The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

Of course, what mjd doesn't seem to grasp is those German scientists were conspiracy theorists. Had the internet been around then we debunkers would be all over THEM as well.

Wrong.

A CT connotes, in general parlance, a theory that contradicts an establishment view on something, which then pins a form of guilt upon an establishment/authoritarian body.

In this instance, the establishment view was the Aryans were the superior race. If that view were being debated here, the dynamic would result in the majority of people (a la Nazi Germany) buying the rhetoric of the scientists and the msm, and stating that anyone who believes differently is accusing the government scientists, and journalists of being "shills". No doubt "NWO" would be thrown in somewhere.

I urge people to read Propaganda by Bernays, esp ch1 and 6. I have already written about this here. This will enlighten you as to why to not trust msm, establishment sources that will have an inherent pro-establishment bias.

The pattern is repeating itself here quite nicely.

 

[mjd1982]

In my Loose Change guide I pointed out the instances where terrorism was mentioned in "Rebuilding America's Defenses." It is quite clear that terrorism was not considered to be a major part of global defense strategy.

Ook ook ook!

My friend, sorry to wake you from your slumber, but as I have pointed out to you, the War on Terror is neither
1) a war on terror- no sane person is going to wage a war against an abstract noun
2) a war on terrorism- just a few infamous terrorists living in political asylum in the US: Posada Carriles, Orlando Bosch, Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, Carlos Sanchez Berzain
3) a war on Islamic terrorism- the US is currently supporting the Mujahadin el Khalq in Iran, and is now arming Sunni militants, ex AQ allies, in Iraq

So what is it? It is a strategy of advancing US hegemony through military means. You can gauge this by seeing what precisely is being pursued under the aegis of 911. I have given you many links for this on p3; you can see my recent lengthy response to Augustine for more.

Can you point out where PNAC advocates the U.S. abandoning its bases in Saudi Arabia and spending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives in invading and occupying Iraq?

The need for bases in the Persian Gulf, is stated many times:

the Clinton Administration has
continued the fiction that the operations of
American forces in the Persian Gulf are
merely temporary duties. Nearly a decade
after the Gulf War, U.S. air, ground and
naval forces continue to protect enduring
American interests in the region

In the Persian Gulf region, the
presence of American forces, along with
British and French units, has become a semipermanent
fact of life. Though the
immediate mission of those forces is to
enforce the no-fly zones over northern and
southern Iraq, they represent the long-term
commitment of the United States and its
major allies to a region of vital importance.
Indeed, the United
States has for
decades sought to
play a more
permanent role in
Gulf regional
security. While
the unresolved
conflict with Iraq
provides the
immediate
justification, the
need for a
substantial
American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of
the regime of Saddam Hussein.

etc.

For the invasion of Iraq, ditto the above, plus many many more:

We
cannot allow
North Korea,
Iran, Iraq or
similar states to
undermine American leadership, intimidate
American allies or threaten the American
homeland itself. The blessings of the
American peace, purchased at fearful cost
and a century of effort, should not be so
trivially squandered.

Moreover, the theater-war analysis done for
the QDR assumed that Kim Jong Il and
Saddam Hussein each could begin a war –
perhaps even while employing chemical,
biological or even nuclear weapons – and
the United States would make no effort to
unseat militarily either ruler. In both cases,
past Pentagon wargames have given little or
no consideration to the force requirements
necessary not only to defeat an attack but to
remove these regimes from power and
conduct post-combat stability operations.

Oh, that's right, it doesn't. Yet you claim they wrote what is to an "astonishing degree" a blueprint for the War on Terror. That somehow omitted these things? That is astonishing.

lol, as above

This reminds me of Randi's example of the "Psychic Friends Network" telephone scammers who employed 2400 "psychics," yet not one of them predicted that the company would go bankrupt the next day.

Nice anecdote, thanks.

Light on content as usual. Well done!

 

[mjd1982]

OK, so you're just making a huge assumption. Yet when Alex Jones does the same thing and make a very vague prophecy (or "blueprint" that is bound to become true, then it must be so. And no one accuses him of anything.

Come on Jonny, Alex Jones could not cause 911 to happen, start thinking b4 u post

It's the naustrodamus syndrome. Make a bunch o vague enough statements and you can predict the future. But again, you are simply drawing wild conclusions here and can't back them up with anything tangible.

gimme some vague statements. And follow the thread o the argument pls

Wow, what are the chances of there being a catastrophe in the future? What's the chances of a group wanting to fight terrorism on a global level since at the time it was starting to get out of hand? What's the chances of a group wanting to advance technology? What's the chances of the world starting to become a more global community with things like the internet taking off and all.

Errr... A catastrophe coulld happen; that it should happen when the people in charge with stopping it have just stated its propitiousness, and taken all precautions not to stop it, is something that warrants investigatins.

And again, what is that evidence and why doesn't one of you guys who feels so strongly go investigate? I myself cannot work purely on speculation and conjecture. I don't think the law or any court system can either, so that is probably your big road block. And luckily our court system doesn't work like that or anyone could just simply make up anything about anyone else under the pretex that it seems coincidental in their opinion.


Vote for Pedro.

I have few jurisdictional powers outside my own house, i'm afraid.

 

[mjd1982]

Let me get this straight MJD you reckon after Bush, the President of the USA, received clear, precise and spot on warnings, forty in total,that read perfectly clearly four planes were going to be hijacked on Sept 11th and flown into the landmark buildings, he said something like

“Ah just ignore them, nobody will notice"?

He received sufficient warnings tht there was a deadly attack coming on his country, def thru AQ, prob through hijackings. He did nothing for airports/planes/borders; he knew that there were AQ cells in the country but did nothing to stop this, and he was offered OBL, but said no. end.

 

[JonnyFive]

Okay so I skipped the last 4 pages. Has mjd1982 actually posted any facts yet?

Sure, he's posted a lots of facts. For example:

-PNAC existed.
-PNAC prepared a report.
-There was a terrorist attack on 9/11/2001 (or 11/9/2001 for you Commie-Nazis that use the dd/mm/yyyy date arrangement).
-There is a country called "The United States of America."
-"Propitious" is a word, and means what mjd uses it to mean.
-George W. Bush and William J. Clinton were both US presidents at one point, and Bush is currently the US president.
-The US is currently at war with Iraq.

See? Lots of facts.

 

[mjd1982]

This Bob Kerrey.



http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/malkin200404281058.asp

Oh yep, so everything he says must have been wrong.

Please make serious points, since I am taking the time to respond.

 

[mjd1982]

So, mjd....if you were the president, and received reports that an attack from Al Queda was "eminent"....what would you do to stop it?

imminent.

I would do something. Order the finding of the AQ cells. Accept OBL's handover. Try to tighten border security. Try to tighten airport/airplane security. Hold meetings. Pass terror threats down to police etc. And that is just from the top of my head.

 

[JonnyFive]

...Accept OBL's handover...

I missed the part where you provided evidence this actually happened. Could you please post it again, just for us semi-lurkers. Pretty please?

 

[mjd1982]

I'm going to dig through the senate committee reports when I get back from my vacation. I hope I'll still be able to add something to this discussion then though.


I'm going to need to do some reading in the 9/11 commission report as well, I guess.

Not my point, it isn't.
My point is that it is difficult to recruit people to be responsible for killing 10,000 of their own. People that could be their family and friends. That's my point.
You're talking about people selling guns to, and allowing people to fight that are both far away and unrelated. I don't think people in Oregon would generally shrug if New York were to invade Pennsylvania.

And that's where you're wrong. I'm not at all concerned with the US specifically. I'm concerned with the difficulty of getting people to murder their own.

Again, the role of the US is completely immaterial to the point I'm trying to get across. The reason why you personally would not be recruited to be responsible for killing 10,000 innocent Americans is the same reason why very few Americans would. Normal people don't do that, and depending on the amount and form of 'massage', you will need quite a few Americans willing to do just that to pull off this conspiracy.

I would venture that if someone was willing to sponsor the genocide of 100's of 1000's of landless peasants for geo politics, someone who was in the public's eyes. a dove, then someone who is viewed as a hawk would be capable of doing much more for geo politics.

No, I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. Your "Massaged It into Happening Exactly As Planned" (MIHEAP) theory is only remotely plausible if very few Americans have blood on their hands. The advance warning evidence is possibly consistent with that, I can't tell until I read up. On the other hand, anything that involves controlled demolition on that scale and in secret requires a lot of low level conspirators that are very directly going to be responsible for killing people.

Fine, I'm not up to speed there anyway, as it appears, and on vacation for the next week and a half.

I didnt say exactly as it happened. Maybe they wanted it to happen in June; thus avoid the embarassment of more untouched warnings. Maybe they wanted the 4th plane to fly into wtc7. Maybe they wanted OBL to be more at the forefront, rather than KSM. I dont know. It didnt have to be just like that.

ETA- Enjoy ur holiday!

 

[mjd1982]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A

 

[stateofgrace]

He received sufficient warnings tht there was a deadly attack coming on his country, def thru AQ, prob through hijackings. He did nothing for airports/planes/borders; he knew that there were AQ cells in the country but did nothing to stop this, and he was offered OBL, but said no. end.

Ok so here is the plan then, get lots of warnings,ignore them,don't step up security, don't pursue active AQ cells in the country, don't strengthen security at airports, don't accept the hand over of UBL, don’t make the slightest token effort whatsoever to cover your tracks and then say

" Ok , now lets hope nobody notices"

 

[mjd1982]

I missed the part where you provided evidence this actually happened. Could you please post it again, just for us semi-lurkers. Pretty please?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A

 

[Augustine]

I would do something. Order the finding of the AQ cells. Accept OBL's handover. Try to tighten border security. Try to tighten airport/airplane security. Hold meetings. Pass terror threats down to police etc. And that is just from the top of my head.

Oh, great stuff!!!

"How would you find AQ cells?" "I would order them found." Genius, I tell you!! Please send your resume and samples of your strategic thinking to the Pentagon straightaway, your talents cannot be wasted!!

"Accept nebulous offer of possible handover to 3d party country and disclose US intelligence, and intelligence-gathering methods to non-allied, likely hostile parties." Genius!! Well, it wouldn't have stopped 9/11 (plans already in place at that point), but nice try to give away the farm to our enemies nonetheless.

"Try. Try. Hold meetings." Are you sure you don't already work at the Pentagon?

"Just from the top of your head". I think it originated much lower than that. Not surprising, that's where most of your stuff comes from.

 

[mjd1982]

So you're saying that PNAC were so confident that nobody could possibly suspect them that they included a statement in their document, that didn't need to be there in order to justify the aims of their policy, that gave away the whole conspiracy? The statement that, according you, is the primary cause of suspicion against them? Why are they leaving such obvious clues?

No, I state that the statement indicates taht they deemed it propitous. Nothing else. Maybe they hadnt crystalsed the plan by then. I dont know.

You see, this is the contradiction at the heart of all conspiracy theories - that the conspiracy is so secret that nobody can penetrate the inner circle, so efficient that they can manipulate the entire world to follow their will without knowing it, and yet so careless that they leave obvious clues when there was no benefit to be derived from doing so. It requires simultaneous postulates of infallibility and stupidity.

Dave

No, I have said many times this is as bungled and blatant an inside job as could be conceived. It has the Bush admin's mark all over it. The PNAC doc is one such example; WTC7 is another easy one.

The notion of infallibility in your eyes, is merely the reflection of the notions expounded by the likes of Bernays, Lippman and Chomsky regarding the manipulation of the public psyche. My Nazi analogy was an attempt to shed light on this phenomenon. People will accept any subterfuge in order to not have to believe something that is highly unpalatable. 911 is a perfect example of such. To give an example on this board, the denial of the OBL handover video, with people asking me to prove it happened... something is very awry when posts like that start appearing on what is meant to be a rationalist's board.

 

[Belz...]

You make an effort. If you succeed, you succeed, if you fail, uve tried.

If you dont even try, then you are criminally negligent. Simple.

So your answer is that all available policemen should watch ALL the banks instead of, say, patrolling the streets and answering calls for help ?

Its not about preventing it; its about trying to prevent it. This is the job of any agency whose task it is to protect something.

So points for efforts, then ?

Understand that, and this will become a lot clearer for u.

If only life were so simple, eh ?

 

[mjd1982]

I checked this out, as you requested. The Taliban offered to put OBL on trial in an Islamic court, presided over by three Islamic clerics, in a third country. Bush declined.

OK, so we have three offers: twice to put OBL on trial under Islamic law in a third country, where there is a distinct possibility, given careful choice of judges, that OBL could admit all his actions, claim that they were justified under Islamic law, and not only get off scot free but be able to claim double jeopardy against any future attempts at prosecution; and finally, after the bombing had started, to talk about extradition on the condition that the bombing stop immediately.

Please post this source, as in the video there is no mention of the trial.

In any case, this has little relevance. Saudi Arabia is a US client state, and has extraordinarily strong links to the Bush's in particular. The selection of judges would be made to favour the US, not OBL- this would be inconceivable. Ultimately, if the US wanted him handed over, he would be; it is not that hard to interpret Islamic law to convict OBL, and thus not too hard to find clerics to do so.

You've argued that all these offers were reasonable from the point of view of the Taliban, but that's missing the point by a substantial margin. If you stand by your statement that Bush's first priority should have been the capture of Bin Laden (and not, for example, dismantling the substantial Al-Qaeda infrastructure in Afghanistan), and that therefore he should have taken one of these offers, then you should be able to see that none of these offers represented a certain handover of OBL to the USA, so there was judgement to be exercised in whether to accept, or even seriously consider, any of them. As long as there's a judgement call to be made, making it one way or the other cannot be seen as proof of unwillingness to capture OBL. All Bush's actions can equally well be explained as total distrust of the Taliban, itself not an entirely unreasonable position.

Dave

as above

 

[mjd1982]

Yeah. Heaven forbit that intelligent people might reach different conclusions when presented with the same information.

Hold it, right there, slick. Did they actually say that they needed a radical overhaul ?

u could find out for yourself

Terminating marginal programs like the
Crusader howitzer, trimming administrative
overhead, base closings and the like will not
free up resources enough to finance the
radical overhaul the Army needs.

It's quite material. If they would have been done anyway means that the fact that they are being pursued is IRRELEVANT.

You need to find out under what banner the changes are being pursued, at least to some degree, to find out what the WOT consists of

Don't be obtuse. Reference, please.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

Evidence is minutiae ? Interesting.

Small, less relevants bits, yes.

 

[Belz...]

A CT connotes, in general parlance, a theory that contradicts an establishment view on something, which then pins a form of guilt upon an establishment/authoritarian body.

I'd say a CT is the culmination of one's paranoid delusions regarding the motives of people who disagree with him.

1) a war on terror- no sane person is going to wage a war against an abstract noun

Aren't you being a little overtly obtuse, here ?

So what is it? It is a strategy of advancing US hegemony through military means.

You don't think the US government wants to disarm potential terrorists from carrying out a new attack on US soil or US interests ??

Errr... A catastrophe coulld happen; that it should happen when the people in charge with stopping it have just stated its propitiousness, and taken all precautions not to stop it, is something that warrants investigatins.

The only problem is that they DIDN'T state it, and HAVEN'T taken any precautions not to stop it. These are your interpretation of words that were not spoken. And I don't care for personal opinions in such a debate.

He received sufficient warnings tht there was a deadly attack coming on his country, def thru AQ, prob through hijackings. He did nothing for airports/planes/borders

Again, can you find a reason why ?

he was offered OBL, but said no. end.

DID YOU READ THE GIVEN REASONS WHY ? Are you actually READING anything ?

 

[twinstead]

No, I have said many times this is as bungled and blatant an inside job as could be conceived. It has the Bush admin's mark all over it. The PNAC doc is one such example; WTC7 is another easy one.

Then explain how this inept conspiracy could fool so many experts in the relevant scientific fields? That's the gist of the idiot savant nature of your claims. Remember, just because you say for example that the WTC7 is obviously a CD means nothing. Except for a very few, the vast majority of experts from around the world have no problem with the official story.

In fact, it is studied around the world probably in just about every structural engineering college, and used to alter building codes.

What you are saying is it was so bungled an inside job that even YOU and other internet warriors could figure it out, but all those structural engineers and professional investigators are either in on it or just simply not as sharp as you guys are.

Rational people become suspicious when those unqualified to make judgments about very technical things declare them so 'obvious' and 'blatant' that anybody can see it.

 

[mjd1982]

I would submit that every one of these truthers who have come on this board and demanded a 'new investigation' would reject any conclusion other than 'it was an inside job'.

This new investigation stuff is just lip service; their minds are already made up.

Besides, exactly who would perform this investigation? Loose change? The government? The Scholars for Truth? The crack investigative team at PrisonPlanet? Mrs. Johnson's 3rd grade class at Lincoln Elementary School?

This was dealt with, at length,. at the top of the thread