The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Unsecured Coins]

Well don't come crying to me when you go swimming in the Ukraine and a monster comes up and starts chewing on your [rule 8].

in that case, I assure you I will be saying alot more than "[rule 8]"

 

[MIKILLINI]

Oh boy... All the PNAC doc does is give a basis. A new PH was deemed propitious. Simple. This then allows us to view the 9 mths of ignored warnings of such with clarity.

Yes, PNAC gives a basis and it is explained in detail for the long term. Absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event- like a new PH, would cause the plans to be altered.
I keep going back to this point for the reason you believe this exception of a new PH is the key for the Bush Administration. In that belief you have predetermined that these Neocons planned this document with the exception (I.e. a new PH) as favorable so they could get their wish (a conspiracy..that is what you are playing here) and use something to cause disaster (like Al-Queda?) to make the changes happen sooner. By your reasoning that makes the PNAC document a written conspiracy. Why? Because over half of those who signed their name to it were chosen by Bush to work in his Administration. Your case is built on the catastrophic and catalyzing event segment mentioned in the document, which was written before 9/11.
9/11 became the event that lead to the changes taking place sooner.
You are arguing 9/11 was favorable for the Neocons in the context that this is what they wanted instead of the long term transformation. Subsequently, they put their intentions into effect, as you say, by not doing anything about the warnings and consequently hoping that America will be attacked, therefore allowing 9/11 to happen without taking any measures to prevent it. This is the case you are trying, but everyone here is showing you the fallacy of your arguments. What you have is circumstantial, and in case you haven't noticed, You are holding on so tightly to this belief and have convinced yourself beyond logical doubt what you have is smoking gun evidence, that you can't believe your evidence can be debunked. But it is being debunked right in front of you. Can't you see this?

ETA: Hey Leroy I agree, I would like to see the views of mjd about WTC 7

 

[MIKILLINI]

You're wrong. "Pravda" means "truth" in Russian. And we all know that anything with "truth" in the title has to be true!

It's true!

What truth does it mean? Russian truth? or is it Jooooo's truth? Since the Jooooo's were the ones who made the Russian revolution a joooo's revolution (according to Magz). They made a movie about it, the title is "The Devil Wears Pravda".

 

[Billdave2]

There is an article in a mass distributed newspaper. You are stating it is false. You must show how this is so. If say, the Guardian came out with a story that you didnt like, it would be unbelievably stupid for you to come and say "No, thats false. Prove it's true". You would never do this (i hope) in any normal scenario. This scenario clearly changes things for you.
Your post presupposes falsehood in the article.
(skip ahead)
If a paper of sufficient credence to have its content regurgitated at a WH press conference, an MSNBC editorial, and the editor of Counterpunch (possibly a regurgitation), has its content disputed by people on a debate forum, then such people must provide a coherent basis for such dispute, This is pretty elementary.

If the NY Times prints a story saying Tony Blair is shaggin Gordon Brown, I may not believe it, but if I am to have such disbelief given credence by sensible people, I will have to support it sufficiently for it to be a counterweight to the credence given by a NY Times article.

So I will wait for you to do similar

MJD 1982
The JREF Globe is reporting that you (MJD1982) is planning on killing Jimmy.

Is this true or false?

If you say it is false you must provide proof. As you state above I don't have to prove it is true.

 

[jab712]

Errr, then what the hell are you doing on a 911 related forum?! The question has to be asked; I dont expect a sobre answer, dont worry.

not attacking the poster again I presume.

 

[MSgtWeiss]

This has been dealt with time and time again. 1stly, I said nothing was done by Bush et al in response to the terror warnings. This is stated by the 911 Comm. Please don't ask me to prove that they are not lying.

2ndly, you do not appear to know what a PDB is. Every weekday morning, the president and some principals meet with the DCI (Director of Central Intelligence), who triangulates the most important intel for them to hear. ~30 weeks b4 911, and 40 warnings. I.e. he was told more than once every 4 days that AQ were planning an attack on US interests; zero follow up. These warnings were "unprecedented" in their scale, according to Tenet.

Well, it's certainly clear that YOU don't know what a PDB is, mjd1982.

It's not a briefing. The "B" doesn't even stand for "briefing." It's a "brief" -- a document compiled by the intelligence community that is hand-carried to either the President or his Chief of Staff every day. The DCI neither briefs nor even meets with the Pres every day, and never has. It'd blow three hours of his day for no useful purpose.

As far as specific, imminent warnings before 9-11, I have yet to hear of one that was credible and specific enough to be actionable -- though if Janet Reno's directive about not passing info to the intel community from the FBI had never occurred, it might have at least delayed 9-11. Maybe. Jihadist fools are in no shortage, and they can be trained to fly anywhere in the world if you have money.

Every day the intel community gets tens of thousands of pieces of intelligence, and a lot of them are warnings of one type or another. Most of the ones that aren't pure crap are so vague you can't do squat with them except wait for better data. Even if the CIA had reasonable intel that AQ was going to try suicide missions with planes, what's the next step? Ground civil air? Tighten up security, which with the usual airline non-cooperation would take years? Once this happened, even the usual moronic jihadists would modify their plans to use rented planes, incoming Swedish airliners, or several other obvious alternatives.


The unfortunate fact is that it was, and still is, easy to pull off a mass murder in an open society, especially if suicide is an element. It is now more difficult to use regular commercial flights as kamikazes, but any idiot could still pull off a similar spectacular media event. And they will.

As before 9-11, anyone with half a brain knows that we are going to be hit again. Big time. Might be planes, and we have no real defense against a decently-planned hit by incoming foreign flights, and zero time to mount any defense if they coordinate all of them decently. It might be a couple of Scuds from a perfectly legitimate cargo ship offshore -- or, if we're unlucky, a couple of Silkworms, or a crude thermonuclear weapon. If we're lucky the nuke will be sent to some city and do some ferocious local damage. If we're not lucky it'll be configured for an air burst aimed at maximum EMP damage and reduce a significant portion of the Eastern seaboard to pre-industrial conditions very rapidly.

This isn't just good intel -- it's a simple prediction obvious to everyone paying attention. That's the easy part. Now go figure out what to do about it.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I have some questions for MJD. Firstly, I must apologise, because I'm not the sharpest tool in the box, and I only read up to page 20 of this thread.

1. If you're saying that 9/11 was an 'inside job', does this mean that you're saying it was totally organised by the US Government, and no terrorists were involved whatsoever?

2. If the answer to point 1 is 'Yes', then were the British Government in on it too? I ask because our troops were the next ones into Afghanistan with US troops, and British troops were right along side US Troops in Iraq.

3. If the answer to point 2 is 'Yes'; what has Britain gained from it's involvement in the War on Terror?

4. Taking points 1, 2 & 3 into consideration; who was it then that perpetrated the July 2005 London bombings?

 

[Belz...]

They dont have to be arrested. Just an attempt to locate them, track them etc. This is not hard to understand.

And how would you know if they did ?

In short, it is reflective of about 90% of the posts here~ "You think your right, but your wrong".

Well it's better than your "well, it doesn't say it but it's what it meant."

Hahaha... accordng to who is it one source?

Mjd, if ONE media outlet reports something, and fifty other media outlets quote FROM that original source, it's still ONE source. Perhaps you should look up the word "source".

I present the facts, the odd simple interpolation, and ask people to debate them. They dont. Very simple.

You should look up "interpolation", too.

A new PH was deemed propitious. Simple.

You keep saying that after it's been proven wrong again and again. Why do you do this ?

 

[Belz...]

2nd,intent or soemthing that could be construed as such. Propitious would be such an instance.

Okay, was that a statement from the document stating that they were planning something ? Didn't think so.

Since inference is not inadmissible to debatem i am perfectly okay to use it.

I have no idea what this lump of words is supposed to mean.

 

[Belz...]

No, they are just a better news gathering organisation than you. Until you can dispute this instance of such successfully, you will have to accept their report, for the purposes of this debate at least.

Guilty until proven innocent. The Twoofer credo.

I'm sorry if I wasnt clear. My point is, and always has been, that it is the effort that is the telling point. If sufficient is made, and nothing is achieved, you can pin incompetence. If nothing is made, then, given the mass of "unprecedented" warnings, you have to ask other questions.

Which is a far cry from saying they let it happen on purpose.

There is an article in a mass distributed newspaper. You are stating it is false. You must show how this is so.

There are PINK ELEPHANTS in my CLOSET!

Prove me wrong.

please provide additional sources for your claim!

I have given you one source. [...] This should be sufficient.

No, Mjd. It's not. Why is it so difficult for you to understand ?

 

[mjd1982]

Did any of these warnings suggest how many people were involved? If so, how do you pick out 19 hijackers from a population of 281,421,906? That's 1 hijacker for every 14 MILLION people.

You dont have to. You just try. If you fail, you fail. I think ive told u this b4.

Your plan sounds an awful lot like the Patriot Act

1 - How do you determine who to monitor?...The US population in 2001 was over 280 MILLION people. (It's now over 300 Million)

The suspects, i.e. the people who Mossad have told you are AQ operatives in the US

2 - How do you monitor these people's activities, phone calls, and meetings without violating the constitutional rights of US citizens?

theyre not US citizens

 

[mjd1982]

The point being made is...just because a reporter quotes another person or another article doesn't mean that they concur, agree, lend creedance-to, or credibility-to the quoted statement.

It depends how it is being used. If the reporter is borrowing its import for his report, then of course he is lending it credence, since the credence of his report depends on that of the others. This is pretty simple.

 

[gumboot]

Might be planes, and we have no real defense against a decently-planned hit by incoming foreign flights, and zero time to mount any defense if they coordinate all of them decently.

Although I mainly agree with your post, just a minor point, the above isn't true. NORAD was specifically set up to deal with threats coming from outside the USA, and intercepted rogue flights routinely prior to 9/11. All that was missing was authority to shoot.

If such an attack came now, with an even better air defense system, lethal force authorisation, increased scramble sites, AWACS, and random CAPs, there's very little chance of a hijacked airliner getting anywhere near another US landmark. (And that's before you take into account how passengers react to terrorists on their flights post 9/11).

I think the only real chance terrorist have of topping 9/11 is a nuclear attack.

-Gumboot

 

[Billdave2]

You dont have to. You just try. If you fail, you fail. I think ive told u this b4.



The suspects, i.e. the people who Mossad have told you are AQ operatives in the US



theyre not US citizens

Non US citizens still have rights. That is why there is so much argument about Gitmo, critics say there rights are being violated.

 

[mjd1982]

WOW! One man, possibly disgruntled, telling a story with no corroboration! I can see that your standards of proof for what you want to believe are somewhat akin to Britney Spears' standards for her male companions!

Oh ho... what a valiant defender of the truth you are!

I'll give you another go, since, as I stated, I enjoy seeing you squirm- explain that text in the light of your assertion that the US had no offer to have OBL killed/handed over prior to 911. Go!

 

[gumboot]

You dont have to. You just try. If you fail, you fail. I think ive told u this b4.

The suspects, i.e. the people who Mossad have told you are AQ operatives in the US

theyre not US citizens

According to the August 6th Presidential Daily Brief there were at least fifty FBI teams across the USA investigating Radical Islamic Terrorists and chasing leads.

-Gumboot

 

[Billdave2]

Oh ho... what a valiant defender of the truth you are!

I'll give you another go, since, as I stated, I enjoy seeing you squirm- explain that text in the light of your assertion that the US had no offer to have OBL killed/handed over prior to 911. Go!

Once again could you please explain how you prove a negative? It is impposible to prove that no offer was made. You have to prove that it was with more than a question quoting and unproven source. Do you even have proof that the India Globe made this claim they are reported to have made?

 

[mjd1982]

Yes, PNAC gives a basis and it is explained in detail for the long term. Absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event- like a new PH, would cause the plans to be altered.

It would cause the revolutionary, world changing, world/peace/secutiry/democracy/love and happiness saving plan to happen in years, rather than decades, yes.

I keep going back to this point for the reason you believe this exception of a new PH is the key for the Bush Administration.

not necessarily key, certainly propitious

In that belief you have predetermined that these Neocons planned this document with the exception (I.e. a new PH) as favorable so they could get their wish (a conspiracy..that is what you are playing here) and use something to cause disaster (like Al-Queda?) to make the changes happen sooner.

not necessailry "planned the doc", but the sentiment was present in the doc, this we can say

By your reasoning that makes the PNAC document a written conspiracy.

so no

Why? Because over half of those who signed their name to it were chosen by Bush to work in his Administration. Your case is built on the catastrophic and catalyzing event segment mentioned in the document, which was written before 9/11.

It gives my case a useful framework, this is true

9/11 became the event that lead to the changes taking place sooner.

yes

You are arguing 9/11 was favorable for the Neocons in the context that this is what they wanted instead of the long term transformation.

yes

Subsequently, they put their intentions into effect, as you say, by not doing anything about the warnings and consequently hoping that America will be attacked, therefore allowing 9/11 to happen without taking any measures to prevent it.

pretty much

This is the case you are trying, but everyone here is showing you the fallacy of your arguments.

Haha.. nice gag! I hope you dont actually believe that.

If you do, you may want to start by learning the difference between addressing someone's points (i.e. as I have done here) and restating ones own (i.e. if I had just said, "No, PNAC did say what i say it said")

What you have is circumstantial, and in case you haven't noticed, You are holding on so tightly to this belief and have convinced yourself beyond logical doubt what you have is smoking gun evidence, that you can't believe your evidence can be debunked. But it is being debunked right in front of you. Can't you see this?

Ah, okay, well I was expecting a direct refutation (#493 or subsequent ripostes if you want to), but what I got was what I referred to in the 2nd half of the previouc comment- a regurgitation of your point. "I'm right, your wrong".

If you are interested in debate, then go ahead. I have invited you and your friends, many times, including the ones who have decided not to contest here. If you are honest enough to continue, then learn to debate points. Not many here know how to do this, apparently.

ETA: Hey Leroy I agree, I would like to see the views of mjd about WTC 7

If you are bursting, you can read them at SLC.

By the time I am finished with this section, the honest people on the thread will no longer need convincing.

 

[mjd1982]

MJD 1982
The JREF Globe is reporting that you (MJD1982) is planning on killing Jimmy.

Is this true or false?

If you say it is false you must provide proof. As you state above I don't have to prove it is true.

Completely erroneous example. If the JREF Globe was sufficiently reputable a source to be quoted at WH press conferences and MSNBC editorials, then the analogy would be more correct.

Oh, and please read the Counterpunch article posted above that no one wants to reply to.

 

[mjd1982]

Well, it's certainly clear that YOU don't know what a PDB is, mjd1982.

It's not a briefing. The "B" doesn't even stand for "briefing." It's a "brief" -- a document compiled by the intelligence community that is hand-carried to either the President or his Chief of Staff every day. The DCI neither briefs nor even meets with the Pres every day, and never has. It'd blow three hours of his day for no useful purpose.

As far as specific, imminent warnings before 9-11, I have yet to hear of one that was credible and specific enough to be actionable -- though if Janet Reno's directive about not passing info to the intel community from the FBI had never occurred, it might have at least delayed 9-11. Maybe. Jihadist fools are in no shortage, and they can be trained to fly anywhere in the world if you have money.

The point is still very clear. The Pres knew there were AQ cells in the couuntry plotting a mass terrorist attack, deemed a "Hiroshima on US soil", and did zero, didnt even care. He was offered OBL, and didnt evem care. Its not about having names dates and places, its about making some sort of an effort where such is possible. It was clearly possible, and yet none was done.

Every day the intel community gets tens of thousands of pieces of intelligence, and a lot of them are warnings of one type or another. Most of the ones that aren't pure crap are so vague you can't do squat with them except wait for better data. Even if the CIA had reasonable intel that AQ was going to try suicide missions with planes, what's the next step? Ground civil air? Tighten up security, which with the usual airline non-cooperation would take years? Once this happened, even the usual moronic jihadists would modify their plans to use rented planes, incoming Swedish airliners, or several other obvious alternatives.

As I said, take efforts to find the cells. which were reported by many sources. Accept OBL's handover or killing. Simple steps, I could go on, but I think the point is very clear.

The unfortunate fact is that it was, and still is, easy to pull off a mass murder in an open society, especially if suicide is an element. It is now more difficult to use regular commercial flights as kamikazes, but any idiot could still pull off a similar spectacular media event. And they will.

Well, I'm not too sure about that, since if it were so easy, it would be happening every day in the west.

As before 9-11, anyone with half a brain knows that we are going to be hit again. Big time. Might be planes, and we have no real defense against a decently-planned hit by incoming foreign flights, and zero time to mount any defense if they coordinate all of them decently. It might be a couple of Scuds from a perfectly legitimate cargo ship offshore -- or, if we're unlucky, a couple of Silkworms, or a crude thermonuclear weapon. If we're lucky the nuke will be sent to some city and do some ferocious local damage. If we're not lucky it'll be configured for an air burst aimed at maximum EMP damage and reduce a significant portion of the Eastern seaboard to pre-industrial conditions very rapidly.

This isn't just good intel -- it's a simple prediction obvious to everyone paying attention. That's the easy part. Now go figure out what to do about it.

Something. Which wasnt done before.