The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Unsecured Coins]

sing with me...

 

[WildCat]

Right, well this depends on what actionable means. It does not need to say "There are AQ cells at this this and this address" for it to be actionable. Actionable is simply, there are AQ cells, and they are plotting a terrorist attack using hijackings. This should lead to action.

Just so you know - prior to 9/11 it was not illegal to belong to al Qaeda in the US. It was only after the Congress passed the Authorization For Use Of Military Force (which is a de facto declaration of war) post-9/11 that the US could arrest someone merely for being a member of al Qaeda. But it is not against the law in the US for someone to merely be a member of a criminal gang, nor are there outlawed groups or political parties such as you have in Europe and elsewhere in the world.

Get to work in trying to find the AQ cells,

Your own sources say this was already underway, hence the warnings.

get to work trying to increase airport/airplane security.

It was already as tight as it was going to get in the pre-9/11 world. No way the public would have accepted post-9/11 airport style security pre-9/11. Many campaign against it even now.

 

[WildCat]

This has been reported by multiple sources. I will tell you again- MSNBC, Counterpunch, and yes, the India Globe, are far more reputable news collection sources than you.

No, it is still only one source - the India Globe. No matter how many other papers report it, they were merely repeating the India Globe story, as was the journalist at the White House press conference apparently.

 

[stateofgrace]

Ok, the first 2 segs, I have no idea what you are on about.

The latter, I will ask you again, to read this to discover how infiltration can take place.

Please dont make me ask you again.

NO you read.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html

For other observers, however, the real point was not that the new Administration dismissed the terrorist theat. On the contrary, Rice, Hadley and Cheney, says an official, "all got that it was important." The question is, How high a priority did terrorism get? Clarke says that dealing with al-Qaeda "was in the top tier of issues reviewed by the Bush Administration." But other topics got far more attention. The whole Bush national-security team was obsessed with setting up a national system of missile defense. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was absorbed by a long review of the military's force structure. Attorney General John Ashcroft had come into office as a dedicated crime buster. Rice was desperately trying to keep in line a national-security team-including Rumsfeld, Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell-whose members had wildly different agendas and styles. "Terrorism," says a former Clinton White House official, speaking of the new Administration, "wasn't on their plate of key issues." Al-Qaeda had not been a feature of the landscape when the Republicans left office in 1993. The Bush team, says an official, "had to learn about (al-Qaeda) and figure out where it fit into their broader foreign policy." But doing so meant delay.

It was Bush who broke the deadlock. Each morning the CIA gives the Chief Executive a top-secret Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) on pressing issues of national security. One day in early spring, Tenet briefed Bush on the hunt for Abu Zubaydah, al-Qaeda's head of international operations, who was suspected of having been involved in the planning of the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. After the PDB, Bush told Rice that the approach to al-Qaeda was too scattershot. He was tired of "swatting at flies" and asked for a comprehensive plan for attacking terrorism. According to an official, Rice came back to the nsc and said, "The President wants a plan to eliminate al-Qaeda." Clarke reminded her that he already had one.

Intelligence services were picking up enough chatter about a terrorist attack to scare the pants off top officials. On June 22, the Defense Department put its troops on full alert and ordered six ships from the Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, to steam out to sea, for fear that they might be attacked in port. U.S. officials thought an attack might be mounted on American forces at the nato base at Incirlik, Turkey, or maybe in Rome or Belgium, Germany or Southeast Asia, perhaps the Philippines-anywhere, it seems, but in the U.S. When Independence Day passed without incident, Clarke called a meeting and asked Ben Bonk, deputy director of the CIA's counterterrorism center, to brief on bin Laden's plans. Bonk's evidence that al-Qaeda was planning "something spectacular," says an official who was in the room, "was very gripping." But nobody knew what or when or where the spectacular would be. As if to crystallize how much and how little anyone in the know actually knew, the counterterrorism center released a report titled "Threat of Impending al- Qaeda Attack to Continue Indefinitely."

In mid-July, Tenet sat down for a special meeting with Rice and aides. "George briefed Condi that there was going to be a major attack," says an official; another, who was present at the meeting, says Tenet broke out a huge wall chart ("They always have wall charts") with dozens of threats. Tenet couldn't rule out a domestic attack but thought it more likely that al-Qaeda would strike overseas. One date already worrying the Secret Service was July 20, when Bush would arrive in Genoa for the G-8 summit; Tenet had intelligence that al-Qaeda was planning to attack Bush there. The Italians, who had heard the same report (the way European intelligence sources tell it, everyone but the President's dog "knew" an attack was coming) put frogmen in the harbor, closed airspace around the town and ringed it with antiaircraft guns.

Throughout the winter and spring of 2001, European law-enforcement agencies scored a series of dramatic hits against al-Qaeda and associated radical Islamic cells, with some help from the cia. The day after Christmas 2000, German authorities in Frankfurt arrested four Algerians on suspicion of plotting to bomb targets in Strasbourg. Two months later, the British arrested six Algerians on terrorism charges. In April, Italian police busted a cell whose members were suspected of plotting to bomb the American embassy in Rome. Two months later, the Spanish arrested Mohammed Bensakhria, an Algerian who had been in Afghanistan and had links to top al-Qaeda officials, including bin Laden. Bensakhria, the French alleged, had directed the Frankfurt cell involved in the Strasbourg plot. And in the most stunning coup of all, on July 28, Djamel Beghal, a Frenchman of Algerian descent who had been on France's terrorist watch list since 1997, was arrested in Dubai on his way back from Afghanistan. After being persuaded of terrorism's evil by Islamic scholars, Beghal told of a plot to attack the American embassy in Paris and gave investigators new details on al-Qaeda's top leadership, including the international-operations role of Abu Zubaydah. (Now back in France, he has tried to recant his confession.) French sources tell Time they believe U.S. authorities knew about Beghal's testimony.

It goes on pal, try getting off your conspiracy web sites and look at the real world, the real warnings, many more than just 40 .Try looking at what they actually tried to do about them. Maybe you could save your arrogance for somebody gives a monkeys what you think.

You plot, speculation and almost laughable delusions are worthy a Hollywood movie, good luck with your script, maybe you can get your youtube up soon. It is easy to pretend and imagine you have stumped onto something, act all arrogant because people dismiss you and pretend you are the real investigator. You are not, you are some guy who reads too much junk on conspiracy web sites, comes up with poorly worded scripts and tries to make out that the US aided Al Qaeda. You accuse the US of doing nothing although they tried their hardest, you accuse their intelligence services of not only failing to protect but purposefully failing.

Reality is pal, there was a lot going on at the time, lots of warnings and lots of actions actually taken to protect you. The protection that you take for granted was done by real people, who love their country and their fellow country men far more than you ever will. You accuse them of purposefully allowing 911 to happen; you accuse them of being party to it. You do so on wide speculation. The possibility of anything else is beyond you.

I will not ask you again and I could not care less whether you read the article

 

[beachnut]

Has the thread starter found any facts yet?

 

[stateofgrace]

double post

 

[WildCat]

Has the thread starter found a facts yet?

Nope. He's still speculating on an interpretation that supports his conjecture about what may have happened according to some sources.

 

[T.A.M.]

State of Grace said...

It goes on pal, try getting off you conspiracy web sites and look at the real world, the real warnings and actions that the US and the world faced and what they actually did about the. Maybe you could save you arrogance for somebody who a gives monkeys what you think.

You plot, speculation and appealing lack of undersaytnding is worthy a Hollywood movie, god luck with script, maybe you can get your you tube up soon. It is easy to pretend and imagine you have stumped onto something, act all arrogant because people dismiss you and pretend you are the real investigator. You are not, you are some guy who reads too much junk on conspiracy web sites, comes up with poorly worded scripts and tries to make out that the US aided Al Qaeda. You accuse the US of doing nothing although they tried their hardest, you accuse their intelligence services of not only failing to protect but purposefully failing.

Reality is pal, there was a lot going on at the time, lots of warnings and lots of actions actually taken to protect you. The protection that you take for granted was done by real people, who love their country and their fellow country men far more than you ever will. You accuse them of purposefully allowing 911 to happen; you accuse them of being party to it. You do so on wide speculation. The possibility of anything else is beyond you.

I will not ask you again and I could not care less whether you read the article

Though the emotion you made this post with, is clear from your plethora of spelling errors in the first paragraph, your remarks are well said, and ring true.

TAM

Edit: A well done, you corrected most of the errors...now well said and well spelled.

 

[stateofgrace]

State of Grace said...



Though the emotion you made this post with, is clear from your plethora of spelling errors in the first paragraph, your remarks are well said, and ring true.

TAM

Edit: A well done, you corrected most of the errors...now well said and well spelled.

I hade to, don't you knoww thate cters dismisses any pists that ave spealling misetakes in ?

 

[T.A.M.]

Well my expectations from you are high SOG. I mean, you are one of only two JREFers to currently make it into the esteemed T.A.M. signature quotes.

TAM

 

[beachnut]

Nope. He's still speculating on an interpretation that supports his conjecture about what may have happened according to some sources.

Thanks for the update. Reading his stuff is like proofing my stuff; what was he/me trying to say?

thanks

 

[MIKILLINI]

This has been replied to at huge length and here

Please keep up.

mjd, I can see what you are attempting to do here for making a case, but the evidence needed to connect PNAC to 9/11 needs to be more than an adjective. An event that takes place (such as writing a document called PNAC) before an election is not a conspiracy to make 9/11 propitious to a noted exception..i.e. an exception to the spirit of the document. You are smart enough to understand what PNAC intended; The long term is specified, UNLESS...something disastrous occurs or the USA is attacked. There is no evidence to connect PNAC to 9/11... UNLESS, as you reiterate, adjectives referring to conditions as favorable is what is construed as evidence.
The reason I referred you to read Myriads post is because of the obstacles facing you regarding a new investigation. I will quote some for you;

1. Under what jurisdiction should the investigation derive the legal powers (such as subpoenaing witnesses and obtaining access to highly classified information) it would need for conducting an effective investigation? A Federal special prosecutor? A Federal Grand Jury? The Office of the U.S. Attorney General? U.S. Military police? An international war crimes tribunal?

2. Who should lead the investigation? A Federal judge? A Special Prosecutor? The U.N. Secretary General? You?

3. Who should participate in, and provide manpower and technical consultation for, the investigation? The FBI? The CIA? Universities? Local police forces? Private investigators? Investigative news reporters?

4. If the investigation reveals evidence of crimes, who should have responsibility for charging and prosecuting the accused? Under what court system?

5. If the evidence against an accused person derives from classified sources as it likely would, or is itself classified, how do you guarantee the accused the right to a fair trial without compromising national security?

6. Who should decide the answers to the above questions, under what authority?

Unless you can answer all of these questions, or at least 1, 2, 3, and 6, I put it to you that your calls for an investigation are useless and irrelevant, and would be so even if you were right about your accusations.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Right, well this depends on what actionable means. It does not need to say "There are AQ cells at this this and this address" for it to be actionable. Actionable is simply, there are AQ cells, and they are plotting a terrorist attack using hijackings. This should lead to action. Get to work in trying to find the AQ cells, get to work trying to increase airport/airplane security. Very easy.

You completely mischaracterize the August 6, 2001 PDB. It was an update on Al Qaeda put together specifically because Bush asked that it be put together. So they compiled an intelligence summary and a list of the various threats that had been registered - all of which arrived long before he was president. Get it? This was not new information. There was absolutely no indication of anything suddenly being imminent as of August 6, or any time preceding it.

If the intelligence was so actionable on August 6, 2001, why wasn't it actionable back in 1997 - 1999 when it first came in?

Please clarify.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Well my expectations from you are high SOG. I mean, you are one of only two JREFers to currently make it into the esteemed T.A.M. signature quotes.

TAM

TAM, You know what that will get You from Me? (doing My best Dana Carvey church lady impression) Well, isn't that special?

ETA: Great post State Of Grace

 

[jab712]

No, that is an attack on the post, not the poster.


Yes, it does, because the original post was as follows:



I.e. when a "flaw" in my theory has been pointed out, I have either responded via non sequitur, unsupported contradiction, or direct attacks on the poster. Pointing out one instance where I may have attacked a poster, to my discredit, is of zero value to this point.

REALLY???????? Isn't it what you asked for? Provide an instance. I did and you didn't like it. Would you like me to quote you again where you asked for this exact thing? I can if you would like.

EVERYONE here has been telling you OVER AND OVER again how your argument is flawed. 34 pages. ALL of your responses are to these people who are saying YOUR ARGUMENT IS FLAWED. 900+ posts of people telling you that you are wrong, your argument is flawed. So, the instance I provided IS OF VALUE. You just don't want it to be. Why is it of zero value now, you asked for an instance? Oh I know...because you are WRONG.

Wrong...look it up in the dictionary, it is "astonishingly elementary."

 

[Billdave2]

I have never said that anywhere.

in your post #1280 your answer to me was

"The 911 Comm report. It states that despite 40 pdb's stating that AQ were plotting an imminent attack on US interests, including that there were AQ cells in the country plotting hijackings, nothing was done by the pres. "

so please tell me how you never said that the warning that they received was about "an AQ attack on US interests"

 

[Billdave2]

No, it is a perfect example, because it is inferring a conclusion from a statement where that conclusion is not stated explicitly. It is exactly the same as what is being done here. I have no idea why you would say this is a straw man, please explain why/ address my yes/no question.

Lets go through this slowly step by step...
1. First you tried to show an example of how in some cases you can assume something so clearly that it can be acceoted as fact.
2. You use an exaple using a staement that you really want to play football tomorrow but you can't if it rains, and say that this is clearly your desire that it not rain tomorrow.
3. I point out at least one circumstance where you could want it to rain more than your desire to play football, showing once again what happens when you assume.
4. Then you switch to the statement "if we can kill Jimmy blah blah blah propitous to my plan" and say that this is an example of the undeniable assumption.
5. I point out that your statement does not call for an assumption since it is plainly stated "if we" as opposed to "if someone were". The PNAC does not say "if we can cause a new PH", it says lacking a new PH (no specific on who causes it)
6. Then you ask if your "if we kill jimmy" statement is a worthwhile indicator, yes or no, but this is not what we are debating on this point. We are debating if the statement requires an assumption, not whether or not it states your desire to kill Jimmy.
7. So yes it would be a worthwile indicator that you want to kill Jimmy, but it is not an assumption so it is meaningless to our discussion.
8. proving that you still can't assume anything as being certain.

Extra credit question
Jimmy has received multiple warnings that MJD1982 want to kill him, but has done absolutly nothing to stop him. Does that mean it is propitous to Jimmy to be killed?

 

[PhantomWolf]

A better anaolgy is the mob boss saying, "If Jimmy wasn't around any more we'd find it a lot easier." To extend it would be when Jimmy gets killed in a plane crash 6 months later and the offical report concludes that ice build up on the wings due to the snow that was falling while it waited on the taxiway, lead to the plane failing to get enough lift on take off which lead to it failing to clear the row of trees beyond the runway, a bunch of CT's start shouting that the mob shot the plane down to kill off Jimmy.

 

[David Wong]

A better anaolgy is the mob boss saying, "If Jimmy wasn't around any more we'd find it a lot easier." To extend it would be when Jimmy gets killed in a plane crash 6 months later and the offical report concludes that ice build up on the wings due to the snow that was falling while it waited on the taxiway, lead to the plane failing to get enough lift on take off which lead to it failing to clear the row of trees beyond the runway, a bunch of CT's start shouting that the mob shot the plane down to kill off Jimmy.

That's perfect.

The founder of this fine thread keeps acting as if no investigation into the cause of 9/11 has ever been done, and that we're starting from a blank slate. If that were true, maybe the PNAC statement would actually be a lead.

But once the mountain of evidence is built in the other direction, you dismiss it.

I don't see what's so hard about that.

 

[MIKILLINI]

A better anaolgy is the mob boss saying, "If Jimmy wasn't around any more we'd find it a lot easier." To extend it would be when Jimmy gets killed in a plane crash 6 months later and the offical report concludes that ice build up on the wings due to the snow that was falling while it waited on the taxiway, lead to the plane failing to get enough lift on take off which lead to it failing to clear the row of trees beyond the runway, a bunch of CT's start shouting that the mob shot the plane down to kill off Jimmy.

Cters would also claim air traffic control was in on it too; For making the plane wait so long, therefore causing the ice to build up on the wings, forcing it to fly low enough so that it could be shot down.