The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[stateofgrace]

Hahaha... yeh, and you dont!

Unlike a bright spark like yourself, nobody fools you hey?

So your plan to date is.

1. Publish documented laying down plan for global expansion
2. Ignore all warnings of impending terrorist attack
3. Groom UBL.
4. Allow UBL to go free.
5. Don’t improve homeland security
6. Sit back and watch as 3000 of your countrymen are murdered
7. Start wars.
8. Leave lots and lots of clues.
9. Hope nobody notices

Please when you get out of the student bar, don't become a politician, because if you truly believe this is how things happen in the real world, heaven help us.

 

[DGM]

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

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

It's called showing a possible bias in his opinion. It's something thinking people do to establish credibility.

 

[mjd1982]

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.



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

I hear Cockburn wrote about it, but cannot find it.

Ok, 2 things. 1stly, that report comes ~ 2 weeks before the vid I posted. By this time, the offer is stated as for him to be handed over to SA. Nothing about Afghan clerics is mentioned or implied.

2ndly, u r being distortive talking about the Islamic world. There is a huge difference in US stance in Egypt, Saudi, Bahrain, vs in Syria, Palestine and Iran. The Saudis are the clients of the US, and they will bend to the wll of the US inevitably, especially in an issue as insignificant to them as OBL, vs US support. Thus the chances are overwhelmingly stacked in the US's favour, and for them not to take this, given what the offer represents, is astonishing.

 

[mjd1982]

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?

as above

 

[mjd1982]

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.



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.

I am not a farmer. It is a trivial point, and as such warrants a trivial answer, sorry, but true.

 

[Augustine]

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

Ladies and gentlemen, this is an excellent illustration of why the US rejected the Taliban's offer. If I was a fool, I would immediately begin working on a reading list for Junior1982, despite the fact that I have strewn numerous clues throughout my posts already. However, when I delivered said list, he would ignore it, and say that they "aren't germane" (as he has done every time prior in this thread when I urged him to study the development of national-level strategic documents). "Why should I care", "irrelevant", other ignorant excuses. However, I see that this is not a sincere request for guidance on reading, so I disregard it.

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.

Precisely why I will not waste time preparing a "Strategy Primer" for Junior. It will not fit into his circular reasoning. Where are those goalposts again? Oh, right, moved again...

In terms of radical changes:
Just one adjective.

Perhaps if your analysis was more than word-searching the document, you might have a better understanding. Oxford, was it? Oh well....

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".

What was his title? "One of Dealing With Principals"? Or something else? Do you know? Is that all you have to support this "demotion"?

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

Right, post a youtube video, call it "evidence", do a victory lap while I am still scratching my head at the decline of Western education. What next, wikipedia? Conspiracy website? Prisonplanet?

 

[Augustine]

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.

Wow!! That sounds so much better, like you have a real plan or something!

y nebulous?

If this was such an ironclad, straightforward offer from the Taliban government with no conditions, why is the only evidence you can find of it a question asked at a press conference based on a report in the India Globe and corroborated nowhere else?
(Or for your reading skills: y? B cuz it wuz not 4 reals.)

y possible?

No promises were made. Possible. Dictionary is your friend, use it.

what the hell are you talking about?

I apologize, I forgot that you do not understand intelligence. (Or strategy.) Ask a more specific question, and I will try to answer in small words for you. (Translated for your reading skills: my bad, I will b ez 4 u 2 git from now on)

 

[volatile]

this would be uncovered via investigation

Which means that you have no evidence for an "insider", and you've just made it up. Right?

to ensure it happened in a favourable time, place etc

Etc? So, you're now trying to tell us that the US found out about an Al-Qaeda plot, but that they realised it was a terrible plot and they could do a better job themselves?

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

If someone gave an unambiguous warning, as you suggest, and if another branch of the government deliberately ignored the warning (well, "ignored" isn't the right word, seeing as they were involved in the plot), where is that someone now? Why haven't they come out and say "I told Mr X on 1/9/01 that an attack was to be carried out in manner X,Y and Z - nothing was done AT ALL"? Indeed, this "someone" is likely to be a team and hierarchy of people. No cracks yet. Why ever not?

Which is this secret branch of the government / security services which is able to carry out subterfuge, infiltration, explosive demolition and mass murder without any of the other branches of government knowing about it? Where are they based? How are they funded? How are they equipped? Which members of the executive know? Which members of the judiciary? You're making this up as you go along, you've seen too many movies.

This will be dealt with in time

If you have EVIDENCE (not speculation) that WTC7 was brought down by explosive devices planted by or in collusion with a branch of the US government, why the hell are you waiting to tell us. Write an article, tell Interpol, win the Pulitzer Prize!

What's stopping you?

 

[stateofgrace]

The questions was

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?

You dodged them with this load of rubbish.

2ndly, u r being distortive talking about the Islamic world. There is a huge difference in US stance in Egypt, Saudi, Bahrain, vs in Syria, Palestine and Iran. The Saudis are the clients of the US, and they will bend to the wll of the US inevitably, especially in an issue as insignificant to them as OBL, vs US support. Thus the chances are overwhelmingly stacked in the US's favour, and for them not to take this, given what the offer represents, is astonishing.

Al Qaeda as sworn to over throw the Saudi Arabian Royal family, they want Saudi returning to a pure Islamic state. UBL is no ally to the Saudi Royal family so your special relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia does not wash and does not in anyway answer the questions. They stand and until you provide a coherent answer you are dismissed as a cter who is simply making BS up.

Stop making stuff up and answer the questions.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Hasn't it been your contention (on the SLC forum) that conspirators unknown "made" 7 World Trade Center collapse with pre-planted explosives? Have you now abandoned that stance?

aggravated

What does that mean? Conspirators unknown "aggravated" the 7 World Trade Center collapse with pre-planted explosives? You've "aggravated" your stance? What?

For the former, strengthen security in banks in metropolitan Chicago

Which banks?

all

Who pays?

 

[negativ]

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!!

At the very least, it would make for a great new episode of How To Do It!

 

[JonnyFive]

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."

That's it? That's the only source you have for this claim you keep stating as absolute fact?

Please tell me you have something more substantial than a White House "no comment" about a potential Taliban deal. At least tell me that the video has the actual recording of that exchange rather than some jerk just talking about how it might've happened.

 

[Billdave2]

I am not a farmer. It is a trivial point, and as such warrants a trivial answer, sorry, but true.

But I have just as much proof that you are a farmer as you have that the writer's of th PNAC knew about 9/11 in advance.

You have stated that some statements can be assumed to mean something simply because it is propitous for a goal you have (ex you want to play football, but say you can't if it rains, i.e. you don't want it to rain). I have shown how there is it least one circumstance where that would be false. Likewise to say that 9/11 was propitious to the PNAC assumes that NOT having a 9/11 attack would not be even more propitous to the PNAC. It is a baseless assumuption.

 

[Belz...]

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

Not hard ? When you don't have an actual clue of WHERE or WHEN the attack is coming, it's actually VERY hard to even try to stop something like that.

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

The evidence is not being debated at all. We're debating if it was "propitious" to policy. So far it wouldn't matter if it were, because we have NO EVIDENCE THAT they made it or let it happen.

 

[lapman]

The evidence is not being debated at all. We're debating if it was "propitious" to policy. So far it wouldn't matter if it were, because we have NO EVIDENCE THAT they made it or let it happen.

The real culprits are the people that are afraid to fly! 9/11 would be "propitious" to their policy of not flying. All airplanes were grounded and all you have to do in get on the watch list and voilà! No more flying. There you go folks. Now if you can prove that Bush is afraid of flying, you have your connection.

 

[The Almond]

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.



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.

I just wanted to note that you made an excellent point here Billdave, and it's too bad mjd didn't bother to address it.

 

[HeyLeroy]

I just wanted to note that you made an excellent point here Billdave, and it's too bad mjd didn't bother to address it.

It's not propitious to his argument.

 

[David Wong]

Home from work again, and I've missed another couple of pages. Have we gotten to WTC7 and how we got from the PNAC statement to PNAC complicity?

I don't see those posts but maybe they're small...

 

[SpitfireIX]

Home from work again, and I've missed another couple of pages. Have we gotten to WTC7 and how we got from the PNAC statement to PNAC complicity?

I don't see those posts but maybe they're small...

To summarize the previous two pages:

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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



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



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.



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

So then you are just making conjecture as I have pointed out. No, of course Alex Jones could not have caused such a thing, because he's not a "bad guy". He doesn't fit the stereo type of evil people who control everything. PNAC fits your stereo type so we can make all the wild assumptions and conjecture and speculation we want.

How well do you think your argument would hold up in a court of law?

"Well your honor, it sounds like what we want to hear, so therefore the party is guilty. Evidence? Well no sir, but just look at how they fit our stereo type."