What will it take for you to believe there has been a 9/11 cover up?

[geggy]

What will it take for you to believe there have been a 9/11 cover up by the bush administration?

Q Had there been any warnings that the President knew of?

MR. FLEISCHER: No warnings.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010911-6.html

NEW YORK -- Photography at the World Trade Center site, where thousands of curious New Yorkers and tourists have gathered with still and video cameras since the terrorist attacks, was banned by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/26/photo_ban.htm

(CBS) President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration and the nation's intelligence agencies are blocking the release of sensitive information about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, delaying publication of a 900-page congressional report on how the terrorist assault happened.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030603213753/http:/www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/5792329.htm

Because of an American policy instated just before Sept. 11 to curb baggage-related flight delays, Atta's two checked bags – which had been held up from an earlier flight – were left behind in Boston, says the employee, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal from the Dallas-based carrier, which continues to gag all employees from talking about the Sept. 11 hijackings. Two of the hijacked flights were American.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28904

WASHINGTON -- Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship, Senator Bob Graham wrote in a book to be released Tuesday.

The discovery of the financial backing of the two hijackers "would draw a direct line between the terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia, and trigger an attempted coverup by the Bush administration," the Florida Democrat wrote.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/05/911_hijackers_tied_to_saudi_government_graham_says _in_book/

[brodski]

a lot of us have answered the OP over here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62468

So can you reciprocate then geggy, what would it take to convince you that you are wrong?

[KingMerv00]

What will it take for you to believe there has been a 9/11 cover up?

Evidence?

[chipmunk stew]

It's likely that there were many cover-ups. The question is, of what?

The evidence for Inside Job or Prior Knowledge is nil and nil.

[Loss Leader]

Once again, show me just one single reliable piece of evidence that is inconsistent with the generally known events of 9/11. Just one. None of your quotes do that.

[Cuddles]

Evidence. Next question.

[senorpogo]

I find it interesting that Geggy is now asking, "What will it take for you to believe there has been a 9/11 cover up?" To me, that's a very, very different question than, "What will it take for you to believe that the US Government planned and executed the 9/11 attacks?"

It's as though there is no evidence proving that the US government was directly involved in executing 9/11 so the CT crowd must now save face by moving the goal-posts and suggesting that there is a nicely more ambiguous "cover up" going on.

[HarryKeogh]

I would need to hear some pretty unreliable anecdotal evidence and see some quotes taken wildly out of context to make me believe there was a cover-up.

[KingMerv00]

Why is it all of these connections are never described in detail until you buy the book? Why doesn't Sen. Graham just tell us?

Instead all we hear is, "The discovery of the financial backing of the two hijackers 'would draw a direct line between the terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia, and trigger an attempted coverup by the Bush administration,' the Florida Democrat wrote."

Really? Details?

[Darth Rotor]

What will it take for you to believe there have been a 9/11 cover up by the bush administration?
What is the difference between cover up, and cover one's arse to avoid scape goating? Is there a difference? The thing at American Airlines strikes me as "fear of liability claims" action, but maybe there is more to it than that.

The cover up on the Saudi connection is old news, and politically understandable, given the criticality of the Saudis as a partner of sorts in the Persian Gulf security mosaic.

Ever read about the early days of the Cold War, when US Air Force and Navy planes flew close to and over USSR and China? I suggest you will look slightly differently at cover ups, and political motivations for them, in

By Any Means Necessary

Francis Gary Powers was not the first to over fly the USSR during the cold war.

DR

[Hellbound]

Actually, I already believe there was a cover up. We know that testimony from some groups does not match the tapes that were later released. Made the news not long ago.

Now, I don't believe this provides any level of support for the MIHOP or LIHOP theories at all. In fact, quite the opposite. These people can fake cell phone calls with voice morphing technology in real-time, but can't fake tape conversations using only the voices of their own people? A minor CYA cover-up can't even be kept secret for more than a few years, but they pulled an operation involving at least thousands and not a peep?

Sorry, just doesn't work.

[T.A.M.]

You are right. That is why I said there should be a third catagory, which alot of us debunkers would fit in, called "LIHOS" (Let It Happen Out of Stupidity), or "LIHOI" (Let It Happen Out of Incompetence).

Few and far between are the Debunkers that would say that the USG didn't do its best to divert our eyes from their incompetence on that day...

[gfunkusarelius]

yeah there is a lot of minor behind-covering that goes on that leads people to say "see i knew there was a cover up" but trying to hid some mistakes is a lot different than destroying several buildings and killing thousands.

[chipmunk stew]

You are right. That is why I said there should be a third catagory, which alot of us debunkers would fit in, called "LIHOS" (Let It Happen Out of Stupidity), or "LIHOI" (Let It Happen Out of Incompetence).

Few and far between are the Debunkers that would say that the USG didn't do its best to divert our eyes from their incompetence on that day...
I prefer LIHBA, Let It Happen By Accident.

edit: Because it may not have been stupidity or incompetence--it may simply have been inadequate bureaucratic structuring that created blind spots to gaps in our defenses against asymmetric attacks.

[R.Mackey]

What will it take for you to believe there have been a 9/11 cover up by the bush administration?

Hello again, geggy.

I'll overlook the leading nature of your question, or the outright lie in your signature (which you could verify by speaking to any structural engineer in the world...), to remark that one of our forum regulars already asked this question in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1872791#post1872791). Before it deviates into a discussion of progressive politics and a sidebar on exothermic reactions in metals, the answers, I believe, are just what you're looking for, if your question is sincere.

I'll save you the trouble of sifting through it to give you my answer:

Before I'll believe in your theory, no matter what it is, I must first understand your theory. If I can't figure it out, then I reject it outright. So, please, rather than string together a bunch of random quotes, please explain your theory. Make it as succinct as you possibly can. Thanks.

[NoZed Avenger]

Actually, I already believe there was a cover up. We know that testimony from some groups does not match the tapes that were later released. Made the news not long ago.

Now, I don't believe this provides any level of support for the MIHOP or LIHOP theories at all. In fact, quite the opposite. These people can fake cell phone calls with voice morphing technology in real-time, but can't fake tape conversations using only the voices of their own people? A minor CYA cover-up can't even be kept secret for more than a few years, but they pulled an operation involving at least thousands and not a peep?

Sorry, just doesn't work.

But don't you SEE? The "minor" coverup is disclosed JUST to draw attenton AWAY from the REAL ONE!!!!11! This is EXACTLY why THEY also allowed the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal out -- so that THEY -- and the sheeple listening to them -- can mock the people who KNOW the TRUTH by claiming that these TINY coverups FAIL, when in fact THEY ARRANGED IT FROM THE BEGINNING!!!


(Whoa. The caps thing hurts my head.)


How was that for a first effort? Not enough spittle? I don't think I had enough spittle.

[Hellbound]

But don't you SEE? The "minor" coverup is disclosed JUST to draw attenton AWAY from the REAL ONE!!!!11! This is EXACTLY why THEY also allowed the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal out -- so that THEY -- and the sheeple listening to them -- can mock the people who KNOW the TRUTH by claiming that these TINY coverups FAIL, when in fact THEY ARRANGED IT FROM THE BEGINNING!!!


(Whoa. The caps thing hurts my head.)


How was that for a first effort? Not enough spittle? I don't think I had enough spittle.

THere's the problem, you need to go for an actual, frothing foam...not just spittle. The spittle is secondary.

[KingMerv00]

How was that for a first effort? Not enough spittle? I don't think I had enough spittle.

Your spittle was fine but you need more links, your thoughts are too clear, and you didn't make any science errors.

[T.A.M.]

I'll give it a stab, for him, see how close I am...

On September 11th, 2001, as part of the BUSH/PNAC/NEOCON agenda, The US government, with the help of its tentacle organizations, the FBI and CIA, created a state of chaos and inconsistencies to put up a smokescreen prior to launching an attack on its own people. The Attack consisted of (1) flying drone aircraft into the WTC 1&2, then bringing them down via an atypical Controlled Demolition using Thermite, (2) Launching a missile, likely cruise, into the Pentagon, and (3) faking a plane crash near Shanksville, or blowing up an existing drown in mid air. Blame for the attacks, as part of the smokescreen, was to be placed on OBL and a bunch of Patsy Arab Hijackers, as a pretext to enter war, and further the NEOCON/PNAC agenda.

lol, how good did I do for a Debunker...:)

[KingMerv00]

I'll give it a stab, for him, see how close I am...

On September 11th, 2001, as part of the BUSH/PNAC/NEOCON agenda, The US government, with the help of its tentacle organizations, the FBI and CIA, created a state of chaos and inconsistencies to put up a smokescreen prior to launching an attack on its own people. The Attack consisted of (1) flying drone aircraft into the WTC 1&2, then bringing them down via an atypical Controlled Demolition using Thermite, (2) Launching a missile, likely cruise, into the Pentagon, and (3) faking a plane crash near Shanksville, or blowing up an existing drown in mid air. Blame for the attacks, as part of the smokescreen, was to be placed on OBL and a bunch of Patsy Arab Hijackers, as a pretext to enter war, and further the NEOCON/PNAC agenda.

lol, how good did I do for a Debunker...:)

Let's see.

*Takes out checklist*

1 point for accusing Bush and the NeoCons.

3 points for excellent use of the word "tentacle".

1 point for using the word "drone"

-1 point for using the drone theory twice. Too much consistancy.

2 points for having conflicting theories

2 points for the word smokescreen

-2 points for not using the word "sheep" and/or "sheeple"

-5 points for not link bombing.

-3 points for not jpg bombing

5 points for mentioning an "agenda" but not giving details.


Your final score is *beep boop beep boop beep beep.........DING*

+3

Your title: Office kook.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Let's see.

*Takes out checklist*

1 point for accusing Bush and the NeoCons.

3 points for excellent use of the word "tentacle".

1 point for using the word "drone"

-1 point for using the drone theory twice. Too much consistancy.

2 points for having conflicting theories

2 points for the word smokescreen

-2 points for not using the word "sheep" and/or "sheeple"

-5 points for not link bombing.

-3 points for not jpg bombing

5 points for mentioning an "agenda" but not giving details.


Your final score is *beep boop beep boop beep beep.........DING*

+3

Your title: Office kook.

Hrm, what is the point penalty for failing to mention any combination of Zionist/Jews/AFP/Mossad/ISI?

[T.A.M.]

but your scoring is flawed, as it doesnt include brevity, which is why I lost so many points. I suggest that we use the number of lines it took, as the denominator, then use the fraction as a percentage...so my final score would be ...

3/7 = a +42%

Using my new method, I will score much higher with...

BUSH/NEOCON/JEWS/CIA/FBI Killed 3000 Americans on 9/11 using planes/missiles


But I want to keep the title...lol

[brettDbass]

What will it take for you to believe there have [sic] been a 9/11 cover up by the bush [sic] administration?
Give me your PROVES!

[KingMerv00]

Hrm, what is the point penalty for failing to mention any combination of Zionist/Jews/AFP/Mossad/ISI?

Already tabulated for that. He would have received 2 points instead of 1. The number of points you get in the "perpetrator" category is:

1/(Power that group actually has in America + likelihood of their existance)


Maximum points can be acheived here by blaming the reptoids.

[T.A.M.]

maybe we should do up some official score sheet, then post this as a challenge.

"Who can provide the CT Truth Movement with the most succinct statement for their theory on the attacks of 9/11."

[KingMerv00]

but your scoring is flawed, as it doesnt include brevity, which is why I lost so many points. I suggest that we use the number of lines it took, as the denominator, then use the fraction as a percentage...so my final score would be ...

3/7 = a +42%

Using my new method, I will score much higher with...

BUSH/NEOCON/JEWS/CIA/FBI Killed 3000 Americans on 9/11 using planes/missiles


But I want to keep the title...lol

Look, it's all very complicated. I dumbed it down for the forum. The computer took care of the complex calculations. Do you think I typed "*beep boop beep boop beep beep.........DING*" for my health?

I AM tempted to give you an extra half point for complaining though.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Look, it's all very complicated. I dumbed it down for the forum. The computer took care of the complex calculations. Do you think I typed "*beep boop beep boop beep beep.........DING*" for my health?

I AM tempted to give you an extra half point for complaining though.

NO 1/2 PT! He didn't call you a shill for screwing him over!

[T.A.M.]

He isn't a shill, he is a disinformation agent....oooohhhh

I guess I lose all my points for that one :)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

He isn't a shill, he is a disinformation agent....oooohhhh

I guess I lose all my points for that one :)

You know, this could easily turn in to something like that wacky British street name game thingamabobber.

[WildCat]

All I need to see to be convinced is a video of geggy w/ the dirty underwear of Uncle Fetzer on his head, wearing an "investigate 911" t-shirt and a thong, and dancing to the Rolling Stones "My Sweet Neocon". Put that up on youtube and I'll be convinced.

[KingMerv00]

NO 1/2 PT! He didn't call you a shill for screwing him over!

He isn't a shill, he is a disinformation agent....oooohhhh

I guess I lose all my points for that one :)

Arkan, as punishment for helping T.A.M. cheat, you must actually answer CT questions directly when they are posed to you.

T.A.M. you get no points because you did not realize that disinformation agents ARE shills.

[KingMerv00]

Heh...this is kinda fun. Moving to a new thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1883681#post1883681

[Regnad Kcin]

Well, geggy, I for one will need more links. Do you have any links? That is, in addition to the links you've already provided, please provide links.

Yes, I'll need to see plenty of links. Please give me additional links.

Also, links would be helpful. And nice. Nice links would be nice.

Oh, and don't forget some links.

[geggy]

Huntman you may want to retract your statement about the idea that thousands of people were in on it because I never even suggested that. Just listen to me here for a sec now...I've already established in the other thread that the reason for NORAD's failure on 9/11 was because the wargame drills had caused mass confusions and distractions that had slowed down their responses which is a fact whether you'd think it was deliberate or not. Even if you think it was deliberate, how many people do you think it takes to design, operate and schedule these drills in order to trick a large number of military personals?

Before I go on, I want to know how much anyone here knows about the saudi-us's relations? You are aware that the US has recently sold 6 billion dollars worth of arms and fighter jets to saudi arabia right? If the US is so concerned about terrorism, then why are they in afghanistan/iraq and not saudi arabia? It's no secret that saudi arabia is the epicenter of terrorism funding. Then why the cooperation between the US and saudi arabia in weaponry sales? You people seem to have all the answers in the world, so I'd like to hear your opinion.

[geggy]

One thing I'm aware of the cold war is that the arms sales had slowed down drastically after it had ended and everyone was misrable including the war mongers colluding with the military industrial complex. They became happy again when 9/11 happened because they saw it as a huge opportunity to maximize profits in arms sales.

[Pardalis]

And what about your controled demolition made-to-look-like-a-collapse-from-the top theory, geggy? How many people do you think would have had to be involved?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

a lot of us have answered the OP over here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62468

So can you reciprocate then geggy, what would it take to convince you that you are wrong?

Interested in answering the converse question geggy? We're being transparent and honest about what our expectations are. Howabout you?

What evidence could be provided that would cause you to rethink your position on the OV?

[T.A.M.]

SO from now on, any time the US comes under attack, in the air, it is a conspiracy if there are wargames going on? I ask this because they happen almost daily...so...should we tell them to stop wargames so the poor NORAD people arent confused..

[brodski]

SO from now on, any time the US comes under attack, in the air, it is a conspiracy if there are wargames going on? I ask this because they happen almost daily...so...should we tell them to stop wargames so the poor NORAD people arent confused..
No, then the CTers will claim that the only reason that there weren't wargames on the day the US is next attacked (if it is attacked, lets hope not) was because the resources that where normally used for the wargames where used to carry out the attack.

[Johnny Pixels]

No, then the CTers will claim that the only reason that there weren't wargames on the day the US is next attacked (if it is attacked, lets hope not) was because the resources that where normally used for the wargames where used to carry out the attack.

Or the wargames aren't on so that NORAD are forcefully underprepared and can't interfere with teh globalists plans.

[brodski]

Or the wargames aren't on so that NORAD are forcefully underprepared and can't interfere with teh globalists plans.
or better yet, both, at the same time.

[Gravy]

What will it take for you to believe there has been a 9/11 cover up?
At least ten more pages of links that don't prove a coverup from geggy would do it for me.

[Psiload]

What will it take for you to believe there has been a 9/11 cover up?

Some rabbit fencing, two cement blocks, the real estate section of a newspaper, and a cup of kerosene.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=56836&mesg_id=56836

[mamapajamas]

One thing I'm aware of the cold war is that the arms sales had slowed down drastically

Uh... are you aware that the people most anxious to sell arms are the Russians and French?

Hey... I bet you could get a REALLY great CT going with THAT angle! :D

[mamapajamas]

Some rabbit fencing, two cement blocks, the real estate section of a newspaper, and a cup of kerosene.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=56836&mesg_id=56836


I checked out this thread at DU and it's a hoot! It's the funniest thing I've read in weeks. :D

Of course, the main thing they're leaving out of the experiment is the most important thing of all... that kerosine wasn't the only thing burning in the building. There was capeting, paper, furniture, people... it got extremely hot in there, and, yes, hot enough to take down the building.

[gumboot]

I've already established in the other thread that the reason for NORAD's failure on 9/11 was because the wargame drills had caused mass confusions and distractions that had slowed down their responses which is a fact whether you'd think it was deliberate or not.


False, false, false, false, FALSE.

NORAD had one wargame. It caused no confusion. The reason NORAD failed to intercept any of the aircraft was they didn't get enough time - they had 9 minutes warning for AA11, 2 minutes for AA77, 0 minutes for UA175, and -4 minutes for UA93.

Intercept was impossible.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

About this NORAD Cover-up

The NORAD "cover-up" is often cited, with their evil cover-up that has recently been "uncovered" due to the exposure of some tapes.

Not true.

The recent release is nothing more than a FOIA release to Vanity Fair. The NORAD "cover-up" was discovered the minute the 9/11 commission got their hands on the tapes. They CONFRONTED NORAD about the discrepencies in the tapes and their testimonies. They concluded a number of things:
1) The NORAD response was BETTER than their testimonies reflected
2) SOME of the statements were intentionally false SOME were not
3) The intention behind the false statements was to make it look like NORAD was in a position to shoot down UA93 at 1003 when in fact they were not.

The ACTUAL timeline, as per the tapes, is what appears in the 9/11 commission report.

So there was no coverup.

In addition, the "truth" actually makes things worse for CTers - NORAD responded well, and couldn't have shot down UA93. CTers claim NORAD responded poorly, and did shoot down UA93.

It's important to understand, however, this was not some cover up that was maintained for 2 years until these tapes came out. The "cover-up" lasted purely the time between the NORAD testimonies to the 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 Commission reviewing the NORAD tapes.

-Andrew

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Let's see.

*Takes out checklist*

1 point for accusing Bush and the NeoCons.

3 points for excellent use of the word "tentacle".

1 point for using the word "drone"

-1 point for using the drone theory twice. Too much consistancy.

2 points for having conflicting theories

2 points for the word smokescreen

-2 points for not using the word "sheep" and/or "sheeple"

-5 points for not link bombing.

-3 points for not jpg bombing

5 points for mentioning an "agenda" but not giving details.


Your final score is *beep boop beep boop beep beep.........DING*

+3

Your title: Office kook.

-5 points again for failing to mention the 3" rebar on 4' centers (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg).

[Cylinder]

I've already established in the other thread that the reason for NORAD's failure on 9/11 was because the wargame drills had caused mass confusions and distractions that had slowed down their responses which is a fact whether you'd think it was deliberate or not.

On what evidence? At only one point in the NEADS tapes do I hear anything that resembles confusion discerning real world from exercise - and that was not from the MCC - and his comment was disregarded. Can you point me to the evidence of confusion generated by the scheduled - but not yet executed - exercise?

At 0837:08 EDT on September 11, 2001, the Illuminati-controlled powers-that-be along with rogue elements within the US government had already sprung their trap. The New England Air Defense Sector command post had their hands full with a pre-scheduled exercise that would distract them to the degree that the terror plot would go unnoticed.

MSGT Mo Dooley, the 40-year-old Air Force NCO in charge of the technicians monitoring The Green Eye, was too busy with an exercise to know what was about to hit her:

O.K., a couch, an ottoman, a love seat, and what else … ? Was it on sale … ? Holy smokes! What color is it?

That is verbatim and from the tapes. Seconds later, history would change and these bit players would be thrown center-stage. At that moment, she seems to be discussing furniture.

At this point, Boston Center contacted NEADS:

BOSTON CENTER: Hi. Boston Center T.M.U. [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed toward New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.
POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?
BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.

3.7 seconds - that's how long it took for the NEADS ops tech to differentiate between exercise input and a real-world situation report. It is very clear from that point on in the decision tree that orders were issued according a real world assumption. In fact - from this point forward - there is no real debate from within the battle chain that what is happening should be treated as exercise.

The NEADS Mission Crew Commander (MCC) was apparently taking a dump when the call came up from Boston. Vanity Fair prefers the term "morning constitutional." It took less than one minute for the MCC to order the NEADS Weapons Team and Otis alert fighters to battle stations. In less than 10 minutes, the Otis fighters will be airborne.

In fact, there is only one instance on the loop where doubt is cast upon the real-world nature of events:

09:04:50
—Is this explosion part of that that we're lookin' at now on TV?
—Yes.
—Jesus …
—And there's a possible second hijack also—a United Airlines …
—Two planes?…
—Get the **** out …
—I think this is a damn input, to be honest.

This was from an unidentified airmen apparently without a dedicated station on the ops floor - hardly a decision-maker - and he or she was seemed to referencing media coverage as much as the SITREPS coming from Boston. [ETA: On second listen, the airmen making the comment does seem to be in the loop and thus probably did have a station. Still not in the decision tree, though.]

Can you cite any single decision or order that was delayed or mistaken for an exercise that was scheduled to begin later that same day?

The NEADS MCC himself dispelled this idiotic notion himself at 0857 with a little gallows humor:

NASYPANY: Think we put the exercise on the hold. What do you think? [Laughter.]

The only confusion present on that tape is over IDs, vectors and ROEs - none of which caused by exercise.

Cite one delayed decision - just one - and I will listen to your story.

[Belz...]

What will it take for you to believe there have been a 9/11 cover up by the bush administration?

Your quotes provide no evidence, so to your question: more than what you provide.

[Graham2001]

What will it take for you to believe there have been a 9/11 cover up by the bush administration?

Nothing that you could say...

[Cuddles]

Uh... are you aware that the people most anxious to sell arms are the Russians and French?

Hey... I bet you could get a REALLY great CT going with THAT angle! :D

I thought it was us British. And then we complain that they use the guns we just sold them to shoot back when we invade their country.:eek:

[CptColumbo]

Huntman you may want to retract your statement about the idea that thousands of people were in on it because I never even suggested that. Just listen to me here for a sec now...I've already established in the other thread that the reason for NORAD's failure on 9/11 was because the wargame drills had caused mass confusions and distractions that had slowed down their responses which is a fact whether you'd think it was deliberate or not. Even if you think it was deliberate, how many people do you think it takes to design, operate and schedule these drills in order to trick a large number of military personals?

Before I go on, I want to know how much anyone here knows about the saudi-us's relations? You are aware that the US has recently sold 6 billion dollars worth of arms and fighter jets to saudi arabia right? If the US is so concerned about terrorism, then why are they in afghanistan/iraq and not saudi arabia? It's no secret that saudi arabia is the epicenter of terrorism funding. Then why the cooperation between the US and saudi arabia in weaponry sales? You people seem to have all the answers in the world, so I'd like to hear your opinion.

Wow, I think this is the longest thing you've posted without linking to something else. You may have actually put this pair of paragraphs together all by yourself (or cut and pasted it).

BTW they are in Saudi Arabia.

[Hellbound]

Huntman you may want to retract your statement about the idea that thousands of people were in on it because I never even suggested that. Just listen to me here for a sec now...I've already established in the other thread that the reason for NORAD's failure on 9/11 was because the wargame drills had caused mass confusions and distractions that had slowed down their responses which is a fact whether you'd think it was deliberate or not. Even if you think it was deliberate, how many people do you think it takes to design, operate and schedule these drills in order to trick a large number of military personals?

I wasn't going to respond, just because...well...trying to explain anything to you is like trying to get a gerbil to understand general relativity.

But for the benefit of those with more than a single functioning brain cell:

The drills caused confusion in no one.

And none of the CTers think they suggest thousands of people involved, because most of them don't have the reasoning skills to understand that this is what would be required. The drills are only a small portion. You can't focus on a single part ofyour CT and say "this part only needs a dozen people!", beacuse every part needs dozens to hundreds, and then they have to communicate with each other, and you quickly grow into an unweildy number.

[Darth Rotor]

Then why the cooperation between the US and saudi arabia in weaponry sales? You people seem to have all the answers in the world, so I'd like to hear your opinion.
You will note that our relations with Saudi have soured a bit. PSAB is no more. Prince Sultan Air Base, a significant fighter, AWACS, tanker, and recon base (as well as a major Command and Control hub for CENTAF, was moved out of the country between 2001- and 2003. Why? A variety of reasons, but the predominate one was political sensitivity about infidel troops in the Holy Land. This C2 center is now elsewhere in the Persian Gulf region. VP Cheney and Sec Def Rumsfeld have taken some pains to remove as much US presence from Saudi as possible. If Osama takes comfort in that, it is all to the good, since that was one of his major gripes with his relatives in the Saudi Royal Family: the acceptance of infidel soldiers on the Holy Land of Islam, i.e, Arabia, the land of Mecca and Mednia.

The Saudi ruling clique remains suspicious of Iran, of Israel, and of other players in the area. They have been buying high tech weapons from the US since the mid 1980's, in some cases over the objection of the Israeli lobby who keeps their eye on Congress. The debate over F-15 sales (with conformal fuel tanks for extended range) and AWACS was one of many objections that Reagan's team overruled in the interest of keeping the US industrial base warm, and the relationships with various Gulf allies/partners warm as well.

The Saudi King is, IMO, living in a fool's paradise. He things that hardware will save him. It won't, since it isn't the arrow, it is the Indian that wins the battle. His building a modern, fancy, high tech Army and Air Force does pose a deterrent of some modest scale versus Iran, since Iraq is out of the picture for the near and mid term. (Note, Iraq still has no Air Force beyond some light aircraft.)

When push comes to shove, the Saudis will, absent a significant revolution in military affaris within their armed forces (i.e., professionalization) die in their fancy equipment, just as the Syrians died in the skies over Lebanon in 1982.

DR

[Almo]

Give me your PROVES!

That SOOO sounds like something from Scientology.

[Brainster]

I checked out this thread at DU and it's a hoot! It's the funniest thing I've read in weeks. :D

Of course, the main thing they're leaving out of the experiment is the most important thing of all... that kerosine wasn't the only thing burning in the building. There was capeting, paper, furniture, people... it got extremely hot in there, and, yes, hot enough to take down the building.

Oh, Spooky has given us endless fun. There was the time he:

1. Proved that wooden planes (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/scientific-approach.html) could not have crashed into a wooden World Trade Center.

2. Showed that Flight 175 into WTC2 (http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/07/flight-simulator-modeling-part-2.html) was fake because the videos didn't match up with Microsoft Flight Simulator. (Language warning).

There are times when I truly wonder if he (and some of the other no-planers) could really be as nutty as they seem and still manage to get through day-to-day living. Maybe there's something to the claims of paid disinfo agents; anybody know the hourly rate?

[gumboot]

In fact, there is only one instance on the loop where doubt is cast upon the real-world nature of events:

This was from an unidentified airmen apparently without a dedicated station on the ops floor - hardly a decision-maker - and he or she was seemed to referencing media coverage as much as the SITREPS coming from Boston.


I'm pretty certain he was making a joke as well...

Essentially he was calling the media coverage of the WTC hit an "input" which clearly it wasn't.

-Andrew

[brodski]

I thought it was us British. And then we complain that they use the guns we just sold them to shoot back when we invade their country.:eek:
Well no, what happens in that the government gives Arms dealers a nod and a wink letting them know that it's OK to sell arms (or more accurately "dual use" items) to our enemies (whilst publicly saying that it's still illegal) gets those same arms dealers to spy for us, but when they are found out, have them prosecuted but deny them the right to a full defense by use of the official secrets act. The resulting fallout then almost brings down the government. And people think that we could cover up 7/7 (let alone any part in 9/11).

[Brainache]

Well no, what happens in that the government gives Arms dealers a nod and a wink letting them know that it's OK to sell arms (or more accurately "dual use" items) to our enemies (whilst publicly saying that it's still illegal) gets those same arms dealers to spy for us, but when they are found out, have them prosecuted but deny them the right to a full defense by use of the official secrets act. The resulting fallout then almost brings down the government. And people think that we could cover up 7/7 (let alone any part in 9/11).

The account of these events in Geoffery Robertson's book The Justice Game is very interesting. The whole book is very good and as the blurb says: "he is in danger of giving lawyers a good name".

[Cylinder]

I'm pretty certain he was making a joke as well...

Essentially he was calling the media coverage of the WTC hit an "input" which clearly it wasn't.

I'll buy that argument in a general sense. The airman was expressing disbelief - I don't believe this is happening" - even as he watches the events unfold from both the ops floor and the media coverage.

[Muckar-duva]

I have yet to see anything pointing to either LIHOP or MIHOP. Infact, everytime I look, evidence about bureaucratic inadequacy mounts up- as does information about action HAVING been taken by the US (though mostly overseas) because of the threat situation.

And as folks have already mentioned, I'm sure that some asscovering cover-ups have yet to unearth, but those wouldn't convince me about there being a larger coverup along the lines of LIHOP. For that, I'd need evidence.

Like:

POTUS says: so we're letting UBL go through with it?
Basmati says: ya, I think it will boost morale
POTUS says: k
POTUS says: then I'll go on vacation, damn good we don't have to mobilise
Basmati says: word, boss.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

What will it take for you to believe there have been a 9/11 cover up by the bush administration?

Well, since you ask. Money, lots and lots of money. Small bills only please. :rolleyes:

[Toro]

The problem with the Foilers is that they take circumstantial events and assume it is all prime facie evidence of an underlying conspiracy. There can be no other conclusions for the Foilers.

For example, the Bush cover-ups and the squelching of information is seen as "proof" positive that Bush brought down the WTC. There can be many reasons for that, the most probable is that the government was asleep at the switch and is engaging in CYA big-time. Remember, Bush is the "War President." It doesn't look good when the "War President" and the other fossils of his administration were turning their sights to their ole' enemy, the commies in China and Russia, whilst turning a blind eye to the real threat in the Mid East.

I often wonder if these Foilers have ever worked in an institution that has royally screwed up, let alone for a government which experienced the largest act of war on its own soil by a foreign power in the 230 year existence of the nation.

Ah, but no, "Bush did it."

[Anti-sophist]

What will it take for you to believe there has been a 9/11 cover up?

Evidence?

Exactly what I thought when I read the topic.

[Mince]

What will it take for you to believe there have been a 9/11 cover up by the bush administration?

That there has been a 9/11 cover-up by the Bush administration.

[firecoins]

Before I go on, I want to know how much anyone here knows about the saudi-us's relations? You are aware that the US has recently sold 6 billion dollars worth of arms and fighter jets to saudi arabia right? If the US is so concerned about terrorism, then why are they in afghanistan/iraq and not saudi arabia? .

As far as I know Al Qeida does not have an airforce...at least not ones with their own airplanes. There are no Al Qeida flight jocks in F-16s.

There are terrorists in Saudi Arabia. They also exist in Pakistan including UBL/OBL & that is where the 7/7 bombers came from. Should we not invade Pakistan? Hezbollah is in Lebanon and funded by Iran. Thye killed hundreds of US servicemen. Why not invade Lebanon and Iran? The 9/11 hijackers had been in Germany and trained in Florida & Arizona. Why not invade Germany, Florida and Arizona?

[Z]

Fuzzy photos and grainy video, of course... :D

[firecoins]

This article is proof that the Clinton adminstration was doing a cover up. Sandy Berger got caught stealing documents in preparation for his 9/11 testimony and pled guilty.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/01/berger.plea/index.html

I wonder if Clinton was behind the attacks. He didn't like Bush. Many people who served under him were still in office like CIA director George Tenet & Richard Clarke. His wife was a Senator and the 2008 nominee for Pres. Hmmm a plan to retake power.

What would it take to beleive this conpiracy!?!

[Muckar-duva]

This article is proof that the Clinton adminstration was doing a cover up. Sandy Berger got caught stealing documents in preparation for his 9/11 testimony and pled guilty.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/01/berger.plea/index.html

I wonder if Clinton was behind the attacks. He didn't like Bush. Many people who served under him were still in office like CIA director George Tenet & Richard Clarke. His wife was a Senator and the 2008 nominee for Pres. Hmmm a plan to retake power.

What would it take to beleive this conpiracy!?!

Not only that: Atta & co: had already started their flighttraining when Clinton was in office.

In other news, I think the 9/11 discussion has gotten to my brain. We recently got a lot of new political books... I've exposed them with 2 towers of "102 minutes" in the middle and flanked them with some books on the Iraq war, among which you can see the title "The world's biggest fiascos".

[negativ]

What will it take for you to believe there has been a 9/11 cover up?

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity or incompetence.

Any sufficiently advanced stupidity or incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

[Loss Leader]

His wife was a Senator and the 2008 nominee for Pres. Hmmm a plan to retake power.

Firecoins is apparantly posting on the forum with the aid of a Wayback Machine (http://users.myexcel.com/metromonte/wayback.jpg).

[firecoins]

Firecoins is apparantly posting on the forum with the aid of a Wayback Machine (http://users.myexcel.com/metromonte/wayback.jpg).

WHo else could possibly be the Dem nominee in 2008? She is a shoe in, possibly 2 shoes in. Kerry & Gore are both trying to resurrect their careers. Good Luck:rolleyes:

[qarnos]

What would it take for me to accept the CT?

SHOW ME THE MISSLE HITTING THE PENTAGON.