The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Unsecured Coins]

Heh, here and I always thought that Satan's male voice choir was KISS.

this be Satan's choir

 

[Swing Dangler]

There are more hijackers on this thread than on 9/11!

 

[nicepants]

There are more hijackers on this thread than on 9/11!

There were multiple, unprecedented warnings in advance of said hijackings...yet Mjd did nothing to stop them. Obviously these hijackings are "propitious" to his plan.

 

[MIKILLINI]

There are more hijackers on this thread than on 9/11!

 

[Unsecured Coins]

and we ALL listen to SLAYER

 

[MIKILLINI]

There were multiple, unprecedented warnings in advance of said hijackings...yet Mjd did nothing to stop them. Obviously these hijackings are "propitious" to his plan.

Propitious...

 

[jab712]

Yeah, I am getting pretty tired of that word. That and "amazing"...uggh

 

[SpitfireIX]

Propitious...

See handy response 3) in my signature.

 

[MIKILLINI]

See handy response 3) in my signature.

I wonder how long he spent looking before settling on that word. Might have been debating on favorable and found the synonym of favorable to be the word he chose. #3 is a good response, but I like #1 the best.
Since mjd is arguing the pro-pitious of the inside job.
It must be that we are arguing the con-pitious of it.

 

[mjd1982]

I read the Cockburn article. It presents no evidence that its source is in any way relaiable. It says that he "has a letter from the bush administration" but does not provide it as his only link to Bush. If anything it points to the Clinton administration as being the ones you screwed up. They had everything in place before November 2000 and supposedly put it off to wait to let the next administration handle things. Of course the whole article is dubious at best and seems to have no base in reality.

Excuse me? May I ask why you are here if you have no inclination to look at facts with the slightest degree of honesty?

The source here was the link between the US and the Taliban. It is hard to realistically conceive a more important source than this. He is unequivocal in his opinion- the US "could have had Osama bin Laden's head handed to him on a platter".

What is there to debate? This could not be any more simple.

 

[mjd1982]

I read the Cockburn article. It presents no evidence that its source is in any way relaiable. It says that he "has a letter from the bush administration" but does not provide it as his only link to Bush. If anything it points to the Clinton administration as being the ones you screwed up. They had everything in place before November 2000 and supposedly put it off to wait to let the next administration handle things. Of course the whole article is dubious at best and seems to have no base in reality.

Sorry, I just cant read this post without pissing myself!!!

What an intrepid seeker of the truth you are!

 

[mjd1982]

I have a question for you mjd1982.


Is this true?

Please comment.

There, now I give credence to said story. So it must be true since it's quoted by multiple sources.

I have commented on it, read the damn thread before you post!

If the JREF globe is reputable enough a source to be quoted as the IG was, then the story may have credence.

Now, comment on this please:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

 

[mjd1982]

Squirm?? My boy, you are delusional!

Kabir Mohabbat's version of Frankfurt is clearly at odds with Secretary Eastham's (Eastham career Foreign Service officer, not a political appointee, although this is 2000 so that question is moot). So who might have an agenda?

LMAO, right, who's going to have an agenda, the guy from the US State department, or the Afghan/American link between the US and the Taliban? Why does this guy have an "agenda", pray tell?

Who is claiming something that is unusual (given the Taliban's dodging of 30 efforts during the Clinton administration, their willingness post-9/11 to be bombed into the Stone Age rather than turn over bin Laden, the Taliban-Al Qaeda alliance which exists to this day)? Mohabbat's credibility is suspect.

Nice gag! Tell me why his credibility is suspect, over a US state dept official commenting in March 01, vs the independent intermediary between the US and the Taliban commenting in November 04? How can you make this claim with a straigh face?

(Interestingly, I would suggest more appropriate reading for you might be Cockburn's "The 9/11 Conspiracists and the Decline of the American Left". It's not just Chomsky who thinks you're a nutcase.)

What Cockburn or Chomsky thinks of the movement has zero relevance in terms of a debate on the facts. If you want to debate them seriously, for which there is little evidence, you would not need me to tell you this.

 

[mjd1982]

That doesn't really seem to address the issue of how getting hold of Bin Laden, or bringing him to trial, would help to prevent the 9/11 attacks from occurring, unless he had some reason to say something about future attacks. But the US didn't want him to find out about stuff in the future, they wanted him to put on trial for the Cole attacks, primarily. Similarly, we don't want OBL now to prevent future attacks, we want to put him on trial for his role in 9/11... and the USS Cole attacks... and possibly his role in the 1993 WTC bombing.

I mean, it's not like Jack Bauer is going to force him to tell us about the plan 2 hours before it happens. When the US looks for terror suspects, they're mostly looking for people after the fact to put on trial.

In fact, terrorism is such a threat precisely because it is so disorganized. This is what made the IRA such a pain in the ass for the British. Even if they'd taken down the head of the IRA at any given time, it wouldn't stop the cells from carrying out their individual missions. They didn't even have enough central contact for the leader to really harm them much if caught.

The Al Qaeda group appears to be organized along similar lines, albeit with a slightly different focus. Capturing or killing OBL well in advance of 9/11 would certainly have hurt funding and organization somewhat, but I don't know if we can really argue that that action alone would destroy their ability to conduct operations, especially so close to the 9/11 attacks.

Jonny, please stick to the point. Did the US let OBL live pre 911, when they had his head on a platter. It is very hard to argue that they couldnt have had him dead, when the independent, former intermediary between te US and the Taliban is stating that in the strongest possible terms.

Tell me if you accept this.

Now, in terms of what this would have done to hinder 911, it is also hard to argue that it wouldnt have hindered it in any way. If the head of AQ is killed, this is going to cause problems for AQ, this is pretty evident. It also has relevance for the WOT- the US needs a bogeyman to encapsulate this "enemy" that we are fighting against. OBL is the perfect one, and it would make little sense had he been killed.

Regardless, the crux of the matter is whether he was allowed to live, when he had been handed to the US on a platter. Then the questions this raises.

 

[mjd1982]

(Response to Lapman)

LMAO!!

Great gag, another intrepid truth seeker we have on this thread.

Just to show how ridiculous your point is, who the f@$k has heard of Kabir Moabbat?

 

[mjd1982]

We know that they failed, at least in this case, but you have only claimed that they did not try. It's entirely possible that there were previous attempts at an attack which were thwarted. (A la - Britian-based Liquid Explosives plot)

No, in any case not on a mandate from the WH, since the 911 commission says that no action were taken, until a principals meeting on sept 4th.

So the govt had the current/correct names and locations of each person involved 9/11? And knew that they were all planning said attack? And deliberately did nothing?

Please dont be deliberately obtuse. They dont need the names of all of them. Mossad handed over the names of 19 AQ agents, on the premise that AQ were planning a "hiroshima on US soil", within which were the names of 4 (?) of the eventual hijackers. Nothing was done

Your argument says to wiretap, etc the people who are believed to be AQ operatives. However, there could easily be many people who may be "believed to be AQ operatives" who are not.

Your point? Read about the CIA docs released today? Dont pretend this couldnt be done, that is deliberately ignorant I would surmise.

 

[mjd1982]

There are more hijackers on this thread than on 9/11!

Of course, they find it better than addressing the points.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Regardless, the crux of the matter is whether he was allowed to live, when he had been handed to the US on a platter. Then the questions this raises.

The crux of your argument, then, is that OBL had been "handed to the US on a platter". We have four sources that relate to this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,587849,00.html - The Taliban were prepared to hand over OBL to Pakistan in 1998 but changed their mind after US cruise missile attacks.

http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2004-10/13rai.cfm - The Taliban negotiated with private individuals to hand over OBL to Pakistan but the plan was vetoed by President Musharraf because he couldn't guarantee OBL's safety; the US Ambassador to Pakistan knew about all this.

http://www.infowars.com/saved pages/Prior_Knowledge/US_met_taliban.htm - US diplomats negotiated strenuously over three years to get OBL handed over but the negotiations failed, possibly because of Taliban stalling and possibly because of cultural misunderstandings; opinions vary.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html - The Taliban offered a plan to the Clinton administration to have OBL and his supporters killed by a US cruise missile strike, but the Bush administration never picked up the plan and ignored subsequent offers of a handover.

Note that the fourth of these pieces is based on the opinion of a single individual who feels that the Bush administration was criminally negligent. It contradicts the third source, and the first and second are partly in agreement and partly contradictory.

There are many possible interpretations of all this. Your interpretation that the US administration deliberately prevented any real progress to avoid capturing OBL is a possible one, which only really agrees with the Counterpunch article. Another is that the three years of fruitless negotiations, in which US diplomats never had the sense of achieving anything, left the US thoroughly disillusioned and reluctant to trust anything the Taliban said.

Most notable is the suggestion that cultural differences were the main factor that derailed the negotiations. This would be consistent with the opinion of Kabir Mohabbat, himself an Afghan, that US officials were not accepting offers that to him were clearly made, and also the opinion of those US officials that no genuine offer was forthcoming; Mohabbat was able to understand the Taliban's way of bargaining, but the US officials were not able to understand fully either the Taliban or even Mohabbat. In other words, as usual there's a perfectly valid cock-up theory that not only explains the facts as well as the conspiracy theory, but even explains some of the apparent contradictions rather better than the conspiracy theory.

As with the PNAC and propitiousness argument, I'm finding your opinions very illuminating here, but not in the way you seem to want; the more you advance arguments for an inside job, the more it prompts me to look into the details, and the more it seems to me that those arguments are poor reflections of the sources they're based on. In that respect, at least, I value this thread.

Dave

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Now, in terms of what this would have done to hinder 911, it is also hard to argue that it wouldnt have hindered it in any way. If the head of AQ is killed, this is going to cause problems for AQ, this is pretty evident. It also has relevance for the WOT- the US needs a bogeyman to encapsulate this "enemy" that we are fighting against. OBL is the perfect one, and it would make little sense had he been killed.

Incorrect. As has been pointed out, there is no need for a 'bogeyman'. The British Government/Army fought terrorism in Northern Ireland for over 30 years with no recourse to a 'figurehead' of any kind. Why would the US Government need one?

Of course, if the head of AQ was killed it would cause problems - as has been pointed out, but given the nature of Islamic terrorism, I don't think this would make too much of an impact; It would result in the head of AQ being 'martyred', and would only serve to inflame passion and resistance in the rest of the movement. Saddam Hussein being captured and subsequently hanged did nothing significant to quell the dissidents in Iraq.

Also, as has been explained; the way the terrorist cell system works (as pioneered by the IRA) is such that the organisation can survive as a whole if the 'head is cut off', as most cells are completely unaware of others outside their own AO's and operate mostly independantly, only requiring sanction from their higher formations to carry out certain 'jobs'.

Again, can I seek clarification that you're suggesting that the US government were fully aware that a terrorist attack was planned for 9/11, and did nothing to stop it, in order to push through weapons development, obtain oil/gas and establish footholds in the Persian Gulf? And not only did they do nothing to stop it, but they indirectly alluded to it in the PNAC prior to the event?

If this is the case, can you tell me how (if at all) the British Government was complicit in this, seeing as how British % US troops were 'shoulder-to-shoulder' in the War against Terror almost from the outset? Do you think that this implies that the British Government were also 'in on it'?

 

[Belz...]

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.

Very simple. And wrong.

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

Now you're just making stuff up. Where did you read that happy toy-land utopic world vision ?

not necessarily key, certainly propitious

Tell me, Mjd, why do you stubbornly refuse to accept that it might NOT be propitious ?

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

You're adding new meaning to the document, again.

The Pres knew there were AQ cells in the couuntry plotting a mass terrorist attack, deemed a "Hiroshima on US soil", and did zero,

Already refuted. It seems to me like you're not reading some of the responses on this thread. Perhaps they threaten your world-view and you'd rather ignore them.

didnt even care.

Telepathy, now ?

He was offered OBL, and didnt evem care.

Dead horse.