Home | Community | Message Board |
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Shop: Red Vein Kratom Buy Bali Kratom Powder Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Bridgetown Botanicals Premium Bali Kratom Powder Bulk Substrate Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale |
| |||||||
Annapurna1 liberal pussy Registered: 05/21/02 Posts: 5,646 Loc: innsmouth..MA |
| ||||||
Quote: i wouldnt put too much stock in a video purporting to be osama bin goldstein or whoever.. any fool with a camcorder could have made it...and that goes double for anything on faux news...and need i remind you that OBL used to work for the CIA too.. whose to say if hes' not still in the CIA??...so far..the only "smoking gun" ive seen behind bush&cos' open-and-shut version of 9/11 is the fact that it came out of their mouths..which IMAO is hardly a smoking gun... -------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
| |||||||
Economist in training Registered: 10/11/05 Posts: 1,285 Last seen: 16 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
What none of you have shown yet is superior evidence of a conspiracy.
You say that there is a "massive body of circumstantial evidence" which supports a conspiracy. But isn't there just as massive a body of circumstantial evidence NOT supporting a conspiracy? If the Bush administration would actually sneak bombs INTO the WTC, or would willing cover up intelligence of the 9/11 attacks, or would manufacture the entire character of Osama Bin Laden... Why wouldn't they sneak WMD evidence into Iraq? A single warhead, missile plans, hell just a handful of fissile material. The US has TONS of the stuff, and we couldn't sneak just a tiny bit in post-invasion in order to support GWB's claims? Isn't the fact that we haven't caught Osama Bin Laden just as much circumstantial evidence of his existence as it is of the argument that he might not exist? If the President's approval rating is really as low as 30%, and we assume that Bin Laden is a fictional character, why don't they just say they've caught him in order to improve matters? And please don't claim that they're waiting until an election is closer, we had enough of those claims during the 2004 election, and they all turned out false. Given equal amounts of circumstantial evidence for and against all of the conspiracy theories, why believe in them? At the end of the day, they can no more be proven than the average religion. If we all believed in everything that could be proven using circumstantial evidence, why don't we all believe in most major religions? Why is the circumstantial evidence in favor of the conspiracy some how superior to the circumstantial evidence disproving the conspiracy? That question has never been answered. Show me how the conspiracy's circumstantial evidence is superior. PS - The analogy about being able to study microbes on mars and yet not find Bin Laden is a little silly. Mars is a huge planet and bacteria are everywhere, it would be very hard to miss. Furthermore, given that most of the conspiracy theories assume a certain amount of massive sophistication in our intelligence services (not in terms of technology, but in real terms, the ability to make contacts find sources of information, etc.) why is it wrong to assume that our enemies do not have similar levels of sophistication (i.e. the ability to find people who will hide them, cover their tracks, provide them with capital, et.c)
| |||||||
RosettaStoned Stranger Registered: 05/29/06 Posts: 540 Loc: North America Last seen: 16 years, 9 days |
| ||||||
Phred you are truly good at internet debate, I guess that's why you are a mod. You dig out something that has clearly been contradicted in my previous post and try to insinuate I didn't read my own link.
You point out. Quote: Did you read my link? What about this? Quote: So my link does state there is no electronic data or paper trail showing they knew of atta before 9/11. What it does show is the word of numerous active military personnel that worked on able danger that say they identified atta prior to 9/11. And I even showed you a reason why there is no data of able danger, did YOU even bother to read that? Well here it is again, why there is no electronic data left from able danger. Which showed they identified atta and other hijackers connections to terrorists before 9/11. Quote: And also Phred, you neglected to address my assertion based on facts, that the 9/11 commission lied and changed their story. Which makes anything else in their book suspect. I guess when the facts don't match your beliefs they are conveniently ignored. Oh yeah, and before you accuse me of ignoring your points. I will say I am not going by what Weldon said at a Heritage Foundation post 9/11 in 2002. I'm going by what members of the able danger team say, why don't you give that a try. Also don't try to claim they couldn't have done anything, because they were going to arrest them until they were blocked by bush administration and pentagon lawyers. Finding people with terrorist ties going to flight school is more than enough reason to arrest them prior to 9/11 and well within the laws of the time, had they not been obstructed. -------------------- "Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson "Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa
| |||||||
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
The reason you are not a good debater is you are unable to address the point being discussed.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Shaffer and Weldon's claims are true -- that at one point Able Danger discovered that a suspected Al Qaeda operative (Atta) had entered the US on a visa. That doesn't change the fact that his whereabouts were unknown and that his reason for being in the US was also unknown. I strongly suggest you read the two links I included in a previous post to two previous threads on this subject from a couple years ago. Read through the threads, try to follow the arguments being made, and if you think you have come up with some "gotcha" you can spring on me, be my guest. Either post your gotcha here or reply directly to a post in the original thread(s), whichever is more convenient for you. Phred
| |||||||
RosettaStoned Stranger Registered: 05/29/06 Posts: 540 Loc: North America Last seen: 16 years, 9 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Amazing...simply amazing. I addressed both your points and countered them, and you claim I am not discussing the point? And when I refute the points you made, all you can do is tell me to read more links from long ago? You are the one who asked me to bring up a link to support my statement. I did, then you dig up something in my link that was clearly contradicted and try to pass it off as me not reading my own link. Then I point out specifically how it was contradicted and you ignore it and point me to older threads. No thanks. I addressed all points you made and all you can do is ignore them and point me elsewhere. I've been reading this forum for a long time and have done extensive research on this. They knew where atta was and what he was doing, his name was on list as student of the flight school in florida. It don't take a brain surgeon to see the govt was watching him and knew exactly where he was. And would have arrested him if not prevented by certain lawyers. I have made that perfectly clear here, now why don't you try reading some more links, but I forgot, you mind is already made up. And before you say my mind is made up also, I suggest you address the facts I posted instead of sidestepping them. -------------------- "Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson "Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa
| |||||||
Annapurna1 liberal pussy Registered: 05/21/02 Posts: 5,646 Loc: innsmouth..MA |
| ||||||
Quote: bush&co have been known to lie to us in the past (and this is well documented)...so naturally..ppl tend to be a bit skeptical..and this includes bush&cos' version of 9/11...even if theres no "real" evidence of a LIHOP/MIHOP conspiracy..bush&cos' own lack of credibility (let alone their stonewalling the investigation) necessarily lends the conspiracy theory more credence... Quote: the answer is a resounding no...and the fact that we havent caught OBL is more than just circumstantial evidence for him being an emmanuel goldstein ..if he did get caught..then bush&co would lose their bogeyman...its true that bush&co could have "captured" OBL in order to secure the 2004 election..but being as he could still do that for them without being caught.. and that they would still need him as bogeyman afterwards.. they didnt...what they did do was simply to procure another video of the bogeyman threatening to blow something up..3 days before the election.. and that was good enough... -------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
| |||||||
gettinjiggywithit jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
Quote: I haven't shown any myself because I am not personally out to debate pieces of evidence. It seems that no matter what others have presented, it just gets brushed off anyway. Besides, I don't see two sides here. The poll is a gradient of possible truths. Does it end with the first option or stretch out somewhere up into the last option? I also see us all on the same side of being examiners of the 9/11 event. I also see us on the same side because we have all have had our lives effected and changed by it. Quote: Not really massive at all in support of option one. We have the ID on the hijackers and information about their affiliation with Al Queda, and Osama's position with that group. No one disputes this. We have evidence of what was destroyed here. No one disputes buildings, planes and lives were destroyed. After that, there is just a lot of information that anyone can take from and make of it what they will, our government included. Quote: Anna didn't say the character of Bin laden was manufactured, just that video tapes could have been, just like debunker's say most all UFO videotapes are hoaxes. It is easy to do. Anna reminded everyone who knew that Bin Laden use to be a member of the CIA. That is news to me and its quite disturbing at that. The controlled demolition of the buildings theory is something I only recently heard of. That one I am brushing off for now just because, it's to disgusting to accept on top of everything else. People were still in those buildings, alive and able to get out safely when they fell. I wonder myself why they didn't plant some evidence of WPDs in Iraq. It would be easy for them to do and who is to say, some may still not turn up. Even if it does in the future, at this point, who is going to believe what about where it came from anyway. The pro Bushers will see it as vindication and the down with Bushers will think he planted them for finding at a time when he needed such a trump card. Here is my current opinion on that. Its plausible he was cooking up WPDs. Looks even more suspicious that he was because he wouldn't let the inspectors come in. If he had nothing to hide, what was his problem with that? However, if he did have something of mass destruction capabilities, the U.S. gave him plenty of time to have them removed from his country and stored elsewhere. What was that? For years we warned him that we would come in and remove any WPD with or without his co-operation. Our military is so fucking dumb, pardon my french, the way we give advanced warnings of invasions. And I have yet to understand this rule that says we can't assassinate national leaders. What is that? We can kill tens of thousands of civilians and soldiers trying to apprehend them, but we can't assasinate their leader in one clean shot and spare the lives of others? That asinine rule alone should suggest to everyone that the powerful global leaders are all in cahoots. Quote: Looks like you mixed up part of my reply and Anna's. I never said Bin laden was a fictional character. He may be a bought and paid for human being though. And if he is, his freedom and safety is also being protected and his capture won't be used as trump card ever. Wouldn't matter if he was found at this point because I think few people would believe it was really him anyway. They'd claim, "look alike dupe" or "clone", or say that he was just making guest appearances in court and behind bars for the cameras to keep the kiddies happy and then was let free "in cognito" when the cameras were turned off. The majority of people have lost to much trust in our government at this point to fully believe anything they tell us anymore. Thats either because of how they change stories as it serves them too or just appear to be bumbling fumbling idiots or both. Quote: What I personally believe is that we have not been given the whole truth by our government. That declassified document that exclusive shared about our government conspiring to make up BS reasons to justify invading Cuba serves as enough evidence to know we are lied too. Have you seen "The Fog of War" the biography documentary interview of Robert S McNamara, former U.S. Defence Secretary? He confirmed government cover ups and the public being told lies by our government. Doesn't mean that is what has happened with 9/11. All it means, is that I have no reason to trust what they say is the truth. They have proven their ethics of withholding truth from us, often to cover their own asses, and they have proven that giving us the whole and full truth of all they do with our tax dollars is not their top priority, if its any priority at all. I am skeptical of what they present to us and open to considering information presented from other sources. I never said circumstantial evidence is proof enough. I have just said that it is suggestive of other possibilities to be considered. Quote: It wouldn't be if the government had a track record of being completely honest with us. It's not even that it is superior. It is just additional information dug up that the government didn't formally present and put on the table for our review. Quote: It's not wrong to assume that anymore then it is correct to assume. Our government has that capability as well. What is assumed either way is who "at what top" is protecting his whereabouts. I doubt the fact that we don't have him in custody yet, considering all of our resources and means, mostly because of how his family was ushered out of the country to their safety right after 9/11. What was that all about? If we knew it was Bin laden heading Al Queda and the Hi jackers were members, why did Bush fly his family out of here, when all air traffic was grounded to boot? Why were they not kept as prisoners of wars, hostages to be interrogated or bargained with? This man they claim to have orchestrated the National and Global Horror of 9/11 had immediate family members right here and we gave them safe passage out of the country while all other flights were grounded? Its not that the additional information is superior to the simple version of the story presented by the government. Its that the simple story they presented leaves a lot of room for skepticism and further critical questioning. Eco, for the governments simple story to be so simple minded, our government leaders would then also have to be truly simple minded. And if they are, how did they get into office? Some master mind must be pulling puppet strings on them then. If they aren't, then, the simple story must actually be more complex then it appears to be. Edited by gettinjiggywithit (06/21/06 07:57 PM)
| |||||||
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: You didn't address my points. It appears you still haven't even comprehended what my point is. It is thus no surprise you cannot counter it. Here it is -- one more time -- from what we know today there is no way the attacks could have been stopped (in the sense of foiling the plot) absent a massive and prolonged violation of civil liberties. The reason this is so is that there wasn't enough actionable intelligence to do so. Quote: Only in order to save myself typing them all up all over again. You may be new to the party, but those who have been here longer have covered this already. There is nothing anyone has brought up in this thread that hasn't been brought up and addressed before. I could continue repeating what I have said already, but there is no point wasting keystrokes because you seem honestly incapable of comprehending what you read. You have my sympathies on that, but there's nothing I can do to ameliorate your condition. The simple fact remains that even if everything Weldon and Shaffer and Philpott says is 100% true (and it CAN'T all be true because some of their statements contradict other of their statements) it still amounts to nothing more than the fact that some military intelligence types knew that a suspected Al Qaeda operative had entered the United States on a visa. They didn't know where he was, they didn't know what he was planning (if anything), they didn't know who else was involved. The most they could possibly have done under existing law at that time -- if they could have found him in the first place -- was to pick him up for questioning on some trumped up charge and then possibly deport him. Would that have stopped the attacks or just delayed them long enough for someone else to step into Atta's role? Or would the Jihadis have isntead gone ahead with three airplanes rather than four? Or would Atta have simply grabbed another set of identity papers and re-entered the US across the Mexican border and carried on? You weep and wail that I disregard your Wikipedia link. But at least I read it -- even though I am thoroughly familiar with the Able Danger story because I have been following it closely since it broke. There was exactly ZERO in the Wiki summary (and it's a pretty complete summary as far as I can tell) that I hadn't seen already. Yet you feel no need to check MY links because you just KNOW your version of things is right. Why don't you extend me the same courtesy I extend to you? The obvious answer is because you know you'll be left with your jaw hanging open, twisting in the breeze. That is of course your right. It's a free country and you are as free to remain ignorant as anyone else is. But don't try to say I'm dodging an issue while you yourself are dodging so fast and furious you're faking yourself out of your own Nikes. Phred
| |||||||
faslimy Dead Man Registered: 04/04/04 Posts: 3,436 Last seen: 8 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
the POINT is.. blah blah blah
| |||||||
RosettaStoned Stranger Registered: 05/29/06 Posts: 540 Loc: North America Last seen: 16 years, 9 days |
| ||||||
You didn't address my points. It appears you still haven't even comprehended what my point is. It is thus no surprise you cannot counter it.
Bullshit, I addressed both your points. You can slither all you like I will repost it for you. You said this. Did you bother to read the very link you provided? Although I have followed the Able Danger story from the very beginning, I went to your link and read it all again anyway. I guess you missed this -- Quote: To which I clearly showed you, the main reason there is no data to be found is because Major Eric Kleinsmith was ordered to delete it. Now I ask you again oh mighty Phred who claims to not be a republican, if I have showed you why there is no data when you claimed "there is no data" how did I not address the point? Am I suppose to ignore the words of numerous career military officers because there is no govt approved data to back them up? Maybe that flys in your world, but not in mine. Then you quote my link again. Quote: These are just two of the reasons I never joined in on the finger-pointing going on in the several threads in this forum regarding the Abl Danger project. It is -- at best -- thinly sourced, there is no documentation available for independent verification. You even concede in your own words that you made TWO points or reasons. To which I replied to both. Then you come back and say I didn't reply to them? That is slimy debate tactics, but I expect nothing less from one such as yourself. Even if Weldon and Shaffer are 100% correct in everything they have stated (and not ALL their statements can be correct, since some of the statements directly contradict other of the statements) all it shows is that Military Intelligence knew that someone purported to be a member of Al Qaeda (Atta) had entered the US on a visa. They didn't know where he was and they didn't know what he was up to. Total bullshit. I have showed you that 2 other employees of the govt, one military, one civilian have confirmed Shaffer's story. How is that contradictory? And Weldon giving a speech in 2002 in no way refutes the point made that they had clearly identified some of the hijackers prior to 9/11. While you can bury your head in the sand normal people can see that there doesn't have to be documents in our hands to know that this is a fact. You wont have active military officers coming forward making up stories...but who knows, if you buy the 9/11 commission's report word for word you are apt to believe anything. One amusing thing to note. You claim or use as reasoning that it would have been a violation of civil liberties to move in and arrest the terrorist cell prior to 9/11. News flash, but you have to be a citizen to have civil liberties in this country or that was the case in 2000 anyhow. They would not have violated one single law to detain anyone connected to terrorists here on a visa and deport them back to their own countries. That would have been the least they could do, but they were obstructed. And just because you "think" you know why they were obstructed does not mean shit. They could have any number of reasons why they didn't want atta detained, it only takes one with an open mind to realize something as simple as that. I have also read this entire interview http://www.gsnmagazine.com/sep_0 Quote: You may have read my link, but you sidestepped every point I made. Which is why I really don't feel like digging through your crap. But I took a look-see anyway. "Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US" is not able danger. Therefore is not tied directly to my points. The basic assertion that pentagon lawyers obstructed the able danger team to work with the FBI to apprehend some of the 9/11 hijackers here on a visa and at the very least deport their asses. This lends credence to the idea that certain people had a vested interest in leaving foreigners with terrorist ties unfettered freedom in our country. They don't have to have a air tight court case to deport someone here on a visa, they can kick them out at a whim from what I understand. But whatever, I'm not going to beat the dead horse anymore. Feel free to pick me apart and spew some more public relation propaganda for the govt, I do hope you are being paid for your time -------------------- "Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson "Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa
| |||||||
Aldous enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 980 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 7 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
Quote:If schoolkids go about telling their teachers, it means the info was all over the Middle-Eastern community in Manhattan, I'm willing to qualify that. Not Manhattan, but at least its Middle-Eastern community. From one of my previous links: Quote:Also, it was not "some foreknowledge of some kind of impending attack", it was very specific. If you had followed my links, you would know: Quote:That's slightly more specific than "something bad is going to happen". In early September, security was heightened in Manhattan and at the WTC specifically. In such a situation, rumours are taken seriously and acted upon, out of sheer precaution. With a rumour this widespread and this specific (WTC towers, next week), the least you can do is keep security heightened for a while and have jets ready for intervention. Hell, at the Genoa summit, just about six weeks earlier, US security services imported anti-aerial defense missiles to protect George W. against a bunch of antiglobalists. In New York, with specific info around on an impending Islamist attack, jets take ages to get on the spot. I wonder if they really take antiglobalists more seriously than Islamists. About the Mossad story: read this and this . Quote: Quote:Looks like some details got lost along the way. Looks like they were not browsing the web at the time of the first impact. Of course, admitting there was widespread prior knowledge would be a huge embarrasment to all intelligence and police services, and would raise even more suspicion. So "no evidence of any prior knowledge whatsoever" has become part of the official story. Too bad it's contradicted by so many facts and reports.
| |||||||
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
RosettaStoned writes:
Quote: LOL. There is no point trying to have an intelligent discussion with someone who can't read. You still can't even comprehend what my point is. Your whole Able Danger sideshow does exactly nothing to address my point -- that there was not enough actionable intelligence available to the US government prior to 9/11 to have foiled the plot absent a massive and prolonged violation of civil liberties. Read you own damned Wikipedia post and you will see that even if -- through the Able Danger program -- Mohammed Atta had been identified as being connected to those who pulled off the 93 WTC bombing, and even if it was known that he had entered the United States, it didn't provide ANY information as to where he was or what he was up to. Here's your mission: go to your Wikipedia article (which I have already said is a VERY good one -- probably the most complete summary I have seen anywhere) and cut and paste here the part where it says Able Danger had discovered where he was. Then cut and paste the part where it says Able Danger had identified what he was up to. Carefully re-read the entire summary then carefully check out all the links in the summary and read them, too. You will find the mission I have assigned you is impossible to fulfill because of the simple fact that Able Danger produced exactly zero ACTIONABLE intelligence on Atta. All it did was tell the military intelligence guys running the program that a guy associated with the 93 WTC bombers was in the US. Quote: Again, you don't grasp my point. I am not saying the information was never deleted. What I AM saying is that since there IS no longer any documentary evidence, we are left to rely strictly on the memories of those who say they saw some charts with some names on them. For what it's worth, I personally believe they DID see some charts with some names on them. For all I know, they DID remember the names correctly. But the fact of the matter is that the FBI never got those charts because the DoD lawyers had read the FISA guidelines and recognized that Mohammed Atta (at least, and perhaps all the other names as well for all we know) met the definition of "US person" as defined by the Act. From your gsn link to Shaffer's interview -- Quote: And even if the FBI HAD received that information, what did it tell them? Nothing more than: 1) Atta and some others had visited enough of the same mosques close enough to the same times as some people suspected of being involved in Al Qaeda for data analysts working for the DoD to believe they were likely Al Qaeda members too, and 2) Atta had entered the US on a visa due to expire either September 8, 2001 or July 9, 2001, depending on which INS record is applicable. It is a VERY big stretch to go from those two bits of information to saying that the FBI would have located these people, arrested them all (on what charges? Attending mosques?) and deported them all once their visas ran out. Note that Atta (and perhaps all of them for all we know) couldn't have been deported prior to September 8 (or maybe July 9) anyway. And I am sure you realize that you can't detain someone for months while you wait for his visa to run out. If there is no charges filed against a US person, he must be released. And again -- to repeat myself, although I don't know why I bother, since you will ignore this just as you did the last time, even IF the FBI decided to illegally kick them out of the country before their visas had expired, it is no big trick to re-enter the US under a different identity. Tens of thousands of people cross the Mexican border on a daily basis. Or perhaps they don't bother to re-enter and the plan proceeds with three airplanes rather than four. Finally, you will note that even Shaffer didn't realize the significance of what they had discovered until a couple of weeks after 9/11 when a colleague who had held onto one of the charts noticed that Atta's name was on it. I refer you to your own link from gsn once again -- Quote: RosettaStoned writes: Quote: See above. If you are in the US on a valid visa (i.e., it cannot be shown that you provided false information on the application, such as concealing a criminal record or whatever) then you meet the definition of a "US person" as defined by FISA and other legislation, and cannot be deported without cause. The ONLY connection -- as Shaffer explains in the interview from the gsn link you provided us -- between Atta and terrorism is that he was purported to have attended some of the same mosques previously identified Al Qaeda members did. So what cause would be given to immigration authorities to support his deportation? Besides, as you would know if you ever got around to reading the links to past discussion on this forum, when I refer to the massive and ongoing violation of civl liberties, I refer not just to the violation of Atta's civil liberties, but of the US populace as a whole. I won't lay them all out here AGAIN since I have already done so in the links you ignore. Quote: The only assertion you have made so far is that if the Able Danger analysts had been able to set up a meeting with the FBI, the plot could have been foiled without a massive and continuing violation of civil liberties. Far from sidestepping your assertion I have addressed it exhaustively. Quote: Exactly my point. The laws in place at the time (and remember, this is all taking place before the passing of the Patriot Act) obstructed the sharing of this kind of information between intelligence agencies. Your unfounded supposition is that the DoD lawyers were instructed by their superiors to invent a reason to prevent the Able Danger team from passing on their discoveries to the FBI. It never occurs to you that the lawyers were correctly interpreting the legislation as it was written. Good grief, dude, look up some of the threads on the NSA surveillance program! Even today, almost five years past the attacks, there are politicians trying to argue the exact same interpretation of FISA and "US persons" and the illegitimacy of ever actually DOING anything with intel gathered from open source data mining. Quote: This has nothing to do with government propaganda and everything to do with looking at facts. As a dyed-in-the-wool Laissez-faire Capitalist I have no love of government in general, the US government in particular, and especially the US government under Clinton's control --which of course it was the time at which the DoD lawyers ruled the info couldn't be passed on to the FBI. That doesn't mean I give them shit without reason. The simple truth here is that the Jihadis outwitted the US government this time. There's nothing more sinister going on than that. The very freedom and openness of the US made it a not particularly difficult thing to pull off. It would have been a hundred times more difficult to accomplish this mission in most other countries. As an aside, I find it instructive you subscribe to the standard Leftie meme that anyone who shows their gibberish to be the claptrap it really is must be a government agent. I don't live in the US and never have. I'm not a US citizen and never was, nor ever will be. I am, however, capable of applying logic and reason to facts. You have my deepest sympathy on your inability to do the same. Phred
| |||||||
David_vs_Goliath Informer Registered: 04/01/06 Posts: 208 Loc: Chicago Last seen: 14 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
again Phred sidesteps the latest post with some very interesting information.
-------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
| |||||||
Economist in training Registered: 10/11/05 Posts: 1,285 Last seen: 16 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
What is he supposed to say to Aldous' post?
Clearly Aldous has unrealistic expectations of what "normal government behavior" should be, and he's determined to jump to the conclusion of "OMG conspiracy!" when his own unrealistic expectations are not met. Look at the quotes he posted: Someone, somewhere in the Arab community says "Those Towers won't be there next week," with no mention of the method of destruction. Then there are people found cheering in a park within view of the WTC, whose identity (yes I checked several news stories) becomes slightly muddled from that point forward. They are reported to be everything from Israeli spies to members of the 9/11 attack team. But does it matter? What could police do at the report of "People in a park were cheering when one of the towers was hit!" to stop the attack on the second tower? More concretely, what part of the statement "Those towers won't be there next week!" would cause anyone to think to scramble jets? Prior to 2001 there was no reason to expect any type of aerial assault. Al Queda doesn't have an aerial attack fleet, nor did they have a known launching site for such an attack. Furthermore, previous attacks on the WTC had all been based upon bombs put in the basement of the building, something that you DO NOT respond to with jets. But no, Aldous clearly expected US Law Enforcement to exercise what I can only describe as "clairvoyance" and demand that the Feds get military jets involved prior to any evidence of what the actual plot was beyond "The WTC might be targetted with something". And then, when it turned out that *surprise surprise* US Law Enforcement can't actually see the future, the only obvious answer? "OMG Conspiracy!" You will forgive me if I think the pro-conspiracy theorists in this thread have yet to prove anything.
| |||||||
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Aldous writes:
Quote: It may have been. So what? What do you suggest the government should have done? Rounded up members of Manhattan's Middle Eastern community and beat them with phone books till they cracked? Quote: Why would they not be standing? You are one of the most passionate advocates of the theory that the planes didn't destroy the towers, but bombs did. Let's assume the authorities followed the same train of thought -- that there may be a terrorist plot underway to repeat the 93 WTC bombing, but to get it RIGHT this time. They would then have been on the lookout for bombers and bombs. They didn't find any because there weren't any to find. The plot had to do with airplanes instead. Quote: Lord give me strength. Look, I have already told you that even if these guys were all Mossad members, and even if the Mossad knew exactly what was going to happen ahead of time, that doesn't mean the US government knew it. It is not impossible that Israeli intelligence figured out what was going on and decided it would be helpful to Israel's interests to have the US get more actively involved in killing Islamic terrorists, so they kept their knowledge to themselves. Quote: I have covered this in the previous threads I linked in an earlier post. Of course in hindsight, with a GIGANTIC national effort focused on analyzing something which has already occurred, lots of things which at the time seemed either insignificant or no different from the usual vague white noise which constitutes quotidian intelligence work will suddenly snap into focus. I have never claimed there was no prior knowledge of rumors and reports that something was up, nor did the 9/11 Commission. What I am saying is that there was not enough ACTIONABLE intelligence to foil the plot absent massive and prolonged violation of civil liberties. Phred
| |||||||
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
David_vs_Goliath whines:
Quote: Patience, grasshopper, patience. Though I am a pretty fast typist, I do actually compose my replies one at a time. I replied to the posts in the order in which I read them. My bad. Phred
| |||||||
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
RosettaStoned complains:
Quote: Actually, Rosetta, no you haven't. Neither one of them. Instead you went off on a tangent about Able Danger, which has no relation whatsoever to the claims you made. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds it amusing that with all your weeping and wailing over my supposedly not responding to your irrelevant points, you STILL haven't gotten back to me on the very first things I called you on way back on the first page of the thread, specifically your claims that -- "There is far too much evidence out there showing that the FBI was monitoring some of the hijackers every moves, then went to nab then and pentagon lawyers and top pentagon brass stepped in and prevented it" When you get around to it, please try to find some time to provide us a link showing the FBI was monitoring "every move" of some of the hijackers. Then please provide us a link showing they had decided to arrest them. Then please provide us a link showing where the FBI falls under the jurisdiction of the military, hence would halt these planned arrests because some military personnel nixed it. While you're at it, you might as well also provide us the links supporting your assertion that some FBI agents had their lives and the lives of their families threatened (by whom?) if they didn't back off. Thanks. Phred
| |||||||
David_vs_Goliath Informer Registered: 04/01/06 Posts: 208 Loc: Chicago Last seen: 14 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
WOW
"Prior to 2001 there was no reason to expect any type of aerial assault. Al Queda doesn't have an aerial attack fleet, nor did they have a known launching site for such an attack. Furthermore, previous attacks on the WTC had all been based upon bombs put in the basement of the building, something that you DO NOT respond to with jets." Prior to 2001 there was no reason to expect any aerial assualt? I'm sorry but you are dead wrong. Clearly you didn't look at my link a few pages back about the timeline leading up to 9/11. Quote:1995...... Quote: Quote: Quote:Notice the dates on these, more than a year before the attack. and to say that there was no reason to expect an aerial attack is rediculous. Just wait it gets better. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: no mention of aerial attack..... Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: -------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
| |||||||
David_vs_Goliath Informer Registered: 04/01/06 Posts: 208 Loc: Chicago Last seen: 14 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: There is so much more to be read this is just snips of what I thought was important for what is being discussed on the board right now. Quote: September 29, 2001: $2.5 Million in Airline Options Go Unclaimed $2.5 million in put options on American Airlines and United Airlines are reported unclaimed. This is likely the result of the suspension in trading on the New York Stock Exchange after the attacks which gave the SEC time to be waiting if the owners showed up to redeem their put options placed the week before the 9/11 attacks. [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/29/2001] An unbelievable wealth of information is available at the site and if you are really interested in discussing this subject I suggest reading more. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project -------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
| |||||||
David_vs_Goliath Informer Registered: 04/01/06 Posts: 208 Loc: Chicago Last seen: 14 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Nothing Phred???
-------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
| |||||||
|
Shop: Red Vein Kratom Buy Bali Kratom Powder Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Bridgetown Botanicals Premium Bali Kratom Powder Bulk Substrate Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale |
|
Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
9/11 Conspiracy & JFK Conspiracy | DoctorJ | 1,033 | 12 | 09/18/03 05:11 AM by Jellric | ||
Conspiracy Theories: JFK vs. 9/11 ( 1 2 all ) |
Annapurna1 | 4,837 | 30 | 11/25/03 03:37 PM by luvdemshrooms | ||
Why the "tanks on the planes" 9--1 conspiracy theory is shit ( 1 2 all ) |
RandalFlagg | 4,968 | 35 | 09/13/04 12:45 AM by Zahid | ||
Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours ( 1 2 all ) |
ekomstop | 4,257 | 31 | 09/23/04 03:27 PM by ekomstop | ||
The No-Conspiracy Theory | ekomstop | 995 | 5 | 09/14/04 11:46 AM by Moonshoe | ||
Pentagon 9/11 conspiracy fiesta ( 1 2 all ) |
Dreamer987 | 3,821 | 26 | 09/06/04 12:34 PM by RandalFlagg | ||
Conspiracy theories ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
Learyfan | 5,095 | 60 | 02/17/04 02:53 PM by TheOneYouKnow | ||
9/11 Conspiracy ( 1 2 all ) |
KingOftheThing | 1,753 | 20 | 09/17/04 08:17 PM by ekomstop |
Extra information | ||
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 12,176 topic views. 0 members, 5 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||