The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[WildCat]

Though there is a degree of currency to what you say, it is only slight. The people who debate sensibly here, and respect facts, honesty and common sense, I debate with respect. Those who lay pretensions to, but in reality are contemptuously ignorant, all the while posting intranisgently and self deceptively, I will be contemptuous of, in an issue as important as this.

Incidentally, although you have problems when a CTer addresses you in this tone, this is, from my observation, the standard tone adopted by OTers towards CTers on this forum. So to complain of such is astonishing hypocrisy, and yes, contemptuously ignorant.



The former part resides in the honesty of an observer; this should be the case in any scenario, this is obvious.

The latter part may be correct; my "interpersonal skills" on this forum are, perhaps truculent. This is very simply explained.

In the texts I have referred you to many times, Propaganda and Public Opinion, both written in the 20's, it is stated very clearly that the biggest threat to the smooth running of a democratic society, is democratic thought. Thus, consent needs to be manufactured, opnions need to be commoditised and mass produced, in order that the elected minority can get about their job of ruling, "serving by leading, rather than leading by serviing", to paraphrase Bernays. Of course, the prime way that such is achieved, is through mass means- media, school, commonly propagated cultural ideologies etc.

Now what this relies on is very simple. A populace which is, in broad enough swathes, lazy, ignorant, and intransigent. Thus they will not care to educate themselves as to the truth, which is highly evident upon the most cursory inspection, and will refuse to believe it when it is placed in front of their very eyes; they will be intransigent and accept any subterfuge to not have to accept such simple truths, since they conflict with the lessons they have held most dear- such as those from school, media and cultural ideology. In this way, which as stated relies on ignorance, intransigence and subterfuge of the public, the powerful minority can do whatever they like.

Now... Given that these characteristics are such a blight and such a danger, when they get evinced on this thread, where they are, so overwhelmingly evident, it is understandable that I would get riled, and contemptuous of people who exhibit characteristics that are surely as worthy of contempt as anything could possibly be. As I have said many times, I have no problem, none at all with people disgreeing, if they can do so via rational counter-debate. This does not happen here, or hardly at all. It could not be a more evident example of the acceptance of any subterfuge in order not to have to swallow an unpalatable reality. Look at any post- the last one, I think, where the person was claiming that ~we cant trust Mohabbat, since he may have an agenda, since his business may have suffered when the Taliban went down etc. A prime example of muddying the issue, raising a subterfuge, to prevent oneself from facing a version of events one doesnt want to. And there are too many examples to go through here, it is pretty astonishing. And depressing.

It will continue, of that I have no doubt.

So many words, and yet not a single "conspiracy fact" yet in this thread.

 

[mjd1982]

This is all connected to that point. You cannot control discussion of it by bullying people with "stick to the point."

The US wanted him handed over, in this particular case.

The US Government is funny like that. They kind of switch between trying to kill people with bombs and cruise missiles and trying to capture them. Ironically, this is exactly what happened with Saddam Hussein. We spent a lot of money trying to bomb him into oblivion, but then capture him when we found him in the spider hole.

That is because they could capture him. If they could have easier killed him, they would have done that. He was on the run in a country they ran. Its a totally different situation.

I think if you are going to argue on the basis that if the US could have had OBL dead pre 911 they would have said no, then you are on pretty irrational ground.

Why? Politics. It's political gold to put someone like OBL on trial. You can have him convicted and legally executed or indefinitely jailed for the crimes he committed. It makes the US look much better than simply killing him secretly.

Yes, if that were possible. But it wasnt, as has been shown here many times in articles posted. The US wanted a trial in NY or nothing. But he was offered to be killed. There is no excuse for not accepting the death of a man who is the biggest single human threat to civilian life in your country, for many yrs.

Any evidence that the US actually wanted to target him with cruise missiles, or knew his specific location for a targetted strike.

Come on dude, you said you read the article, i dont ask a lot

Up to that time Osama had been living on the outskirts of Kandahar. At some time shortly after the Frankfurt meeting, the Taliban moved Osama and placed him and his retinue under house arrest at Daronta, thirty miles from Kabul.

In the wake of the 2000 election Mohabbat traveled to Islamabad and met with William Milam, US ambassador to Pakistan and the person designated by the Clinton administration to deal with the Taliban on the fate of bin Laden. Milam told Mohabbat that it was a done deal but that the actual handover of bin Laden would have to be handled by the incoming Bush administration.

On November 23, 2000, Mohabbat got a call from the NSC saying they wanted to put him officially on the payroll as the US government's contact man for the Taliban. He agreed. A few weeks later an official from the newly installed Bush NSC asked him to continue in the same role and shortly thereafter he was given a letter from the administration (Mohabbat tells us he has a copy), apologizing to the Taliban for not having dealt with bin Laden, explaining that the new government was still setting in, and asking for a meeting in February 2001.

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."

There's also that messy little issue of international diplomacy... and your own sources. All your other sources are consistent with US negotiation to put OBL on trial. Again, I'm making the very liberal assumption that all the facts are exactly as your sources claim.

There were no doubt negotiations to do this. There were also those to have him killed.

However, as I just said, your other sources are all remarkably consistent with attempting to secure OBL for a trial with regards to his involvement with the 1998 attack on the USS Cole.

errr... 2000.

Nothing the US did is particularly consistent with them wanting him dead without trial, and to say that their failure to attack him with cruise missiles is suspicious, absent additional evidence that they wanted simply to kill him at that time, is speculation.

Again, please tell me in what world, when the main non gov threat to civilian life in your country for decades is offered to you on a platter, do you say "No thanks". Your american; how can you accept your government doing this? Please tell me?!

I'm suggesting that, at the time, they wanted to put him on trial. The probable result of that trial would be an execution, but it would be a politically beneficial execution.

As aboce

But wait, your point was that the failure to kill OBL was somehow significant in 9/11 happening. What was it you said about sticking to the point? I'm arguing that, even if we grant you everything you believe to be true, your ultimate point is still incorrect.

a) It would have been a hindrance
b) How can it be explained, within the OT scheme. I dont think it can; it is inexplicable.

At that point in this specific operation (the 9/11 attacks), probably not even hindered. You're taking the generic and trying to use it to suggest something about a very specific case, rather than using the issues of this specific case.

So what is the point? Well, partly it's done to prevent new cells from being recruited and forming. It can also help to reduce funding, which has the long-term goal of reducing the operational capacity of the group.

It's also partly political posturing - it can make people feel safer to know that some big leader of some terrorist group is dead or captured. It may not reduce the operational effectiveness of the existing cells one bit, but it makes people feel safer, and that counts for something when one of the primary terrorist weapons is fear.

I didn't say there's no reason to target terrorist leaders, but the reasons don't have so much to do with harming individual cells as generally harming the group's ability to continue to form cells, recruit new members, and carry out future operations where elements like funding and manpower haven't yet been finalized.

Note- I am not saying this would have killed AQ or stopped 911. Just as I have said.

There is a very, very fine line between an insurgent and a terrorist, and often they are two sides of the same coin. A lot of it has to do with targetting, and a bit has to do with tactics. Historically, the two are usually linked: HAMAS, FARC, Al Qaeda, IRA, PLA... they all use both terrorist and "guerilla" or "insurgent" tactics as needed to further their goals.

The US/UK are occupying armies in a foreign country; they have no rights and all attacks on them are, within the framework of international law, justified. Dont fall for propaganda where these people are called terrorists; people who blow themselves up in a market place in Baghdad is one thing attacking an occupying army is something that Americans should be able to appreciate as an integral part of their heritage.

Your evasion is noted. You appear to weakly resort to "as above" to address complex situations where your simple answers don't work. You seem to believe the death of OBL would hinder the 9/11 attacks, and that the fact the US didn't kill him is suspicious. However, you're failed to actually explain how killing him would prevent or hinder those attacks. Funding? Organization? Authorization?

Why don't you explain what you think about this situation. How do you believe killing OBL in early 2001 would significantly hinder the 9/11 attacks?

Funding for sure; organisation, since his death would throw AQ into a degree of chaos; confidence as well. If they see that their leader is dead, what will that do for them? If AQ is the glue that bound the hijackers together, through a variety of means, the death of the head and founder would necessarily weaken that.

I don't think it's a "diversionary construct," I think it is simply something that cannot really ever be "won" in the traditional sense. The enemy we face, though real, is one that is shifting constantly. All we (all target nations) can do is strive to defend ourselves more effectively, and not succumb to the fear that our real enemies wish to use to further their own ends, without depriving the citizens of target countries of their rights. To defend ourselves only at the expense of all our freedom would effectively be self-defeating.

Tell me why you think this name was conceived for the war. You understand it was a political, not a media construct?

This is a misconception and piece of equivocation on your part, mjd. No one is suggesting that the US is using its military to fight against the abstract noun, "terror," as that is an impossible and silly concept beyond all comprehension. When you say such a thing, you cheapen your arguments considerably, as when you simply reply "as above" to a point without addressing the finer details.

As above! Seriously, why do you think this term was conceived by the Bush admin?

I understand that the US sometimes uses repulsive or violent groups to fight groups that are a threat to it, or to further its ends. I am not naive enough to think that we do not (e.g. our support of the Afghan insurgency against the Soviets that brought the Taliban into power, our support for various insurgent groups in Latin America, among other things), but it is quite a leap from this to your position.

At that time there was not a declared WOT. Now there is, so why are there so many despicable terrorists living in asylum with Bush/Cheney imprimatur?

This is not tantamount to not opposing terrorism. We clearly oppose terrorism when it is directed against us, or our allies, or basically anyone we aren't actively fighting. We also, remarkably enough, seem to generally refrain from actively supporting terrorism against used against our enemies, and don't seem to have used US forces for direct, sanctioned, terrorist activities in recent history.

Errrr.... Hmmm. Ok, well let's start with Operation Condor. Please read up on that, or let me know if you want a heads up.

In September 2000, the "war on terror" as a political entity did not exist (as you claim it is simply a "diversionary construct" I would think you would readily agree with me on that point). That does not mean the US was not engaged in a conflict with groups that used terrorist tactics against them or their allies.

The point is that what it entails is what is outlined in RAD. The WOT is a construct to achieve those goals, with 911, and, at the start at least, a free OBL as key elements therein

The US population became more aware of terrorism after 9/11, but the actual face of the conflict was remarkably similar to that which had been boiling for some time.

Such as?

That is unimportant to my point: the war on terror is useful as a political entity because it does not require a particular person.

Does not require, but is all the more effective for it.

Because he is a slippery bastard with money and influence in certain circles, and the US military cannot search every inch of the face of the Earth for him. I don't find his not being captured "astonishing" at all.

Oh come on... The same could be said for Saddam, found in what, 3 weeks? Its been 6 1/2 yrs, he's been in Tora Bora!!! Its not like he could be anywhere on the face of the earth. And Bush has said himself- he doesnt care where he is anymore!!! Unbelievable! Forget 911, what about everything else! Is it water under the bridge? How do you explain this, other than by my reasoning?

Actually, I'm astonished that we found Saddam. Of course, he wasn't accustomed to the kind of underground, off the grid existence that Osama uses. Hussein seemed to rely overly on his power inside of Iraq, and couldn't manage once that power was gone. Another story for another day, I suppose.

But he was nonetheless found in weeks. OBL nowhere near found, after years.

I did (I assume you mean the Counterpunch thing). I am not particularly impressed. Your other sources (and even this, in many ways) point in a direction that you seem to heading away from in the interest of making some point, and it's not really helping your case.

Look at them as unrelated. One pointing to trial; the other to death. And do read it, and tell me what you think and why

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

 

[mjd1982]

Word of advice: Don't steal a Michael Moore quote and try and palm it off as your own.

I didnt know it was. Terry Jones maybe, no one else.

 

[mjd1982]

So many words, and yet not a single "conspiracy fact" yet in this thread.

An unbelievably ironic post, given what it was replying to.

 

[WildCat]

An unbelievably ironic post, given what it was replying to.

Let's examine your entire case to date, what you call "conspiracy facts".

1. Your interpretation of the PNAC document, which relies on reading things into it that simply aren't there.
2. Bizarre claims that vague threats of terrorism prior to 9/11 were specific enough to take decisive action. You claim these warnings were unprecedented, yet you have no statistics to back up this claim. How many threats typically are received by intelligence agencies in a month, for example?
3. Insistence that an article in the obscure India Globe is credible, yet you are completely unable to produce said article, you haven't read the article, you've never read an issue of the India Globe, you know nothing of the reporter and sole employee of said newspaper. To top it all off, you think that other media mentioning said paper somehow add credibility to it.
4. Complete reliance on a statement by Mohabbat 4 years after the fact that contradicts all records and reports made at the time.
5. I'll leave this blank for now, and fill it in with your claims about WTC 7 and the FDNY when you make them.

Maybe the word "fact" doesn't mean what you think it does?

 

[Brainache]

If, for the sake of argument, we assume that the Taliban's offer of "OBL's head on a platter" was genuine, is it certain that they had the capacity to actually deliver it?

The man was at the centre of a training base for terrorists. Were the Taliban just going to walk in and demand he give himself up to the US for trial? Are we expected to believe that he and his little army would go along with this?

Or, in the cruise missile scenario, was there any assurance that OBL would be anywhere near any target supplied by the Taliban? How could the US know that they wouldn't tip him off?

How can you be so arrogant as to assume that you know more about these things than the people on the ground at the time?

 

[MIKILLINI]

If, for the sake of argument, we assume that the Taliban's offer of "OBL's head on a platter" was genuine, is it certain that they had the capacity to actually deliver it?

The man was at the centre of a training base for terrorists. Were the Taliban just going to walk in and demand he give himself up to the US for trial? Are we expected to believe that he and his little army would go along with this?

Or, in the cruise missile scenario, was there any assurance that OBL would be anywhere near any target supplied by the Taliban? How could the US know that they wouldn't tip him off?

How can you be so arrogant as to assume that you know more about these things than the people on the ground at the time?

Getting OBL head on a platter is not a guarantee to prevent 9/11 from happening, since Kalid Shiek Mohammed was bound and determined to make
sure those towers were going down.

 

[Kage]

If the US government were willing to do all of this, why not fake WMDs in Iraq? Wouldn't that be more propituous to the neocons goals, considering the neocons are now considered intellectually suspect due to the lack of WMDs? What about documents linking Iraq to AQ? I fail to see how the conspiracy you suggest is any easier than getting an arabic typewriter and a vial of anthax to Iraq. You've picked a bunch of details but your theory makes no sense in the bigger picture.

I almost wished they had faked those. As much as I hate GWB the lack of those things has hurt America greatly.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Thus they will not care to educate themselves as to the truth, which is highly evident upon the most cursory inspection, and will refuse to believe it when it is placed in front of their very eyes; they will be intransigent and accept any subterfuge to not have to accept such simple truths, since they conflict with the lessons they have held most dear- such as those from school, media and cultural ideology. In this way, which as stated relies on ignorance, intransigence and subterfuge of the public, the powerful minority can do whatever they like.

Now this is something that you haven't acknowledged about this forum. For instance, how much predetermination of guilt have you assigned to the US government before you went checking into your facts? What type of sites were you checking in to that convinced you 9/11 HAD to be an inside job and the mainstream media was an accomplice?

They will be intransigent and accept any subterfuge to not have to accept such simple truths.

There are simple truths being shown to you, mjd, but you are convinced that the Neocons desired their New American Century to happen quickly. Hanging on to this unrelenting belief causes you to overlook simple truths by holding on to what you believe is the absolute truth.

Thus they will not care to educate themselves as to the truth, which is highly evident upon the most cursory inspection, and will refuse to believe it when it is placed in front of their very eyes

JREF has been the most enlightening sight for Me about FACTS regarding 9/11. There are very educated, skeptical, enlightened people here who have debated, searched, cross referenced, and confirmed their sources to point out discrepancies in your arguments. Certainly this is the whole point about debates; It's point-counterpoint, what are the arguments and counterarguments. you are showing your reason why you believe what you believe, but you are truculently arguing without understanding that your sources of information may not be as reliable as you believe.
To claim that JREFers do not check their info is like saying troops in Iraq don't know what an IED is.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Jesus, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You speculate, then hand wave away any sources that contradict you all the while saying that any reasonable person couldn't help but only come to your conclusion.

It's a new term called WOCS; War On Common Sense. It's long, drawn out and protracted. Designed to exasperate the persons senses from all the excessive insensible nonsense thereby rendering people to a "Whatever" statement making the CTer believe they had convinced same exasperated person to agree with them.

 

[Brainache]

It's a new term called WOCS; War On Common Sense. It's long, drawn out and protracted. Designed to exasperate the persons senses from all the excessive insensible nonsense thereby rendering people to a "Whatever" statement making the CTer believe they had convinced same exasperated person to agree with them.

...absent some catastrophic and catalysing event like a temporal lobe seizure...

 

[Kage]

It's a new term called WOCS; War On Common Sense. It's long, drawn out and protracted. Designed to exasperate the persons senses from all the excessive insensible nonsense thereby rendering people to a "Whatever" statement making the CTer believe they had convinced same exasperated person to agree with them.

Nobody in their right mind would declare war on an abstract noun!

 

[Unsecured Coins]

 

[MIKILLINI]

...absent some catastrophic and catalysing event like a temporal lobe seizure...

That would make it propitious for an inside job lobotomy.

 

[MIKILLINI]

ooooooh! Kelly Monacomeover..Good one UC..that picked up the thread again.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Nobody in their right mind would declare war on an abstract noun!

Those who are in the not right mind believe abstract nouns are very dangerous and need to be "addressed".

 

[David Wong]

Nobody in their right mind would declare war on an abstract noun!

Wait a second... what about the War on Poverty? Or the War on Illiteracy?

Moore doesn't oppose those, does he?





Ah, never mind.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I make an assertion. I back that up with evidence. That evidence needs to be of a certain level of credulity for it to be accepted. Once that is done, then someone who wants to oppose that viewpoint, puts forth countering evidence, of a sufficient level of credulity to neuter the previous.

Just as an aside, MJD, could you please look up the words "credulity" and "credibility", and satisfy yourself as to which of them you intended to use in this passage?

Dave

 

[mjd1982]

Just coming back to this one, did you read the same article I did (http://www.infowars.com/saved pages/Prior_Knowledge/US_met_taliban.htm)? And did you spot the following paragraphs?

What we have here is a failure to communicate. If Mohabbat was in the middle of all this, and was quite capable of understanding the cultural nuances of what the Taliban was saying, it might well appear to him as if the US was stalling.

Which would be a 100% accurate interpretation seeing as he is american and is transmitting the communications himself.

Since he was the intermediary between the US and the Taliban, you are arguing that the US did not take up the Taliban offer, since they had problems understanding Mohabbat, an American. Are you sure you want to argue this? Are you sure you are being honest?

And no, being a Texas businessman doesn't necessarily make him an ideal emissary between two parties who mistrust and misunderstand each other; his very familiarity with both sides of the discussion could easily blind him to the fact that neither side ever really understood the other.

Errr.. so he's familiar with US cultural nuances, and with Afghan cultural nuances, and with the bridge betweem US and Afghan cultural nuances, since he has had to cross that bridge, but he was for some reason unable to understand the cultural nuances. I dont think you are doing yourself any justice here.

As for the Taliban saying "OBL is here, please bomb him", this article suggests that they weren't saying that. They were actually saying "We don't know where OBL is" and expecting the US to hear the words "It's open season on OBL, guys, come loaded for bear". The article suggests that the US negotiators simply didn't realise this.

The article given by the independent intermediary says very different. As he is independent, he is the one, all else being equal, whose word we should trust, particularly given the crucial nature of his position.

 

[mjd1982]

That article linked in inforwars doesn't seem to agree at all with mjd's conclusions. Here's another pertinent quote:



And

As I have said, at base, we can either trust what the US State dept says about their procrastination, or we can take the opinion of the independent man at the heart of the matter. I think this is a simple choice.