I also feel there is a 911 "issue". And many engineers, architects, scientist, etc, want a better investigation done because frankly the evidence for a controlled demolition is too much to just ignore.
I gotta run but enjoy this video and I'd love to get into this with anyone willing debate it. I am not neutral on this, I'm on the side of a conspiracy. I don't think one guy in a cave thousands of miles away could orchestrate this type of act.
NORAD does not fuck up 4 times in one day!
Bush, Cheney and Rice, on national tv, said that NO admin ever predicted planes would be used as weapons, however, CNN reported that 2 years before the attacks NORAD conducted simulations with planes used as weapons, and one of the targets was, you guessed it, The World Trade Center - this was repoted on mainstream news.
Furthermore, on the cover of the 1997 FEMA Terroism Response Manual there is actually a picture of the Trade Centers with a bulls-eye on it!
Also, Operation "Mascal", conducted on Oct. 2000 simulated a plane crash into the Pentagon.
No one ever predicted planes could be used as weapons? BULLSHIT. So why the lies?
Also, the director of Pakistani inteligence, (ISI), Mahmood Ahmed, ordered Omar Saeed Sheik to wire 100K to Mohammed Atta. This was also reported on CNN. However, no inquiry as to why General Ahmed ordered the money to be sent to Atta was ever conducted. - On the morning of 911 government officials were having breakfast with General Ahmed in Washington.
The 911 Commission deemed the financing of the attacks was "of little significance".
Finally, some of the hijackers are ALIVE - at least 6.
Enjoy this video and the quote bellow it and I'll brace for the responses.
quote:
Date: May 28, 2009 9:05 PM Subject: Top military brass met 2 discuss what really happened on 911
Active and retired top military brass met to discuss what really happened on 9/11
Online Journal 5/28/09
By Wayne Madsen
WMR has learned from a well-informed source that in the months after the 9/11 attacks, a group of retired and active duty military officers, with ranks as high as general, met in an informal and hush-hush working group to discuss what actually occurred on September 11, 2001.
WMR has been told that those who met did not believe, in whole or in part, the official line that 19 Arabs nationals armed with box cutters hijacked four U.S. passenger planes and flew three of them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
The officers included veterans of Marine Corps Special Operations.
The officers concluded that it was impossible for the military’s command and control, intelligence, and other defense systems to cascade in a total failure on the morning of September 11. They quietly set out to find out what actually occurred that morning and who or what influenced the total failure of defense, intelligence, and air traffic control systems.
The officers were forced to hold their meetings in secret because of retaliation brought against those who revealed information embarrassing to the Bush administration about both 9/11 and the concocted war against Iraq.
It is now being reported that investigators for the 9/11 Commission drafted a memo in April 2004 stating they believed that the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) lied to commission investigators by indicating the military’s readiness was sufficient on 9/11. Commission staffer John Azzerello is reported to have given the memo to Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow, a leading neocon, who then buried it.
Commission investigators wanted a strongly worded criminal referral on NORAD and FAA perjury sent to the Justice Department but Zelikow downplayed the complaint and later told Phil Shenon, the author of The Commission and New York Times reporter, that he did not know of the criminal referral issue at the time.
The 9/11 Commission documents about the perjury of NORAD and FAA officials corroborates the concerns expressed by the retired military officers about the true version of events on 9/11
- Oni "PSCT"
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
Ah yes ... like all those lists of creationist scientists.
Or...like all those scientist 500 years ago trying to investigate the claims by the church.
Moreover, the signatories to the various "new investigation" petitions have said no more than that they just want that: a new investigation. Find me a petition where they say that this is because "the evidence for a controlled demolition is too much to just ignore".
quote:5. COLLAPSE OF WTC BUILDING 7: The unexplained and little-reported free-fall collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, which raises the possibility of an intentional demolition. (See, Appendix A5)
Have you ever seen a controlled demolition?
Have you ever heard a controlled demolition?
Yes, on 911.
If anything like that had happened, the evidence would indeed be "too much to just ignore".
You're right, thus the Petition.
Look at your video and look at tower 7 fall...who is ignoring what here, Dr.?
All Al Qaeda had to do was recruit the hijackers and give them their marching orders. Where exactly is the difficulty?
I have not claimed that "Al Qaeda", whatever that actually means, wasn't involved. I have also not claimed that Bush and Cheney planned the attacks.
I guess that's why no-one has blamed NORAD for "fucking up".
No-one? I suggest you read the Petition.
Your quote writes:
In summary, NEADS received notice of the hijacking nine minutes before it struck the North Tower. That nine minutes’ notice before impact was the most the military would receive of any of the four hijackings ... The first indication that the NORAD air defenders had of the second hijacked aircraft, United 175, came in a phone call from New York Center to NEADS at 9:03. The notice came at about the time the plane was hitting the South Tower ... NORAD heard nothing about the search for American 77. Instead, the NEADS air defenders heard renewed reports about a plane that no longer existed: American 11 ...NEADS first received a call about United 93 from the military liaison at Cleveland Center at 10:07. Unaware that the aircraft had already crashed, Cleveland passed to NEADS the aircraft’s last known latitude and longitude.
The highlighted portions are complete bullshit - I don't know where you got that information from, but here's NORAD's timelines directly form them.
United Airlines Flight 175 — Boston enroute to Los Angeles: FAA Notification to NEADS:0843 Fighter Scramble Order (Otis ANGB, Falmouth, Mass. Same 2 F-15s as Flight 11):0846 Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 2):0902
American Flight 77 —Dulles enroute to Los Angeles: FAA Notification to NEADS: 0924 Fighter Scramble Order (Langley AFB, Hampton, Va. 2 F-16s): 0924 Airline Impact Time (Pentagon): 0937(estimated)
You do not quote these statements, but it sounds to me like they were covering their incompetence or negligence in not putting into place procedures to deal with it.
Maybe also they just didn't know about the anxieties of the Clinton administration when they made those statements --- did you?
Sorry, these statements are from live news interviews. You can search youtube if you like and listen to them. However, this was reported all over the mainstream media, I'm surprised you don't recall hearing them say this stuff.
The biggest bullshit was the Bush/Cheney testimony to the 911 Commision. The conditions set up before hand, layed out by the Bush/Cheney admin, was against the requests of the Commision. The Commision requested them to be interviewed seperately, Bush and Cheney choose to do it together, and did. No media coverage. No transcripts. And what was printed in the end was only what was approved by the Bush/Cheney admin.
Smells like something is "fucked up".
In any case, it seems to me that if the government planned the attacks and then wished to shift the blame onto Al Qaeda, they would have taken the opposite line.
I don't think they planned the attacks, all I'm saying is there is some serious cover-up involved in all this. Also, who has financially benefited from the aftermath of 911...? Bush and Cheney - something isn't right, I won't make the leap to them being the orchestrators, but they are covering up something, and they've equally made a lot of money due to it.
So, you have evidence that the intelligence community was (a) worried about terrorists using planes as missiles (b) worried about the WTC as a target ... and you're using this as evidence that no such thing happened?
My post wasn't structured properly, since I was in a bit of a rush. I'm using it as evidence against the Bush, Cheney, Rice statements that NO administration had ever predicted planes could be used as missiles. Clearly that is not the case.
You're not painting a very clear picture. Bush ... had officials ... who had breakfast with a man ... who may have told another man ... to send money to another man ... whom conspiracy theorists claim is innocent.
Not quite.
From the Petition:
quote: PAKISTANI ISI: The alleged connection of the Pakistani Interservices Intelligence Agency ("ISI") to financing the 9/11 plot, with its implications leading back to possible American connections in our intelligence agencies and other officials. (See, Appendix A3)
From Appendix:
quote:As the hijackings of September 11 began, Pakistani Gen. Mahmud Ahmad, then director of the ISI, was in a breakfast meeting at the Capitol in Washington, DC with Rep. Porter Goss (R-FL) and Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), then the chiefs of the House and Senate committees on intelligence, respectively.
In the weeks after September 11, news reports in the Indian and European press claimed Ahmad and his agency authorized the transfer of $100,000 to Mohamed Atta through the intermediary of a veteran ISI asset, Omar Saeed Sheikh.
At a press conference May 16, 2002, following revelations that the White House had received warnings of possible hijackings in the United States prior to September 11, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice was asked about the alleged ISI connection to financing the 9/11 plot.
In the spring and summer of 2002, Goss and Graham were the prime movers of the Congressional Joint Inquiry, the first major 9/11 investigation by a legislative body. Their 858-page report, published in 2003 with about 25 percent of the overall text redacted, fails to pursue, clarify or mention the allegations of Pakistani financing for the 9/11 plotters and the allegations of an ISI connection to al-Qaeda, at least in the unredacted portions of the text.
A year later, in its final and authoritative report, the Kean Commission also ignored allegations of Pakistani ISI financing for the alleged 9/11 terrorists. The 9/11 Commission Report flatly states, "We have seen no evidence that any foreign government - or foreign government official - supplied any funding" to the alleged 9/11 plotters (p. 172). This is unlikely, as groups such as 9/11 CitizensWatch repeatedly supplied the Kean Commission with the available evidence of an ISI funding connection at various times during the 18-month inquiry, for example supplying Commission staff with the well-documented timelines at Center for Cooperative Research - Find Your Bill of Sale Template Online. The 9/11 Commission Report goes so far as to suggest that the issue of terror financing is irrelevant: "To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance."
Two dramatic but under-covered U.S. news-media revelations further indicate an unusual triangular complex of relations among the Bin Ladin-connected networks of "al-Qaeda," the ISI and Pakistani military establishment, and U.S. government agencies and their covert networks:
a. CBS Evening News, 1/28/02: On the night of September 10, 2001, Osama Bin Ladin was receiving dialysis treatments at a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi, hospital workers report.
b. =yellowThe New Yorker, 1/28/02: In November 2001, U.S. forces in Afghanistan cleared an air corridor between the besieged Taliban stronghold of Kunduz and Pakistan, allegedly allowing safe passage and escape to possibly thousands of ISI personnel and al-Qaeda fighters in advance of taking the town. This is one of many cases in which U.S. forces or authorities were apparently ordered to allow the "terrorists" they were meant to pursue to escape.
(See, newyorker.com/fact/content/?020128fa_FACT and also, Appendix B2)
And of course, like all good cover-ups, they follow in the footsteps of the Kennedy assasination:
The financing of the alleged 9/11 plotters was connected in early stories to Omar Saeed Sheikh, a mysterious figure who reportedly has a history of working with the ISI. He is on death row in Pakistan, awaiting execution after conviction for the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Sheikh's name dropped out of news reports alleging Pakistani ISI financing of terrorism after November, 2001.
Is that a little clearer, Dr.?
Does that make Bush guilty? How about Kevin Bacon?
Both can be accused of bad acting.
Then their behavior is most singular. They stand accused of an infamous mass-murder, and all they have to do to clear their names is prove that they're alive. Merely to come forward would automatically prove their innocence.
Why don't they do so? Why has no conspiracy theorist managed to locate them?
Oh yes, 'cos they're dead. I guess that's why the news organization that reported that they were alive later conceded that they were wrong.
Ok, tell you what, here's the proof that a major news network reported 4 of them alive (the BBC) Hijackers Alive, then you show me your evidence of them admiting they were wrong.
Fair enough? - Then I'll concede. However, if you can't then will you concede?
Weren't you the person who asserted that NORAD couldn't fuck up? Now you're producing (unsubstantiated) allegations that they did.
One more litte tid-bit of information about that:
quote:In May 2001, Cheney took charge of a counterterrorism task force under his purview. On September 11, he was the highest official involved in a command capacity during the period of the actual attacks. At an as-yet unspecified time after the first plane crash at 8:46 a.m., open phone-lines were established between the White House (where Cheney and Transportation Secretary Mineta were present), the Secret Service, FAA and NORAD (FAA, 5/21/03; Cheney on NBC, 9/16/01). The 9/11 Commission Report presents only short and highly selective passages from transcripts of these conversations. An investigation would if necessary issue subpoenas to obtain these transcripts and examine them towards clarifying the actual sequence of events and command structures for both: the pre-scheduled wargames and the defense response to the unfolding attacks.
How this would prove that the government was behind 9/11, I don't know.
I hope the information I have provided at the very least makes you skeptical as to the Bush/Cheney involement and cover-up. "Behind it", may not completely, but I would say the evidence points to them being involved in a major capacity.
Further, there is a huge media gap between the info that we receive and the info that actually exists. There is a clear cover-up here, that, I will admit, I beleive is being orchestrated by Bush/Cheney.
They defied the requests of the 911 Commision - they demanded no transcripts - no media coverage - they allowed only what they wanted printed. Also, they have benefited in a massive way in the aftermath of 911.
A full investigation needs to be done.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
If you don't mind I'll respond to both, you, and Granny Magda, since you are simply sticking with the "controlled demo" point. Note, I'm only saying that WTC (7) was controlled, not (1-2).
Like most CTers, you present a list of anomalies with no coherent theory to tie them all together
I hope my reply to Dr. A paints a much clearer picture. If not, I don't mind providing more connections.
What are you suggesting, two planes were flown into the towers to camouflage the intentional destruction of WTC7? After the planes crashed, someone saw an opportunity and wired WTC7 for demolition? The terrorist attack just happened to coincide with the completely independent plan to bring down WTC7?
Yes. Then McGyver, armed with only a stick of gum and a lava lamp, manages to jump start an F15 fighter jet and heads straight for Bin Laden. Sadly, before he could locate Bin laden, he was shoot down by Vin Diesil, who was found to be working directly for Al Qaeda.
Thus, it seems to me that the first question one needs to ask is what kind of damage to a building causes it to collapse in that general manner, and is there any reason to think that WTC7 suffered that kind of damage as a result of the plane crashes? Have you asked those questions, and looked into possible answers? Or did you simply think, "Wow, looks like a controlled demolition, that must have been what it was"?
Ok, Subbie AND Magda - here's what I'm using as evidence.
1. WTC 7 was built in 1985 as an addition to the World Trade Center, located across Vesey Street from the main compound and 300 feet from the North Tower ("WTC 1"). WTC 7 was not hit by an airliner on Sept. 11 and did not show significant damage from falling debris. It is the first skyscraper of steel-cage design in history said to have collapsed primarily due to the effects of fire. According to the "World Trade Center Building Performance Study" of Oct. 2001, a report by a team of engineers commissioned by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA"): "The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers."
2. Several videotapes of the WTC7 collapse show that it begins with a drop of the center penthouse into the structure. The sides then droop towards the center as the building falls straight down, without visible rotation along the vertical axis and without significant resistance, neatly into its own footprint, within 6.8 seconds. These collapse mechanics perfectly mimic those of a controlled demolition by explosives. The WTC 7 collapse resembles a controlled demolition in other ways, such as the streamers of dust ("squibs") emerging from the north facade at the beginning of the collapse and a rubble pile covered by exterior walls (see, WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: The Collapse of WTC Building 7).
3. The owner of WTC 7, Larry Silverstein of Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, seems to admit that the little-reported collapse of WTC 7 was the result of a decision to intentionally demolish the building. Speaking on camera for a PBS documentary first broadcast in 2002 ("America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero"), Silverstein says, "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." At other points in the same documentary, "pull" is used as a vernacular for controlled demolition. A full investigation would ask Silverstein to clarify this statement, and explore all other evidence indicating that there was a controlled demolition of WTC 7. It would also explore the role of the Blackstone Group, L.P., which purchased the lease on WTC 7 in 2000.
4. Reports from first responders and other persons at Ground Zero on the afternoon of September 11 indicate that warnings about the likely collapse of WTC 7 were issued in the hour prior to its collapse. A full investigation would follow up on these reports, and also clarify if any fatalities or injuries resulted from the collapse.
5. Steel remnants from the collapse were removed from Ground Zero in the weeks after the disaster, along with the rest of the remnants of the entire WTC complex. These were not retained by the authorities for use in the investigation of collapse mechanics, but rapidly shipped to blast furnaces in Asia for recycling, either directly from Ground Zero or from the Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island. The engineers writing the FEMA report lacked subpeona power. They were hired part-time as freelancers. They were prevented from obtaining blueprints for the buildings, and had only occasional and restricted access to the Ground Zero site. The Science Committee of the House of Representatives later wrote, "the lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for investigation before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence." (House Science Committee, 3/6/02, Page Not Found) The editor of the nation's oldest firefighting magazine, Bill Manning, objected to the accelerated scrapping of World Trade Center steel before investigators could determine the actual mechanics of the building collapses, and called the investigation of the collapses "a half-baked farce." (Fire Engineering, 1/02).
6. The report on WTC 7 by FEMA and the preliminary reports from the National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST") have ruled out fuel-tank explosions as a possible cause of the collapse, and fail to come to definitive conclusions about collapse mechanics. These present hypotheses "based on potential rather than demonstrated fact" (FEMA, Oct. 2001). The conditional phrasing of conclusions in these reports may be related to lack of access to physical evidence and blueprints and/or destruction thereof prior to publication. This problem is likely to also plague the final draft of the NIST report, due for publication in January 2005.
7. With regard to WTC 7, the 9/11 Commission Report mentions only that it was the location of the New York Mayor's Office of Emergency Management ("OEM"); and further, that OEM was evacuated at 9:30 a.m. The report curiously fails entirely to mention the collapse of WTC 7 later in the day.
8. OEM was intended as the attack-proof command center for emergency management in the City of New York. Its location at WTC 7 with its own independent supplies of air, water and fuel was a subject of controversy among city agencies in the years prior to 9/11/01. Reportedly there were complaints that the placement of its large fuel tanks above ground were in violation of the fire code.
9. Mayor Giuliani and his staff did not set up command in OEM on September 11 before OEM was evacuated. After the evacuation of OEM, the city moved its emergency response command center to Pier 93--where FEMA had previously set up a command headquarters for TRIPOD II, a counterterrorism exercise based on a biological warfare scenario and originally scheduled to begin on 9/12/01. A full investigation would look into possible coordination of this exercise with the wargames of 9/11/01 by NORAD and other agencies (see, Appendix A1). A full investigation would also explore the consequences of New York City having lacked a ready command-post for coordination of emergency response on September 11.
10. WTC 7 was later revealed as the location of what the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA") called its largest domestic station outside of the Washington, DC area. Other tenants included the Department of Defense, Secret Service, Treasury Department, and the New York headquarters of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). [The loss of the latter offices destroyed paper files on 200 open investigations into securities fraud and, presumably, greatly delayed and blocked all SEC investigations, perhaps including investigations into trades allegedly based on foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, for many weeks.] A division of the Blackstone Group owns interests in a number of defense contractors, and it is of interest to investigate whether Blackstone was contracting to any of the U.S. federal tenants in WTC 7.
11. Insurers have paid out damage claims to Silverstein Properties for losses resulting from the destruction of WTC 7. Following a settlement with the Blackstone Group, ending its interest in the property in 2003, Silverstein's group began with the construction of a new building on the site, which is now nearing completion.
12. While failing to advance a conclusive determination of WTC 7 collapse mechanics, the official inquiries also have failed to consider the hypothesis of an intentional demolition.
13. If WTC 7 collapsed as the result of an intentional demolition by explosives, as much evidence suggests, other questions arise for a full investigation: Was it possible to wire the building for a controlled demolition within a few hours on September 11? If not, why would such preparations have been made in advance of that date? Have similar preparations been made in other buildings in New York? Were similar preparations made at other buildings at the WTC site prior to September 11?
What are you guys using as evidence...? Or did you simply say: "Wow, that shit fell due to the debris and fires just like the news media told me".
Have you looked into the possibility of a controlled demo by the building owners, who have a connection with Cheney, and own interests in a number of defense contractors - Who would have had access to prior knowledge of the attacks, since Cheney is implicated - Who DID have access to the building to be able to prep it - Who may have used this knowledge and had plenty of time to pre-set conditions for the demo - or are you simply saying: "There's no way it could be done in such short time" - "and no further investigation should be done."...?
Any conspiracy theory has to account for the fact that two planes flew into the towers. It has to account for the fact that no legitimate media outlet is questioning the explanation that the planes caused all the damage. Incorporate these facts into a controlled demolition theory and I'll listen to what you have to say.
With this post and the one to the Dr, I hope I have made a case for it, if not I'll try to provide more.
- Oni
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
Hi Michamus - and this is for Subbie, Dr. A, and Bluecat (if any of you wish to reply too)
Osama Bin Laden (OBL) did not, and does not live in a cave (assuming he still alive). You must realize that we are discussing an individual that is a Saudi royal family member. He is a billionaire in his own right.
I'll concede that point.
This coupled with the fact that OBL has created a reputation for himself over the last several decades among Muslim fundamentalists gives him great influence and power.
The "reputation" you speak of is only the opinion of the mainstream media. In much of the Muslim world OBL is held as a highly respected Islamic figure who wants nothing more than independance from Western control.
He is a great scapegoat, as was Hussein, and a perfect image to hate for the American public. But relatively speaking, the actions of the US in foreign affairs is worse than anything OBL is capable of doing, or has done.
Further, the Bush/Cheney administration is notorious for lying, deceiving and covering up information. It is this type of image of them that leads many, like me, to doubt the crap that comes out of their mouths.
So in essence, the statement you have made (and you aren't the only one I have seen make such a statement) is ludicrous, as it paints a completely false picture of what the Al-Qaeda network really was and is capable of.
This is only true if you accept what the media has told you. What are they capable of? - Provide proof that connects OBL and Al-Qaeda to the 911 attacks - proof outside of the Bush/Cheney admin telling us it was OBL. - In fact, there is more connection between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family, than there is to Bin Laden and 911.
Here are the facts that I'm looking at: - (And lets leave out the "controlled demo" as it, according to Subbie, raises more questions than answers, which I will concede that it does).
(1) Bush, Cheney and Rice, on national tv, said that NO admin could ever predicted planes would be used as weapons - That is a lie.
* At minute 2:48 Rice clearly states: "I don't think anyone could have predicted that they would use an airplane as a missile" - LIE
* At minute 2:56 Bush clearly states: "No one could have invisioned planes being flown into buildings" - LIE
* At minute 3:02 Cheney Says: "No operations involving what happened existed" - LIE
And the video continues...with Tom Brokaw (I believe that's him) making the very points I'm making.
So Bush, Cheney and Rice lied...Why?
(2) NORAD had plenty of warning but was not able to desipher what was real and what was being conducted as training. - Cheney was the highest official in a command capacity during the period of the actual attacks.
In Dr. A's quote it says, which I'm assuming he got from an official source:
"The first indication that the NORAD air defenders had of the second hijacked aircraft, United 175, came in a phone call from New York Center to NEADS at 9:03." - LIE
As per NORAD:
*United Airlines Flight 175 — Boston enroute to Los Angeles: FAA Notification to NEADS:0843
* Flight 11 is reported at 0840 - The first tower is hit at 0846
* Flight 175 is reported at 0843 - The second tower is hit at 0902
* Flight 77 is reported at 0924 - The Pentagon is hit at 0937
* Between the first tower hit, the report of flight 175 and the second tower being hit, a total of 22 minutes have passed.
* Between the first tower hit, the second tower hit and the Pentagon being hit, a total of 51 minutes passed.
This is a clear sign of someone in command fucking up. Who was in command that day? - Cheney
(3) There is plenty of evidence connecting General Ahmad to Omar Saeed Sheikh and Mohammad Atta.
* Condoleeza Rice was asked about the alleged ISI connection to financing the 9/11 plot. - There is a clear connection and the media was aware of it.
* The Congressional Joint Inquiry's 858-page report, published in 2003 with about 25 percent of the overall text redacted, fails to pursue, clarify or mention the allegations of Pakistani financing for the 9/11 plotters and the allegations of an ISI connection to al-Qaeda, at least in the unredacted portions of the text. - Why didn't they mention it in the new text?
And of course like all good cover-ups
* The only person who could clarify this, Omar Saeed Sheikh, is sitting in death row in Pakistan.
(4) The biggest bullshit was the Bush/Cheney testimony to the 911 Commision.
* The Commision requested that they inteviewed seperatly. - Bush and Cheney chose to do it together.
* No transcripts were allowed.
* No media coverage.
* No witnesses outside of the Commision.
* The final report from the Commision was only what was pre-approved by the Bush/Cheney admin.
The whole things is saturated in lies, cover-ups and deception. Information is being withheld, manipulated and controlled. Bush and Cheney are at the helm of this cover-up, perhaps only to protect themselves from the their incompetency. Perhaps there's more to it.
But an investigation into these matters would clear the air of these inconsistencies in their stories, to this day none has taken place.
All I'm saying is that there should be an investigation - both pre and post 911 - into Bush and Cheney's actions and allegations about what took place and how they handled it.
Their record of lying and covering up information should speak for itself - (WMD's, Iraqs involvement in 911, Katrina, etc).
On this basis they should be subpoenas to obtain the transcripts of NORAD, their interview with the Commision, and examine them towards clarifying the actual sequence of events and command structures for both: the pre-scheduled wargames and the defense response to the unfolding attacks, plus, what they told the Commision and WHY did they chose to go together. As it stands now, the information is vague, inconsistent and manipulated...my only question is, WHY?
The problem with the 911 "Consiparcy" is that it goes too far, implicating Bush and Cheney as the masterminds of the event and makes a mocking characterization of the evidence that points to deception. I'll admit I was having a little fun with the "controlled demolition" stuff - but putting that aside - there is a clear cover-up of a lot of information by the Bush/Cheney camp.
Perhaps it's just to cover-up their incompetency, granted that could be the case, which they've done countless times, but there could be more to the puzzle that implicates them in other things. Until it is investigated, we will never know.
- Oni
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
Hi Granny Magda, I meant to add your name to my post but forgot. I'm glad you didn't let that stop you from replying.
So everybody else is to be criticised for getting their opinions from the media. You however, when you speak of Bin Laden's position in the Muslim world are basing the statement upon what exactly?
I didn't say anyone was to be criticised for anything, lets not get ahead of ourselves.
I base my statement on the reactions from many in the Islamic world. I don't know if you've had the opportunity to read *Sam Harris' "The End of Faith"? In it he gives detailed information on the percentage of the Muslim world that supports the actions of the suicide bombers - suicide bombers who are working, allegedly, for Al-Qaeda.
*I quote Sams book because he, in my opinion, gave a detailed analisis of the opinions of the people using national polls. Plus, as EvC debaters many are familiar with his work and trust that it is verified. He does provide notes as to where he gets his information from so I can quote them directly when I get home and have access to the book. - If it is needed. If you can accept the information in the book then we can continue.
So, if people support the actions of the suicide bombers, who are representing Al-Qaeda, who is lead, allegedly by Bin Laden, then by default you are supporting Bin Ladens actions. This is all I meant by "them having a different opinon of Bin Laden than the West."
Or are you getting your information from the media as well?
No I am not.
I have a funny feeling that Bin Laden is viewed in a whole bunch of different ways throughout the Muslim world, including being viewed as the bloke responsible for 9/11.
Agreed.
But will you agree that he is only viewed in ONE way by the West?
Oni writes:
He is a great scapegoat, as was Hussein, and a perfect image to hate for the American public. But relatively speaking, the actions of the US in foreign affairs is worse than anything OBL is capable of doing, or has done.
GM writes:
None of which is actually evidence that anyone else was responsible for 9/11.
Nor was it meant to be. It was meant as a comparison to how the western media demonizes one person for henious acts, but says nothing about the others, equally, and sometimes much more, henious acts.
Even now many are doing, all be it in a mild way, this very thing.
Bin Laden is "evil" - Bush/Cheney are simply "liars".
In my opinion, they are the same, if not worse, than Bin Laden. But you'll never hear any US news media say this, nor could they ever dream of being that up-front to the public, because they'll lose their advertisers.
So what? They are liars. That doesn't prove that they had anything to do with 9/11.
I have stated repeatedly that I do not think they were the "masterminds" behind 911 - but I don't think Bin Laden was either, at least not without the support of some very powerful governments - governments who MAY have ties with the Bush family.
As you say "Bin Laden claimed resposibility for the attacks" - Where...? On one video? That's it...that's all they have. Nothing else. Do you trust this ONE video...? I personally would like to see more. But, perhaps exposing more could connect Bush and his family to the very governments that supported Bin Laden - I am speculating.
Who knows, but now we'll never know.
Whereas you apparently eschew all forms of media (except conspiracy theorist websites of course). Come off it Oni. You are as reliant on the media for your information as any of us.
I don't know what you mean by this. I do not believe what the mass US media spews over it's controlled and manipulated airwaves. I try to seek out as many independent news sources as I can possibly find - and only in cases that I actually care to know - for the most part I don't listen to the news. The US news media is only good for one thing, to find out what celebrity did what and when.
We know that. They were simply lying because "No-one had anticipated an attack like this" sounds better than "An attack exactly like this was anticipated, but it still happened anyway.
And you know this how...?
You know this for a fact...?
You know that's what they said that for...?
I get accused of incredulity and the response to my incredulity is another, slightly different, incredulous claim...?
On our watch. Whoops. Sorry.".
Whoops, sorry...? I hope the families of the victims can accept that as easy as you have.
They were just covering their asses. Either that or they genuinely didn't know/remember that the idea was out there. Government is awfully big and, much as it would be nice to imagine otherwise, the reality is that no one person can fit more than a tiny fraction of all the available information into their head. There is nothing extraordinary about suggesting that they didn't know and there is certainly nothing extraordinary about suggesting that they told bare-faced lies in order to gain a short-term image boost.
This is your opinion, I'm not satisfied with it. An investigation on the matter would clear the air.
Why does everything have to be a LIE (in capital letters no less)? Do people not simply fuck up in your world? That must be reassuring.
My world consists of drunken idiots enjoying my shitty comedy, in my world there are plenty of fuck ups.
My world is not NORAD - NORAD doesn't "fuck up" and says "whoops, sorry."
Cheney was at the helm of NORAD when it, supposedly, "fucked up". So what's more likely, that NORAD "fucked up" - when it never does - or Cheney "fucked up" and is now trying to cover his ass? - (For reasons that YOU and I can only speculate on, but an investigation would clear the air).
Of course cock up is not evidence of conspiracy. However much I despise Cheney, this in no way implicates him in any conspiracy. You don't even have a conspiracy to implicate him in. This is all just standard join-the-dots CT bullshit.
I am not claiming some "mastermind consiparcy", in fact, that is the type of consiparcy crap that gets in the way of actually trying to figure out what happened.
Cheney was in charge, he screwed up, the details are not known, an investigation into the matter would expose the truths - and perhaps uncover more - but we will never know, will we...?
Even if true, all this proves is that there are close ties between Pakistani intelligence and Al Qaeda.
...Bush, Cheney, the Bush family, etc, we don't know how far the rabbit hole goes.
There could be more implications than you are allowing for, GM.
If you seriously think that the governments of the US and Pakistan are co-operating on some world-spanning conspiracy, you have lost touch with reality.
I don't, so my reality is safe.
A few within both governments, now you might be on to something.
Oni writes:
The biggest bullshit was the Bush/Cheney testimony to the 911 Commision.
GM writes:
Of course. They were covering their own asses in order to make themselves look good, or at least not too bad.
You don't know that as a fact...you are speculating!
All I'm asking for is an investigation to clear the air of ALL speculation.
Don't tell me I'm meerly giving consiracy theory opinions and then reply with a mainstream opinion, who gives a shit, they're BOTH opinions.
But why does one side NOT want an investigation to clear the air of ALL opinions? - Is it meerly for PR reasons?
What you seem to be implying is that this also suggests that they are conspirators who chose to massacre thousands of their own people for no apparent reason, or at the very least, are covering up for those who did.
I have not said this at all. This is what you're saying I'm saying. You are trying to pigeon-hole my argument into standard, bullshit conspiracy theory crap.
What I'm suggesting it implies is that they're covering up information, YOU believe it's just so they'll "look good" or "not as bad"...OK, that's your opinion, I don't share that same opinon.
An investigation would clear the air and remove ALL opinons - but we'll never know will we? - We should just be satisfied with "them just covering their asses for PR reasons." - If this satisfies you then cool, it doesn't satisfy me, though.
Suggesting that your own government, US businessmen, even New York firemen (Silverstein was talking to the fire department when he said "pull", so they must have known about the explosives, right?) were involved in a conspiracy to murder thousands is fun to you? Sheesh. Have you tried sports? Or computer games? Or something that isn't seriously fucking sick?
I don't take myself that seriously, or this forum for that matter. If it offended you, then sorry.
Indeed there could be. And there could be a leprechaun in my airing cupboard, but until I'm shown serious evidence suggesting that there might be, I'm not going to waste my time looking for him.
Fact is, you have no evidence to support your assertions that the only reason they are covering up is so they "look good" or "not as bad". This is your opinion, which I don't think lends any weight on the truth behind the cover-up. You are claimng the same leprechaun in the cupboard as I am.
The truth might be out there? You are starting to sound like a creationist.
I'm just asking for an investigation into the matter. Being skeptics, I figured we can all agree that one is needed.
If in fact it was just to cover their ass, as you claim, then that'll be the truth - the fact of the matter - til then, we're left with speculations, none better than the other - and a shit load of lies in the process.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
To try and hide the fact that they were woefully unprepared for such a scenario.
I accept that this opinion, like Granny Magdas, is viable, maybe...
Maybe not. We'll never know though and that's my point. If we can all agree that there is a cover-up, then I've done my job in supporting my position.
We can all now speculate as to why they did what they did. Enjoy. Speculate away. They'll all be nothing more than opinions, none better than the other. At that point people will usually favor the opinion that best fits their "worldview".
I have not speculated as to their reasons, I meerly asked for an investigation into the cover-up, which, as I am reading from you guys, we can all agree that there is one.
If you guys are satisfied with the reasons being nothing more than "covering their asses", OK. I'm not.
This is just another example of them not wanting to take responsibility, not necessarily because there was anything to cover up in the conspiracy theorist way, but they did want to cover up the fact that they screwed up.
I accept this as a viable reason, but you may be wrong and an investigation would expose the truth...can you agree with that?
If they then took what literally fell in their laps and try to turn it to their advantage, then they only did what others with an extreme agenda would do.
How deep does the rabbit hole go...? We'll never know.
- Oni
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
An investigation may not uncover anything if the evidence is destroyed.
And this doesn't smell of bullshit...?
How can we as citizens be satisfied with such a deceptive tactic? What were they REALLY covering up?
You're positing that untold multitudes of people have agreed to deceive everyone, have been able to consistently keep their mouths shut, and never felt a pang of conscience after having one too many drinks, etc...
But so are you, and GM, and anyone else who agrees that there exists a cover-up. The only part that you guys are speculating on is to the reason for the cover-up - I'm not speculating as to the reason. I am however saying that there could be more to it, and I don't know what evidence you guys are using to simply say "no there isn't, it's just them not wanting to look bad."
If they could have that much self-control (or perhaps some sort of external control such as balckmail, etc) what makes you think they would all of a sudden change their tune simply because they were asked again?
If they were subpoenas then they could obtain these transcripts and examine them towards clarifying the actual sequence of events and command structures for both: the pre-scheduled wargames and the defense response to the unfolding attacks. Also, to Bush and Cheney's testimony to the 911 Commision.
But what good would it do...? Fuck, I don't know. Maybe it's all been destroyed and there's nothing for evidence at all. But this would suggest a conspiracy to withhold information for some unspecified reason, right?
An investigation would also cost money, which is a bit in short supply at the moment, and utilize resources that could be better used to uncover the truth behind the Iraq War, torture, and secret rendition, all of which we know happened, and at least some of which we know is criminal.
Investigating this matter would not cost anymore than any other investigation. I can't believe the public wouldn't want to know these facts as they really happened. Not only that, Bush/Cheney's cover-up would send their asses to jail, that would be awesome to see!
We can't simply brush this kind of matter under the table, in my oinion. The public has the right to know, if not, what good are we as citizens if we can't demand that the government comes clean with their actions? If you turn your face to this, then turn your face to all of it, and don't pick and choose. Either it must all be exposed or none of it gets exposed - and we stay blind to their actions.
Picking and choosing what should and should not be investigated is bias.
They have a responsibility for their actions - they MUST come clean. They must be held to this standard of honest inquiry into ALL of their actions. - If not, then we have lost control of it all.
- Oni
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
The memo saying "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the US" was found, and Condi Rice admitted knowing about it, but still stonewalled any attempt to place blame.
Again, here is a "memo" stating that Bin Laden was gonna strike, found after all of the accusations started to come up. The memo does 2 things, (1) Shows a level of incompetency that at that point was so clear that it was expected, but (2) it restates Bin Ladens involvement.
I'm skeptical of this particular memo, but whatever, it's unimportant.
The cover up I'm refering to has nothing to do with Bin Laden, for now, since I don't know the details of the NORAD screw up and the actions of Cheney. Nor can any of this further impliment Bush/Cheney into a greater cover-up perhaps including his family, and foreign governments. Foreign governments that we, the US, have ties with.
I'm using the Bush Administration's record.
And that is why I agreed that it is a viable reason, but there could be more to it than just that. In fact, there could be more to all of their other lies.
What makes you think there are transcripts?
With the 911 Commision, you are right. Well sort of, there are transcripts but what was prinited was what was approved by the Bush/Cheney admin. However, the transcripts of what took place at NORAD that day and the actual sequence of events and command structures for both: the pre-scheduled wargames and the defense response to the unfolding attacks, are available, but would need to be subpoenaed. To this day none of it has been.
It has been investigated and the vast majority of the public is content with the findings of that investigation.
Sadly, it hasn't.
It would be more productive to investigae things we know happened, such as torture, the lead up to the war, and things, rather than some vague conspiracy of which there is little evidence and of that, most is debunked.
Here's the thing though, they're not going to investigate that either. They're not going to investigate any of it.
- Oni
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
One video, that's all that exists. One video shown to us by our government.
Why isn't Nebraska Man on this list?
You asked for the videos of them saying it. That was a video of them saying it.
Concede and don't be a douche about it.
My source was the 9/11 Commission, who have more details, had access to more evidence, and present more evidence, including transcripts of who said what to whom.
They do not have more details than NORAD's exact timelines.
You were wrong again, concede and don't be a douche about it.
Plus, more proof that the 911 Commision was lied to if that, in fact, was their actual words.
However, I don't see why a few minutes here or there matter --- unless you believe that every small discrepancy is a sign of a vast conspiracy.
A few minutes...?
You were off by 21 minutes, or rather, the 911 Commsion was off by 21 minutes - are you fuck'n serious that that is not a huge time difference...?
Please use your hindsight to explain what should have been done. Assume that no-one involved had psychic powers.
What should have been done is the person posting to me, that gave me the wrong time frames, verified their source. That is all I was showing - that you and your source were wrong.
He was? In what sense was he "in command"? What orders did he give?
Are you following my argument, dude?
"What orders did he give"...? That's exactly what I'm saying needs to be investigated. According to your 911 Commision source of the timeframes, there was at least 1 thing they got wrong, the timeframes - did Cheney tell them that...?
What did he order? Yes, please tell me, because that's all I want to know.
Golly, it's almost like there was some secret Muslim conspiracy to crash planes into buildings. Thank you for uncovering it. The Pulitzer Prize is in the post.
It wasn't a Muslim conspiracy, unless you'd like to be the asshole who catagorizes the actions of one, or a few, to represent all of the Muslim faith?
"Having a little fun", eh? You looked more like you were being wrong to me. Perhaps a few smileys next time, eh?
That'll be my choice.
But hey, if it makes you feel better, I was wrong, I concede on the "controlled demo" - now don't be a douche and concede to the points that you were wrong on.
Howbeit, if you want a new investigation, I suggest that you spend less time having "fun" with the "controlled demolition" stuff. People will take you more seriously if you don't "have a little fun" by talking nonsense.
Irrelevant.
- Oni
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
This is correct as well. Being here I see the truth of your last statement with my own eyes.
Thanks for confirming it, Michamus.
Please do bear in mind that you are discussing this matter with an individual who experiences all these things you have mentioned first hand, and from the horse's mouth.
Oh I'm well aware of the fact that you are there seeing first hand. And thanks again for confirming it from a first-hand perspective.
I am curious as to what first hand sources have you acquired your information?
I use as many independent news outlets as I can find. ZNews.com is very good, in my opinion the best source for non-bias news. However, more to a mainstream level, Reuters and the UK AP is good too. Al Jazeera, the London based one, is also very non-bias. I'd even say the NY Times, sometimes, gives a non-bias opinion in their op-ed pieces.
My biggest issue is with the tv. media itself - CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, etc. The hyperbolic, propaganda driven networks that placate to advertiser wishes. It's all bias. It follows party lines and never gives both sides of the issues.
Just look at the comparison between the Washington AP article I quoted in the H1N1 thread and the article I provide from ZNews. There is a clear bias in the AP article. There is a shit load of information about the actual source of the virus that is not given in the article, and I challenge you (or anyone else) to find a mainstream article that gives the full story on the source of the virus; I've tried and couldn't find anything.
Now we turn our focus to things coming out of White House, like the 911 Commission, and their report. The fact that Cheney and Bush were not under oath, the fact that they interviewed together even though they were told not to, the fact that there seems to be no transcripts, no other witnesses, no family of the victims (who requested to be involved), etc - you have all these factors ADDED to the fact that (1) The Commission and NORAD differ in timelines (according to Cheney's testimony to them), (2) It changed and omitted quite a lot from the original form, (3) The final Commission report had to be approved by Bush/Cheney.
With the NORAD issue and timeline differences, as it was reported by the media, which Dr. A provides the reason in his post, it was simply "confusion" that gave the different timelines. This is what was reported by the media - which we know to be bias - and has to be accepted by us. Yet the repot itself doesn't include the testimonies of the actual people working at NORAD and NEADS who have stated that the NORAD original timeline is the correct one. That the phone calls from NEAD came in at 0840, that the mistakes were made by those in command that didn't properly act in time, etc. These testimonies are avaliable online, all be it from labeled "conspiracy" sources. But they were omitted from the 911 Commision's final report.
This all points to, IMO, something beyond "whoops, we fucked up". Granted I will have to rely on labeled "conspiracy" theories to provide evidence for my opinon, but that's only the case because the mainstream media has been compromised, they are bias, they withhold a lot of information, they deliberately try to paint a picture based on their bias, so it fits that anything not following these pre-approved opinions doesn't get reported.
Even if it ends up being wrong, why not give it the same attention as the other stories, which have also, in the past, proven to be wrong?
Bill Hicks used to have a joke that went something like this: "Why do we always see negative drug stories in the news?...". And that always stuck with me. Why don't we see possitive drug stories, hell, I have a shit load of great stories about drugs, but we'll never see it, because there is a media bias towards drugs. So it will always be stories about the negative side of them to continue the anti-drug propaganda that has it's roots in the Alcohol and Pharm industries, respectively.
This "could be more" is pretty much meaningless unless you have solid evidence demonstrating: A) The Bush Administration actually had a foreknowledge of the contradictory information. B) The Bush Administration had the intention of distributing such a lie.
The problem is that the evidence I provide is discredited because it carries with it the "conspiracy" label. Unfortunatly, the "conspiracy" websites are the only ones, to some extent depending on what we're talking about, that have tried to exposed certain truths about the matter. The media, however, builds a propaganda to discredit these sources and makes a mockery out of them, but why? What does anyone actually know about the events on that day that they didn't get from a mainstream source? If the mainstream source of the news is clearly bias, then why should we trust what they say, especially when the report has gone through so many influencial eyes that by the time it hits the airwaves it has been edited to fit the networks opinion?
Part A is fairly difficult to show, as we have no means of knowing what Dubya knew at the time. We do know what he should have known, but this doesn't mean he or his administration knew it.
I've been busy with traveling, I'm not trying to avoid answering this, but it will take me sometime to try to connect the dots.
I'll provide the best evidence I can find, but note that the sources for this evidence may already be discredited because it comes from a consipracy website.
Dr. A, I'll try to reply to your post as soon as I can.
United Airlines Flight 175 — Boston enroute to Los Angeles: FAA Notification to NEADS:0843
GM writes:
is just nonsense.
It very well can be nonsense, but you'll have to explain why you accept the 911 Commissions timeline and reject NORAD's timeline.
175 was actually being hijacked at about that time. There is no way the FAA could have known about it. As far as the FAA was concerned, nothing unusual occurred with 175 until 08:47 when its transponder codes changed and that took a while to sink in, given that the controller was somewhat distracted by flight 11's destruction.
I direct you to NORAD's timelines that I provide Dr. A with. If you have issue with their timeline then I ask you why?
Dr. A's post states that it's because there was confusion at the time and the timlines were given incorrectly. OK. But why do we accept that as the answer? Because that's what we were told?
Curiously, have we ever been lied to before by the media?
There are testimonies from the people working in both NORAD and NEADS that claim the NORAD timelines are the correct ones. That the mistakes came from top-brass and that there is a cover-up to not expose this. Why don't you believe that side of the story? Because the media didn't repot it that way?
Muslim fundies think Bin Laden is great. I agree with that.
What is a Muslim "fundie" and do you know for sure that all that agree with Bin Laden are "findies"?
(According to Michamus, who is actually there, it's not just "fundies".)
Or, is it that anyone who agrees with Bin Laden is automatically labeled a "fundie" by the news media...?
OBL is a Muslim fundamentalist extremist.
Who labeled him this?
Naturally, other Muslim fundamentalists think he kicks ass. They think he kicks ass because he was the guy responsible for 9/11, which they think was a brilliant idea.
He had the support of many, many, many Muslims long before 911.
You just quoted Sam Harris' book! Last time I checked, books were part of the media. Unless you are using first hand information, you are as dependent on the media as any of us.
OK. I see your point here, and I can accept it.
I do admit that I try to disipher, using other sources, what's factual and what seems bias, in both the indie media and mainstream, but shouldn't everyone? - All I'm saying is that we shouldn't just accept what one media source says.
Not quite no. OBL is viewed pretty much unanimously as being a Muslim terrorist scumbag, but then, that's what he is; unless you are going to try and say that he bears no responsibility for any act of terror, which I can't imagine you are saying.
By this standard, Bush and the US government are Christian terrorist scumbags. I'm not saying OBL hasn't acted in a way that many in the West consider "terrorism", but IF we view his actions as terrorism, then we must view the actions of the US, UK and it's allies, as terrorism as well.
Can you agree with that?
Opinion does vary however about quite how closely OBL manages the day-to-day running of the "global Al Qaeda network". Some people view him as an international puppet-master, like some shitty Bond villain. My view is that OBL is more of a figurehead and fund-raiser. Whilst he is doubtless involved in planning some operations (as he most likely was for 9/11) he is probably only peripherally involved in worldwide terror campaigns.
AQ itself is really only a reasonable term to use when applied to the terrorist groups in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Elsewhere in the world it is probably more of a loose affiliation or a kind of franchise. You can say that the London bombings were the work of AQ if you like (there are certainly links between the bombers and international terrorism), but that doesn't mean that OBL had any say in the matter or even knew of them.
Nicities like this are often lost in over-simplistic media reporting, leaving some people with the impression that AQ is some monolithic worldwide organisation, with OBL as commander-in-chief. I don't think that is realistic.
Agreed. I would also add that he is supported financially, and perhaps ideologically, by many governments that have ties with the US, and the Bush family due to oil connections.
By the way; there are an awful lot of Muslims in "the West" and they have views of OBL and AQ that run the gamut from demonisation to idolisation.
Fair enough...
Which has nothing to do with any 9/11 conspiracy. The poor state of US news media is not relevant, especially not to me. I live in Britain. I am well used to commentators comparing Bush to OBL.
I've never read anything, even from the UK, that has EVER compared Bush to OBL. I'm not doubting you, hell I wish they would, but could you provide an artcile or two that shows this comparison?
Why would they need governments? they hijacked planes using box-cutters as weapons. I fail to see how any government would be needed for this. In fact, it all looks distinctly home-made.
You are just looking at the act itself. Look at the whole picture, from them getting visas to taking flight classes. Financing the attacks is a very important issue, who did finance it? The 911 Commission decided that "it was of little significance"...do you agree with that? Because I don't.
Perhaps it was deemed "of little significant" because it pointed to too many people who didn't want to be signaled out?
If we didn't have a bias media however, we would have plenty of information on who financed that attack, we don't, so we're fucked.
Besides, may well have got support from elements within the Pakistani or Saudi governments, as well as the Taliban. That's not news to anyone. Nor is the Bush family's ties to the Saudi royal family a secret. If you want to go somewhere with this though, you will need more than just "MAY". You need evidence of some kind of conspiracy, which you manifestly do not have.
I'll do my best to provide the connections, just give me a little time.
You know full well that that's not true. There is a long line of connections between the bombers and AQ.
We were talking about Bin Laden. What connects Bin Laden to the attacks? You said "He admited to it"...I said "yes he did, but only on 1 video"...
Now, can you provide evidence for more of a connection, other than that video? - we were not discussing the "bombers".
Don't be silly. It's just Occam's razor. Either Bush and his cronies lied to make themselves look better, just like they have done a thousand times, or... What you're suggesting... What were you actually saying happened again? First it was controlled demolitions, now it's some cover-up... I'm confused.
Don't be confused.
I'm saying that their agreed upon lies - (which I noticed you are now calling "lies") - can have more to it than just "make themselves look better".
To say that our government didn't anticipate the attacks, that there was never any idea of planes being used as missiles, that no administration could have predicted this, that the US had no plan to deal with such an attack, is such a outrageous lie, and so insulting to us, that their boldface bullshitting the American public should have been cause for impeachment!
This is, for fuck's sake, the US government, the US military, so lets not pretend that they could fumble this that bad and simply make a mistake in what they said. This lie was deliberate. In the mass confusion they were able to salvage it by saying that they made "a mistake" when they said this, but that is also bullshit.
The US government is NOT that stupid, they may give that impression because it can be used as an excuse when pressed for information, but they're not stupid. You don't become the worlds superpower being that stupid. But I'll agree that this is just a matter of opinion.
Oh yeah. that worked so well with the Kennedy assassination. The truth is that conspiracy theorists are never satisfied and will continue bleating about this forever. I don't understand you. you say you want an investigation. Yet you also say;
I say "we'll never know" because we won't get the investigation that I'd like to see. In fact, there probably is no more info on it, because it has been made to disappear.
And what do you mean by the Kennedy reference? What are "conspiracy theorist" not satisfied with? Oswald as the lone shooter? Are you satisifed with that?
That's right. NORAD didn't fuck up beyond not being able to find the planes on their radar, due to the beacons being switched off by the hijackers. The tapes of the radio chatter from NEADS show clearly the confused situation there. Cheney wasn't in control of the situation; no-one was. It all happened too fast. There is no conspiracy here, just SNAFU.
There's more to it, but I'll answer it when I reply to Dr. A.
Again, I'll do my best to provide the infromation, remembering though that mainstream news sources can't be used for this.
No I am not. I am claiming something utterly mundane; that politicians tell fibs to make themselves look better. That is not an extraordinary claim. You can't say the same for this nebulous conspiracy that you're arguing for.
The issue here is bigger than "politicians telling lies". We are also talking about misinformation from the government, bias opinions from the media, connections between Bush and the governments that funded the attacks, timeline differences in 2 independent reports - however one report comes directly from the Bush/Cheney interview with the 911 Commission - but I guess more needs to be done by me to provide evidence for these connections. So, I'll try.
Curiously enough, you started off by accusing NORAD of actual perjury. Yet presented with hard evidence that they did get at least one detail wrong, you defend them to the death --- because this is a detail you'd have liked them to be right about.
I did not, I started off by saying that they don't fuck up like that.
For 2 years NORAD held to those timelines.
Now "tapes" brought out by the FAA claim differently - convinently.
Senator Mark Dayton:
quote:Senator Mark Dayton (D) charges that NORAD and the FAA have covered up catastrophic failures that left the nation vulnerable during the 9/11 hijackings. He says, For almost three years now, NORAD officials and FAA officials have been able to hide their critical failures that left this country defenseless during two of the worst hours in our history. He notes major discrepancies between various accounts and chronologies given by officials. He says NORAD officials lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission to create a false impression of competence, communication and protection of the American people. He calls the FAA’s and NORAD’s failures the most gross incompetence and dereliction of responsibility and negligence that I’ve ever, under those extreme circumstances, witnessed in the public sector. He says that he grew upset about these failures after staying up late and reading the 9/11 Commission’s final report.
So someone is lying here. If we accept that NORAD lied for 2 years and the FAA timelines are the correct ones, then NORAD still has to account for their lies to Congress and the 911 Commission.
But, if they didn't lie, if their timelines were the correct ones, then the FAA has been used as the scapegoat, tapes have been edited to sound a certain way (which is not hard to do) and the public has no way of finding out.
From the book written by John Farmer, who served as Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission. The book: The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11.
quote: the public had been seriously misled about what occurred during the morning of the attacks, and Farmer himself states that at some level of the government, at some point in timethere was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.
From Thomas H. Kean:
quote:We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. It was just so far from the truth. . . . It’s one of those loose ends that never got tied.
Farmer himself is quoted in the Post article, stating, I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described . The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin. This is not true.
If we accept the FAA's account then NORAD was lying - If NORAD wasn't lying then we must question the FAA's accounts.
Either way, like Farmer states: at some level of the government, at some point in timethere was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.
It matters not what people think of OBL, whether Muslim or not. It only matters what history reflects him to be: the mastermind and enabler of the mass murder of thousands of people. Case closed.
...or, a great defender of Muslim land and a rebel against the capitalist system?
Mass murder? ...or, casualties of the holy war against capitalist tyranny?
Unfortunately "the West" has as invested so much, both bad and good, in the Middle East, that it is almost impossible for us to extract ourselves out of the cluster-fck over there.
The "west" had no business there, this includes Israel and their current occupation of land that wasn't theirs for the taking - Supported by the US, and armed by the US.
Is there really any question as to why Muslim "extremist" feel the need to attack the west, when the west does nothing but invade, occupy and exploit them?
The "cluster fuck" dates back before 911, before Kuwait, and before OBL.
I'm just playing "devils advocate" as to how Muslims might view the west.
However, we cannot just walk away and let the Middle East dissolve into the chaos that Bush and Cheney started.
That's the beauty of the whole invasion, once you're there you can make an argument as to why leaving would be catastrophic.
Dissolve into what kind of chaos exactly?
We don't want to leave because others will swoop in and take control of the only thing we want out of that place...oil.
It is hard not to be bitter when many of the people we are "trying to help" are turning around and trying to kill us. This is a lesson we should have learned from Vietnam.
You don't mean "trying to help" as in actually trying to help them, do you?
I notice you put it in quotations, I'm wondering what you mean.
Unfortunately, we keep electing the same idiots to the white house who haven't a clue of how to run an effective war, who will not listen to the Generals and Admirals who do have the right experience and who spend more time on vacation than doing there damn job.
I think the issue stems from our naive illusion that people elected to the White House actually have the power to do anything, let alone effectively run a war.
Defense is an industry. Being at war drives the market. War is needed, and sustaining it is financially benefitial to those "elected" officials who get lobbied by the Defense Industry. Noboby in that industry wants the war to end, the more wars, the greater the gain.
What we need to do, in my anachical opinion, as citizens who "elect" these officials, is question our elected officials ties with this industry.
™ Version 4.2