The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[WildCat]

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

 

[WildCat]

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.

Excuse me? I must have missed the nuke going off...

 

[Belz...]

The rest was pretty worthless I'm afraid.

Oh, please. Stop being so self-righteous.

You think it's "worthless" to ask you to check your definitions ? You use words but you don't seem to know what they mean. Learning how to communicate is "worthless" ?

And how about this:

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".

Did you actually read that ? If you think you can just hand-wave other people's points because they don't suit you, and you think they won't notice, then you are both dishonest and deluded.

Good. Then deal with the Counterpunch article linked above.

Did you not read his post ? The ONE source is NOT reliable. If another news outlet quotes an unreliable source, does that suddenly make the story genuine ?

As im about to head out, read this article:

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

This should help you.

Did you actually READ JonnyFive's post ?

And about the counterpunch article, do you see something wrong with it ? I do.

 

[Belz...]

I'm flattered!

Wait a minute!

I wasn't aware I had a voice choir...

Who paid for this ?

 

[Belz...]

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

Here's a hint: an article that doesn't reference its sources is no article. It's a rant.

The source here was the link between the US and the Taliban.

Speculation, since there are no sources.

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".

So the fact that he's convinced and convincing means its true ?

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

Being quoted by someone else doesn't make you reputable. Quoting someone who is does. So you've got it the other way around.

LMAO!!

This is no laughing matter.

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

Hindsight is 20/20. You're only willing to see one possibility. Even IF you were correct about the information they had, foul play isn't the only explanation. Of course, you're wrong about the information they had.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Wait a minute!

I wasn't aware I had a voice choir...

Who paid for this ?

Don't worry - we're purely a voluntary tribute choir.

 

[Billdave2]

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.

So since this random guy is unequivical in his opinion. That is not evidence. If someone puts themself forward as an expert or a witness, they need to have some thing to back them up , more than "I got a letter from the bush adminstration saying I worked for them, but I left it at home and you can't see it". Where are his credentials, and why didn't he provide them. Where is any proof of what he says? Even what he says would lead you to believe that even if he was being honest, even the Clinton administration didn't take him serious. Do you think for one moment they would have said "well we really worked hard to get rid of OBL, and it would sure make us look good to get his head on platter to show up the republicans, but we will just let good old GWB get all the credit by intentiaonally delaying for a couple of months." And this is if the guy seems credible to you! If he is on the up and up he would have no proble presenting some evidence, but says "whoops, I left it at home." You ask why I don't look at facts, but you NEVER present facts, you present assumptions, and implications and wild stories from people with no evidence and who appear to have no credibility with anyone of substance.

I will look at any FACTS you want to present, but the have to be FACTS not opinions/fairy tales.

 

[WildCat]

I will look at any FACTS you want to present, but the have to be FACTS not opinions/fairy tales.

Actual facts are not propitious to mjd1982's delusions, so opinions and fairy tales are all you're going to get.

 

[DGM]

Towards the end of that same month of October, 2001 Mohabbat was successfully negotiating with the Taliban for the release of Heather Mercer (acting in a private capacity at the request of her father)

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

(CNN) -- After more than three months of confinement in harsh Taliban prisons, U.S. Christian aid workers Heather Mercer, 24, and Dayna Curry, 30, were freed from their cells November 15

Mercer and Curry -- along with four German and two Australian aid workers who were arrested with them -- were freed by Northern Alliance troops

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/people/shows/curry.mercer/profile.html

This statement makes me wonder about Mohabbat's negotiating capacity with the Taliban

 

[WildCat]

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




http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/people/shows/curry.mercer/profile.html

This statement makes me wonder about Mohabbat's negotiating capacity with the Taliban

Seems counterpunch.org has some credibility problems...

 

[JonnyFive]

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.

Oh, and you were doing so well. Now you have to go back to this "stick to the point" crap. I thought that the issue of the US having OBL "on a platter" was essential to your point that the US allowed 9/11 to happen. I've asked you why capturing, trying, or killing OBL would help stop those terrorist attacks in early 2001, when the negotiations you reference actually happened.

Could have had him dead? The US seemed to want to put him on trial. That's what all those sources you keep referencing say. Why would they want him dead? They wanted him held accountable for his crimes.

There is also the minor issue of them not really having his "head on a platter" in the sense you keep using. The US was negotiating with an unreliable, unstable, dogmatic political entity to try to secure the release of a man they treated as a guest. Somehow I don't think this was a particularly "good faith" negotiation.

How could the US have had him dead? Did we know precisely where he was? "Inside Afghanistan" clearly isn't enough, given our inability to capture him during the recent war there.

Tell me if you accept this.

No, because you haven't shown proof of it, and every source you've linked to flatly defies the idea of him being "handed" to anyone.

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.

You have no idea how organizations like Al Qaeda work, do you?

Terrorist groups, like AQ, are often organized into what is known as "cells." These cells, generally comprised of a small number of people, operate largely independently of the larger group itself. The larger group supplies funding, training, equipment, and guidance, then allows the cells to operate without direct leadership from the main group.

Evidence suggests that OBL had contact with members of the cells periodically before they carried out their mission, but there is no reason to suspect that their operation would cease when the leadership was destroyed. Just as the AQ cells in Afghanistan are able to continue to fight against American troops despite the death of several of their key leaders, any cell in the US is generally able to continue its mission unless that specific cell is destroyed to the point where its operational capacity is removed.

Moreover, the motivation behind most terrorist groups is not adherence to a particular figure or group, it is adherence to a set of particular ideals and beliefs, regardless of how pathological those ideals and beliefs may be. This is largely what allows the cell system to work - individual operators do not require constant reinforcement from on high to continue their operations.

You can examine several situations to see how this works: the Afghan insurgency, the Iraqi insurgency, the terrorist operations carried out by HAMAS in Israel and the surrounding area, the IRA operations in Northern Ireland that took place for decades, and the activity of any of the "lone gunman" terrorists that show how much damage a motivated individual can do.

Cutting off the head of a terrorist organization is like cutting off the head of the Hydra. It might make you feel good, and it might even hurt them for a bit (OBL was a key organizer and provided a lot of money), but it will never kill them. That is one of the key things that make terrorism so enduring and dangerous. Remember that many terrorist groups have long outlasted the lifespans or involvement of their original members - they are not defined by one leader.

Even more to the point, by the time OBL was even "offered" to the US, again assuming such an offer was even remotely genuine, the cell planning 9/11 was in its end run. Despite all its moving parts, the hijacking plot was pretty low-tech, so it's not like they needed a constant influx of OBL money to continue operations.

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.

That's the thing, the War on Terror is such a great deal for the government precisely because it doesn't need one man for that. All it needs is the shadowy boogeyman of "the terrorists." It works even better if you don't tie it in to one man. Osama could die at any time, even if the US was working full time to protect him secretly, but the concept of a shadow group that hates America will never go away.

I'm willing to bet large sums of money that there will never be a world where there are no terrorists of one sort or another. There will always be people willing to use terroristic violence to try and achieve their political ends. If you want to be cynical about it, the War on Terror's abstract qualities ensure we will almost always have an enemy to fight. Unlike the Cold War, which largely ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, there will always be some terrorists.

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.

I, again, contest the idea that he was "handed on a platter." The evidence you have linked to does not at all support this idea. In fact, it appears more to be Taliban obfuscation and diplomatic posturing than anything else. This isn't "we had him in our custody and let him go" stuff, not by a long shot.

 

[JonnyFive]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/wrong.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/slayer20Signature.jpg

this be Satan's choir

I must be off to a slow start this morning, because I thought the guy in the first picture was supposed to be one of the people in Satan's choir.

 

[mjd1982]

The crux of your argument, then, is that OBL had been "handed to the US on a platter".

Of this part of the argument, yes

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.

Irrelevant, since it dates to 1998, when Mohabbat is referring specifically to the negligence of the Bush admin, and no one else.

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.

This deals with post 911, which again, is superfluous to the point- disposing of OBL b4 911

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.

Ok, a story from the US side

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.

It doesnt contradict the 1st 1 at all, since it relates more to post Cole negotiations:

Mohabbat went to Kandahar and communicated the news of imminent bombing to the Taliban. They asked him to set up a meeting with US officials to arrange the circumstances of their handover of Osama.

Nor does it to the 2nd for the portion that matters, since we are addressing the pre 911 failures; the post 911 have little relevance.

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.

Which still leaves zero justification for when you are told OBL is in this house here, bomb him, that you dont do so.

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.

Oh boy, a plunge into the incredulous here. Why would they not be able to understand Mohabbat? He's a Texan businessman, who was born in Afghanistan. So that point is out the window and in the dustbin. Further, the argument is a complete catch all, since it would imply that even if the Taliban were saying "OBL is here, please bomb him", which they were, then the Bush admin would just not understand it, due to cultural differences. I take it you are not making this argument seriously. Moreover, read the article carefully. The reaction of the Bush admin was not that they didnt know that they could, they knew they could, they were just procrastinating:

The Bush administration sent Mohabbat back, carrying kindred tidings of delay and regret to the Taliban three more times in 2001, the last in September after the 9/11 attack. Each time he was asked to communicate similar regrets about the failure to act on the plan agreed to in Frankfurt. This procrastination became a standing joke with the Taliban, Mohabbat tells CounterPunch "They made an offer to me that if the US didn't have fuel for the Cruise missiles to attack Osama in Daronta, where he was under house arrest, they would pay for it."

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.

Pffff! Or not, as above.

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

Ok, well after trying quite well so far, your back to plunging the depths as per usual. If you want to address my points on PNAC, go ahead, they are firmly enunciated in #493. Stating "I think your wrong, oh, how wrong you are", is not amenable to sensible debate, and, I would suggest, does not belong anywhere near here.

 

[mjd1982]

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?

There was no bogeyman in N Ireland, but that doesnt mean that it would have been less effective with one. These are 2 completely different instances; one is a manufactured war against an invisible enemy, the other is a genuine conflict. Were the Troubles manufactured, there would be good reason to construct a bogeyman to put fear into a population, and gain credence.

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.

Right, but that doesnt invalidate the validity of killing Saddam, does it? Which is the point.

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'.

as above

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?

yes, to further and entrench geo political hegemony. See my long post half way down p3 for more.

And not only did they do nothing to stop it, but they indirectly alluded to it in the PNAC prior to the event?

This evinces the propitiousness of such an event in their minds, im not arguing anything else

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'?

No, I don't. The Brits (we) see that, again for geo political reasons to stand shoulder to shoulder (or knee) with the US is beneficial. Of course this has obvious benefits such as stable access to cheap oil and gas, as well as a boon to the weapons industry, whose importance Goldsmith et al are very aware of, but this is all tangential. They are not in on it, nor are they possblly even aware that this is an inside job.

 

[mjd1982]

Very simple. And wrong.



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



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



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



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.



Telepathy, now ?



Dead horse.

I'm sorry, but no points here constitute any form of an argument.

If you wish to constitute such, go ahead.

 

[mjd1982]

Oh, please. Stop being so self-righteous.

You think it's "worthless" to ask you to check your definitions ? You use words but you don't seem to know what they mean. Learning how to communicate is "worthless" ?

And how about this:



Did you actually read that ? If you think you can just hand-wave other people's points because they don't suit you, and you think they won't notice, then you are both dishonest and deluded.



Did you not read his post ? The ONE source is NOT reliable. If another news outlet quotes an unreliable source, does that suddenly make the story genuine ?



Did you actually READ JonnyFive's post ?

And about the counterpunch article, do you see something wrong with it ? I do.

Right, so here you invalidate the CP article since it is based on the testimony of one person. You are stating that an article based on 1 source is ipso facto unreliable.

Please think b4 u post.

 

[nicepants]

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.

Where does the 911 comm say "no action was taken"?
A principals meeting on 9/4....so action was taken?

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

So 4 of the 19 were the hijackers...the other 15 would have been wire-tapped, followed, bugged, etc all in violation of US law. Great plan.

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

I'm not saying it "couldn't" be done...I'm saying it couldn't be done LEGALLY. It sounds like you support the government illegally wiretapping individuals without any legal authorization to do so.

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.

(bolding/underlining mine)

You said it yourself, it's an opinion.......

 

[mjd1982]

Here's a hint: an article that doesn't reference its sources is no article. It's a rant.

Speculation, since there are no sources.

So the fact that he's convinced and convincing means its true ?

Being quoted by someone else doesn't make you reputable. Quoting someone who is does. So you've got it the other way around.

This is no laughing matter.

The source is Koabbir Mohabbat. This is referenced many times

Hindsight is 20/20. You're only willing to see one possibility. Even IF you were correct about the information they had, foul play isn't the only explanation. Of course, you're wrong about the information they had.

Well this is what we're debating. Learn the meaning of that word, and if you think your up to it, join in.

 

[mjd1982]

So since this random guy is unequivical in his opinion.

Oh my days....Please explain how he is a "random guy"...

That is not evidence. If someone puts themself forward as an expert or a witness, they need to have some thing to back them up , more than "I got a letter from the bush adminstration saying I worked for them, but I left it at home and you can't see it". Where are his credentials, and why didn't he provide them. Where is any proof of what he says?

Please read the article before you post:

From the documents he's supplied us and from his detailed account we regard Kabir Mohabbat's story as credible and are glad to make public his story of the truly incredible failure of the Bush administration to accept the Taliban's offer to eliminate Bin Laden.

He told his story to the 9/11 Commission (whose main concern, he tells us, was that he not divulge his testimony to anyone else), also to the 9/11 Families

portions of Mohabbat's role have been the subject of a number of news reports, including a CBS news story by Alan Pizzey

This meeting in Quetta was reported in carefully vague terms by Pizzey on September 25, where Mohabbat was mentioned by name

Even what he says would lead you to believe that even if he was being honest, even the Clinton administration didn't take him serious. Do you think for one moment they would have said "well we really worked hard to get rid of OBL, and it would sure make us look good to get his head on platter to show up the republicans, but we will just let good old GWB get all the credit by intentiaonally delaying for a couple of months."

That is no form of argument.

In addition, please watch the Clinton-Wallace interview for info on why Clinton didnt bomb OBL.

And this is if the guy seems credible to you! If he is on the up and up he would have no proble presenting some evidence, but says "whoops, I left it at home."

From the documents he's supplied us and from his detailed account we regard Kabir Mohabbat's story as credible

read b4 u post

You ask why I don't look at facts, but you NEVER present facts, you present assumptions, and implications and wild stories from people with no evidence and who appear to have no credibility with anyone of substance.

I will look at any FACTS you want to present, but the have to be FACTS not opinions/fairy tales.

Unbelievable.

All as above.

ETA- Sorry, I just cant leave this standing. It is so astonishing, and so reflective of what I say in the OP

I will state that I do believe that those who are not “Truthers” fall into 2 categories- ill informed (~90%) and deluded (the rest). I mean deluded not as some blind pejorative, rather in the strict sense of the word- they will ignore, manipulate and select evidence in order to squeeze it into a story that fits nicely with their preconceived, but ultimately baseless view of how the world might work. This has been illustrated time and again on the SLC, but I hope will not be the case here. Let’s be honest, and open minded.

So let's look at what's happening here. We have the middle man, as documented by many sources, between the Bush admin and the Taliban, primarily responsible for arranging for OBL to be killed, and his unequivocal opinion? Bush had him on a platter, but said no thanks. How is this treated by you? It's a "fairy tale", and he must be lying.

It almost makes me sick to think I am part of the same populace as people such as yourselves, so wilfully ignorant and deluded that it will accept any subterfuge in order to reject the most evident truths and facts.

Some reading for you-

Propaganda by Ed Bernays, the father of the political and the business PR industry

Public Opinion by Walter Lippman, originator of the term "the manufacture of consent".

These are the textbooks of suppression of democratic thought in democratic societies. You will see how an event such as 911 fits perfectly into this scheme.

Of course, true to your profile, you will not read either of these, but at least I have tried.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Oh boy, a plunge into the incredulous here.

[...]

I take it you are not making this argument seriously.

[...]

Pffff! Or not, as above.

[...]

Ok, well after trying quite well so far, your back to plunging the depths as per usual.

[...]

Stating "I think your wrong, oh, how wrong you are", is not amenable to sensible debate, and, I would suggest, does not belong anywhere near here.

I'll just let your own words speak for me.

Dave