The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Belz...]

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.

The problem with all this is that it is hindsight. Do you know what they say about hindsight, mjd ?

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.

Maybe you're just making that stuff up as you go.

No, I state that the statement indicates taht they deemed it propitous.

That's fine. I state that you are wrong.

No, I have said many times this is as bungled and blatant an inside job as could be conceived.

Then WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE ?

Forget the propitiousness. EVIDENCE, please.

People will accept any subterfuge in order to not have to believe something that is highly unpalatable.

You mean, like having to believe that the government is not all-evil ?

 

[nicepants]

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.

Is your contention is that bush did not try to stop the 9/11 attacks?

What should he have done to prevent them?

 

[JonnyFive]

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

Sorry, but Youtube is a blocked URL by our firewall at the office. Do you have a summary of the evidence or another link that's not a video?

 

[mjd1982]

This post is very, very important. For the first time, we have something approaching a clear statement of opinion from Mr D, and it's now his full ideas are beginning to emerge that we also can start to see them unravel...

It seems he believes that Al-Qaeda did indeed propagate the attacks, but when their plans were uncovered, the US government infiltrated. This infiltration was not to undermine the operation, but to ensure its success.

MjD, here is issue #1 - you expect us to accept that the infiltrator and his handlers are fully aware of the plan, and showed no qualms as to its intent. Which one of the planners was the insider? Atta? Zarqawi? OBL himself? Please elaborate, MjD.

this would be uncovered via investigation

Here's issue #2 - if Al-Qaeda were going to attack anyway - something which would still have been unprecedented - why go to the risk of "massaging"? It defies logical sense to set up a massive covert, risky, illegal, immoral and absurd plan to aid something that was going to happen anyway.

to ensure it happened in a favourable time, place etc

Here's Issue #3 - See your point re: "warnings". Which parts of the government are complicit, and which ones aren't? Quite simply, if the government were involved in the plot, there'd be no need for warnings, would there? That is to say - if clear and concise warnings were given, they were presumably given by someone not involved in the massaging plot you allege, which implies there is a branch of the FBI separate from the perpetrators. If this is the case, where are the people who gave these warnings now? Why have they not spoken out? Which people are in and which are out?

It implies that not the entire government is involved, i.e. there will be people out there doing there jobs, reporting intel, and people doing their "jobs", ignoring them

Here's Issue #4 - Why implode WTC7? Most people who aren't involved in the 911 debunking / conspiracy discussion aren't even aware of WTC7 and its collapse. If you've already massaged the attack such as to ensure its success (ie that plans would hit the Towers) , why go to the extra risk of aggravating it, seeing as the collapse of the towers itself is clearly important and shocking enough as to overshadow the WTC7 collapse in the minds of the populace anyway?

This will be dealt with in time

Those are just some of the reasons why your conflation of LIHOP and MIHOP conspiracies fall apart at the briefest and most cursory of glances...

Well, crisis averted.

 

[Belz...]

u could find out for yourself

I'm not the one making your claims. You are.

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

I'm not asking you to give me the whole report. Specific page and paragraph, please. I'm not going to peruse through the whole thing to find one sentence.

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.

I don't think that word means what you think it means in this context.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Engrave this in your mind, Mjd.

 

[nicepants]

to ensure it happened in a favourable time, place etc

If Al Queda is truly our enemy, why would they cooperate with the government's efforts to "massage" the attack, as you suggest?

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

Best I could find was http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20010209/ai_n10670252, if you've got a link to any other text articles I'd be interested.

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.

Your faith in the determination of the Islamic world to support American interests is rather surprising. The proposal was for one Afghan (i.e. pro-Taliban) judge, one Saudi, and one other to be determined. It doesn't say by whom it should be determined. Basically, it's a pig in a poke - there are too few details and plenty of wiggle room for the Taliban. It's by no means an open-and-shut offer to hand over Bin Laden, and you're misrepresenting it if you claim it was.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

this would be uncovered via investigation

And what if it doesn't ? What then ?

to ensure it happened in a favourable time, place etc

Nice speculation.

It implies that not the entire government is involved, i.e. there will be people out there doing there jobs, reporting intel, and people doing their "jobs", ignoring them

Typical Hollywood plot.

 

[twinstead]

I have never seen such a collection of conjecture, half truths, lies, and recycled soundly debunked 'facts' called obvious.

I'll need to recheck my dictionary, because we may have a disagreement on the very definitions of the words 'evidence' and 'obvious'.

I'd love to see you complete your investigation and present your case in a court of law. I would pay to see it. You remind me of an arrogant school-yard bully who can't fight his way out of a paper bag--how you can so arrogantly proclaim that this conspiracy as 'obvious' is beyond me.

 

[TjW]

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.

Perhaps they never crystallized a plan to create a new Pearl Harbor at all.

 

[mjd1982]

I have pointed you in the right direction several times now. You are covering your ears, closing your eyes, and singing "LALALALA"...review national strategy documents and defense documents from the previous administration - specifically identify which precise programs and policies were suddenly magically implemented Sept 12, 2001 or afterwards which had never been mentioned before except in the PNAC document. You will find none.

1stly, you have just said, "read strategy documents". I've asked you to show me some germane ones, You havent.

2ndly, learn the difference between a strategy being broached, even being implemented, and being rigorously pursued as a matter of life and death. This will resolve your confusion.

This was not a "radical overhaul" of military stance. Review the 1997 QDR and the National Defense Panel report. Transformation had been underway for some time, pretty much since we realized that the Cold War was over, and basing troops in Western Europe to defend against the Soviet Hordes was a concept we needed to abandon. Configuring our forces to mirror another superpower that we might conceivably face in a grand air/land/sea battle was also something we needed to review. This was known since the early 1990's, and underway prior to the PNAC document being published. PNAC did not represent a radical overhaul of the 1997 QDR, although it certainly contained a few differences - unsurprising, since its authors were members of the opposing party, and making their own pitch for inclusion into the 2001 QDR should their party win. Again, not much substantial difference from 1992 Defense Policy Guidance draft floated under SecDef Cheney.
[/quote

The latter of which was not implemented.

In terms of radical changes:

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.

Design
and research on a future CVX carrier
should continue, but should aim at a
radical design change

Wise management of this
process will consist in large measure of
figuring out the right moments to halt
production of current-paradigm weapons
and shift to radically new designs.

when
the results of vigorous experimentation
introduce radically new weapons, concepts
of operation, and organization to the armed
services.

this initial process of transformation
must be just the first step toward a more
radical reconfiguring of the Army.

Just one adjective.

Don't be fatuous. Do you expect national security documents produced after 9/11 to contain no mention of 9/11?? Of course not, don't be silly. "Maintain nuclear strategic superiority" has been a mainstay of national strategic policy for longer than you've been alive, junior, it did not spring from PNAC's paper into being. "Transform the DoD" has been around since 1997 QDR, sorry, nothing new to see here. (BTW, "Global missile defense" that you were prattling about back on page 3, has also been around since Reagan, and renewed under Clinton's 1997 QDR - even your hero Chomsky was railing against Clinton's Missile Defense. Nothing new there either.) Cyberspace - again, see Richard Clarke, Clinton administration, QDR 1997 and more. These elements are not a part of the GWOT; if the GWOT ended tomorrow, they would continue.

The simple way to determine what the WOT consists of is to see what is being pursued, to any significant degree, under its aegis. I have given you a few examples. If you follow the distinction i showed you at the top, you woud understand this better.

In any case, this is a pretty elementary concept to understand.

Oh ho, the master researcher himself has chastized me!!
Wow, Bill Clinton, in an interview with Chris Wallace, what a source!!
Let me be more precise, Richard Clarke was not demoted prior to 9/11, as you implied. Following 9/11, Richard Clarke was given a new position, which some viewed as a demotion. Clinton may be thinking of this - or he may simply be being defensive and lashing out (Bill Clinton is not exactly known for being "rigorous with the truth"). Perhaps you could be more precise as well. How was Richard Clarke demoted? When? Why?

Obviously, your completely wrong. His position was one of dealing with Principals. On Jan 26th, he was demoted to dealing with Deputies, having given Rice a doc the day b4, entitled "Strategies for dealing with AQ".

Keith Olbermann?? Oh, I am crying from laughing so hard!! I have truly learned the extent of your research skills today!!!

Cheers, junior! Look forward to reading more of your "work"!

Good. So since you are unwilling to contest that point, we will leave it as I stated.

 

[stateofgrace]

If Al Queda is truly our enemy, why would they cooperate with the government's efforts to "massage" the attack, as you suggest?

That’s a point Mjd, if it is so obviously an inside job why doesn’t Al Qaeda come clean? Why don't they simply set the record straight and completely destroy the USG? Why would Al Qaeda or UBL for that matter feel the need to keep it all secret for so long?

 

[mjd1982]

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"

Hahaha... yeh, and you dont!

 

[mjd1982]

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!!

Please think b4 u post.

I was asked what would I have done in response to the warnings. For the warnings about the cells in the US, i would have ordered that they be found, i.e. efforts to find them.

"Accept nebulous offer

y nebulous?

of possible handover

y possible?

to 3d party country

a US client state

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.

what the hell are you talking about?

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

Better than doing nothing.

 

[mjd1982]

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



So points for efforts, then ?



If only life were so simple, eh ?

No, I said make an effort. Try and stop the killing of innocent people. Not hard.

 

[Billdave2]

Hello, I have been lurking for awhile and have decided the I am ready to jump in to this discussion. Since I am new I will start with a small issue and get into the bigger stuff later.

In post #1028 MJD1982 stated that some statements are so overwhelmingly impplied that they can not be termed speculation. Since everything he has argued so far is based on these "overwhelmingly implied" statements, I am surprised that he thinks the example he uses fits this description.

But come on. Let's be precise about what we are calling speculation, since it is all too easy to use it as a blanket word to cover even the most elementary instances where even if something if overwhelmingly implied, its implication can be denied since it is speculative to make the inference. To give an example, of the top of my head, "I really wanna play football tomorrow. If it rains, we will not be able to play". Now here, is is speculation to say that I am hoping it does not rain. Yet for the purposes of a sane argument, it would be ridiculous to dismiss that claim as "speculation/fantasy" as you do. Doing such, as I stated, throws a blanket over all types of inference, even the most basic, and as such, renders all inference useless, fantasy. This is not a framework for any type of serious discussion.

How states that since he wants to play football, and can't if it rains, therefore he doesn't want it to rain. This is a falicy since he could very well want to play football, but want it rain even more. Afterall, if he is a farmer and it hasn't rained in weeks it would be "propitious" for him if it did, even though he wouldn't get to play football. I know this may seem like a trivial argument but it goes to show how assuming/implying/speculating can never be taken as evidence.

 

[mjd1982]

The problem with all this is that it is hindsight. Do you know what they say about hindsight, mjd ?



Maybe you're just making that stuff up as you go.



That's fine. I state that you are wrong.



Then WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE ?

Forget the propitiousness. EVIDENCE, please.



You mean, like having to believe that the government is not all-evil ?

The evidence is being debated on this thread. It usually has "MJD1982" next to it, just to give u a clue

 

[mjd1982]

Sorry, but Youtube is a blocked URL by our firewall at the office. Do you have a summary of the evidence or another link that's not a video?

Runs to the extent of:

"Tho conventional thought, debunked since by the 911 Comm report that Clinton refused an offer for OBL's handover to the US from Sudan in 98, it is rare to ask such questions of Bush. Even rarer to see this clip, from a WH press conference, of a question about exactly this offer from the Taliban after the gov knew that AQ had attacked th Cole"

(Afhgan(?) journalist to Fleischer) "The Taliban have stated that they are willing to hand OBL over to Saudi Arabia, in return for dropping of sanctions and they have a deal they want to make with the US. Any comment?"
(AF) "Let me take that and get back to you on that"

"There is no record of any subsequent discussion on that matter."

 

[mjd1982]

If Al Queda is truly our enemy, why would they cooperate with the government's efforts to "massage" the attack, as you suggest?

How do they know its the gov. Read:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/7948