state here, how depressing, and unsurprising yet disappointing it is, that already, the arguments being proffered by the purported guardians of the facts, are descending into arguments from incredulity. Look at many of the posts now. "It would have been too big" "How do you keep people quiet?" "How many people do you think were involved" etc. No. This is of zero relevance, and has zero worth. That you think they wouldnt have been stupid enough to state the propitiousness of a new PH, so they didnt, is worthless as an argument. That you think it would have been too big a plot so it didnt happen, is again, worthless as an argument. So stop with these primitive arguments, start respecting facts and their logical corrollaries.

And another thing: Would you like to be responsible for killing possibly 10,000 of your countrymen? Anyone you know, perhaps?

No. What the hell is your point?

Yes.
Putting together all the pieces of this puzzle is easier when you know what to look for. They didn't.
All I see is a selection of [rule8]-ups that has been meticulously sifted from a no doubt larger list of unrelated [rule8]-ups. In some cases, those responsibe have tried to deny but got caught in the end, because some people don't just ask questions.

Hahaha... oh boy, what a seeker of truth you are.

Please go through my list, and explain how they are all just screw ups, warranting no further investigation.

 

[332nd]

But those Brits let Packard use the Merlin engine design for it.

Hey nothing at all against the Merlin. I love the sound of those things.

 

[mjd1982]

If you already KNOW it's a conspiracy before you start, all the pieces that rational people see as unrelated, irrelevant, or misunderstood will certainly fit together to conform to your preconceived opinion.

We've seen it a thousand times. If you took all the things that are conjecture, half-truths, incorrect science, political bias, and out-and-out falsehoods away from your 'list', you'd find it would shrink to insignificance.

Please give me examples of each of such.

When you fail, tell me why you tried.

 

[WildCat]

To recap in any case, that Bush should reject the offer of OBL on a plate;

To recap, this never happened and you look foolish for claiming it was so.

 

[HeyLeroy]

mjd1982, when are you gonna get to 7WTC?

 

[MIKILLINI]

Hey nothing at all against the Merlin. I love the sound of those things.

I agree

 

[mjd1982]

Please give me an example of where i have "refused to look"

Well I, for one, and Aggle-rithm if I remember correctly, pointed to the fact that the PNAC did NOT consider it propitious. You just hand-waved that.

How is that hand waving? I have adressed this a million times, to you and to others. I have waited for rebuttals following on from that. But no.

Remember the car crash accident analogy ? Just because something would be good, doesn't mean it was caused by those who'd see it as a good thing. Of course, IT WOULDN'T BE GOOD, so your whole point fails, anyway.

Right... So you are HeyLeroy in disguise.

I dont even know where to begin with this one! ok
1. I have dealt with this a million times already
2. It is an horrific analogy, since the person has little capacity to cause a car crash by himself covertly. This is very hard.
3. It was good, since it has enabled PNAC to achieve a huge degree of what they wanted.

How could they stop it if they didn't know it was going to happen ? See, you're assuming that the good ol' US of A is invincible, and that any and all attacks would be spotted and stopped, and that any attack that DOES make it is necessarily allowed to happen.

Of course, that doesn't make sense. No one is invincible, and no one would claim that the US government is 100% efficient.

Oh God... please start improving the quality of your posts if you want me to spend time replying to them. A good 1st tip- read mine, and understand them. It will help you a lot.

To start with just 2 ways to stop them, when Bush was told in June/July that AQ had cells in the US, he could have had people scope them out. He did nothing. 2nd, when OBL was offered on a plate in feb, he could have said yes.

I assume you are a yank? If so, does the fact that your pres did neither of these things not get you a tad peeved?

Really ? US economy has dropped since 9/11,

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html#fn56

Read and understand

and things aren't exactly going well in Iraq for the military.

So?

Do you live in the US ? I don't. If you do, could you tell me how all this has improved the US situation ?

No i dont. If you want to know, read the post on p3 that I referred u to.

I see you simply don't want to answer.

I have no idea. You're the one who brought it up.

Nope.

I cannot see what these lines were referring to, so I cant reply to them. I could go and look, but if i'm honest, see the 1st line of my reply to ur 3rd quote.

 

[mjd1982]

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

Yes, but if you read the link that I provided, you will see that a prior offer occurred in feb 01, for him to be handed over to the Saudis, to be given to the US. Why did Bush refuse?

 

[WildCat]

To start with just 2 ways to stop them, when Bush was told in June/July that AQ had cells in the US, he could have had people scope them out. He did nothing.

This is astonishing in what it reveals about your complete ignorance of the way US agencies work. You really think that the FBI would have needed explicit permission from the POTUS to investigate known terrorists inside the US? Really, this is incredible!

2nd, when OBL was offered on a plate in feb, he could have said yes.

Except this never happened...

 

[Unsecured Coins]

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html#fn56

Read and understand.

Read and understand this - that link you keep bringing up is 4 YEARS OLD. Can we get something from 2007 from you or is that asking too much

 

[mjd1982]

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

Yes or no?

How interesting! Much better than your last post.

You should probably know that Goebbels system of Propaganda was largely based on the teachings of Edward Bernays, who was the advocate of the "new Propaganda", designed for american societies, which has been practised by presidents from Coolidge onwards. You can read more about this in his book, Propaganda (1928). Chapter 7 is the most germane, but here's a nice quote from the start:

THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.

Once again, note that Bernays' influence has been considerable, and his principles continue to be followed, with astonishing closeness, even today.

Thus the manufacture of consent in Nazi Germany, and that in the "free west" today, has a remarkably strong underlying thread.

Now, though tangential, the point about the Holocaust is an interesting one, since germans at the time were largely unaware of it. It obviously wasnt being reported; fine, Jews were being carted away, people would have become aware of this, but gassed to death? How would anyone find out about this? Unless someone can show me otherwise, this was not something that was known in Germany until 1945 or after. Ditto operation T4, which was in place before 1939, killing ~78,000 people before it was terminated before the start of ww2 (it may have been re-started after that, I'm not sure). So this was outside a wartime environment, and using many of the techniques detailed by Bernays, no one knew about it. You can strike parallels with countless details re:9/11 (e.g. the offer of OBL in feb 01), but this is something I will post a thread on later, since it is quite important. I have posted a reply to one chap already with a load of links for those who want to find out more about the western propaganda system.

 

[MIKILLINI]

This is astonishing in what it reveals about your complete ignorance of the way US agencies work. You really think that the FBI would have needed explicit permission from the POTUS to investigate known terrorists inside the US? Really, this is incredible!


Except this never happened...

Is Kabir Mohabbat been verified on this story? Because I haven't found anything that would confirm his claim...Which is he could set up Bin laden to be handed over to the Government or notify the State Department where Bin Laden would be so the U.S. could send over a cruise missile to said location. How extraordinary is that?

 

[mjd1982]

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

If you're really interested in this, read the 2nd part of Sir Ian Kershaws biog on Hitler ("Nemesis"). This shoud be instructive.