The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

Allright, Mjd.

Once again. (I've lost count)

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that we DO agree. What's next ? How do you go about proving this conspiracy ?

You have an independent investigation. See #1, para 1 (?)

 

[mjd1982]

I just read it and you are being dishonest again

the report states that until the 6th august that year there had been 36 PDB related to Osama but that this one was the first devoted to the possibiltity of an attack in the US

prior to that in the report there are a few very dubious claims made about anon phone calls with broad hints about attacks in the US but most indicated an attack outwith the US

it also states that during that summer 20 countries were involved in operations against AQ and that there were 70 operations ongoing concerning the threats

after the 6th august PDB there were no further mentions prior to sept 11th of a specific AQ attack in the US

now get this right, i am not saying he had no warnings of attacks, i am saying he did not have 40 warnings about attacks in the US, in fact it seems he only really had one serious warning and it seems not a lot was done to counter this threat at this point, more likely due to arrogance than anything else and the fact there were no specifics, this is the same as happens in every country when threat levels are assessed, the uk have them as well and the actions carried out are dependant on specifics to get to a higher level of threat

it looks to me like most of these warnings were against US interests abroad and they carried out ops to try and counter them, unfortunately as they were looking elsewhere the attack happened at home, something, in their arrogance, they thought would never happen

if you look at clarkes info, it becomes clear that he was warning about sleeper cells already in the us based on previous knowledge and not the 19 hijackers

you were clearly indicating domestic attacks within the US had been constantly given to POTUS (in your initial quotes of tenet) and it is clear there was very little indication or warnings that this was what was going to happen, everything pointed to an attack on US interests outside the US and operations were launched

they did what they could according the the intelligence they had

i think you maybe need to re-read the report about specific threats inside the US made that year

2 things-

1. If you are going to post claims from the 911 comm report, then provide quotes.

2. My point, as stated in the quote to which u are replying, is tht there were 40 warnings of attacks of the US/US interests. Bush has a duty to protect both. He did nothing. 40 times. And the import of the warnings becomes clearer in the light of the fact that he was told in July that the AQ cells were in the US, and then on august that such cells were plotting for an attack inside the US, probably using planes! How simple does this need to be? He didnt even call a meeting to discuss the thread until sept 4! Would you like this guy to be protecting you? Does this not smack, to you, of gross criminal negligence? (note, we are just scratching the surface here).

ps-as for being more specific, I can only do what i can with the material I am given. The overwhelming majority of the PDBs are still classified. An independent investigation would find out the contents of the others. It would also explain why he didnt take any action in the face of these 40.

 

[funk de fino]

2 things-

1. If you are going to post claims from the 911 comm report, then provide quotes.

2. My point, as stated in the quote to which u are replying, is tht there were 40 warnings of attacks of the US/US interests. Bush has a duty to protect both. He did nothing. 40 times. And the import of the warnings becomes clearer in the light of the fact that he was told in July that the AQ cells were in the US, and then on august that such cells were plotting for an attack inside the US, probably using planes! How simple does this need to be? He didnt even call a meeting to discuss the thread until sept 4! Would you like this guy to be protecting you? Does this not smack, to you, of gross criminal negligence? (note, we are just scratching the surface here).

ps-as for being more specific, I can only do what i can with the material I am given. The overwhelming majority of the PDBs are still classified. An independent investigation would find out the contents of the others. It would also explain why he didnt take any action in the face of these 40.

1. i read the report and it does not say he did nothing X 40

2. you were the one who tried to use specifics and claim that the 40 PDB warnings were about attacks inside the US and that tenet and bush had something to hide when they said they did not discuss these threats

On March 23, in connection with discussions about possibly reopening Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House, Clarke warned National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice that domestic or foreign terrorists might use a truck bomb-their "weapon of choice"-on Pennsylvania Avenue. That would result, he said, in the destruction of the West Wing and parts of the residence.5 He also told her that he thought there were terrorist cells within the United States, including al Qaeda.

In early May, a walk-in to the FBI claimed there was a plan to launch attacks on London, Boston, and New York. Attorney General John Ashcroft was briefed by the CIA on May 15 regarding al Qaeda generally and the current threat reporting specifically. The next day brought a report that a phone call to a U.S. embassy had warned that Bin Ladin supporters were planning an attack in the United States using "high explosives." On May 17, based on the previous day's report, the first item on the CSG's agenda was "UBL: Operation Planned in U.S."9 The anonymous caller's tip could not be corroborated.

report about a cell in Canada that an anonymous caller had claimed might be planning an attack against the United States

While these briefings discussed general threats to attack America and American interests, the specific threats mentioned in these briefings were all overseas.

A June 12 CIA report passing along biographical background information on several terrorists mentioned, in commenting on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that he was recruiting people to travel to the United States to meet with colleagues already there so that they might conduct terrorist attacks on Bin Ladin's behalf.

On July 2, the FBI Counterterrorism Division sent a message to federal agencies and state and local law enforcement agencies summarizing information regarding threats from Bin Ladin. It warned that there was an increased volume of threat reporting, indicating a potential for attacks against U.S. targets abroad from groups "aligned with or sympathetic to Usama Bin Ladin." Despite the general warnings, the message further stated, "The FBI has no information indicating a credible threat of terrorist attack in the United States." However, it went on to emphasize that the possibility of attack in the United States could not be discounted

Disruption operations against al Qaeda-affiliated cells were launched involving 20 countries. Several terrorist operatives were detained by foreign governments, possibly disrupting operations in the Gulf and Italy and perhaps averting attacks against two or three U.S. embassies.

That same day, the CIA briefed Attorney General Ashcroft on the al Qaeda threat, warning that a significant terrorist attack was imminent. Ashcroft was told that preparations for multiple attacks were in late stages or already complete and that little additional warning could be expected. The briefing addressed only threats outside the United States.

On July 23, the lead item for CSG discussion was still the al Qaeda threat, and it included mention of suspected terrorist travel to the United States

On July 27, Clarke informed Rice and Hadley that the spike in intelligence about a near-term al Qaeda attack had stopped. He urged keeping readiness high during the August vacation period, warning that another report suggested an attack had just been postponed for a few months "but will still happen

It noted that although most of the reporting indicated a potential for attacks on U.S. interests abroad, the possibility of an attack in the United States could not be discounted.

During the spring and summer of 2001, President Bush had on several occasions asked his briefers whether any of the threats pointed to the United States. Reflecting on these questions, the CIA decided to write a briefing article summarizing its understanding of this danger. Two CIA analysts involved in preparing this briefing article believed it represented an opportunity to communicate their view that the threat of a Bin Ladin attack in the United States remained both current and serious.35 The result was an article in the August 6 Presidential Daily Brief titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." It was the 36th PDB item briefed so far that year that related to Bin Ladin or al Qaeda, and the first devoted to the possibility of an attack in the United States.

The President said Bin Ladin had long been talking about his desire to attack America. He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. As best he could recollect, Rice had mentioned that the Yemenis' surveillance of a federal building in New York had been looked into in May and June, but there was no actionable intelligence.

He did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so. He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it. That never happened

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.

Late in the month, a foreign service reported that Abu Zubaydah was considering mounting terrorist attacks in the United States, after postponing possible operations in Europe. No targets, timing, or method of attack were provided

DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period.

Most of the intelligence community recognized in the summer of 2001 that the number and severity of threat reports were unprecedented. Many officials told us that they knew something terrible was planned, and they were desperate to stop it. Despite their large number, the threats received contained few specifics regarding time, place, method, or target. Most suggested that attacks were planned against targets overseas; others indicated threats against unspecified "U.S. interests." We cannot say for certain whether these reports, as dramatic as they were, related to the 9/11 attacks.

There was a clear disparity in the levels of response to foreign versus domestic threats. Numerous actions were taken overseas to disrupt possible attacks- enlisting foreign partners to upset terrorist plans, closing embassies, moving military assets out of the way of possible harm. Far less was done domestically- in part, surely, because to the extent that specifics did exist, they pertained to threats overseas. As noted earlier, a threat against the embassy in Yemen quickly resulted in its closing. Possible domestic threats were more vague. When reports did not specify where the attacks were to take place, officials presumed that they would again be overseas, though they did not rule out a target in the United States. Each of the FBI threat advisories made this point.

Clarke mentioned to National Security Advisor Rice at least twice that al Qaeda sleeper cells were likely in the United States. In January 2001, Clarke forwarded a strategy paper to Rice warning that al Qaeda had a presence in the United States. He noted that two key al Qaeda members in the Jordanian cell involved in the millennium plot were naturalized U.S. citizens and that one jihadist suspected in the East Africa bombings had "informed the FBI that an extensive network of al Qida 'sleeper agents' currently exists in the US." He added that Ressam's abortive December 1999 attack revealed al Qaeda supporters in the United States.44 His analysis, however, was based not on new threat reporting but on past experience.

No one was looking for a foreign threat to domestic targets. The threat that was coming was not from sleeper cells. It was foreign-but from foreigners who had infiltrated into the United States.

The FAA conducted 27 special security briefings for specific air carriers between May 1, 2001, and September 11, 2001.Two of these briefings discussed the hijacking threat overseas. None discussed the possibility of suicide hijackings or the use of aircraft as weapons. No new security measures were instituted.

The Attorney General told us he asked Pickard whether there was intelligence about attacks in the United States and that Pickard said no. Pickard said he replied that he could not assure Ashcroft that there would be no attacks in the United States, although the reports of threats were related to overseas targets. Ashcroft said he therefore assumed the FBI was doing what it needed to do. He acknowledged that in retrospect, this was a dangerous assumption. He did not ask the FBI what it was doing in response to the threats and did not task it to take any specific action. He also did not direct the INS, then still part of the Department of Justice, to take any specific action

In sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. They did not have direction, and did not have a plan to institute. The borders were not hardened. Transportation systems were not fortified. Electronic surveillance was not targeted against a domestic threat.State and local law enforcement were not marshaled to augment the FBI's efforts. The public was not warned.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [-] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

now i hate to cherry pick but you asked me for quotes related to what i put in my post, what you really should have done was read it yourself and see if you agreed

in my summary, there were very few warnings of domestic attacks and none of them mentioned specifics and none could be corroborated as having enough evidence

most of the intel related to AQ attacks overseas and operations were launched to try and head this off

even if there had been enough intel on attacks within the US it seemed that the agencies were not prepared because no-one thought it would happen, arrogance and incompetance but nothing to say that warnings were deliberately ignored so that the attacks could go ahead which is your contention

 

[HeyLeroy]

 

[Belz...]

Yes, that sub-moronic argument was made, and it was answered.

Which one ? The one that says you have a disorder that prevents you from reading other people's posts ?

You can either address them, or you can ignore them.

They have already been adressed a few hundred times, Mjd. 9/11 was not propitious to anything, and even if it were, it wouldn't follow that it was desirable, and even if it were, it wouldn't follow that it was an inside job. You think if we can agree on the propitiousness argument you've won. But it's not even close. Not ONLY have you NOT proven that argument, but even if you did, it wouldn't prove anything.

If you do the former, I will humiliate you and you ilk some further (as is happening on 3 threads now)

Repeating the same tired argument over and over and over again humiliates nobody except yourself.

You have an independent investigation. See #1, para 1 (?)

Why ? You think we should have a new investigation because you could have a motive ? Sorry, but that's not good enough.

You've just shown that, even if we DID agree about the propitiousness argument, you'd still have nothing.

You have lost.

 

[MSgtWeiss]

For what earthly reason did you dump the King/Tenet transcript in there twice? Wasn't once enough? Or is this just a copy and paste job of various arguments and you didn't bother looking at what you were posting?

When the bulk of mjd's arguments are just interminable cut-and-paste dumps, this is bound to happen now and then. He also repeats, in the same post, that childish timeline of "warnings" he believes are actually meaningful to his point. That it's all just a cut-and-paste is obvious when he repeats the same typos in his religious rantings.

I believe that "religious" is the correct term for his mania, based on having debated (to use the term loosely) with fundamentalist zealots -- before I realized the futility of the exercise.

 

[lapman]

May- July 2001: Over a two-month period, the NSA reports that “at least 33 communications indicating a possible, imminent terrorist attack.”
- May 16-17, 2001: US Warned Bin Laden Supporters inside US and Planning an Attack
- May 29, 2001: Clarke (ex US Head of Counter Terrorism) Asks for More to Be Done to Stop Expected Al-Qaeda Attacks
- May 30, 2001: FBI Is Warned of Major Al-Qaeda Operation in the US Involving Hijackings, Explosives, and/or New York City
- June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols
- June 2001: US Intelligence Warns of Spectacular Attacks by al-Qaeda Associates
- June-July 2001: Terrorist Threat Reports Surge, Frustration with White House Grows
- Summer 2001: Threat Alerts Increase to Record High
- Summer 2001: Israel Warns US of ‘Big Attack’
- Summer 2001: Al-Qaeda Plot Described as Upcoming ‘Hiroshima’ on US Soil
- June 21, 2001: Senior Al-Qaeda Officials Say Important Surprises Coming Soon
- June 22, 2001: CIA Warns of Imminent Al-Qaeda Suicide Attack
- June 23, 2001: White House Warned ‘Bin Laden Attacks May Be Imminent’
- June 25, 2001: Clarke Tells Rice That Pattern of Warnings Indicates an Upcoming Attack
- June 28, 2001: Tenet (ex CIA Director) Warns of Imminent Al-Qaeda Attack
- June 28, 2001: Clarke Warns Rice That Threat Level Has Reached a Peak
- Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US
- July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks
- July 1, 2001: Senators Warn of Al-Qaeda Attack Within Three Months
- July 5, 2001: Ashcroft (ex US Attorney General) Is Warned of Imminent, Multiple Attacks from Al-Qaeda
- July 6, 2001: CIA Warns Upcoming Al-Qaeda Attack Will Be ‘Spectacular’ and Different
- July 6, 2001: Clarke Tells Rice to Warn Agencies to Prepare for 3 to 5 Simultaneous Attacks; No Apparent Response
- July 10, 2001: FBI Agent Sends Memo Warning That Inordinate Number of Muslim Extremists Are Learning to Fly in Arizona
- July 10, 2001: CIA Director Gives Urgent Warning to White House of Imminent, Multiple, Simultaneous Al-Qaeda Attacks, Possibly Within US
- July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn Al-Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West
- Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US
- Late July 2001: Argentina Relays Warning to the US
- Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 Al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly; CIA Is Not Interested
- Late July 2001: CIA Director Believes Warnings Could Not ‘Get Any Worse’
- August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots
- Early August 2001: Government Informant Warns Congressmen of Plan to Attack the WTC
- Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings
- August 6, 2001: Bush Briefing Titled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US’
- August 8-15, 2001: Israel Reportedly Warns of Major Assault on the US
- August 15, 2001: CIA Counterterrorism Head: We Are Going to Be Struck Soon
- August 23-27, 2001: Minnesota FBI Agents ‘Absolutely Convinced’ Moussaoui Plans to Hijack Plane; They Are Undermined by FBI Headquarters
- August 23, 2001: Mossad Reportedly Gives CIA List of Terrorist Living in US; at Least Four 9/11 Hijackers Named
- August 30, 2001-September 4, 2001: Egypt Warns al-Qaeda Is in Advanced Stages of Planning Significant Attack on US
- September 4, 2001: Mossad Gives Another Warning of Major, Imminent Attack
- September 10, 2001: NSA Intercepts: ‘The Match Begins Tomorrow’ and ‘Tomorrow Is Zero Hour’
- September 10, 2001: US Intercepts: ‘Watch the News’ and ‘Tomorrow Will Be a Great Day for Us’

How many of those state that they were planning to fly planes into buildings? Two. How many times has airplanes been used as missiles by hijackers in the past?

- September 10, 2001: US Generals Warned Not to Fly on Morning of 9/11

Yeah, because they would rather have had them in the Pentagon with a greater chance of being killed.

So what was the government supposed to do? Declare marshal-law? Detain everyone suspected of being a terrorist? Yeah, the ACLU would have multiple orgasms over that. So I guess the constant pressure on the Taliban to hand OBL over to us was not a response?

 

[tsig]

1. Our movement has more members and subscribers than ever. You should know this. Its size is reflected in the popularity of this board.

2. As you rightly state, many people have come forth and said" I disagree with your pnac points". As I have stated many times, this does not constitute a refutation. You have had 3000 posts to do this. You have failed. Thus the thread comes to its conclusions.

3. Now, address the foreknowledge posts, else the thread will reach its own conclusions regarding this too.

I reached my own conclusions about you a long time ago.

 

[dudalb]

I think mjd needs to meet up with Malcolm. The whole attitude of following hundreds of posts conclusively proving them wrong with "Now that everyone has agreed with me..." is just so sweet. I think they'd make a lovely couple.

They both have a definent "The Black Knight in Monty Python and The Holy Grail" air about them.

 

[MIKILLINI]

[qimg]http://liveu-89.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1225989L.jpg[/qimg]

Hay Leroy! You want to know what's goin on here?

It's moved to the foreknowledge, same thing as propitious to policy, but under a different name.

 

[nicepants]

No, the thread did. I asked for someone to show where the post had been conclusively rebutted, no one could even find, or write, a post where the points had been addressed. End of story.

Next point. Next silence.

As we've told you time and time again, nowhere in the PNAC does it claim that a new PH would be "propitious" to policy. You are reading in words that aren't there, and, much like a telemarketer refuses to hear the word "no", you continue on, believing that to be the case even though we've shown you hundreds of times that you're wrong.

We do not conclude that 9/11 was "propitious" to policy. If you want to do that, it's your business...conclude what you will and move on.

 

[rikzilla]

Originally Posted by mjd1982
It should be stated, that were a new PH deemed propitious to policy, this would give us a very interesting framework within which to proceed re: 911.

Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on defense, intel and diplomacy every year, in significant part to prevent the occurrence of a new PH, or some such event. This is why the chances of such an event occurring, absent government connivance, are so slim- it is indeed a once in a lifetime event. Thus, the chances of all the enormous systematic hindrances and hurdles to such an occurrence being overcome merely by external agents, when the government itself feels that such an occurrence is propitious, get reduced significantly, given that a government can fairly easily connive to allow such an event to occur. Moreover, the chances that such an occurrence should happen in the most timely manner possible for said government, just before the QDR, the importance of which timing had been implied strongly in the same policy document, and leaving the administration 3 or 7 years to pursue the implementation and entrenchment of such policies, given also that , to repeat, they had deemed such an event propitious… the chances of the event having occurred without government connivance are very very small indeed. This then gives us a framework for proceed, and weighing up evidence, and should colour all our future judgements on the matter.

It may be instructive to ask oneself, what one would expect to happen, in an instance where a new PH had been deemed propitious to policy, in the run up to the occurrence of such an event, were such to be allowed to happen.

Wow. The CTer has evolved into a strange form of LIHOP-Creationism.
I am underwhelmed.
-z

 

[Hokulele]

As we've told you time and time again, nowhere in the PNAC does it claim that a new PH would be "propitious" to policy. You are reading in words that aren't there, and, much like a telemarketer refuses to hear the word "no", you continue on, believing that to be the case even though we've shown you hundreds of times that you're wrong.

We do not conclude that 9/11 was "propitious" to policy. If you want to do that, it's your business...conclude what you will and move on.

A telemarketer, that's what mjd reminds me of! Whew, now I have no need to ever visit this thread again.

 

[MG1962]

As we've told you time and time again, nowhere in the PNAC does it claim that a new PH would be "propitious" to policy. You are reading in words that aren't there, and, much like a telemarketer refuses to hear the word "no", you continue on, believing that to be the case even though we've shown you hundreds of times that you're wrong.

We do not conclude that 9/11 was "propitious" to policy. If you want to do that, it's your business...conclude what you will and move on.

wow nearly 2900 posts and we still have not got passed the opening gambit of the PNAC report - If anyone is interested I will do another popcorn run about mid November

 

[mjd1982]

How many of those state that they were planning to fly planes into buildings? Two. How many times has airplanes been used as missiles by hijackers in the past?

Yeah, because they would rather have had them in the Pentagon with a greater chance of being killed.

So what was the government supposed to do? Declare marshal-law? Detain everyone suspected of being a terrorist? Yeah, the ACLU would have multiple orgasms over that. So I guess the constant pressure on the Taliban to hand OBL over to us was not a response?

Again you are doing the simple OTer tactic of muddying the issue. If you di that, you wont lose, but no one wil win. And thats all you want,. You have no concern for the truth.

Lets look at what you say anyway. Those comments, while they are just a fraction of my point about foreknowledge, are very stark. They elicited zero response from Bush et al. This is criminal negligence.

You, and your ilk, have found it unable to even touch the hem of this section. Not even the hem. What hope do you have of challenging the totality? Its just like the PNAC doc- I have eviscerated Gravy's LC guide on PNAC- you guys had no hope of that either.

I will wait for someone to challenge the totallity of foreknowledge, and then, as with the PNAC section, the thread will come to its own conclusions.

 

[Billdave2]

Here is the August briefing notes.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf

Note the last section states that the FBI is conducting over 70 operations to investigate this. So 70+ investigations is "doing nothing"? What else should the President have done based on the information in this briefing? Closed all the airports? Evacuated New York city? Nuked the middle east? The fact is,given the information that the President had there was nothing else that could have been done by the president. You could argue that the FBI didn't do a good job of investigating (although this is a needle in the haystack investigation at best), but something was being done. Once again you have failed to prove your point and have yet to provide any "facts"

 

[HyJinX]

<snip>I have eviscerated Gravy's LC guide on PNAC<snip>

delusions of grandeur

 

[Sabrina]

I for one would like to know what, SPECIFICALLY, mjd thinks Bush or the government should have done in response to those forty, at best vague, incompletely investigated, PDBs.

Speaking as someone who works in the intel community, I can tell you right now that none of those contained any ACTIONABLE intelligence and they all required further investigation, which was being carried out by various intel agencies, so I'm of the opinion that Bush did exactly what he should; sit back and wait for more specific information. It is neither his nor the intel agencies fault that more specific information did not come to light prior to the events of 9/11. And I don't know about you all, but regardless of the tragedy of that day, I'd rather have our government responding with a well-thought-out, detailed plan, with contingencies taken into account, than a half-baked, premature response to a nebulous threat that would have the potential for causing even MORE harm than the threat itself.

So how about it, mjd? Can you give me SPECIFIC, DETAILED actions that YOU feel the Pres or his government should have carried out in response to those warnings? Remember, I want specifics; not your typically vague, seemingly arrogant response that I see from you on a constant basis. List them out, one by one, and I'll let you know if they're even slightly workable based on the information given in those PDBs. I'll be waiting.

ETA: The definition of actionable intelligence, in terms of the military and government, is as follows:

Product developed for commanders and
Soldiers to provide shared situational understanding allowing
commanders and Soldiers to operate with the speed, accuracy, and
timeliness necessary to conduct successful operations.

 

[Belz...]

Again you are doing the simple OTer tactic of muddying the issue.

You have no concern for the truth.

Your "truth" does not correspond to reality.

Lets look at what you say anyway. Those comments, while they are just a fraction of my point about foreknowledge, are very stark.

What point ? You've been blabbering about "propitiousness" from the start. Nobody agrees with you on that, and when asked what would happen if we did, you just said we'd need an investigation. In short, you have no idea what your "point" is.

You, and your ilk, have found it unable to even touch the hem of this section. Not even the hem.

And that's YOUR typical tactic of ignoring responses.

I will wait for someone to challenge the totallity of foreknowledge, and then, as with the PNAC section, the thread will come to its own conclusions.

Yeah, sure.

 

[funk de fino]

Lets look at what you say anyway. Those comments, while they are just a fraction of my point about foreknowledge, are very stark. They elicited zero response from Bush et al. This is criminal negligence.

You, and your ilk, have found it unable to even touch the hem of this section. Not even the hem. What hope do you have of challenging the totality? Its just like the PNAC doc- I have eviscerated Gravy's LC guide on PNAC- you guys had no hope of that either.

I will wait for someone to challenge the totallity of foreknowledge, and then, as with the PNAC section, the thread will come to its own conclusions.

post # 2863

you completely ignored it and then post the above, you are indeed a dishonest person, you asked me to get quotes and I did and gave you a reply and you ignore it??

you are lying when you say bush did nothing and the report proves it