The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[HeyLeroy]

Right... So you are HeyLeroy in disguise.

For What It's Worth

by
Buffalo Springfield

There's somethin' happenin' here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun, over there
Tellin' me I got to beware

(I think it's time we)
Stop, children, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's goin' down?

There's battle lines bein' drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speakin' their minds
Gettin' so much resistance from behind

(It's time we)
Stop, hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's goin' down?

What a field day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singin' songs and carryin' signs
Mostly sayin', "hooray for our side"

(It's time we)
Stop, hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's goin' down?

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
Step out of line, the man come and take you away

(We better)
Stop, hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's goin' down?
(We better)
Stop, hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's goin' down?
(We better)
Stop, now, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's goin' down?
(We better)
Stop, children, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's goin' down?​

 

[mjd1982]

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).

Thats a little bit distortive. You are stating that the death of people in peacetime is nothing to remember since more people get killed in war? This is because in peacetime, it is not to be expected that thousands of people should die in an instant, whereas this is not the case in wartime.

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?

Right. But did he directly reject chances to stop the attack. And why did he screw up. Your example, of which I know nothng, means very very little.

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

death in war is different from death in peace

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.

Hahaha... well, I'm sure that this is almost precisely the argument that Cheney et al believed in re: 911. 3,000 dead, but what a great trade off. How ironic that you should float that argument; how accurate it is!

These were extreme times, and they called for extreme sacrifices.

and again.

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.

Errr... but you did just that with your Phillipines analogy....

Oh, and nice argument from incredulity btw! We're notching these babies up here...

 

[mjd1982]

How would YOU have caught him ?

Errr... when he's offered to you, say yes!

 

[mjd1982]

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.



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

Read my link please.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

but according to you, whether they handed him over or not is.. irrelevant

 

[WildCat]

mjd1982, do you think that the FBI would have needed explicit permission from the POTUS to investigate al Qaeda terrorists in the US prior to 9/11?

It seems your entire premise depends on your answer being "yes".

 

[mjd1982]

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.

If such has been pointed out to me, it would be strange, but not unsurprising, since it is something I have not argued.

PNAC show that 911 was deemed propitious to policy. This lends us a good framework within which to operate. This has been dealt with in my OP to this section ,and illustrates that the probabiltiy that 911 could have happened absent gov complicty is very very very slim.

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.

If there is one thing i could scream to this entire thread (I have done many times already), it would be to read my dismantling of the LC Guide, pnac section on p3. This will show you that the WOT has effected the transformation almost completely in the way that they envisaged.

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.

This is completely wrong. As above.

If I get your point, intel failures are they key way the Bush admin let/made 9/11 happen.

No. Miles off. That is one section of 4, and the least damning. Please go back and read the other 3.

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.

as above

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?

He would, probably, not have been in on it. But that is neither here nor there.

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.

I know this. My point is the (non) reaction of the men (and woman ) who are on the receiving end.

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.

Letters saying what- "I was a co-plotter in 911"? Who the hell is going to write that? This is yet another argument from incredulity

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

I, nor anyone I have heard, have never argued this.

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

1stly, I would argue with both his numbers, and his percentages, which changes things totally. I will post on this later, as it is imporrtant. But more to the point to argue that no one has squealed proves anything, is worthless.

I still don't understand whether you think that the Bush admin let or made 9/11 happen.

I believe, though my precise speculation counts for little, that they knew it was coming, massaged it a bit to suit their ends, let it happen, and then aggravated it as per my OP.

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?

Cos they had the intel warnings, telling them exactly that.

How did they get this to work over two administrations?

?

How did they plan it to fit in with the DOD review?

What review?

I can't tell if you are a LIHOPper or a MIHOPper, and you should probably clarify.

I dont think that this is of much importance. Stick to my arguments, and point out holes in them if there are such. Acronyms mean nothing.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

d.

PNAC show that 911 was deemed propitious to policy. This lends us a good framework within which to operate. This has been dealt with in my OP to this section ,and illustrates that the probabiltiy that 911 could have happened absent gov complicty is very very very slim.

I don't know too much about this stuff. Could you point me to the part where PNAC says that 911 was deemed propitious to policy? And what is the significance of that. Thanks!

 

[mjd1982]

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!

Good. So the changes in RAD would have been implemented regardless.

Now, please tell me where this has been denied? For, as you will surely be aware, and as I have pointed out to you, the point is not whether they would have been implemented at some point, rather whether they would have been done sooner rather than later. This is why RAD talks about a catastrophic and catalysing event, to aid that it happens sooner.

Consequently, yet again, you fail to address the point, by a country mile. Please tell me why you find this so hard?

 

[DGM]

PNAC show that 911 was deemed propitious to policy. This lends us a good framework within which to operate. This has been dealt with in my OP to this section ,and illustrates that the probabiltiy that 911 could have happened absent gov complicty is very very very slim.

Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true!

 

[mjd1982]

Ignorance laughs in the face of knowledge.

Hmmm... really makes you think...

A very wise post.

 

[mjd1982]

Logical fallacy.

"It happened, therefore, they let it happen"

You must prove that it would have been impossible for these attacks to take place in such a way that the government would either not know about it in time or otherwise would not be able to stop said attack.

Excuse, me; they would have tried to stop it, given that they had ample opportunity, which no one on this board wants to address.

This is the point.

 

[WildCat]

mjd1982, do you think that the FBI would have needed explicit permission from the POTUS to investigate al Qaeda terrorists in the US prior to 9/11?

It seems your entire premise depends on your answer being "yes".

 

[mjd1982]

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

Hahaha... Is it possible to frame posts? Is there someone i need to ask?

 

[mjd1982]

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?

sorry, who the hell is he?

 

[WildCat]

Hahaha... Is it possible to frame posts? Is there someone i need to ask?

 

[Pardalis]

rather whether they would have been done sooner rather than later.

Cant' you see that this "sooner rather than later" idiocy you keep babbling about doesn't add nor prove anything?

It's completely meaningless. Everybody wants things to happen sooner than later.

Geez.

 

[mjd1982]

mjd1982, do you think that the FBI would have needed explicit permission from the POTUS to investigate al Qaeda terrorists in the US prior to 9/11?

It seems your entire premise depends on your answer being "yes".

No, they did investigate in some scenarios. I have posted about this to you many times.

The point in this instance is that even if not, the fact is that he did not sanction any actions. If the President is told that there are AQ cells in the US, and that they are plotting an act of terror, doing zero is not justifiable. According to you and your mates, it is. Why do you do this?

ps- didnt you say this board would be a "challenge"?!

 

[mjd1982]

Cant' you see that this "sooner rather than later" idiocy you keep babbling about doesn't add nor prove anything?

It's completely meaningless. Everybody wants things to happen sooner than later.

Geez.

Hehehe, ok cool, so we can agree that PNAC wanted the transformation to happen sooner rather later; thus they did deem that a new PH was propitious to policy, and all other arguments are meaningless.

Thank you! I have been arguing this for some time now.

 

[Pardalis]

thus they did deem that a new PH was propitious to policy

No.