The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[H'ethetheth]

y should i care about the senate committee?

Because they were presented the same list of intelligence screw-ups and came to a conclusion different from yours.

40 warnings in ~30 weeks of an impending AQ attack on US interests. Thats a lot.

About 10²⁴ molecules in a glass of water. That's also a lot.
It tells us nothing at all however. It's only useful if you know how many of the total amount of warnings were actually relevant and specific to 9/11.
I would believe without trouble that intelligence agencies receive 40 warnings a week of similar nature.

And let's not forget his demotion of Clarke, which i have expanded upon earlier.

Missed that, sorry. I'll have a look. On a related note: I must say I'm in awe of your posting ability.

And the handing over of OBL in feb 01?

I'm still catching up, sorry.

You know about East Timor? 100's of 1000's of landless peasants slaughtered with US imprimatur (and of course weapons). This was for hegemonic aims, just like 911, and was approved by the likes of Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, far less odious appearning creatures than Dick Cheney or Richard Perle.

What? I fail to see the semblance between the two. The relation between the Indonesian government and army, and East Timor is very different from the relation between the US government and New York city. No countrymen, no conspiracy, no relevance.
You're going to tell me the massacres in Rwanda are also a good example next, right?

 

[332nd]

Pfff.. come on! You understand the point. Let's say its a very big house!

Yes I understand your point and it's a very poor one.

 

[HyJinX]

Pfff.. come on! You understand the point. Let's say its a very big house!

Now that was funny.

Ok...instead of a single house, let's say they're going to rob your neighborhood. Say there's 50 houses in the neighborhood. You get intel that someone will rob one of these houses, someday...but you're not sure when, which house, how, or who the robber(s) are exactly. Doesn't this seem to fit your scenario a little better than someone robbing a single home?

 

[DGM]

But you know they are going to rob YOUR HOUSE, thus you know where they are going to strike

.

Let's say its a very big house!

Or 200 houses all over the country! (makes it tougher huh)

 

[Augustine]

No we dont. In time, possibly.

This is tiresome, proving something and then you retreat and I have to prove it all over again. Would defense transformation have occurred regardless? Was it already underway? If you say it would not have, then why not? Justify.

In this context, it has zero relevance. So theres no point me reading it.

To the contrary, it is quite relevant. You might appreciate this if you actually did some reading on strategy.

So you agree that a catastrophic and catalysing event is deemed propitious to policy?

In addition to your strategic studies, I would suggest you include reading comprehension. In much of military history, catastrophic and catalyzing events were required for military transformation (can you think of any pre-1982?). The purpose of strategists is to anticipate the future and spur transformation without the catastrophic and catalyzing event occurring.

Identify a catastrophic and catalyzing event prior to 1982. Was it "propitious to policy"? If the transformation that it engendered could have been undertaken without the event occurring, would that have been preferable?

911 has catalysed the WOT. Do you agree with that? And does the WOT create any kind of transformation in military behaviour?

The GWOT has not been the prime driver behind any element of transformation. Most elements of transformation were in place prior to the GWOT. The GWOT is a prolonged campaign; the military is but one element, and must remain ready, capable, and positioned to perform any number of other missions.

P.S. Clarke was never demoted.

P.S.S. The Taliban never offered to turn over Bin Laden to the U.S. in February 2001. They offered to have him tried for the 1998 Embassy bombings (which he had been convicted of in 1998) by a group of Muslim clerics. It was hardly a serious offer, and given how Al Qaeda had used our courtroom evidence in the 1993 trial to tighten their own security measures against us, it would have been lunacy for the U.S. to accept the offer. Additionally, this gives the lie to their offers in late 2001 - it took them some 2-1/2 years of international pressure after UBL's conviction just to give us a worthless offer; why wait another 2+ years after 9/11 to go through the same bs?

 

[HyJinX]

I present this wonderful gift to all rational thinkers posting in this thread (you know who you are ). Please feel free to smack your head against this glorious wall whenever the need strikes.

 

[H'ethetheth]

That is irrelevant to the thrust of the argument, since the points here stand as evidence of it as and of themselves.

I disagree. To pull of this conspiracy there have to be as few as possible Americans doing dirty jobs. Rigging buildings with secret fire-proof explosives is not going to help.

Please tell me how.

They would need to know exactly who would strike when, where and how, depending on the extent of the massage (read demolitions) they would have to know how likely it would be that the buildings would collapse by themselves, or fall onto other buidings enough to make it plausible enough to implode it without any experts suspecting anything.

In terms of massage, you understand this would simply involve having someone on the inside, influentially? You find this hard to conceive? The French had this.

I can go along with that up to the point of controlled demolitions.

Such as?

The entire list of forewarnings. The senate committee, whose judgment you choose to ignore, does not construe this as machinations of an infallible intelligence apparatus but rather the shortcomings of a scattered unprepared intelligence community.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

It is the right paper. Please read the whole thing. It doesnt refer to "911" because it was written a yr in advance.

To gain elucidation on the paper, read http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3

OK, just checking. So if we're all in agreement that it doesn't make any reference to 9/11, then what seems to be the problem?

 

[H'ethetheth]

I present this wonderful gift to all rational thinkers posting in this thread (you know who you are ). Please feel free to smack your head against this glorious wall whenever the need strikes.

Thanks!

I'm warming up to it.

 

[David Wong]

I've missed a few pages. Have we gotten to WTC7 yet? Or any evidence that closes the gargantuan gap between:

"PNAC may have wanted a new Pearl Harbor"

and

"PNAC blew up buildings and worked with the terrorists."

 

[DGM]

OK, just checking. So if we're all in agreement that it doesn't make any reference to 9/11, then what seems to be the problem?

Start reading this thread from the beginning. Don't worry you'll get the idea after a few pages. Also read your PM's

 

[HyJinX]

I've missed a few pages. Have we gotten to WTC7 yet? Or any evidence that closes the gargantuan gap between:

"PNAC may have wanted a new Pearl Harbor"

and

"PNAC blew up buildings and worked with the terrorists."

Does this give a clue regarding the answers to your questions?...

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I fail to even see a part where PNAC even implies wanting a new Pearl Harbor. I do however see a complaint about how events such as ones like Pearl Harbor have been the only motivation in advancing technology, which they are trying to do without such events.

In other words, we need to keep technology advancing and not have to wait for a pearl harbor type event.


Didn't Alex Jones predict 9/11? Guess he must be involved too eh?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Start reading this thread from the beginning. Don't worry you'll get the idea after a few pages. Also read your PM's

All I see from that is people making vast assumption. Nothing that in any way shows any connection between PNAC and 9/11. Perhaps you could point out something specific. Because if reading the thread is supposed to fill me in, it certainly didn't do the trick. So maybe pointing out some specifics will help insure I didn't overlook something you wanted me to see.

 

[nicepants]

They dont need this. If you know people are planning to rob your house inthe next week, do you do nothing, because youdont know when/who/where theyre gonna come from? Of course not.

Your analogy contradicts itself!

In your analogy we know WHERE and WHEN, and the TYPE of attack. (Your house, next week, robbery)

Did bush know WHAT TYPE of attack, and WHERE and WHEN said attacks would take place?

What do you think he should have done?

The 911 Comm report. Bush got 40 warnings, but took zero action in response.

So someone warned you that your house was going to be broken into...But you'd also received similar warnings about your car, office, and house in the months prior, none of which resulted in the warned-of attack being carried out, and you're supposed to act on this warning moreso than the others?

Is every warning accurate? Is he supposed to act on each one? Do you know how many other warnings he got during the same time?

 

[DGM]

All I see from that is people making vast assumption. Nothing that in any way shows any connection between PNAC and 9/11. Perhaps you could point out something specific. Because if reading the thread is supposed to fill me in, it certainly didn't do the trick. So maybe pointing out some specifics will help insure I didn't overlook something you wanted me to see.

You understand just fine. Now, explain it to MJ and this thread won't go another 27 pages.

PS we all get it!

 

[simakperrce]

The facts

The fact is... <big snip> ...this doesn’t prove anything <another big snip>

M

You could have said the same you did here in 4300 words in a mere two and spared us all a lot of time: "Cui bono"?

Instead, my wordprocessor counts 17 occurrences of the word "fact", 6 occurences of the word "facts" and 6 occurences of the word "evidence" in your original post, not counting similar verbage like "Coincidence? No." or "this is almost certain".

However, the repetition of the word "truth" ad infinitum does truth not automatically make. For the excessive use of the word "fact" and it's various derivates, your OP, albeit equally excessive, curiously lacks the actual existence of such, with the exception of the basic evidence we all agree upon (that there was an attack on 9/11 for example).

I would also like to point out to you that there is a difference between "advance warning" and "foreknowledge". I can warn you that you might get hit by a flash when you go outside, but foreknowledge implies that I KNOW you are going to get hit, which I certainly don't. As such, there was no "foreknowledge" of 9/11.

Stylistically I would advice you to drop your somewhat patronizing tone. The stuff you have posted here is nothing new, and is more or less a rehash of things you can find on Indymedia and similar outlets. The peope who post it there generally don't gloat about either, because it's but another rehash of something they found elsewhere. To give you credit, your mastery of the english language is rather impressive (unlike mine, but i am not a native speaker) and the post is indeed well written.

In essence, however, your OP relies to a great part on (politically motivated?) conjecture and 20/20 hindsight and has the signature CT "outside-in" design: conclusion exists (NWO, New PH), now let's wade through the evidence and cherry pick the pieces that corroberate this. All investigations that were conducted, however, have been done so from the inside out: facts first, conclusions afterwards. That's how investigations are normally run, and I think even an "independent" one has to be conducted in that fashion to be taken seriously.

I doubt, though, that you Truthers will be able to pull this off. This event is too important for you to leave it up to mundane fact-finding. 9/11 has become the campfire for all those who have lost their orientation and it is THE opportunity of the 21. Century to reunite all the "lost souls", frustrated by the demise of socialism and the challenges of globalization, and mold a "movement" out of them which becomes the stronger the more distinct and clearer the enemy. An enemy who has to be larger than life, and eviler than evil, against which every tiny act of dissent has to look like a heroic gesture and a fight for the TRUTH.

This is not a fact, BTW, but only my opinion.

 

[HyJinX]

You could have said the same you did here in 4300 words in a mere two and spared us all a lot of time: "Cui bono"?

Instead, my wordprocessor counts 17 occurrences of the word "fact", 6 occurences of the word "facts" and 6 occurences of the word "evidence" in your original post, not counting similar verbage like "Coincidence? No." or "this is almost certain".

However, the repetition of the word "truth" ad infinitum does truth not automatically make. For the excessive use of the word "fact" and it's various derivates, your OP, albeit equally excessive, curiously lacks the actual existence of such, with the exception of the basic evidence we all agree upon (that there was an attack on 9/11 for example).

I would also like to point out to you that there is a difference between "advance warning" and "foreknowledge". I can warn you that you might get hit by a flash when you go outside, but foreknowledge implies that I KNOW you are going to get hit, which I certainly don't. As such, there was no "foreknowledge" of 9/11.

Stylistically I would advice you to drop your somewhat patronizing tone. The stuff you have posted here is nothing new, and is more or less a rehash of things you can find on Indymedia and similar outlets. The peope who post it there generally don't gloat about either, because it's but another rehash of something they found elsewhere. To give you credit, your mastery of the english language is rather impressive (unlike mine, but i am not a native speaker) and the post is indeed well written.

In essence, however, your OP relies to a great part on (politically motivated?) conjecture and 20/20 hindsight and has the signature CT "outside-in" design: conclusion exists (NWO, New PH), now let's wade through the evidence and cherry pick the pieces that corroberate this. All investigations that were conducted, however, have been done so from the inside out: facts first, conclusions afterwards. That's how investigations are normally run, and I think even an "independent" one has to be conducted in that fashion to be taken seriously.

I doubt, though, that you Truthers will be able to pull this off. This event is too important for you to leave it up to mundane fact-finding. 9/11 has become the campfire for all those who have lost their orientation and it is THE opportunity of the 21. Century to reunite all the "lost souls", frustrated by the demise of socialism and the challenges of globalization, and mold a "movement" out of them which becomes the stronger the more distinct and clearer the enemy. An enemy who has to be larger than life, and eviler than evil, against which every tiny act of dissent has to look like a heroic gesture and a fight for the TRUTH.

This is not a fact, BTW, but only my opinion.

Beautifully written and amazingly accurate. If you're a woman...we're making out.

 

[Augustine]

Did bush know WHAT TYPE of attack, and WHERE and WHEN said attacks would take place?

What do you think he should have done?

Is every warning accurate? Is he supposed to act on each one? Do you know how many other warnings he got during the same time?

Our little scholar may want to add "actionable intelligence" to the list of concepts he needs to read up on before he returns. Clarke thought suicide hijacking would have just been one more speculative theory against an already massive volume of threats - tens or even hundreds of thousands.

 

[simakperrce]

If you're a woman...we're making out.

Sorry, to disappoint you.
I am still pretty hot, though