The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[8den]

The word "pathetic" just doesn't seem to do that thread justice. Perhaps there is another with more "oomph"?

Pitiable. We've got nigh on 2,700 posts on this thread and he's still arguing the language on the PNAC document.

[Belz...]

2. 45% of US believed, over a year ago, that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks

I think you should do some research into statistics and polls.

They are making a killing off the war. As is the oil industry. This is clear, and no one with a brain would dispute it.

So how's that economy going ? Why's that USD dropping ?

[nicepants]

1. As i illustrated on p5, of this now 60 page thread, such an investigation would need congressional approval. Why must I keep telling you this again and again?

Didn't the first investigation have congressional approval?
If that's all the truthers need, why aren't they lobbying for congressional approval of their own investigation?

2. The evidence has been provided. Only the most dull of minds would have missed it. He is a truther. He has a big truther story. However he is not making a big deal of it. He is hardly coming to ny truther events. He is hardly posting on truther sites. He is hardly doing any interviews. Why do you think this is?

That does not mean that his employer is harassing him to "keep quiet".

[nicepants]

MJD - will you finally post something relevant or will you just keep running around in circles?

Relevance is not propitious to the twoof.

[mjd1982]

OMG, it is like a school. OMG, they had an army with Dick's shotgun, until his wife took it away due to shooting a friend. Now PNAC has no army. Darn, unarmed and only words. Sounds like you.

It looks like no one can follow our example of peaceful revolution, even with lots of help. OMG, watch out PNAC army is coming. Dick with no gun. Run....

Debate, that is real scary. OMG, they are going to talk us to death like you are?

You are funny, in both ways.
What the hell are you talking about? Edited for civility

[mjd1982]

you do not know the factors that is your problem, yet you accuse me of not knowing how stocks work when i trade in them??

i'm not saying anything of the sort, compared to their competitors in the same years they have not had a great success, if they were making millions from iraq in an area where they had monopoly in the business they would have done better IMO, if iraq was the cash cow for them you assume it is they would have a higher stock price IMO, i am not saying they would have been better off out of iraq, words in my mouth again pal, it maybe has not affected the share price in any way?? who can tell??
Who can tell!! Nice one. I have, incidentally, worked in equity research at, probably, a much more prestigious institution than you currently work at, just FYI. Numerous factors affect stock price, and you cannot say that just because their stock has not gone up as much as other companies since Iraq that they havent profited hugely from Iraq. This is the point being debated, and it is clear that since Iraq, they have profited hugely. End of story.

[mjd1982]

:dl:
You mean like you had the balls to admit that you were wrong about the defense GDP levels? Oh wait, you haven't admitted that.

Let me see, sanctions that we mainly enforced. Main influence on the inspections. Attack at will. Establishing camps for the Kurds in Iraq. Practically every move he made was dictated by what we were doing. Yeah, I would say a predominant influence.
Bingo! Give that man a qupie doll!
Which transcended Saddam's threat to the region. So in the overall plan, Saddam was a minor issue.
No, you claim to have shown but you've only given your speculation and conjecture.
Proves nothing about the PNAC - Iraq link.
Yes, overall he was, hence why they are still there!

That having been said, since you believe that the main influence in Iraq prior to 03 was the US, not Saddam, I dont know what the hell you are doing on this forum anyway, since you are either incredibly stupid, or incredibly dishonest. If the US were the dominant influence, why the hell did they invade???

Dont bother answering that one. Or any others for that matter.

[mjd1982]

At issue is whether one of the companies in the peer group - Halliburton - had a unique characteristic (the Iraq War), something that set it apart from the others. If so, we would expect a relative increase in value if this unique characteristic resulted in a significant economic advantage. All other "factors" are assumed equal, or non-unique. You apparently think the operating assumption should be that Halliburton is lacking, or far less than equal, with respect to these other "factors", thereby mitigating the positive impact of their Iraq goldrush. A baseless, ridiculous claim, plucked out of thin air.

Your other operating assumption is that the war was a Halliburton windfall. You keep skipping right past the question of whether it actually was, partly because you're incapable of drawing a distinction between profits and outsized profits. Halliburton is certainly making money in Iraq. But if they weren't there, those resources would be directed elsewhere. And by all indications, "elsewhere" would be similarly profitable.

Bolding mine

And you go right ahead and do it again - use tortured logic to try and put words in someone's mouth. And I do mean tortured logic. The bolded piece is one of the least intelligent things I've ever read. You're breaking new ground. Nice work.
Haha... dude, the point is that an invasion of a country leading to lotsof major no bid contracts is in theory a windfall. And it was so in practice. Whether they exploited it as well as other companies exploited their conditions is another question.

This shouldnt be hard to understand.

[mjd1982]

The word "pathetic" just doesn't seem to do that thread justice. Perhaps there is another with more "oomph"?
Its most likely, given your deficient vocabulary, that you just havent understood the thread. Read it again, and if your still having difficulties, get your mummy to explain it to you.

[mjd1982]

Pitiable. We've got nigh on 2,700 posts on this thread and he's still arguing the language on the PNAC document.
A priceless post! Go read #2662, and you will see why we are still here.

The tactic is pretty simple- I state unpalatable truths, you chaps ignore them, and then you chaps complain that we havent advanced! What a cute herd you all are.

[mjd1982]

In case anyone forgot #2662...

I think that things are getting a little bit sidetracked here, so its useful to do a bit of a recap. I will now show where my argument has come to. It will be an important crystallisation of my argument thus far, and I am fully aware that there will not be anyone who will argue it sensibly. Nonetheless, I can only do this in the hope that people reading this will find your humiliation instructive.

The PNAC doc illustrates a military and strategic radicalisation that needs to take place if the US is to retain it's hegemony for the "New American Century". It is essential that these strategies are crystallised in decision makers minds by the tim of the Oct 01 QDR, and such changes need to happen under one coherent, global banner, not "decoupled" from one another.

The transformations recommended bear an astonishing resemblance, almost blow by blow, to what is now called the WOT. You can read more here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3)

Further it is stated that the transformation will take several decades, absent a catastrophic and catalysing event. The reason for this extra duration is due to difficulties, backlogs and overhauls, difficulties that will be circumvented by the occurence of a new PH:



Hence, the new PH will make the process of transformation quicker, due to its enhanced ease. This leads as to the uncontroversial conclusion that a new PH was deemed propitious to policy.

PS- I was going to go onto foreknowledge, but I do wanna give anyone a chance to get distracted. Let's see how the herd of independent minds does with this.

Just to repeat my prophetic bold;


I am fully aware that there will not be anyone who will argue it sensibly


I'll give you another chance.

[mjd1982]

Oh, and one other repetition- #95 I have dismantled the main buttress of OT thought on PNAC. It's author has refused, brazenly, to address this rebuke sensibly, many, many times. My question is- what makes any of you think you will have a better chance than him?

[Brainache]

Oh, and one other repetition- #95 I have dismantled the main buttress of OT thought on PNAC. It's author has refused, brazenly, to address this rebuke sensibly, many, many times. My question is- what makes any of you think you will have a better chance than him?

You do realise that no one posting in this thread actually thinks they will convince you of anything don't you?

You are aware that most people reading this thread are doing so for the entertainment inherent in seeing a pompous jackass make a fool of himself aren't you?

That you still haven't produced even one fact in all this time and all of those posts is some kind of accomplishment I suppose, so well done.

Bought any more good books lately?

[funk de fino]

Who can tell!! Nice one. I have, incidentally, worked in equity research at, probably, a much more prestigious institution than you currently work at, just FYI. Numerous factors affect stock price, and you cannot say that just because their stock has not gone up as much as other companies since Iraq that they havent profited hugely from Iraq. This is the point being debated, and it is clear that since Iraq, they have profited hugely. End of story.

name it then whizzkid and did you study oil service stocks?

i know the numerous factors that affect oil service stocks far better than you

if halliburton (or KBR to more precise here) had made these many millions in an area where the rivals had no work then this would give them an advantage over the competitors (in the eyes of wall street), this is one of the over riding factors in success in the oil service stocks (the most important being the actual price of oil), due to the lack of other bidders and the monopoly in this area i, as someone who has made real money by investing in the industry i work in, would have seen this as an advantage and bought stock hoping this would give me a decent return, it did not seem to compared to their rivals, this would surprise me and lead me to wonder if iraq has in any way contributed to this anomaly , i would not know for certain but i could research it and maybe have a better idea

i would not make un-informed staements like yourself

i believe you brought stock price into this argument, if all you had said was they have made millions of dollars in iraq and not embellished it then you may have had a point, you did not, you cant backtrack now

when you say profited do you mean profit or revenue? they are different sunshine, and do you know the profits they have made in this region compared to others?

are you admitting you made a mistake on what i was saying earlier and you were putting words in my mouth earlier?

[Billdave2]

A priceless post! Go read #2662, and you will see why we are still here.

The tactic is pretty simple- I state unpalatable truths, you chaps ignore them, and then you chaps complain that we havent advanced! What a cute herd you all are.

Wrong again. Your "tactic" is, state that you have facts, provide unwarrented speculation and dubious claims, ignore all the posts that show how wrong you are or declare them not "sensible", repeat your unfounded claims, misunderstand when people explain it again using small words and simple phrases hoping you can understand them this time, declare yourself as "winning", insult all the posters who are trying to help you raise your understanding above grade school level, and then say propitous over and over again.

Remember people, you can't spell pity without propitous and a y.

[lapman]

Yes, overall he was, hence why they are still there!
Oh, so Saddam is still in power? From the grave? What an asinine statement.

That having been said, since you believe that the main influence in Iraq prior to 03 was the US, not Saddam, I dont know what the hell you are doing on this forum anyway, since you are either incredibly stupid, or incredibly dishonest. If the US were the dominant influence, why the hell did they invade???

Dont bother answering that one. Or any others for that matter.Who gave you authority to say who can and cannot post? Rather presumptuous of you. You call me stupid yet you don't know the simple difference between main influence and complete control. What that void between your ears fails to grasp is that difference. However, because we did not have complete control over Saddam, he was still a threat. Was he enough of a threat for us to invade before finishing in Afghanistan? Not at all. The invasion was a political move that has nothing to do with PNAC.

[Belz...]

I am fully aware that there will not be anyone who will argue it sensibly

I'll give you another chance.

Mjd, if you consistently label disagreement as "not sensible", then you can safely ignore any and all arguments thrown against you. But then, why would you want to do that.

Here's a question: do you think there is ANY chance, whatsoever, that you could be wrong about your interpretation of the PNAC document ?

[twinstead]

Here's a question: do you think there is ANY chance, whatsoever, that you could be wrong about your interpretation of the PNAC document ?

You might as well be asking the Pope if he believes there's any chance that he could be wrong about Mary being the mother of Christ.

[JonnyFive]

Its most likely, given your deficient vocabulary, that you just havent understood the thread. Read it again, and if your still having difficulties, get your mummy to explain it to you.

If you can't advance your position without resorting to insults, perhaps you should carry out this discussion somewhere else.

If you're going to stay here, I'd suggest you check the personal crap, as this subforum is under somewhat stricter standards of moderation than the rest of the forum (at least for the time being).

[Cuddles]

You are aware that most people reading this thread are doing so for the entertainment inherent in seeing a pompous jackass make a fool of himself aren't you?

It's tempting to make a poll about who is the most amusing truther. I think mjd and Malcolm are pretty near the top, although I'm not sure if they've managed to knock Christophera off yet. Sadly, such a poll would probably be in breach of the stricter rules here.

[mjd1982]

You do realise that no one posting in this thread actually thinks they will convince you of anything don't you?

You are aware that most people reading this thread are doing so for the entertainment inherent in seeing a pompous jackass make a fool of himself aren't you?

That you still haven't produced even one fact in all this time and all of those posts is some kind of accomplishment I suppose, so well done.

Bought any more good books lately?
Good! So you dont think that the PNAC doc is a fact.

Why do you bother posting here?

[mjd1982]

name it then whizzkid and did you study oil service stocks?


UBS


i know the numerous factors that affect oil service stocks far better than you


You may well do; you are doing well to fool everyone then


if halliburton (or KBR to more precise here) had made these many millions in an area where the rivals had no work then this would give them an advantage over the competitors (in the eyes of wall street), this is one of the over riding factors in success in the oil service stocks (the most important being the actual price of oil), due to the lack of other bidders and the monopoly in this area i, as someone who has made real money by investing in the industry i work in, would have seen this as an advantage and bought stock hoping this would give me a decent return, it did not seem to compared to their rivals, this would surprise me and lead me to wonder if iraq has in any way contributed to this anomaly , i would not know for certain but i could research it and maybe have a better idea

i would not make un-informed staements like yourself


I include the last sentence since it contradicts nicely with the one preceding it.

You are of course also neglecting the fact that in the chart you sent (from 05?), the increase in value for Halliburton would have been priced, to a significant degree into the stock value. This is an example of basic factors that you dont take into account.


i believe you brought stock price into this argument, if all you had said was they have made millions of dollars in iraq and not embellished it then you may have had a point, you did not, you cant backtrack now


Lol, "making millions" contributes to stock price, dont you know?


when you say profited do you mean profit or revenue? they are different sunshine, and do you know the profits they have made in this region compared to others?


"to profit" = to make profit


are you admitting you made a mistake on what i was saying earlier and you were putting words in my mouth earlier?

What were you saying earlier? Was it inane?

[mjd1982]

Wrong again. Your "tactic" is, state that you have facts, provide unwarrented speculation and dubious claims,


Ok. So another person who claims tha PNAC doc is not a fact. You can also go in the "maybe" pile


ignore all the posts that show how wrong you are or declare them not "sensible",


nice gag. Show me where I have ignored any such post?


repeat your unfounded claims, misunderstand when people explain it again using small words and simple phrases hoping you can understand them this time, declare yourself as "winning",


please show where this has been done. Dont make me make a twinstead out of you now...


insult all the posters who are trying to help you raise your understanding above grade school level, and then say propitous over and over again.

Remember people, you can't spell pity without propitous and a y.

Thanks for the "unwarrented speculation and dubious claims".

Now, as I have told the rest of your ilk many many time, there is a very simple way to deduce this. Go to the posts where my "dubious claims" have been crystallised the most substantively (#95, #493, #750, #2662 to name a few) . Then, show me where these have been coherently refuted. Or even addressed.

I sense another twinstead here...

[mjd1982]

You might as well be asking the Pope if he believes there's any chance that he could be wrong about Mary being the mother of Christ.

So, I win my bet for the non sensible response. I will ask the question again.

Go back to #750, and see how many of the 1750 posts since have addressed post #750.

If you can't, you can either keep on squirming, or you can apologise. Its your choice.


...

[mjd1982]

another point that I would like answered:


Oh, and one other repetition- #95 I have dismantled the main buttress of OT thought on PNAC. It's author has refused, brazenly, to address this rebuke sensibly, many, many times. My question is- what makes any of you think you will have a better chance than him?

[Unsecured Coins]

if you would get your head out of your fourth point of contact you'd understand that no one is saying the PNAC document is not a fact. We're saying that it's a fact that it doesn't say what you THINK it says.


Errrrr.....

[twinstead]

Mjd1982, you seem to think that a sarcastic one-line swipe at a statement constitutes a reply. Hell, even I know that and one-line sarcastic statements are pretty much all I can do, considering I'm no expert on this stuff.

I'm just here, like some others, to express my moral outrage at people like you and your arrogant 'got it all figured out' attitude (comical in people who actually have no idea what they are talking about).

mjd1982 you are supposed to be some kind of expert on this stuff, right, so some substance would be nice. You're supposed to be defending what most here consider a ludicrous theory but you know for a fact is true; you'd think you'd be able to dazzle us with your Bright Light of Reason.

I realize this is just an internet forum, unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but Christ, mjd, you'd think you'd be doing better than this.

Where's the breaking news stories? Where's the congressional hearings? Where's any report in the main-stream media that isn't simply laughing at you folks? Where's the arrests?

The evidence is overwhelming, right? Any fool can figure it out, right?

I'll let the others, the ones who actually DO know what they are talking about, handle handing you your buttocks with facts in this debate.

I'll continue to simply express my outrage. The YouTube Generation...BAH!

[Brainache]

Good! So you dont think that the PNAC doc is a fact.

Why do you bother posting here?

You produced the PNAC Document? I thought that was some right wing think tank in the late nineties.

You have produced a bit of speculation based on a few sentences. Try again.

[funk de fino]

You may well do; you are doing well to fool everyone then

I include the last sentence since it contradicts nicely with the one preceding it.

You are of course also neglecting the fact that in the chart you sent (from 05?), the increase in value for Halliburton would have been priced, to a significant degree into the stock value. This is an example of basic factors that you dont take into account.

Lol, "making millions" contributes to stock price, dont you know?

"to profit" = to make profit

What were you saying earlier? Was it inane?

complete and utter bollox in every reply sunshine, well done you have proved beyond all doubt i was correct to warn you not to get into the oil discussion because you have a made a twat of yourself

no answer as to whether you studied oil service stocks?

how do you know thay have made a profit from these operations, they may have taken revenue and not profited, they may have not profited as much as the city thought they should, these are among the factors that affect stock price among a multitude of others that you have no idea about

by reading what you are saying about the stock price, i believe that you must have flunked whatever equity research you did at UBS, did you have to move on?

you said that i said halliburtons shares would have been higher if they had stayed out of iraq, i never said this or intimated it, you were the one who came out with the inane comment

as for contradiction, only in your mind pal, i think you know not what this means if you think the two sentences contradict each other

shimmy shammy all you want with this but you have been caught out

now go back to your PNAC crap

[mjd1982]

Mjd1982, you seem to think that a sarcastic one-line swipe at a statement constitutes a reply. Hell, even I know that and one-line sarcastic statements are pretty much all I can do, considering I'm no expert on this stuff.

I'm just here, like some others, to express my moral outrage at people like you and your arrogant 'got it all figured out' attitude (comical in people who actually have no idea what they are talking about).

mjd1982 you are supposed to be some kind of expert on this stuff, right, so some substance would be nice. You're supposed to be defending what most here consider a ludicrous theory but you know for a fact is true; you'd think you'd be able to dazzle us with your Bright Light of Reason.

I realize this is just an internet forum, unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but Christ, mjd, you'd think you'd be doing better than this.

Where's the breaking news stories? Where's the congressional hearings? Where's any report in the main-stream media that isn't simply laughing at you folks? Where's the arrests?

The evidence is overwhelming, right? Any fool can figure it out, right?

I'll let the others, the ones who actually DO know what they are talking about, handle handing you your buttocks with facts in this debate.

I'll continue to simply express my outrage. The YouTube Generation...BAH!
I'm sorry, but the best way for me to be "handed my buttocks" would be for people to address my points. This not being done, said buttocks cannot be handed. Hence, as you now well know, there has been no one who has replied to my substantive posts. One such example is #750. You are well aware, having had your buttocks handed to you by me, that no one has had the courage to respond to that.

It's a pretty simple, pretty standard system of evasion. Avoid the post, claim you have answered it, and then keep on avoiding. Politicians do it quite regularly.

Let's go back to watching the tel-evasion.

[mjd1982]

You produced the PNAC Document? I thought that was some right wing think tank in the late nineties.

You have produced a bit of speculation based on a few sentences. Try again.
Its simple inference. It is not even needed for adults, since we can see that the implication of the doc is pretty clear.

But this is even better- you believe that inference is inadmissible to debate. I'm afraid it is, in adult circles anyway. You can run along back to the kiddies table though.

[mjd1982]

complete and utter bollox in every reply sunshine, well done you have proved beyond all doubt i was correct to warn you not to get into the oil discussion because you have a made a twat of yourself

no answer as to whether you studied oil service stocks?

how do you know thay have made a profit from these operations, they may have taken revenue and not profited, they may have not profited as much as the city thought they should, these are among the factors that affect stock price among a multitude of others that you have no idea about

by reading what you are saying about the stock price, i believe that you must have flunked whatever equity research you did at UBS, did you have to move on?

you said that i said halliburtons shares would have been higher if they had stayed out of iraq, i never said this or intimated it, you were the one who came out with the inane comment

as for contradiction, only in your mind pal, i think you know not what this means if you think the two sentences contradict each other

shimmy shammy all you want with this but you have been caught out

now go back to your PNAC crap
Stock price doesnt rise based simply on revenue, but on profits and the prospect of profits.

Most of the rest of your post is either stuff/words I have already taught you.

[Unsecured Coins]

if you would get your head out of your fourth point of contact you'd understand that no one is saying the PNAC document is not a fact. We're saying that it's a fact that it doesn't say what you THINK it says.


Errrrr.....

you missed this one.

[jsfisher]

It's tempting to make a poll about who is the most amusing truther. I think mjd and Malcolm are pretty near the top, although I'm not sure if they've managed to knock Christophera off yet. Sadly, such a poll would probably be in breach of the stricter rules here.

Christophera was steadfast in his conviction to a singular but impossible point. The focus was phenomenal. Then, too, there were those side issues involving the number 22, for example, that added to the man, the mystery, the legend.

Malcolm, on the other hand, just wants to be right about something, anything.

mjd seems to be a hybrid of the two. Maybe we should ask his thoughts on IV bags just to be sure.

[mjd1982]

you missed this one.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=70

[Unsecured Coins]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=70


You still didn't adress what I said. Ergo, you missed it.

[funk de fino]

Stock price doesnt rise based simply on revenue, but on profits and the prospect of profits.

Most of the rest of your post is either stuff/words I have already taught you.

are you completely stupid or are you having me on?

i never said stocks rise on revenue, they rise and fall on a lot of things, profits and making financial plans and the price of oil is more important than revenue in most instances

it is you are saying these millions they have made in iraq will make their stocks rise so it is you who are claiming this?

you can have have record revenue but not quite make analyst figures for profit and your shares drops

you are putting words in my mouth again, and have still not apologised for doing it the last time

only thing you have taught me is you are a ignorant buffon who thinks he is way more intelligent than he actually is and will never admit he is wrong about anything when everyone can see he is

[lapman]

Ok. So another person who claims tha PNAC doc is not a fact. You can also go in the "maybe" pileAs far as a "fact" pertaining to 9/11 being an inside job. Nope.
Thanks for the "unwarrented speculation and dubious claims".

Now, as I have told the rest of your ilk many many time, there is a very simple way to deduce this. Go to the posts where my "dubious claims" have been crystallised the most substantively (#95, #493, #750, #2662 to name a few) . Then, show me where these have been coherently refuted. Or even addressed.

I sense another twinstead here...And every single one of those posts are purely speculation based on zero understanding of even the "facts" you use in your arguments. This has been shown time and time again. Of course, you're going to say "what posts" as you've done time and time again. We will show you the posts, as we've done time and time again. You will move the goal posts and say "show me a sensible response" as you've done time and time again. Of course you're definition of sensible is an ever changing mystery which is nothing more than a cop out.

[twinstead]

He's not even entertaining anymore. Wake me when the trials and congressional hearings start.

I hate to ever say stuff like this, but mjd you have earned it: you are an idiot.

Lets keep things civil, please.

[Brainache]

Its simple inference. It is not even needed for adults, since we can see that the implication of the doc is pretty clear.

But this is even better- you believe that inference is inadmissible to debate. I'm afraid it is, in adult circles anyway. You can run along back to the kiddies table though.

You are wrong. Who is this "we"? Seems to me that you are pretty much all alone on this one champ. How embarassing for you.

You don't know what I believe. Inference is acceptable if the inference is reasonable, yours isn't. Simple really, try thinking before you...um well. just try thinking, OK?

[mjd1982]

He's not even entertaining anymore. Wake me when the trials and congressional hearings start.

I hate to ever say stuff like this, but mjd you have earned it: you are an idiot.

So, I win my bet for the non sensible response. I will ask the question again.

Go back to #750, and see how many of the 1750 posts since have addressed post #750.

If you can't, you can either keep on squirming, or you can apologise. Its your choice.


..

[Unsecured Coins]

start posting FACTS, mjd! damn. You're acting like we're demanding you walk on water here

[mjd1982]

This is quite amusing. I wonder how long I can keep this up?

Replies will be welcome.


I think that things are getting a little bit sidetracked here, so its useful to do a bit of a recap. I will now show where my argument has come to. It will be an important crystallisation of my argument thus far, and I am fully aware that there will not be anyone who will argue it sensibly. Nonetheless, I can only do this in the hope that people reading this will find your humiliation instructive.

The PNAC doc illustrates a military and strategic radicalisation that needs to take place if the US is to retain it's hegemony for the "New American Century". It is essential that these strategies are crystallised in decision makers minds by the tim of the Oct 01 QDR, and such changes need to happen under one coherent, global banner, not "decoupled" from one another.

The transformations recommended bear an astonishing resemblance, almost blow by blow, to what is now called the WOT. You can read more here

Further it is stated that the transformation will take several decades, absent a catastrophic and catalysing event. The reason for this extra duration is due to difficulties, backlogs and overhauls, difficulties that will be circumvented by the occurence of a new PH:



Hence, the new PH will make the process of transformation quicker, due to its enhanced ease. This leads as to the uncontroversial conclusion that a new PH was deemed propitious to policy.

PS- I was going to go onto foreknowledge, but I do wanna give anyone a chance to get distracted. Let's see how the herd of independent minds does with this.


Incidentally, since this is the crystallisation of the argument on PNAC, unless anyone can provide an answer on this thread, or reference to someone elses on this thread, then the simple consequence is that the thread will have come to its conclusion. Since no one wll have been able to contest the point raised on the thread, this will be the logical next step.

After that, we will move back onto foreknowledge. This will be simpy #750. And you will all most likely avoid it. But we will see.

[Unsecured Coins]

alot of people have contested your "facts" but I reckon it's hard for you to see since your colon is obviously blocking your line of sight

[Gravy]

An odd post. But while you are here, will you tell us why you have not responded to my riposte to your LC guide PNAC section? I have asked kindly many times...
I have. I made the changes you suggested and changed the name from "Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide" to "A Narcissistic Hyperbolic Compendium of Ignorance."

[Unsecured Coins]

Ka-CHOW

[mjd1982]

I have. I made the changes you suggested and changed the name from "Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide" to "A Narcissistic Hyperbolic Compendium of Ignorance."
Oh? And where was this? I mean a coherent, not from incredulity response here.

That would indeed be a fitting name for your guide, all the more so since you cannot defend it.

[DGM]

This is quite amusing. I wonder how long I can keep this up?

Replies will be welcome.



Incidentally, since this is the crystallisation of the argument on PNAC, unless anyone can provide an answer on this thread, or reference to someone elses on this thread, then the simple consequence is that the thread will have come to its conclusion. Since no one wll have been able to contest the point raised on the thread, this will be the logical next step.

After that, we will move back onto foreknowledge. This will be simpy #750. And you will all most likely avoid it. But we will see.
Don't you think it's time you get back to your original purpose? Wasn't that to convince us that a new investigation is warranted?
If this is the case you need to work on your powers of persuasion and communication because they are sorely lacking. You my friend are failing miserably if this is the case.

[mjd1982]

Don't you think it's time you get back to your original purpose? Wasn't that to convince us that a new investigation is warranted?
If this is the case you need to work on your powers of persuasion and communication because they are sorely lacking. You my friend are failing miserably if this is the case.
Hehe... well you see, persuasion is a 2 way process. The one half puts evidence forth, and defends it; the other half looks at that, and critiques it. And so on.

So clearly this isnt going to happen when the other half refuses to look, and critique.

In that light, I will repeat my request for you and your herd to answer the points.

[DGM]

Hehe... well you see, persuasion is a 2 way process. The one half puts evidence forth, and defends it; the other half looks at that, and critiques it. And so on.

So clearly this isnt going to happen when the other half refuses to look, and critique.

In that light, I will repeat my request for you and your herd to answer the points.
Opinion is not evidence. And it has been "critiqued" you just don't except it. The mods in the other thread even tried to tell you. Isn't it funny how your the only one that doesn't sees this? You still are sorely lacking any powers of persuation.

P.S. "fell apart like a Chinese motorbike" is racist. No ifs, ands or buts.

Please think (or at least try) before you post.

[mjd1982]

Opinion is not evidence. And it has been "critiqued" you just don't except it. The mods in the other thread even tried to tell you. Isn't it funny how your the only one that doesn't sees this? You still are sorely lacking any powers of persuation.

P.S. "fell apart like a Chinese motorbike" is racist. No ifs, ands or buts.

Please think (or at least try) before you post.
Learn to distinguish between opinion and inference. This will help you a great deal.

And if the points just raised have indeed been critiqued, a simple request- show me where? Get those mods to do the same.

And when you fail, like Twinstead, tell me why you have lied.

[DGM]

Learn to distinguish between opinion and inference. This will help you a great deal.

And if the points just raised have indeed been critiqued, a simple request- show me where? Get those mods to do the same.

And when you fail, like Twinstead, tell me why you have lied.
See posts 1-2800 excluding yours. If you have trouble with comprehension it's no shame to admit this. Maybe if you read them to some one else they could help.

The difference between opinion and inference in this case is only in your mind.

Again try to apply some substance to your posts. You are boring the hell out of this forum.

[mjd1982]

See posts 1-2800 excluding yours. If you have trouble with comprehension it's no shame to admit this. Maybe if you read them to some one else they could help.

The difference between opinion and inference in this case is only in your mind.

Again try to apply some substance to your posts. You are boring the hell out of this forum.
Good. Then you will have no problem in finding the relevant post/posts. I am unable to. But you, and any of your friends, should be able to find such quite easily.

When you cannot, the thread will, logically, conclude that a catastophic and catalysing attack was indeed deemed propitious by PNAC, and with this in mind, we will move on to the next thing you are all going to evade.

[Unsecured Coins]

only problem is, we have shown you how this is wrong, but.. you just.. don't get it,... do ya, scott?

[DGM]

Good. Then you will have no problem in finding the relevant post/posts. I am unable to. But you, and any of your friends, should be able to find such quite easily.

When you cannot, the thread will, logically, conclude that a catastophic and catalysing attack was indeed deemed propitious by PNAC, and with this in mind, we will move on to the next thing you are all going to evade.
Again. No one here cares about your opinion on the PNAC. Are you going on to speculation and hindsight next? God your boring us to tears.

[MIKILLINI]

Good. Then you will have no problem in finding the relevant post/posts. I am unable to. But you, and any of your friends, should be able to find such quite easily.

I'll just make it real simple, Mjd. You have been responded to by many posters here on your summarization of the "PNAC: Propitious to policy". The issue of you not having been "satisfied" by any responses in this thread does not constitute a victory for you. I, for one, do not agree with your correlation of the PNAC document toward 9/11. You and I can simply agree to disagree.

So....

with this in mind, we will move on to the next thing.

I can guarantee You, it will not be evaded. :popcorn1

[mjd1982]

only problem is, we have shown you how this is wrong, but.. you just.. don't get it,... do ya, scott?
Good. Simple question- show me where. You can refer to #2662.

[mjd1982]

I'll just make it real simple, Mjd. You have been responded to by many posters here on your summarization of the "PNAC: Propitious to policy". The issue of you not having been "satisfied" by any responses in this thread does not constitute a victory for you. I, for one, do not agree with your correlation of the PNAC document toward 9/11. You and I can simply agree to disagree.

So....



I can guarantee You, it will not be evaded. :popcorn1
1. As I have asked many, many times now, show me where. 1 post, responding to the arguments crystallised in 2662. Just 1. Anywhere.

2. This has already been posted, and has already been evaded. I will post it again just to illustrate the clownish nature of this forum.

So, to repeat myself, just one post. Anyone, anywhere.

[funk de fino]

1. As I have asked many, many times now, show me where. 1 post, responding to the arguments crystallised in 2662. Just 1. Anywhere.

2. This has already been posted, and has already been evaded. I will post it again just to illustrate the clownish nature of this forum.

So, to repeat myself, just one post. Anyone, anywhere.

the post directly after it and #2692 responds to it as well?

[MIKILLINI]

1. As I have asked many, many times now, show me where. 1 post, responding to the arguments crystallised in 2662. Just 1. Anywhere.

2. This has already been posted, and has already been evaded. I will post it again just to illustrate the clownish nature of this forum.

So, to repeat myself, just one post. Anyone, anywhere.

Try # 356

[twinstead]

Don't bother. Those aren't 'sensible' responses...

[mjd1982]

Try # 356
#356, though a sensible post, I inadvertently did not respond to.

Nonetheless, the points that are discussed in #2662 are as follows:
1- The stated increased ease in the transformation. This is not touched in 356
2- The similarity between the RAD and the WOT. This is not touched here.
3- The need to start the transformation by the 01 QDR. The poster addresses this, poorly, but since our aim here is to find someone who has responded to the points raised in the post, it is irrelevant.

The post fails.

[Unsecured Coins]

who died and left you lord and savior again? It's becoming increasingly evident that anything that is not what you want to hear is ALWAYS irrelevant.

Now, on to WTC7!!

[mjd1982]

the post directly after it and #2692 responds to it as well?
The post after it is dealt with by me in 2671.

He fails, as do all of you no matter how hard I try to teach you, to distinguish between design and execution.

If you can show how not however, please go ahead. You will fail.

#2692 is brushed aside in 2708. Whats the failing? Surprise surprise...


I presume you are trying to make the point that was attampted by many of your colleagues that the war in Iraq/Afghanistan is taking up so much money that the RAD transformations are getting hindered? Is that it? If so, I'm afraid that this has been dealt with oh too many times now.... Learn the difference between design and execution, and all will become clear to you my friend.


Keep looking herd, keep looking!

[MIKILLINI]

#356, though a sensible post, I inadvertently did not respond to.

Nonetheless, the points that are discussed in #2662 are as follows:
1- The stated increased ease in the transformation. This is not touched in 356
2- The similarity between the RAD and the WOT. This is not touched here.
3- The need to start the transformation by the 01 QDR. The poster addresses this, poorly, but since our aim here is to find someone who has responded to the points raised in the post, it is irrelevant.

The post fails.

Try # 382.

[funk de fino]

The post after it is dealt with by me in 2671.

He fails, as do all of you no matter how hard I try to teach you, to distinguish between design and execution.

If you can show how not however, please go ahead. You will fail.

#2692 is brushed aside in 2708. Whats the failing? Surprise surprise...



Keep looking herd, keep looking!

its still a response you were claiming did not exist

you really are a dishonest person

[David Wong]

Hey, I was just checking in to see if we'd gotten to WTC 7 and mjd's list of evidence that actually links 9/11 to PNAC's document.

[twinstead]

Just as I thought. Even if a post is responded to, if it doesn't meet Mjd's definition of a response, it isn't 'sensible' and doesn't count.

Well, good thing Mjd isn't in charge of deciding what is a good response to his points and what isn't. We'll let the readers decide.

We'll let the world decide, actually. Let's just see when mjd's and other's rantings on the internet EVER get to a courtroom or board of inquiry.

[tsig]

Yes, their true design was increase in military spending, to spur a military radicalisation. A radicalisation which would be sped up by the occurence of a new PH. Hence why they felt a new PH was necessary.

I think this is pretty simple?

Yes you are very simple.

Do you wear white Amy.

[tsig]

You have no idea how stock prices are driven, do you? The companies that have increased more than Halliburton could have had this happen due to a myriad of reasons- good management, deregulation in areas of operation, personnel changes etc etc, not to mention the issue of price volatility. This does not affect in the least the fact that Halliburton's price has increased significantly due to the Iraq war. Your implication that had they not been involved, their price would have risen more has zero basis, therefore.

Are you old enough to drive?

Do you know what stock is?

How long do you intend to play here?

[tsig]

1..

Unbelievably moronic.



http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

Pretty much sums you up.

[tsig]

Oh, and one other repetition- #95 I have dismantled the main buttress of OT thought on PNAC. It's author has refused, brazenly, to address this rebuke sensibly, many, many times. My question is- what makes any of you think you will have a better chance than him?

Please leave my buttress alone!

I do my brazing in private.

[tsig]

Stock price doesnt rise based simply on revenue, but on profits and the prospect of profits.

Most of the rest of your post is either stuff/words I have already taught you.

We have learned from you.

How to spell NOT

[Belz...]

Mjd1982, you seem to think that a sarcastic one-line swipe at a statement constitutes a reply.

I'm sorry, but the best way for me to be "handed my buttocks" would be for people to address my points.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/6080463f5270dbb87.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5580)

[Belz...]

But this is even better- you believe that inference is inadmissible to debate. I'm afraid it is, in adult circles anyway. You can run along back to the kiddies table though.

Are you saying that kids are better at debates than adults ? That's unreal, man.

Then you will have no problem in finding the relevant post/posts.

Typical you, Mjd. And when someone comes back with the answer, you'll just move to something else.

So, to repeat myself, just one post. Anyone, anywhere.

OH! So the problem is that MORE than one post adressed your points ?

[Unsecured Coins]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/image006.jpg

[MIKILLINI]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/6080463f5270dbb87.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5580)

Nice picture Belz. :D

So Mjd your posts have been addressed many times, apparently your the only one who's unsatisfied with the answers. That's not our problem, however.

[Cuddles]

I'm sorry, but the best way for me to be "handed my buttocks" would be for people to address my points. This not being done, said buttocks cannot be handed.

Sayings about people being unable to find their buttocks using both hands and a map seem remarkably appropriate here.

[mjd1982]

Try # 382.
rebuffed conclusively, and without further response in #410

[beachnut]

Learn to distinguish between opinion and inference. This will help you a great deal.

And if the points just raised have indeed been critiqued, a simple request- show me where? Get those mods to do the same.

And when you fail, like Twinstead, tell me why you have lied.
No facts yet? You sure do waste a lot of posts like me.

[mjd1982]

Nice picture Belz. :D

So Mjd your posts have been addressed many times, apparently your the only one who's unsatisfied with the answers. That's not our problem, however.
Woah woah woah soldier, hang on a second. As should ve clear to anyone with a jot of common sense, it matters not if something is replied to, if it is coherently and conclusively rebuffed later. When I say a sensible response, I mean something that hasnt been followed by that. Thats what is meant my a sensible response. That is the result of dialectic. And that is what I am asking to be brought forth. Any post that has conclusively rebuffed the points raised in 2662. Since none of you have been able to produce a post that evem addresses the points in 2662, you are onto a loser, and the thread is approaching its own conclusions.

[mortimer]

I'm sorry, but the best way for me to be "handed my buttocks" would be for people to address completely agree with my points.

There, fixed it for you.

[twinstead]

So exactly what are we do to when mjd keeps telling us we're not addressing his points when we really are? All we can do is let the readers decide for themselves.

Mjd I don't doubt for a second that you think nobody has addressed your points, and you think you are totally dominating this debate. And I also don't doubt for a second that there is nothing anybody can say that will change that fact.

So, we'll just see what the lurkers do with your 'victory'. Let's just see how your movement goes.

Any predictions on when the congressional inquires and trials will start, Mjd?

[nicepants]

Woah woah woah soldier, hang on a second. As should ve clear to anyone with a jot of common sense, it matters not if something is replied to, if it is coherently and conclusively rebuffed later. When I say a sensible response, I mean something that hasnt been followed by that. Thats what is meant my a sensible response. That is the result of dialectic. And that is what I am asking to be brought forth. Any post that has conclusively rebuffed the points raised in 2662. Since none of you have been able to produce a post that evem addresses the points in 2662, you are onto a loser, and the thread is approaching its own conclusions.

MJD, no matter what is said about this issue, it all goes back to your claim that 911 was "propitious" to policy. You believe this, others do not. Unless you have a quote from the document specifically stating such (subjective interpretation aside) then your opinion is only that: an opinion.

Even if you were able to prove that 911 was "propitious", you still have the task of proving government involvement in the actual events.

What's important is "did they do it"...not "did they benefit from it?"

I suggest we move on to WTC7.


ETA: I also suggest that the discussion of WTC7 take place in a new thread.

[twinstead]

I suggest we move on to WTC7.

For the love of God please, let's. Anything but another 20 or 30 pages of PNAC conjecture...

[Belz...]

Woah woah woah soldier, hang on a second. As should ve clear to anyone with a jot of common sense, it matters not if something is replied to, if it is coherently and conclusively rebuffed later. When I say a sensible response, I mean something that hasnt been followed by that. Thats what is meant my a sensible response. That is the result of dialectic. And that is what I am asking to be brought forth. Any post that has conclusively rebuffed the points raised in 2662. Since none of you have been able to produce a post that evem addresses the points in 2662, you are onto a loser, and the thread is approaching its own conclusions.

Then, by all means, Mjd, what's next ?

[MIKILLINI]

Then, by all means, Mjd, what's next ?

You mean this may move beyond the "propitious to policy"..finally? :yahoo

[mjd1982]

Good. So I have asked and waited fora long time for someone to put forth 1 post out of 3000 that rebuts, or even addresses the points made in 2662. No one has been able to do so, despite your whinings. So we have our first conclusion-

The thread concludes that a new PH was deemed propitious to policy.

Now what we do, is see what they did in the light of such a consideration. What we see is not a surprise.

All I am going to do now, is re-post #750, since as Twinstead will happily tell you, everybody chose to avoid that post too. You guys are a comical bunch, you really do entertain me very much. Thank you!

[mjd1982]

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

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

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

A very plausible sequence would be as follows:
1. Non partisan members of government who would stand in the way of a new PH happening get demoted/silenced/sidelined. This is not given, subsequently, adequate explanation.
2. There is an unprecedented litany of warnings in the intel community, none of which get acted upon. This leaves certain agents furious, threatening to quit, stating that something huge will happen unless people start taking things seriously. Important organisation heads will have back channels to the GOP, and have been brought into line, thus facilitating the neglect. No one will be fired, or even demoted. This is, subsequently, explained away by the fact that there were communication problems between agencies, fluff about how everything looks 20-20 in hindsight, and how they get lots of warnings.
3. It will, inevitably, surface that important and revelatory information was passed all the way up to the Principals, the VP, and even POTUS, but zero action was taken, nothing , nowhere. This will be left uncomfortably silent
4. And finally, there will maybe be the odd slip that cannot be accounted for, such as an early, smaller attack from Al Qaeda, the people most likely to be the bogeymen for the new PH, which should warrant a response, but nothing gets done; and, if you are really unlikely, an offer from the Taliban to hand over Osama Bin Laden to the US’s clients in Saudi Arabia, to be handed to the US; this just gets hushed up, and everyone pretends it didn’t happen.

I think this is a pretty plausible sequence of events for what might happen in the event of government connivance in 9/11. And of course, it is precisely what did happen.

1.As anyone who has read Richard Clarke’s book, “Against All Enemies” will be aware, the efforts taken by the Clinton administration to stop terrorism, and in particular Al Qaeda terrorism, were considerable. One of the main reflections of this occurs in Clinton’s creation of the post of National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, the “Counter Terrorism Czar” that was given to Clarke. Clarke was very aware of the threat of AQ, and within 5 days of taking office, he had sent a document to Condi Rice, entitled, “Strategy for eliminating AQ”. Very clear in its import- these guys are mean, and they want to kill us. Take them very seriously The response? Very simple- demotion. The next day he was told that he would no longer be dealing with Principals, but rather with Deputies. This was a pretty easy method of turning the volume down/off from any non partisan members of government who might try and alert senior members too doggedly of the threat of a catastrophic terrorist attack.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar24.html
In his own words, this slowed things down “by months.” Actions on this document for combating this threat were not even discussed by Principals until September 4th; 9 months later.
It should also be noted that Bush and his team had been made aware of the urgency of getting AQ as early as November. Fighting terror was, indeed, something which Bush had campaigned on in 2000. The war on Islamic terrorism had been stated explicitly, in light of the USS Cole attack, by Sandy Berger on January 17th 2001. So the threat of Islamic terror was something Bush et al had been well briefed on before taking office, it was an “urgent” issue, a “deadly threat”. So when Clarke hands a document to the same people, outlining strategies for countering this deadly thread, and gets demoted for his efforts, this should bring the probable motivations of the administration quite sharply into relief.


Do note that if a new PH was going to occur, AQ/OBL are clearly the obvious bogeymen.

2. Regarding forewarnings, these were considerable. Many of these details can be founded, with links to articles/date and edition of articles, here:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...s&startpos=100

Here are some brief excerpts:

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

Now, the counter here will predictably be, well, there were problems, intel agencies get loads of warnings every day, this probably represents a minute fragment. This is only true with an ignorance of the facts. These state that George Tenet, the DCI, had described the intel warnings, regarding an upcoming AQ attack on the US/US interests, as “unprecedented”. This is the same man who was in charge over the millennium, when the terror threat (foiled, incidentally) was possibly as high as it had ever been up to that point. According to Dick Armitage, his “hair was on fire”. Another FBI source claimed “The warnings could not have been any worse”. So clearly, any arguments that this level of warning was something ordinary could not be further from the truth. (For all sources, see link above)

The second rebuttal is that the warnings were not specific enough. Well, although this will be debated, what is telling, is that nothing was done. Not one thing. No increased protection of vulnerabilities, border security etc, not even one effort toward that. As outlined above, such unprecedented neglect, fudged by incomplete explanations, is precisely what would be expected in such a scenario.

PS- Regarding “back channels”, this was stated in Clarke’s book, that Louis Freeh, the then director of the FBI had back channels to certain parts of the GOP.

3. What is less easy to explain away is the inaction of POTUS and those around him. As has been made clear in the 911 Comm report, Bush was warned 40 times in the ~30 weeks running up to 9/11, just at PDB’s by Tenet (the man with his hair on fire at the unprecedented threat), of the impending threat of an AQ attack. What was done? Nothing. And there were very specific pieces of information given to Bush. To quote 911 Commissioner Bob Kerrey:


Originally Posted by Bob Kerrey
“[b]y the way, there’s a credible case that the president’s own negligence prior to 9/11 at least in part contributed to the disaster in the first place.… [i]n the summer of 2001, the government ignored repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and didn’t do anything to harden our border security, didn’t do anything to harden airport country, didn’t do anything to engage local law enforcement, didn’t do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and didn’t warn the American people. The famous presidential daily briefing on August 6, we say in the report that the briefing officers believed that there was a considerable sense of urgency and it was current. So there was a case to be made that wasn’t made.… The president says, if I had only known that 19 Islamic men would come into the United States of America and on the morning of 11 September hijack four American aircraft, fly two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into an unknown Pennsylvania that crashed in Shanksville, I would have moved heaven and earth. That’s what he said. Mr. President, you don’t need to know that. This is an Islamic Jihadist movement that has been organized since the early 1990s, declared war on the United States twice, in ‘96 and ‘98. You knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat. And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission.”
This sums up matters quite well.

In addition, we have the statement from George Tenet, who told the CNN that he had told Rice that AQ were planning multiple, simultaneous attacks on the US.



KING: Did you warn her or threat -- did you warn her that a threat was imminent?

TENET: You're talking in the run-up to 9...

KING: Yes.

TENET: ... to 9/11?

Well, you know, we provided, I think...

KING: You knew there was a threat imminent.

TENET: Well, sure. There was -- we had a meeting on July 10th and we -- we, you know, I jumped in the car and went down to see the national security adviser. We believed that there were -- the threat was imminent, there would be multiple spectacular...

KING: What did she do?

TENET: Well, she got it. She understand the nature of the threat. She turned around, she had the deputies convene. Other things happened around that time. We had asked for -- we had asked for specific authorities to help us get into Afghanistan. We had asked for those in the spring. This all came a little bit slowly.

But, Larry, everybody now wants to look at was one person responsible?

Look, look, policymakers and law enforcement intelligence, all of us in this owed the families of 9/11 better than they got. Human beings make mistakes. There's no silver bullet in any of this.

So having the game of who did what and what happened, look, this was the most painful day of our lives.

So did we provide strategic warning?

Yes.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...30/lkl.01.html

Of course, in the light of the fact that the CT movement presses for an investigation of possible US complicity in 9/11, the above, as well as the 40 ignored, direct warnings gives a strong case for such.

4. Of course there was the attack on the Cole, which was not acted upon at all; no War on Terror from that; just a promise from Bush to “strengthen missile defenses” to protect US troops. What is very interesting, incriminating, important, and unknown to most on either side of the fence, is the fact that OBL was offered to Bush, by the Taliban, in return for dropping of sanctions in February 2001. This was not only in the midst of all these warnings, but also after the guilt for the Cole bombing had been pinned on AQ. Not to mention the bombings of the embassies and the WTC in 1993. So, one of the biggest terrorists in the world who has killed many of your countrymen, and declared holy war against your country, declaring every man, woman and children legitmate targets, is offered to you on a plate, what do you do? Nothing of course. Criminal.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A
Ok, sorry for the hiatus.

Let’s move on, onto the foreknowledge section.

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

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

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

A very plausible sequence would be as follows:
1. Non partisan members of government who would stand in the way of a new PH happening get demoted/silenced/sidelined. This is not given, subsequently, adequate explanation.
2. There is an unprecedented litany of warnings in the intel community, none of which get acted upon. This leaves certain agents furious, threatening to quit, stating that something huge will happen unless people start taking things seriously. Important organisation heads will have back channels to the GOP, and have been brought into line, thus facilitating the neglect. No one will be fired, or even demoted. This is, subsequently, explained away by the fact that there were communication problems between agencies, fluff about how everything looks 20-20 in hindsight, and how they get lots of warnings.
3. It will, inevitably, surface that important and revelatory information was passed all the way up to the Principals, the VP, and even POTUS, but zero action was taken, nothing , nowhere. This will be left uncomfortably silent
4. And finally, there will maybe be the odd slip that cannot be accounted for, such as an early, smaller attack from Al Qaeda, the people most likely to be the bogeymen for the new PH, which should warrant a response, but nothing gets done; and, if you are really unlikely, an offer from the Taliban to hand over Osama Bin Laden to the US’s clients in Saudi Arabia, to be handed to the US; this just gets hushed up, and everyone pretends it didn’t happen.

I think this is a pretty plausible sequence of events for what might happen in the event of government connivance in 9/11. And of course, it is precisely what did happen.

1.As anyone who has read Richard Clarke’s book, “Against All Enemies” will be aware, the efforts taken by the Clinton administration to stop terrorism, and in particular Al Qaeda terrorism, were considerable. One of the main reflections of this occurs in Clinton’s creation of the post of National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, the “Counter Terrorism Czar” that was given to Clarke. Clarke was very aware of the threat of AQ, and within 5 days of taking office, he had sent a document to Condi Rice, entitled, “Strategy for eliminating AQ”. Very clear in its import- these guys are mean, and they want to kill us. Take them very seriously The response? Very simple- demotion. The next day he was told that he would no longer be dealing with Principals, but rather with Deputies. This was a pretty easy method of turning the volume down/off from any non partisan members of government who might try and alert senior members too doggedly of the threat of a catastrophic terrorist attack.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar24.html
In his own words, this slowed things down “by months.” Actions on this document for combating this threat were not even discussed by Principals until September 4th; 9 months later.
It should also be noted that Bush and his team had been made aware of the urgency of getting AQ as early as November. Fighting terror was, indeed, something which Bush had campaigned on in 2000. The war on Islamic terrorism had been stated explicitly, in light of the USS Cole attack, by Sandy Berger on January 17th 2001. So the threat of Islamic terror was something Bush et al had been well briefed on before taking office, it was an “urgent” issue, a “deadly threat”. So when Clarke hands a document to the same people, outlining strategies for countering this deadly thread, and gets demoted for his efforts, this should bring the probable motivations of the administration quite sharply into relief.


Do note that if a new PH was going to occur, AQ/OBL are clearly the obvious bogeymen.

2. Regarding forewarnings, these were considerable. Many of these details can be founded, with links to articles/date and edition of articles, here:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...s&startpos=100

Here are some brief excerpts:

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

Now, the counter here will predictably be, well, there were problems, intel agencies get loads of warnings every day, this probably represents a minute fragment. This is only true with an ignorance of the facts. These state that George Tenet, the DCI, had described the intel warnings, regarding an upcoming AQ attack on the US/US interests, as “unprecedented”. This is the same man who was in charge over the millennium, when the terror threat (foiled, incidentally) was possibly as high as it had ever been up to that point. According to Dick Armitage, his “hair was on fire”. Another FBI source claimed “The warnings could not have been any worse”. So clearly, any arguments that this level of warning was something ordinary could not be further from the truth. (For all sources, see link above)

The second rebuttal is that the warnings were not specific enough. Well, although this will be debated, what is telling, is that nothing was done. Not one thing. No increased protection of vulnerabilities, border security etc, not even one effort toward that. As outlined above, such unprecedented neglect, fudged by incomplete explanations, is precisely what would be expected in such a scenario.

PS- Regarding “back channels”, this was stated in Clarke’s book, that Louis Freeh, the then director of the FBI had back channels to certain parts of the GOP.

3. What is less easy to explain away is the inaction of POTUS and those around him. As has been made clear in the 911 Comm report, Bush was warned 40 times in the ~30 weeks running up to 9/11, just at PDB’s by Tenet (the man with his hair on fire at the unprecedented threat), of the impending threat of an AQ attack. What was done? Nothing. And there were very specific pieces of information given to Bush. To quote 911 Commissioner Bob Kerrey:


Originally Posted by Bob Kerrey
“[b]y the way, there’s a credible case that the president’s own negligence prior to 9/11 at least in part contributed to the disaster in the first place.… [i]n the summer of 2001, the government ignored repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and didn’t do anything to harden our border security, didn’t do anything to harden airport country, didn’t do anything to engage local law enforcement, didn’t do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and didn’t warn the American people. The famous presidential daily briefing on August 6, we say in the report that the briefing officers believed that there was a considerable sense of urgency and it was current. So there was a case to be made that wasn’t made.… The president says, if I had only known that 19 Islamic men would come into the United States of America and on the morning of 11 September hijack four American aircraft, fly two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into an unknown Pennsylvania that crashed in Shanksville, I would have moved heaven and earth. That’s what he said. Mr. President, you don’t need to know that. This is an Islamic Jihadist movement that has been organized since the early 1990s, declared war on the United States twice, in ‘96 and ‘98. You knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat. And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission.”
This sums up matters quite well.

In addition, we have the statement from George Tenet, who told the CNN that he had told Rice that AQ were planning multiple, simultaneous attacks on the US.


Quote:
KING: Did you warn her or threat -- did you warn her that a threat was imminent?

TENET: You're talking in the run-up to 9...

KING: Yes.

TENET: ... to 9/11?

Well, you know, we provided, I think...

KING: You knew there was a threat imminent.

TENET: Well, sure. There was -- we had a meeting on July 10th and we -- we, you know, I jumped in the car and went down to see the national security adviser. We believed that there were -- the threat was imminent, there would be multiple spectacular...

KING: What did she do?

TENET: Well, she got it. She understand the nature of the threat. She turned around, she had the deputies convene. Other things happened around that time. We had asked for -- we had asked for specific authorities to help us get into Afghanistan. We had asked for those in the spring. This all came a little bit slowly.

But, Larry, everybody now wants to look at was one person responsible?

Look, look, policymakers and law enforcement intelligence, all of us in this owed the families of 9/11 better than they got. Human beings make mistakes. There's no silver bullet in any of this.

So having the game of who did what and what happened, look, this was the most painful day of our lives.

So did we provide strategic warning?

Yes.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...30/lkl.01.html

Of course, in the light of the fact that the CT movement presses for an investigation of possible US complicity in 9/11, the above, as well as the 40 ignored, direct warnings gives a strong case for such.

4. Of course there was the attack on the Cole, which was not acted upon at all; no War on Terror from that; just a promise from Bush to “strengthen missile defenses” to protect US troops. What is very interesting, incriminating, important, and unknown to most on either side of the fence, is the fact that OBL was offered to Bush, by the Taliban, in return for dropping of sanctions in February 2001. This was not only in the midst of all these warnings, but also after the guilt for the Cole bombing had been pinned on AQ. Not to mention the bombings of the embassies and the WTC in 1993. So, one of the biggest terrorists in the world who has killed many of your countrymen, and declared holy war against your country, declaring every man, woman and children legitmate targets, is offered to you on a plate, what do you do? Nothing of course. Criminal.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

The need for investigating US government complicity, in the light of all this, is clearly a dire one.

[MortFurd]

Good. So I have asked and waited fora long time for someone to put forth 1 post out of 3000 that rebuts, or even addresses the points made in 2662. No one has been able to do so, despite your whinings. So we have our first conclusion-

The thread concludes that a new PH was deemed propitious to policy. Now what we do, is see what they did in the light of such a consideration. What we see is not a surprise.

All I am going to do now, is re-post #750, since as Twinstead will happily tell you, everybody chose to avoid that post too. You guys are a comical bunch, you really do entertain me very much. Thank you!

The thread does NOT so conclude. At best, it grants you your claim for argumentative purposes. In other words it says "If PNAC really did deem a new Pearl Harbor propitious to policy, WHAT NEXT?"

Make it march, dude.

On preview I see you've dumped a load on the thread. Reading now.

[MortFurd]

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

[Brainache]

So is mjd attempting the internet equivalent of a fillibuster or what?

What exact security did the hijackers need to circumvent to execute their plan mjd?

Because as far as I'm aware all they needed were some knives, some rudimentary flying skills and a fanatical devotion to insane ideals. No amount of pre-9/11 Presidential briefings were going to stop these guys.

If all the cockpit doors had locks and all the airports had tight security, they would have tried something else. Next time it will be something else.

There is no way to make the US completely invulnerable to attack by determined suicide terrorists.

[DGM]

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

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

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

A very plausible sequence would be as follows:
1. Non partisan members of government who would stand in the way of a new PH happening get demoted/silenced/sidelined. This is not given, subsequently, adequate explanation.
2. There is an unprecedented litany of warnings in the intel community, none of which get acted upon. This leaves certain agents furious, threatening to quit, stating that something huge will happen unless people start taking things seriously. Important organisation heads will have back channels to the GOP, and have been brought into line, thus facilitating the neglect. No one will be fired, or even demoted. This is, subsequently, explained away by the fact that there were communication problems between agencies, fluff about how everything looks 20-20 in hindsight, and how they get lots of warnings.
3. It will, inevitably, surface that important and revelatory information was passed all the way up to the Principals, the VP, and even POTUS, but zero action was taken, nothing , nowhere. This will be left uncomfortably silent
4. And finally, there will maybe be the odd slip that cannot be accounted for, such as an early, smaller attack from Al Qaeda, the people most likely to be the bogeymen for the new PH, which should warrant a response, but nothing gets done; and, if you are really unlikely, an offer from the Taliban to hand over Osama Bin Laden to the US’s clients in Saudi Arabia, to be handed to the US; this just gets hushed up, and everyone pretends it didn’t happen.

I think this is a pretty plausible sequence of events for what might happen in the event of government connivance in 9/11. And of course, it is precisely what did happen.

1.As anyone who has read Richard Clarke’s book, “Against All Enemies” will be aware, the efforts taken by the Clinton administration to stop terrorism, and in particular Al Qaeda terrorism, were considerable. One of the main reflections of this occurs in Clinton’s creation of the post of National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, the “Counter Terrorism Czar” that was given to Clarke. Clarke was very aware of the threat of AQ, and within 5 days of taking office, he had sent a document to Condi Rice, entitled, “Strategy for eliminating AQ”. Very clear in its import- these guys are mean, and they want to kill us. Take them very seriously The response? Very simple- demotion. The next day he was told that he would no longer be dealing with Principals, but rather with Deputies. This was a pretty easy method of turning the volume down/off from any non partisan members of government who might try and alert senior members too doggedly of the threat of a catastrophic terrorist attack.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar24.html
In his own words, this slowed things down “by months.” Actions on this document for combating this threat were not even discussed by Principals until September 4th; 9 months later.
It should also be noted that Bush and his team had been made aware of the urgency of getting AQ as early as November. Fighting terror was, indeed, something which Bush had campaigned on in 2000. The war on Islamic terrorism had been stated explicitly, in light of the USS Cole attack, by Sandy Berger on January 17th 2001. So the threat of Islamic terror was something Bush et al had been well briefed on before taking office, it was an “urgent” issue, a “deadly threat”. So when Clarke hands a document to the same people, outlining strategies for countering this deadly thread, and gets demoted for his efforts, this should bring the probable motivations of the administration quite sharply into relief.


Do note that if a new PH was going to occur, AQ/OBL are clearly the obvious bogeymen.

2. Regarding forewarnings, these were considerable. Many of these details can be founded, with links to articles/date and edition of articles, here:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...s&startpos=100

Here are some brief excerpts:

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

Now, the counter here will predictably be, well, there were problems, intel agencies get loads of warnings every day, this probably represents a minute fragment. This is only true with an ignorance of the facts. These state that George Tenet, the DCI, had described the intel warnings, regarding an upcoming AQ attack on the US/US interests, as “unprecedented”. This is the same man who was in charge over the millennium, when the terror threat (foiled, incidentally) was possibly as high as it had ever been up to that point. According to Dick Armitage, his “hair was on fire”. Another FBI source claimed “The warnings could not have been any worse”. So clearly, any arguments that this level of warning was something ordinary could not be further from the truth. (For all sources, see link above)

The second rebuttal is that the warnings were not specific enough. Well, although this will be debated, what is telling, is that nothing was done. Not one thing. No increased protection of vulnerabilities, border security etc, not even one effort toward that. As outlined above, such unprecedented neglect, fudged by incomplete explanations, is precisely what would be expected in such a scenario.

PS- Regarding “back channels”, this was stated in Clarke’s book, that Louis Freeh, the then director of the FBI had back channels to certain parts of the GOP.

3. What is less easy to explain away is the inaction of POTUS and those around him. As has been made clear in the 911 Comm report, Bush was warned 40 times in the ~30 weeks running up to 9/11, just at PDB’s by Tenet (the man with his hair on fire at the unprecedented threat), of the impending threat of an AQ attack. What was done? Nothing. And there were very specific pieces of information given to Bush. To quote 911 Commissioner Bob Kerrey:


Originally Posted by Bob Kerrey
“[b]y the way, there’s a credible case that the president’s own negligence prior to 9/11 at least in part contributed to the disaster in the first place.… [i]n the summer of 2001, the government ignored repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and didn’t do anything to harden our border security, didn’t do anything to harden airport country, didn’t do anything to engage local law enforcement, didn’t do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and didn’t warn the American people. The famous presidential daily briefing on August 6, we say in the report that the briefing officers believed that there was a considerable sense of urgency and it was current. So there was a case to be made that wasn’t made.… The president says, if I had only known that 19 Islamic men would come into the United States of America and on the morning of 11 September hijack four American aircraft, fly two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into an unknown Pennsylvania that crashed in Shanksville, I would have moved heaven and earth. That’s what he said. Mr. President, you don’t need to know that. This is an Islamic Jihadist movement that has been organized since the early 1990s, declared war on the United States twice, in ‘96 and ‘98. You knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat. And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission.”
This sums up matters quite well.

In addition, we have the statement from George Tenet, who told the CNN that he had told Rice that AQ were planning multiple, simultaneous attacks on the US.




http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...30/lkl.01.html

Of course, in the light of the fact that the CT movement presses for an investigation of possible US complicity in 9/11, the above, as well as the 40 ignored, direct warnings gives a strong case for such.

4. Of course there was the attack on the Cole, which was not acted upon at all; no War on Terror from that; just a promise from Bush to “strengthen missile defenses” to protect US troops. What is very interesting, incriminating, important, and unknown to most on either side of the fence, is the fact that OBL was offered to Bush, by the Taliban, in return for dropping of sanctions in February 2001. This was not only in the midst of all these warnings, but also after the guilt for the Cole bombing had been pinned on AQ. Not to mention the bombings of the embassies and the WTC in 1993. So, one of the biggest terrorists in the world who has killed many of your countrymen, and declared holy war against your country, declaring every man, woman and children legitmate targets, is offered to you on a plate, what do you do? Nothing of course. Criminal.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A
Ok, sorry for the hiatus.

Let’s move on, onto the foreknowledge section.

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

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

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

A very plausible sequence would be as follows:
1. Non partisan members of government who would stand in the way of a new PH happening get demoted/silenced/sidelined. This is not given, subsequently, adequate explanation.
2. There is an unprecedented litany of warnings in the intel community, none of which get acted upon. This leaves certain agents furious, threatening to quit, stating that something huge will happen unless people start taking things seriously. Important organisation heads will have back channels to the GOP, and have been brought into line, thus facilitating the neglect. No one will be fired, or even demoted. This is, subsequently, explained away by the fact that there were communication problems between agencies, fluff about how everything looks 20-20 in hindsight, and how they get lots of warnings.
3. It will, inevitably, surface that important and revelatory information was passed all the way up to the Principals, the VP, and even POTUS, but zero action was taken, nothing , nowhere. This will be left uncomfortably silent
4. And finally, there will maybe be the odd slip that cannot be accounted for, such as an early, smaller attack from Al Qaeda, the people most likely to be the bogeymen for the new PH, which should warrant a response, but nothing gets done; and, if you are really unlikely, an offer from the Taliban to hand over Osama Bin Laden to the US’s clients in Saudi Arabia, to be handed to the US; this just gets hushed up, and everyone pretends it didn’t happen.

I think this is a pretty plausible sequence of events for what might happen in the event of government connivance in 9/11. And of course, it is precisely what did happen.

1.As anyone who has read Richard Clarke’s book, “Against All Enemies” will be aware, the efforts taken by the Clinton administration to stop terrorism, and in particular Al Qaeda terrorism, were considerable. One of the main reflections of this occurs in Clinton’s creation of the post of National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, the “Counter Terrorism Czar” that was given to Clarke. Clarke was very aware of the threat of AQ, and within 5 days of taking office, he had sent a document to Condi Rice, entitled, “Strategy for eliminating AQ”. Very clear in its import- these guys are mean, and they want to kill us. Take them very seriously The response? Very simple- demotion. The next day he was told that he would no longer be dealing with Principals, but rather with Deputies. This was a pretty easy method of turning the volume down/off from any non partisan members of government who might try and alert senior members too doggedly of the threat of a catastrophic terrorist attack.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar24.html
In his own words, this slowed things down “by months.” Actions on this document for combating this threat were not even discussed by Principals until September 4th; 9 months later.
It should also be noted that Bush and his team had been made aware of the urgency of getting AQ as early as November. Fighting terror was, indeed, something which Bush had campaigned on in 2000. The war on Islamic terrorism had been stated explicitly, in light of the USS Cole attack, by Sandy Berger on January 17th 2001. So the threat of Islamic terror was something Bush et al had been well briefed on before taking office, it was an “urgent” issue, a “deadly threat”. So when Clarke hands a document to the same people, outlining strategies for countering this deadly thread, and gets demoted for his efforts, this should bring the probable motivations of the administration quite sharply into relief.


Do note that if a new PH was going to occur, AQ/OBL are clearly the obvious bogeymen.

2. Regarding forewarnings, these were considerable. Many of these details can be founded, with links to articles/date and edition of articles, here:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...s&startpos=100

Here are some brief excerpts:

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

Now, the counter here will predictably be, well, there were problems, intel agencies get loads of warnings every day, this probably represents a minute fragment. This is only true with an ignorance of the facts. These state that George Tenet, the DCI, had described the intel warnings, regarding an upcoming AQ attack on the US/US interests, as “unprecedented”. This is the same man who was in charge over the millennium, when the terror threat (foiled, incidentally) was possibly as high as it had ever been up to that point. According to Dick Armitage, his “hair was on fire”. Another FBI source claimed “The warnings could not have been any worse”. So clearly, any arguments that this level of warning was something ordinary could not be further from the truth. (For all sources, see link above)

The second rebuttal is that the warnings were not specific enough. Well, although this will be debated, what is telling, is that nothing was done. Not one thing. No increased protection of vulnerabilities, border security etc, not even one effort toward that. As outlined above, such unprecedented neglect, fudged by incomplete explanations, is precisely what would be expected in such a scenario.

PS- Regarding “back channels”, this was stated in Clarke’s book, that Louis Freeh, the then director of the FBI had back channels to certain parts of the GOP.

3. What is less easy to explain away is the inaction of POTUS and those around him. As has been made clear in the 911 Comm report, Bush was warned 40 times in the ~30 weeks running up to 9/11, just at PDB’s by Tenet (the man with his hair on fire at the unprecedented threat), of the impending threat of an AQ attack. What was done? Nothing. And there were very specific pieces of information given to Bush. To quote 911 Commissioner Bob Kerrey:


Originally Posted by Bob Kerrey
“[b]y the way, there’s a credible case that the president’s own negligence prior to 9/11 at least in part contributed to the disaster in the first place.… [i]n the summer of 2001, the government ignored repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and didn’t do anything to harden our border security, didn’t do anything to harden airport country, didn’t do anything to engage local law enforcement, didn’t do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and didn’t warn the American people. The famous presidential daily briefing on August 6, we say in the report that the briefing officers believed that there was a considerable sense of urgency and it was current. So there was a case to be made that wasn’t made.… The president says, if I had only known that 19 Islamic men would come into the United States of America and on the morning of 11 September hijack four American aircraft, fly two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into an unknown Pennsylvania that crashed in Shanksville, I would have moved heaven and earth. That’s what he said. Mr. President, you don’t need to know that. This is an Islamic Jihadist movement that has been organized since the early 1990s, declared war on the United States twice, in ‘96 and ‘98. You knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat. And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission.”
This sums up matters quite well.

In addition, we have the statement from George Tenet, who told the CNN that he had told Rice that AQ were planning multiple, simultaneous attacks on the US.


Quote:
KING: Did you warn her or threat -- did you warn her that a threat was imminent?

TENET: You're talking in the run-up to 9...

KING: Yes.

TENET: ... to 9/11?

Well, you know, we provided, I think...

KING: You knew there was a threat imminent.

TENET: Well, sure. There was -- we had a meeting on July 10th and we -- we, you know, I jumped in the car and went down to see the national security adviser. We believed that there were -- the threat was imminent, there would be multiple spectacular...

KING: What did she do?

TENET: Well, she got it. She understand the nature of the threat. She turned around, she had the deputies convene. Other things happened around that time. We had asked for -- we had asked for specific authorities to help us get into Afghanistan. We had asked for those in the spring. This all came a little bit slowly.

But, Larry, everybody now wants to look at was one person responsible?

Look, look, policymakers and law enforcement intelligence, all of us in this owed the families of 9/11 better than they got. Human beings make mistakes. There's no silver bullet in any of this.

So having the game of who did what and what happened, look, this was the most painful day of our lives.

So did we provide strategic warning?

Yes.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...30/lkl.01.html

Of course, in the light of the fact that the CT movement presses for an investigation of possible US complicity in 9/11, the above, as well as the 40 ignored, direct warnings gives a strong case for such.

4. Of course there was the attack on the Cole, which was not acted upon at all; no War on Terror from that; just a promise from Bush to “strengthen missile defenses” to protect US troops. What is very interesting, incriminating, important, and unknown to most on either side of the fence, is the fact that OBL was offered to Bush, by the Taliban, in return for dropping of sanctions in February 2001. This was not only in the midst of all these warnings, but also after the guilt for the Cole bombing had been pinned on AQ. Not to mention the bombings of the embassies and the WTC in 1993. So, one of the biggest terrorists in the world who has killed many of your countrymen, and declared holy war against your country, declaring every man, woman and children legitmate targets, is offered to you on a plate, what do you do? Nothing of course. Criminal.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

The need for investigating US government complicity, in the light of all this, is clearly a dire one.
We have been though this before. Don't expect us to explain your faults and fallacies again. Please reread this thread.

[funk de fino]

i cant see where tenet specifically mentions a threat of attack inside the US or a domestic attack

you have to prove that these type of specific threats were taken direct to POTUS and that he deliberatley ignored them

otherwise you have nowt

i would look at the links you supplied for further information but everyone apart from the youtube ones have an error 404 or this page is no longer available when i link to them??

and i do not agree with your statements on PNAC so scrub me off that list and go look at the poll on this site about this theory

[Belz...]

Good. So I have asked and waited fora long time for someone to put forth 1 post out of 3000 that rebuts, or even addresses the points made in 2662. No one has been able to do so, despite your whinings. So we have our first conclusion-

The thread concludes that a new PH was deemed propitious to policy.

Sorry, but that wasn't the conclusion, it was your OP. Also, since nobody agrees with you... no.

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

Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on defense, intel and diplomacy every year, in significant part to prevent the occurrence of a new PH, or some such event. This is why the chances of such an event occurring, absent government connivance, are so slim

This is a tired line of reasoning, Mjd, this "probability" thing. The fact of the matter is, it happened. You won't find out who did it my playing with numbers in your head. You need hard evidence.

Moreover, the chances that such an occurrence should happen in the most timely manner possible for said government, just before the QDR, the importance of which timing had been implied strongly in the same policy document

Non sequitur. Just because something is "propitious" doesn't mean you will make it happen.

It'd be propitious to me if I ruled the world. But it might still not be a good idea. And even if it were, I don't have the ability to do it. And even if I had, I might still not do it. See how you're jumping the gun, here ?

A very plausible sequence would be as follows:

You're speculating. Is that your proof ? That you can imagine a sequence of events that would fit the facts ? Anyone can do that. Evidence, please.

Let’s move on, onto the foreknowledge section.

Actually, you're just repeating yourself, now.

[nicepants]

Good. So I have asked and waited fora long time for someone to put forth 1 post out of 3000 that rebuts, or even addresses the points made in 2662. No one has been able to do so, despite your whinings. So we have our first conclusion-

The thread concludes that a new PH was deemed propitious to policy.

Correction....YOU concluded that

I suggest we move on to your next point. Since no consensus seems reachable on the "PH Propitious" point anytime soon.

[Cuddles]

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

[mjd1982]

We have been though this before. Don't expect us to explain your faults and fallacies again. Please reread this thread.
Just so I can humiliate you, like I have done to Twinstead, I would like yu to show me where this post has been addressed.

When you fail, tell me why you have lied.

[mjd1982]

i cant see where tenet specifically mentions a threat of attack inside the US or a domestic attack

you have to prove that these type of specific threats were taken direct to POTUS and that he deliberatley ignored them

otherwise you have nowt

i would look at the links you supplied for further information but everyone apart from the youtube ones have an error 404 or this page is no longer available when i link to them??

and i do not agree with your statements on PNAC so scrub me off that list and go look at the poll on this site about this theory
Read the 911 Comm report. The warnings were directly taken to POTUS. 40 times. 40 time he did nothing. Zero, zilch, zip, nada. And they were warnings of attacks on the US or US interests, which would be criminaly negligent of him not to protect. Pretty simple, no?

[mjd1982]

Correction....YOU concluded that

I suggest we move on to your next point. Since no consensus seems reachable on the "PH Propitious" point anytime soon.
No, the thread did. I asked for someone to show where the post had been conclusively rebutted, no one could even find, or write, a post where the points had been addressed. End of story.

Next point. Next silence.

[MortFurd]

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

Next point. Next silence.

The "point" has been addressed ad infinitum, ad nauseum in this thread. That you are incapable of recognizing it is very sad.

There's a bazillion posts in this thread that say "nope, PNAC does not say that a new Pearl Harbor would be propitious." Your auto-censor blanks those posts, though.

You are a poster child for the CTs inability to see the obvious and bow to reality.

[mjd1982]

The "point" has been addressed ad infinitum, ad nauseum in this thread. That you are incapable of recognizing it is very sad.

There's a bazillion posts in this thread that say "nope, PNAC does not say that a new Pearl Harbor would be propitious." Your auto-censor blanks those posts, though.

You are a poster child for the CTs inability to see the obvious and bow to reality.
Good. Show me one. We have almost 3000. Show me 1. Just 1.

And when you fail, tell me why you have lied. And apologise.

[MortFurd]

Good. Show me one. We have almost 3000. Show me 1. Just 1.

And when you fail, tell me why you have lied. And apologise.

Well, here's the one I posted:
Way back on page 17. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2693755#post2693755)
Acknowledged. Message heard. Disagree. I've read the PNAC document. Your paranoia is clouding your interpretation of the written words.

You believe PNAC wanted to get a jump start on their plan. Message acknowledged. Disagree. They are planning for the long term. The follow up to 9/11 has cost money that would (according to PNAC) have been better spent on R&D and deployment of improved weapons systems instead of having been blown over the Iraqi desert.

Addressed. Acknowledged. We have your standpoint.

Next point please. Make it march. I want to see what you've got before the sun burns out.
Fifty five almighty pages later you still cannot acknowledge that we know your standpoint and disagree.

[DGM]

Just so I can humiliate you, like I have done to Twinstead, I would like yu to show me where this post has been addressed.

When you fail, tell me why you have lied.
Why do you claim that we have not shown that your theory is only your opinion? Do you claim to be able to read the minds of the writers of the PNAC doc?
We disagree with your opinion, this has been shown many times the fact that YOU consider your opinion fact is your problem not ours.
Do you ever plan to bring something new to the table or are you going to continue to bore us with your tired assumptions and hind sight?
Your movement is failing because you can't seem to get the clue that people need real evidence. your arguments are all old hat no matter how many words you change. It's been 6 years, how long will it take before you can realize this.

[Belz...]

Read the 911 Comm report. The warnings were directly taken to POTUS. 40 times. 40 time he did nothing. Zero, zilch, zip, nada. And they were warnings of attacks on the US or US interests, which would be criminaly negligent of him not to protect. Pretty simple, no?

What would YOU do if I told you somebody was going to rob a house in your neighborhood, at some time in the near future ?

Oh, wait. That's already been asked.

Good. Show me one. We have almost 3000. Show me 1. Just 1.

And when you fail, tell me why you have lied. And apologise.

You have a chronic disorder that prevents you from seeing answers to your posts, Mjd.

[Belz...]

Allright, Mjd.

Once again. (I've lost count)

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

[funk de fino]

Read the 911 Comm report. The warnings were directly taken to POTUS. 40 times. 40 time he did nothing. Zero, zilch, zip, nada. And they were warnings of attacks on the US or US interests, which would be criminaly negligent of him not to protect. Pretty simple, no?

I just read it and you are being dishonest again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

they did what they could according the the intelligence they had

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

[mjd1982]

Well, here's the one I posted:
Way back on page 17. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2693755#post2693755)

Fifty five almighty pages later you still cannot acknowledge that we know your standpoint and disagree.
Lol, what a clownish post. Ok.

1. That post says "I disagree with ur pnac comments". This is not a refutation.
2. We are not talking about pnac now, this is done. We are talking about foreknowledge. I will ask you again- show me one post, or a multititude even, that deals with the points I have raised on that topic.

[mjd1982]

Why do you claim that we have not shown that your theory is only your opinion? Do you claim to be able to read the minds of the writers of the PNAC doc?
We disagree with your opinion, this has been shown many times the fact that YOU consider your opinion fact is your problem not ours.
Do you ever plan to bring something new to the table or are you going to continue to bore us with your tired assumptions and hind sight?
Your movement is failing because you can't seem to get the clue that people need real evidence. your arguments are all old hat no matter how many words you change. It's been 6 years, how long will it take before you can realize this.
1. Our movement has more members and subscribers than ever. You should know this. Its size is reflected in the popularity of this board.

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

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

[mjd1982]

What would YOU do if I told you somebody was going to rob a house in your neighborhood, at some time in the near future ?

Oh, wait. That's already been asked.



You have a chronic disorder that prevents you from seeing answers to your posts, Mjd.
Yes, that sub-moronic argument was made, and it was answered.

Nonethekess, this has nothing to do with anything. That point is merely 1 fraction of the many points that were made 2250 posts ago. I am asking where the points have been addressed, in all that time. They havent. So, you have a choice. You can either address them, or you can ignore them. If you do the former, I will humiliate you and you ilk some further (as is happening on 3 threads now); if you do the latter, you will humiliate yourself, and the thread will come it its conclusions, as it has with pnac

[mjd1982]

Allright, Mjd.

Once again. (I've lost count)

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that we DO agree. What's next ? How do you go about proving this conspiracy ?
You have an independent investigation. See #1, para 1 (?)

[mjd1982]

I just read it and you are being dishonest again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

they did what they could according the the intelligence they had

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

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

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

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

[funk de fino]

2 things-

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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


A June 12 CIA report passing along biographical background information on several terrorists mentioned, in commenting on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that he was recruiting people to travel to the United States to meet with colleagues already there so that they might conduct terrorist attacks on Bin Ladin's behalf.
On July 2, the FBI Counterterrorism Division sent a message to federal agencies and state and local law enforcement agencies summarizing information regarding threats from Bin Ladin. It warned that there was an increased volume of threat reporting, indicating a potential for attacks against U.S. targets abroad from groups "aligned with or sympathetic to Usama Bin Ladin." Despite the general warnings, the message further stated, "The FBI has no information indicating a credible threat of terrorist attack in the United States." However, it went on to emphasize that the possibility of attack in the United States could not be discounted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[HeyLeroy]

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

[Belz...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have lost.

[MSgtWeiss]

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

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

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

[lapman]

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

- September 10, 2001: US Generals Warned Not to Fly on Morning of 9/11Yeah, because they would rather have had them in the Pentagon with a greater chance of being killed.

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

[tsig]

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

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

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

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

[dudalb]

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

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

[MIKILLINI]

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

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

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

[nicepants]

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

Next point. Next silence.

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

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

[rikzilla]

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

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

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

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

[Hokulele]

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

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


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

[MG1962]

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

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

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

[mjd1982]

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

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

So what was the government supposed to do? Declare marshal-law? Detain everyone suspected of being a terrorist? Yeah, the ACLU would have multiple orgasms over that. So I guess the constant pressure on the Taliban to hand OBL over to us was not a response?
Again you are doing the simple OTer tactic of muddying the issue. If you di that, you wont lose, but no one wil win. And thats all you want,. You have no concern for the truth.

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

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

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

[Billdave2]

Here is the August briefing notes.

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

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

[HyJinX]

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

:rolleyes: delusions of grandeur

[Sabrina]

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

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

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

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

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

[Belz...]

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

:id:

You have no concern for the truth.

Your "truth" does not correspond to reality.

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

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

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

And that's YOUR typical tactic of ignoring responses.

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

Yeah, sure.

[funk de fino]

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

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

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

post # 2863

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

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

[lapman]

Again you are doing the simple OTer tactic of muddying the issue. If you di that, you wont lose, but no one wil win. And thats all you want,.
Pot meet kettle

Lets look at what you say anyway. Those comments, while they are just a fraction of my point about foreknowledge, are very stark. Again, foreknowledge of what? Something may happen at some point in time somewhere in the US or abroad. Yeah, real foreknowledge specifically related to what happened on 9/11.
They elicited zero response from Bush et al. This is criminal negligence. So the continued pressure on the Taliban to hand over OBL is not a response? So what should have been done?
You, and your ilk, have found it unable to even touch the hem of this section. Not even the hem. What hope do you have of challenging the totality?What challenge? It's already done and you have provided nothing that would show that all those threats pointed to the unprecedented hijacking of airplanes and flying them into buildings.
Its just like the PNAC doc- I have eviscerated Gravy's LC guide on PNAC- you guys had no hope of that either. Only in your own mind.

I will wait for someone to challenge the totallity of foreknowledge, and then, as with the PNAC section, the thread will come to its own conclusions.Since the only conclusion of the PNAC doc is that it has nothing to do with 9/11, WOT and Iraq, this will have a similar conclusion.

[mjd1982]

Here is the August briefing notes.

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

Note the last section states that the FBI is conducting over 70 operations to investigate this. So 70+ investigations is "doing nothing"? What else should the President have done based on the information in this briefing? Closed all the airports? Evacuated New York city? Nuked the middle east? The fact is,given the information that the President had there was nothing else that could have been done by the president. You could argue that the FBI didn't do a good job of investigating (although this is a needle in the haystack investigation at best), but something was being done. Once again you have failed to prove your point and have yet to provide any "facts"
That is not the August briefing notes. That is the 6th August PDB. Very different. Multiply that by 40, and you have an idea of what Bush was getting.

They are conducting 70 OBL related investigations. This means nothing. What were they investigating? Bush knew there were AQ terror cells in the US, he had been told in July. This was not investigated. All reports on such were ignored. He was told of the threat of plane hijackings. Not one thing done to lower the probability of this occurring. Tighten airport security. Cockpit doors. Track down the AQ agents. There is no report of this being ordered, or done.

To state that to get 40 days of warnings of an OBL terror threat, and do nothing about it 40 times, is not criminally incompetent... boy, a dank cesspit the OT mind is.

[mjd1982]

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

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

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

ETA: The definition of actionable intelligence, in terms of the military and government, is as follows:
You havent read the PDBs. You dont know what they say. An investigation would uncover that. Do you not want that?

[mjd1982]

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

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



















































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

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

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

even if there had been enough intel on attacks within the US it seemed that the agencies were not prepared because no-one thought it would happen, arrogance and incompetance but nothing to say that warnings were deliberately ignored so that the attacks could go ahead which is your contention
1. Watch (for doing nothing x40)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A

2. I never claimed the warnings were all about attacks inside the US. I said inside the US and on US interests. Very clearly. Let's look at some of what your quotes say, in any case:


he thought there were terrorist cells within the United States, including al Qaeda.

Bin Ladin supporters were planning an attack in the United States using "high explosives.

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

these briefings discussed general threats to attack America and American interests

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that he was recruiting people to travel to the United States to meet with colleagues already there so that they might conduct terrorist attacks on Bin Ladin's behalf.

the possibility of attack in the United States could not be discounted

There was a clear disparity in the levels of response to foreign versus domestic threats. Numerous actions were taken overseas to disrupt possible attacks

al Qaeda sleeper cells were likely in the United States

"informed the FBI that an extensive network of al Qida 'sleeper agents' currently exists in the US."

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


Boy oh boy, I think you just debunked yourself! You shoudl have just let it lie...

If you are happy with this level of terror threat (and this is just scratching the surface) metting zero response from the man sworn and elected to protect you, then you too are a criminal negligent, like Bush.

[Alt+F4]

To state that to get 40 days of warnings of an OBL terror threat, and do nothing about it 40 times, is not criminally incompetent... boy, a dank cesspit the OT mind is.

Your confusing the issue here. Bush being criminally incompetent regarding terror warning signs during the summer of 2001 is entirely different than Bush Co. being the mastermind behind those who actually did carry out the attacks.

You seem to have the same wrong assumptions as most of your fellow "truthers", which is that everyone who believes the generally accepted version of 9/11 events must be a Bush loving zombie. I'm an American and an absolute Bush hater. I would support impeachment charges against him and Cheney. As evil as those two are, 9/11 was conducted by 19 Islamic terrorists not under Bush's control.

[lapman]

They are conducting 70 OBL related investigations. This means nothing. WTF!?!?!?!? So the fact that they were doing investigations mean nothing? SO what should they have been doing? You are shown that something was being done and you say that nothing was being. Great logic there. Oh I get it, it's not on YouTube, so it's not fact. Gottya.

[twinstead]

Once any CT falls back on the 'anybody who disagrees with me is a Bush loving zombie' cop out has lost the argument. It's the Godwin's law of woo wooizm

[Sabrina]

MJD, I've read every single one. All forty of them. Kindly do not make assumptions about what I have read, thank you. And given that I am currently working WITHIN the US Intelligence Community and have had some training in what is and is not actionable intelligence, you might want to defer to my knowledge in that arena, as I highly doubt you are working in the IC.

I reiterate my question: What, in your opinion, should the President have done in regards to these vague, incompletely investigated warnings? Please be specific and detailed, list out your response.

[JonnyFive]

MJD, I've read every single one. All forty of them. Kindly do not make assumptions about what I have read, thank you. And given that I am currently working WITHIN the US Intelligence Community and have had some training in what is and is not actionable intelligence, you might want to defer to my knowledge in that arena, as I highly doubt you are working in the IC.

Very well said, but something in my experience with mjd leads me to believe that you might be asking a bit much of him here.

[Sabrina]

I have very little argument to that, Jonny; I suppose I have a well of optimism regarding twoofers that if I just try hard enough, they might actually see the light eventually.

It's why I stay. *shrugs*

[plumjam]

for people who purport to be "skeptics" its more than a little unusual that so many of them are so willing to support the fables of a lie-based organisation like the US government

[lapman]

for people who purport to be "skeptics" its more than a little unusual that so many of them are so willing to support the fables of a lie-based organisation like the US government
Where did we say that we believe what the government says? Then again, the people that purport to "seek the Truth" worship the fables of a lie-based organization like the "Truth Movement." Now, please stay on topic.

[plumjam]

Where did we say that we believe what the government says? Then again, the people that purport to "seek the Truth" worship the fables of a lie-based organization like the "Truth Movement." Now, please stay on topic.

so you don't believe the government's version of what happened on 9/11?
and you're arguing against the 9/11 truthers too, i'm a little confused then about what you do think happened on 9/11

[lapman]

so you don't believe the government's version of what happened on 9/11?
and you're arguing against the 9/11 truthers too, i'm a little confused then about what you do think happened on 9/11
I believe what the facts show. It's just that the facts support the "Official Version" of what happened that day. The "Truth Movement" has yet to show a single piece of "evidence" that can't be easily shown to be false.

[dudalb]

MJD, I've read every single one. All forty of them. Kindly do not make assumptions about what I have read, thank you. And given that I am currently working WITHIN the US Intelligence Community and have had some training in what is and is not actionable intelligence, you might want to defer to my knowledge in that arena, as I highly doubt you are working in the IC.


EVIL GOVERMENT DISINFO SHILL!
EVIL! EVIL! EVIL!:D

[dudalb]

so you don't believe the government's version of what happened on 9/11?
and you're arguing against the 9/11 truthers too, i'm a little confused then about what you do think happened on 9/11

19 Islamic Extremists hijacked Four Airliners and Flew them into The WTC in New York,the Pentagon In DC,and a field in Pennslyvania thanks to the courage of the passengers.
I don't beleive everything the Goverment says.I believe them on 9/11 because the fact and evidence supports it.
Whearas the Twoofers have not a leg to stand on.

[plumjam]

I believe what the facts show. It's just that the facts support the "Official Version" of what happened that day. The "Truth Movement" has yet to show a single piece of "evidence" that can't be easily shown to be false.

hmm.. the facts, huh?

8 of the supposed hijackers named by the govt. turning up alive and well in various parts of the world, no arab names on the flight manifests, no dated CCTV of the supposed hijackers in the relevant airports on the relevant day, 5 of the supposed hijackers having a Pensacola military base as the address on their drivers licenses, the 9/11 commission refusing to ask 70% of the questions put forward by family members etc.. etc..
there are as many holes in the official version as there were in the case for the subsequent invasion of Iraq

[Brainache]

hmm.. the facts, huh?

8 of the supposed hijackers named by the govt. turning up alive and well in various parts of the world, no arab names on the flight manifests, no dated CCTV of the supposed hijackers in the relevant airports on the relevant day, 5 of the supposed hijackers having a Pensacola military base as the address on their drivers licenses, the 9/11 commission refusing to ask 70% of the questions put forward by family members etc.. etc..
there are as many holes in the official version as there were in the case for the subsequent invasion of Iraq

My isn't all of that very interesting.... Maybe you should start a thread and destroy us all with the power of your new and shocking "facts". It's not like we've ever seen a list like that before...:bunpan

[Sabrina]

EVIL GOVERMENT DISINFO SHILL!
EVIL! EVIL! EVIL!:D

:P

[plumjam]

My isn't all of that very interesting.... Maybe you should start a thread and destroy us all with the power of your new and shocking "facts". It's not like we've ever seen a list like that before...:bunpan

how unsurprising that you don't address the instances I outlined.
I've been on this forum just two days and have never in my life seen so many people imprisoned by dogma, and most of them don't seem to realise it.

[lapman]

hmm.. the facts, huh?

8 of the supposed hijackers named by the govt. turning up alive and well in various parts of the world, no arab names on the flight manifests, no dated CCTV of the supposed hijackers in the relevant airports on the relevant day, 5 of the supposed hijackers having a Pensacola military base as the address on their drivers licenses, the 9/11 commission refusing to ask 70% of the questions put forward by family members etc.. etc..
So when are you going to post an actual fact instead of a "Truth Movement" proven fallacy?
there are as many holes in the official version as there were in the case for the subsequent invasion of IraqExcept that 9/11 wasn't used as reason to go into Iraq until after the WMD's weren't found.

[Alt+F4]

8 of the supposed hijackers named by the govt. turning up alive and well in various parts of the world, no arab names on the flight manifests, no dated CCTV of the supposed hijackers in the relevant airports on the relevant day, 5 of the supposed hijackers having a Pensacola military base as the address on their drivers licenses, the 9/11 commission refusing to ask 70% of the questions put forward by family members

Ok, could you please provide evidence of these claims? Thanks.

[plumjam]

Ok, could you please provide evidence of these claims? Thanks.

sure, when you can be bothered to provide the evidence against them

[plumjam]

So when are you going to post an actual fact instead of a "Truth Movement" proven fallacy?
Except that 9/11 wasn't used as reason to go into Iraq until after the WMD's weren't found.

I'd like to see where these so-called fallacies have been proven so

[DGM]

sure, when you can be bothered to provide the evidence against them
You see there now you have a problem. We could do nothing and your little truth movement will move along like the big foot, UFO and Elvis sighters or you could try to prove something,...........anything, the choice is yours. So.......do you have anything to bring to the table but the normal truther lies?
Start a thread if you got some evidence.

[Alt+F4]

sure, when you can be bothered to provide the evidence against them

You're the one making the charges, not me. Defend them.

[WildCat]

hmm.. the facts, huh?

8 of the supposed hijackers named by the govt. turning up alive and well in various parts of the world, no arab names on the flight manifests, no dated CCTV of the supposed hijackers in the relevant airports on the relevant day, 5 of the supposed hijackers having a Pensacola military base as the address on their drivers licenses, the 9/11 commission refusing to ask 70% of the questions put forward by family members etc.. etc..
The request was for facts, not lies. But I do note that you managed 3 outright lies, and 2 statements whose relevance to whatever CT you subscribe to you do not explain - all in one sentence!

[DGM]

Plumjam:
Before you start Youtube and Google video is NOT evidence of anything. TRY to be original.

[Corsair 115]

8 of the supposed hijackers named by the govt. turning up alive and well in various parts of the world...And how was this determined exactly? How was the possibility of these other folks simply having the same names as the hijackers ruled out? After all, there are plenty of completely different people who happen to share the same first and last names...

[MIKILLINI]

And how was this determined exactly? How was the possibility of these other folks simply having the same names as the hijackers ruled out? After all, there are plenty of completely different people who happen to share the same first and last names...

Exactly. Why didn't any truther ever realize that? There is a maintenance worker at my job site who's name is Bruce Willis..Does anyone recognize that name?

[funk de fino]

1. Watch (for doing nothing x40)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A

2. I never claimed the warnings were all about attacks inside the US. I said inside the US and on US interests. Very clearly. Let's look at some of what your quotes say, in any case:



Boy oh boy, I think you just debunked yourself! You shoudl have just let it lie...

If you are happy with this level of terror threat (and this is just scratching the surface) metting zero response from the man sworn and elected to protect you, then you too are a criminal negligent, like Bush.

again you cherry pick

you state 40 warnings and nothing was done, your initial claims were 40 warnings about attacks inside the US, we have just seen the report does not say this, what ever you try to say now, your quotes of tenet tried to say it was 40 warnings of attacks in the US

the report also says operations were started involving 20 other countries that summer to tackle AQ due to the intel warnings, these were part of the ongoing 70 operations??

why are trying to deny this?

it states that not much was done about the domestic threat because they had no specifics, this is what they work on

they had specific warnings as regards overseas targets therefore concentrated on them, i am saying they were deficient in realising the threat to the US but not overseas, but this is far different than saying criminally negligent

i never debunked myself, i was trying to give a balanced account of what was in the report you gave me and not cherry pick like you do, i even bolded some of the stuff i supposedly debunked myself with??

if you read it, there is next to nothing about domestic attacks in the whole report which is not what you were trying to infer, even when there is info there are again, no specifics

as for protect me and elected to protect me, you are obviously criminally stupid, as i am not even american, a fact you should have been aware of from other posts on this forum and possibly my username

if you read the report and still say there was "zero" response then you are a liar

ps do you know what sleeper agents are? it might give you a clue about why clarke did not push this as it was old info and did not have anything to do with the new foreigners that flew into the country to carry out 911

[Belz...]

hmm.. the facts, huh?

8 of the supposed hijackers named by the govt. turning up alive and well

Oh, please, Plum. Surely such a cunning researcher such as yourself should've found out by now that these were cases of mistaken identity.

But thanks for proving lapman's point that truthers only have arguments that are easily shown to be false.

no arab names on the flight manifests

On the VICTIMS list, you mean.

the 9/11 commission refusing to ask 70% of the questions put forward by family members

That doesn't mean what you think it means.

there are as many holes in the official version as there were in the case for the subsequent invasion of Iraq

What does Iraq have to do with 9/11 ?

[Belz...]

I've been on this forum just two days and have never in my life seen so many people imprisoned by dogma, and most of them don't seem to realise it.

Sure, Plum. When people disagree with you, call them dogmatic instead of proving your claims. That's a sure-fire way of endearing yourself to said people.

sure, when you can be bothered to provide the evidence against them

Again, such an astute researcher as yourself should've found out by now that the burden of proof lies on you.

I'd like to see where these so-called fallacies have been proven so

Actually, I'm sure you wouldn't. Because then you'd have to rationalise away the flaws of your theory.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

No, THAT is called dogma.

[volatile]

It must be quite hard going through life credulously believing everything you're told... what if two people tell you conflicting things? Who would one believe then? What possible process could one go through in order to discern who's telling the truth and who's not?

[mjd1982]

Your confusing the issue here. Bush being criminally incompetent regarding terror warning signs during the summer of 2001 is entirely different than Bush Co. being the mastermind behind those who actually did carry out the attacks.

You seem to have the same wrong assumptions as most of your fellow "truthers", which is that everyone who believes the generally accepted version of 9/11 events must be a Bush loving zombie. I'm an American and an absolute Bush hater. I would support impeachment charges against him and Cheney. As evil as those two are, 9/11 was conducted by 19 Islamic terrorists not under Bush's control.
No no no no no no no! It is you who have missed the point, of this section and of the entire thread up to now.

The issue is-
1. Prove that a new PH was deemed by the neo cons as propitious to policy (done)
2. Prove that the neo cons were criminally negligent in failing to prevent said new PH

If this can be done, then the case for a new investigation into connivance, cannot be refuted.

[mjd1982]

MJD, I've read every single one. All forty of them. Kindly do not make assumptions about what I have read, thank you. And given that I am currently working WITHIN the US Intelligence Community and have had some training in what is and is not actionable intelligence, you might want to defer to my knowledge in that arena, as I highly doubt you are working in the IC.

I reiterate my question: What, in your opinion, should the President have done in regards to these vague, incompletely investigated warnings? Please be specific and detailed, list out your response.
Where have you read them?

1. Chase down AQ cells
2. Harden border secutiry
3. Hardn airplane security
4. Toughen airport security
5. Toughen cockpit doors
6. Kill OBL when offered/have him handed over when offered
7. Make sure NORAD is on red alert,given 6th august.

just a few things. I have said all thse many times

[mjd1982]

I believe what the facts show. It's just that the facts support the "Official Version" of what happened that day. The "Truth Movement" has yet to show a single piece of "evidence" that can't be easily shown to be false.
As is believed by 16% of the US population.

[HyJinX]

No no no no no no no! It is you who have missed the point, of this section and of the entire thread up to now.

The issue is-
1. Prove that a new PH was deemed by the neo cons as propitious to policy (done)
2. Prove that the neo cons were criminally negligent in failing to prevent said new PH

If this can be done, then the case for a new investigation into connivance, cannot be refuted.

The issue is-
1. Prove that a new PH was deemed by the neo cons as propitious to policy- Failed
2. Prove that the neo cons were criminally negligent in failing to prevent said new PH - Irrelevant due to failure of #1.

That's more like it.

[twinstead]

Where have you read them?

1. Chase down AQ cells
2. Harden border secutiry
3. Hardn airplane security
4. Toughen airport security
5. Toughen cockpit doors
6. Kill OBL when offered/have him handed over when offered
7. Make sure NORAD is on red alert,given 6th august.

just a few things. I have said all thse many times

Oh good grief. Had the government done some of those things prior to 911 people like you would be up in arms against the fascists and preparing for the coming police state.

This 20/20 hindsight 'if I ran the zoo' stuff is beneath you. Yea. All we had to do is 'Chase down AQ cells'. Whey didn't I think of that?

[Sabrina]

Where have you read them?

The unclassified versions online; I don't recall the website at the moment, but I will endeavor to locate it. It will have to wait until I'm at home, however.

1. Chase down AQ cells
This was being done. On a fairly constant basis. Or did you forget the 70+ investigations by the FBI into terrorism, or the Al Qaeda investigative cell of the FBI? What do you think they did?

2. Harden border secutiry
3. Hardn airplane security
4. Toughen airport security
5. Toughen cockpit doors
Ah hindsight... the preeminent weapon of the twoofer.

Newsflash: If we had done ANY of these PRIOR to 9/11 there would have been a giant uproar throughout the country. I actually agree with you on this, mjd (whoa, there's a shocker) that these should have been in place regardless of any threat, but you'd find that I'm in a distinct minority if you could go back in time and poll people prior to 9/11 about these measures. You might recall that the TSA didn't even EXIST prior to 9/11; security measures were undertaken by the airlines themselves or the individual airports. It wasn't federally run, to my understanding. I might be wrong; I suppose the FAA could have been nominally in charge of it, but regardless I HIGHLY doubt anyone would have stood for the level of security we have now in our airports back then without a darn good reason, and the nebulous warnings received by the intel community weren't enough.
6. Kill OBL when offered/have him handed over when offered
7. Make sure NORAD is on red alert,given 6th august.

just a few things. I have said all thse many times

Number six... yeah, that was possibly a mistake on our part, at least when it comes to killing him. Given what I know of the Taliban, I rather doubt the offer of turning him over was serious, however. Regardless, that one I can't fully disagree with; however, I don't believe that killing OBL would have stopped the 9/11 effort in its tracks. Al Qaeda is now and has always been a fairly "fragmented" group, and I'm of the opinion that OBL was not fully necessary to carrying out the plot. Even if we had killed OBL, Al Qaeda might very well have latched onto him as a martyr and become even more fanatically committed to carrying out the fatwas he issued against the US, and it might just as easily have turned out worse than it did.

As for number seven... what, EXACTLY, would that have accomplished, pray tell? NORAD's mission has always been focused outward, to air threats coming from overseas; how does this help deal with aircraft that have been hijacked WITHIN US borders? Not to mention, looking over the unclassified text of the 6th August PDB (located here: http://www.agonist.org/annex/pdb.htm), I see nothing that pertains to NORAD's mission at the time and is certainly no excuse for placing them in FPCON Delta, a condition, I might add, which is never intended to be maintained for more than a week or two at a time, given the difficulty in carrying it out. (Note: Red alert, or Force Protection Condition Delta, can be defined on any military website; just do a search) Those sorts of conditions are never meant to be maintained for weeks at a time, which would have to have been done if they implemented it right after August 6th, as you would have liked.

Anything else? Because I have to be honest, that list you gave; it's pretty useless, except in hindsight, or was already being done. The only two any different are the last two, and even they are questionable in terms of their usefulness.

[Belz...]

The issue is-
1. Prove that a new PH was deemed by the neo cons as propitious to policy (done)

Done ? You're the only one that agrees with that claim. The fact that we've conceded it for the sake of argument once or twice doesn't mean squat.

2. Prove that the neo cons were criminally negligent in failing to prevent said new PH

And you can't do this.

If this can be done, then the case for a new investigation into connivance, cannot be refuted.

Criminal negligence STILL doesn't mean 9/11 was an inside job.

[Belz...]

As is believed by 16% of the US population.

Polls, shmolls.

1. Chase down AQ cells
2. Harden border secutiry
3. Hardn airplane security
4. Toughen airport security
5. Toughen cockpit doors
6. Kill OBL when offered/have him handed over when offered
7. Make sure NORAD is on red alert,given 6th august.

Why ? This is Mjd, who knows what happened on 9/11, talking. 20/20 and all that.

[Belz...]

Number six... yeah, that was possibly a mistake on our part, at least when it comes to killing him. Given what I know of the Taliban, I rather doubt the offer of turning him over was serious, however.

Don't waste your breath, girl. Mjd couldn't learn that fact even if he tried. If memory serves, it's been pointed out to him a trillion times already.

Or maybe that was Malcolm... I get these types confused.

[nicepants]

As is believed by 16% of the US population.

Go ahead post it....say it...that 84% of americans believe 9/11 was an inside job.

You know...the funny thing is, if that was true, shame on the 84% who aren't doing anything about it!!!

I don't know ANYONE who believes 9/11 was an inside job...and if they did, they don't speak about it, so they might as well not count...because if you truly believed your own government was behind 9/11...you would be no better than them if you just kept quiet about it.

[stateofgrace]

As is believed by 16% of the US population.

Yet no reaction from the international community, why is that mjd?

[HyJinX]

As is believed by 16% of the US population.

Strippers use polls too, but I don't believe anything they tell me.

Prove that 84% of Americans believe that 9/11 was an inside jawb. Because that's not what those polls told the normal people.

[mjd1982]

Go ahead post it....say it...that 84% of americans believe 9/11 was an inside job.

You know...the funny thing is, if that was true, shame on the 84% who aren't doing anything about it!!!

I don't know ANYONE who believes 9/11 was an inside job...and if they did, they don't speak about it, so they might as well not count...because if you truly believed your own government was behind 9/11...you would be no better than them if you just kept quiet about it.
Think before you post. 16% of US believe, like you, the official account.

Now, and think before you write here, what does that mean the other 84% believe?

[mjd1982]

Yet no reaction from the international community, why is that mjd?
As ive told you, it will be either because they dont know the facts, or because, like you, they are sheep.

Not that this has anything to do with anyting of course

[stateofgrace]

Think before you post. 16% of US believe, like you, the official account.

Now, and think before you write here, what does that mean the other 84% believe?

Yes maybe you should. Maybe you should back up you claims that 84% of American believe, like you that the USG committed mass murder on 911...

[stateofgrace]

As ive told you, it will be either because they dont know the facts, or because, like you, they are sheep.

Not that this has anything to do with anyting of course

But you do, so why have you not contacted Interpol?

[HyJinX]

Think before you post. 16% of US believe, like you, the official account.

Now, and think before you write here, what does that mean the other 84% believe?

Why do you lie?

[stateofgrace]

You havent read the PDBs. You dont know what they say. An investigation would uncover that. Do you not want that?

Well do you? Put you money where your mouth is and contact Interpol.

These guys.


INTERPOL is the world’s largest international police organization, with 186 member countries (http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/Members/default.asp). Created in 1923, it facilitates cross-border police co-operation, and supports and assists all organizations, authorities and services whose mission is to prevent or combat international crime.


http://www.interpol.int/public/icpo/default.asp

[Mr. Skinny]

mjd, if 84% don't believe the official story and are not taking action because they too are "sheep", wouldn't your forum time be better spent at a place where folks already agree with your story, but have failed to organize and take action?

You could spur them to action! After all, they already agree with you! Think how much more effectively your time would be spent!

[johnny karate]

As ive told you, it will be either because they dont know the facts, or because, like you, they are sheep.

They don't have access to Youtube outside of America? These websites from which you draw your "information" are accessible to pretty much anyone, are they not?

And not the old "sheep" canard again. I can't believe Truthers are still flogging that dead horse. Do you really believe that on a planet of 6 billion people, it is only you and a handful of others that care if 3,000+ innocent people are brutally murdered and their murderers construct a massive conspiracy to evade punishment?

Not that this has anything to do with anyting of courseIn typical Truther fashion, you dismiss a question that strikes at the very heart of your theory. Even if one accepts the ridiculous notion that the U.S Government controls the American media completely and totally, it still doesn't explain why no one in the foreign media has picked up on what Truthers claim is so obvious. Nor does it explain why nations unfriendly to the U.S. haven't taken this damning information and used it to bring down our government.

And now for my bid at the Million Dollar Challenge: I shall use my psychic abilities to prognosticate that mjd1982 will either ignore or dismiss this point, and then go back to arguing about something like what the word "pull" means.

[twinstead]

Like some woo woo Godwin's law, as soon as a CT calls somebody who disagrees with him a sheep the debate is over.

[nicepants]

Think before you post. 16% of US believe, like you, the official account.

All of it, or just part of it?

Now, and think before you write here, what does that mean the other 84% believe?

Why don't you just tell me, so I don't have to guess.

[twinstead]

Please don't say the other 84% think it was an inside job, because you know it's not true mjd.

[Unsecured Coins]

a week gone on the world's crappiest vacation and I see nothing has changed. Not that I expected it but damn... some one could have taken out the trash.

[Pardalis]

a week gone on the world's crappiest vacation and I see nothing has changed. Not that I expected it but damn... some one could have taken out the trash.

Guess again (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90117). ;)

[A W Smith]

Think before you post. 16% of US believe, like you, the official account.

Now, and think before you write here, what does that mean the other 84% believe?
evidence?

[mjd1982]

Yes maybe you should. Maybe you should back up you claims that 84% of American believe, like you that the USG committed mass murder on 911...
wrong answer. Try again

[mjd1982]

mjd, if 84% don't believe the official story and are not taking action because they too are "sheep", wouldn't your forum time be better spent at a place where folks already agree with your story, but have failed to organize and take action?

You could spur them to action! After all, they already agree with you! Think how much more effectively your time would be spent!
I spend lots of time doing such.

[mjd1982]

They don't have access to Youtube outside of America? These websites from which you draw your "information" are accessible to pretty much anyone, are they not?


The scope of internet media is miniscule compared to that of MSM. Hence why only 42% of the US know the most rudimentary fact about the most newsworthy and reported evnent of their lives- how many skyscrapers fell on 911. The figure in other countries will be far, far smaller.


And not the old "sheep" canard again. I can't believe Truthers are still flogging that dead horse. Do you really believe that on a planet of 6 billion people, it is only you and a handful of others that care if 3,000+ innocent people are brutally murdered and their murderers construct a massive conspiracy to evade punishment?


where did i say anythign about care?


In typical Truther fashion, you dismiss a question that strikes at the very heart of your theory. Even if one accepts the ridiculous notion that the U.S Government controls the American media completely and totally,


An astonishing piece of ignorance, I have posted on this too many times now; read "Manufacturing Consent" by Chomsky and Herman; this book shoudl be obligatory reading for OT kooks on this board.


it still doesn't explain why no one in the foreign media has picked up on what Truthers claim is so obvious. Nor does it explain why nations unfriendly to the U.S. haven't taken this damning information and used it to bring down our government.


1. What is your proof that this hasnt happened?
2. How would they use it to "bring down" the USG?


And now for my bid at the Million Dollar Challenge: I shall use my psychic abilities to prognosticate that mjd1982 will either ignore or dismiss this point, and then go back to arguing about something like what the word "pull" means.

So do i get the million dollars then?

[WildCat]

The scope of internet media is miniscule compared to that of MSM. Hence why only 42% of the US know the most rudimentary fact about the most newsworthy and reported evnent of their lives- how many skyscrapers fell on 911.
Do you know how many fell? And how many were attacked?

The figure in other countries will be far, far smaller.
Evidence?

[stateofgrace]

wrong answer. Try again


Stop copying my replies, only people who have no ability to think for themselves copy other people thoughts,sheep copy other people’s thoughts.

I see no evidence to back up your claim that 84 % of Americans think the USG committed mass murder on 911, got any?

Oh how did it go with Interpol? Have you told them yet, passed on all your information? When can we expect them to start the investigation? Are they going to indict anybody?

I take you have been in touch, right?

[funk de fino]

This was being done. On a fairly constant basis. Or did you forget the 70+ investigations by the FBI into terrorism, or the Al Qaeda investigative cell of the FBI? What do you think they did?


As for number seven... what, EXACTLY, would that have accomplished, pray tell? NORAD's mission has always been focused outward, to air threats coming from overseas; how does this help deal with aircraft that have been hijacked WITHIN US borders? Not to mention, looking over the unclassified text of the 6th August PDB (located here: http://www.agonist.org/annex/pdb.htm), I see nothing that pertains to NORAD's mission at the time and is certainly no excuse for placing them in FPCON Delta, a condition, I might add, which is never intended to be maintained for more than a week or two at a time, given the difficulty in carrying it out. (Note: Red alert, or Force Protection Condition Delta, can be defined on any military website; just do a search) Those sorts of conditions are never meant to be maintained for weeks at a time, which would have to have been done if they implemented it right after August 6th, as you would have liked.


he has read the report and ignored your first point as has been proved already by him claiming that zero was done even though the report states that actions were carried out with 20 other countries involved to beak up AQ cells outwith the US, he will continue to ignore this point because it proves his theory wrong

as an ex military person who has been inolved in similar raising of threat levels this second paragrapgh is a good point

it is virtually inpossible to stay at the highest threat level for any length of time, this is why it is only for a specific attack when a target is usually known and a very confident date of attack

none of the reports i have seen give credence to the fact that the US should have been on the highest alert, to keep in place from 6/8 till 9/11 would have been next to impossible

unfortunately MJD has no idea of the work and resources needed to try and attempt what he is claiming should have been done

i very much doubt if the UK would even have gone as high as Amber for this type of info

he has ignored my relies regarding the report after asking me to read it, it seems he has not read it either

[Brainache]

I would speculate that even if the US had done everything that mjd suggests they should have, it wouldn't have stopped Al Qaida. The specific attack may have been different, but these guys were/are smart, and determined. I think they would have just changed tactics and caused havoc some other way.

1. Chase down AQ cells
2. Harden border secutiry
3. Hardn airplane security
4. Toughen airport security
5. Toughen cockpit doors
6. Kill OBL when offered/have him handed over when offered
7. Make sure NORAD is on red alert,given 6th august.

1. Generally takes longer than on the telly Einstein.
2. Yeah. Maybe build a wall two miles high around the whole country. That would work.
3. On every plane and airport in the US within a few months? Again the real world is more complex than TV.
4. How? Steroids?
5. OK how long would that take without grounding every plane in the states? Or maybe they should have grounded every plane in the States and every plane likely to fly there while toughened doors were installed?
6. Yeah because the Taliban wanted nothing more than one of their biggest supporters dragged away in chains or their country the target of rocket attacks.
7. Stupid NORAD always looking for foreign planes!

[WildCat]

7. Stupid NORAD always looking for foreign planes!
It amazes me that troofers think that NORAD would have shot down the hijacked planes that hit the WTC if they had intercepted them in time. Sorry mjd1982, the Air Force was not in the business of shooting down civilian airliners simply because they were hijacked.

[Corsair 115]

As ive told you, it will be either because they dont know the facts, or because, like you, they are sheep.Really? The citizens of France, Britain, Germany, Australia, Japan, Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, Portugal, Iceland, Norway, Greenland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, The Netherlands, they're all don't know the facts or are just sheep? What a wonderful world view you have.

[twinstead]

Really? The citizens of France, Britain, Germany, Australia, Japan, Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, Portugal, Iceland, Norway, Greenland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, The Netherlands, they're all don't know the facts or are just sheep? What a wonderful world view you have.

It appears that in mjd's world, the common definition for 'sheep' is 'those who disagree with me'.

[mjd1982]

Do you know how many fell? And how many were attacked?


Evidence?
3 skyscrapers. 2 attacked

[mjd1982]

Stop copying my replies, only people who have no ability to think for themselves copy other people thoughts,sheep copy other people’s thoughts.

I see no evidence to back up your claim that 84 % of Americans think the USG committed mass murder on 911, got any?

Oh how did it go with Interpol? Have you told them yet, passed on all your information? When can we expect them to start the investigation? Are they going to indict anybody?

I take you have been in touch, right?
I never claimed that.

And no, I havent contacted Interpol

*sigh*

[mjd1982]

I would speculate that even if the US had done everything that mjd suggests they should have, it wouldn't have stopped Al Qaida. The specific attack may have been different, but these guys were/are smart, and determined. I think they would have just changed tactics and caused havoc some other way.


1. Generally takes longer than on the telly Einstein.
2. Yeah. Maybe build a wall two miles high around the whole country. That would work.
3. On every plane and airport in the US within a few months? Again the real world is more complex than TV.
4. How? Steroids?
5. OK how long would that take without grounding every plane in the states? Or maybe they should have grounded every plane in the States and every plane likely to fly there while toughened doors were installed?
6. Yeah because the Taliban wanted nothing more than one of their biggest supporters dragged away in chains or their country the target of rocket attacks.
7. Stupid NORAD always looking for foreign planes!
It may not have stopped them. The point is, and has always been, that they didnt try. This is where criminal negligence differs from incompetence.

[mjd1982]

It amazes me that troofers think that NORAD would have shot down the hijacked planes that hit the WTC if they had intercepted them in time. Sorry mjd1982, the Air Force was not in the business of shooting down civilian airliners simply because they were hijacked.
1. They didnt have to shoot them down.
2. It wasnt just 11 and 175 that were hijacked tht day.

[mjd1982]

Really? The citizens of France, Britain, Germany, Australia, Japan, Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, Portugal, Iceland, Norway, Greenland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, The Netherlands, they're all don't know the facts or are just sheep? What a wonderful world view you have.
Where do the people of these countries come into matters?

And, incidentally, if you are going to argue on the basis on social consensuses, all polls show that of those who know the facts about 911, the overwhelming amount agree with me, not you.

It is the rest, who are sheep. I include you and all OTers on this board in taht description.

[stateofgrace]

I never claimed that.

Finally we are making progress so you now are not claiming that 84% of Americans agree with you that the USG committed mass murder on 911. OH wait.....


And, incidentally, if you are going to argue on the basis on social consensuses, all polls show that of those who know the facts about 911, the overwhelming amount agree with me, not you.


So how many agree with you? Please remember the US as a population of 300,000,000. How many millions agree with you?


And no, I havent contacted Interpol


Where do the people of these countries come into matters?



Because these countries.


Afghanistan | Albania | Algeria | Andorra | Angola | Antigua & Barbuda | Argentina | Armenia | Aruba | Australia | Austria | Azerbaijan BBahamas | Bahrain | Bangladesh | Barbados | Belarus | Belgium | Belize | Benin | Bhutan | Bolivia | Bosnia - Herzegovina | Botswana | Brazil | Brunei | Bulgaria | Burkina - Faso | Burundi CCambodia | Cameroon | Canada | Cape Verde | Central African Republic | Chad | Chile | China | Colombia | Comoros | Congo | Congo (Democratic Rep.) | Costa Rica | Côte d'Ivoire | Croatia | Cuba | Cyprus | Czech Republic DDenmark | Djibouti | Dominica | Dominican Republic EEcuador | Egypt | El Salvador | Equatorial Guinea | Eritrea | Estonia | Ethiopia FFiji | Finland | Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia | France GGabon | Gambia | Georgia | Germany | Ghana | Greece | Grenada | Guatemala | Guinea | Guinea Bissau | Guyana HHaiti | Honduras | Hungary IIceland | India | Indonesia | Iran | Iraq | Ireland | Israel | Italy JJamaica | Japan | Jordan KKazakhstan | Kenya | Korea (Rep. of) |Kuwait | Kyrgyzstan LLaos | Latvia | Lebanon | Lesotho | Liberia | Libya | Liechtenstein | Lithuania | Luxembourg MMadagascar | Malawi | Malaysia | Maldives | Mali | Malta | Marshall Islands | Mauritania | Mauritius | Mexico | Moldova | Monaco | Mongolia | Montenegro | Morocco | Mozambique | Myanmar NNamibia | Nauru | Nepal | Netherlands | Netherlands Antilles | New Zealand | Nicaragua | Niger | Nigeria | Norway OOman PPakistan | Panama | Papua New Guinea |Paraguay | Peru | Philippines | Poland | Portugal QQatar RRomania | Russia | Rwanda SSt Kitts & Nevis | St Lucia | St Vincent & the Grenadines | San Marino | Sao Tome & Principe | Saudi Arabia | Senegal | Serbia | Seychelles | Sierra Leone | Singapore | Slovakia | Slovenia | Somalia | South Africa | Spain | Sri Lanka | Sudan | Suriname | Swaziland | Sweden | Switzerland | Syria TTajikistan | Tanzania | Thailand | Timor - Leste | Togo | Tonga | Trinidad & Tobago | Tunisia | Turkey | Turkmenistan UUganda | Ukraine | United Arab Emirates | United Kingdom | United States | Uruguay | Uzbekistan VVenezuela | Vietnam YYemen ZZambia | Zimbabwe


are part of Interpol, they make up an organisation who’s aim is this...

INTERPOL runs a global police communications system called I-24/7, which provides police around the world with a common platform through which they can share crucial information about criminals and criminality.

Who have stated this.

It is no exaggeration to say that terrorism is a truly GLOBAL problem.

and this

nearly 3,000 people from over 70 countries were brutally murdered, including hundreds of our fellow law enforcement officers

http://www.interpol.int/default.asp

YOU have evidence and facts that prove the USG was involved in mass murder, a crime against humanity.

Don’t you think they are entitled to know? Or is it better to keep coming here, calling everybody sheep and excusing yourself for not telling them?

You want an investiagtion don't you? You have the evidence don't you? What are you waiting for?

Here you go.

http://www.interpol.int/public/mail/mail3.asp?id=info

Stop protecting mass murderers, stop coming here and telling me all about it, DO SOMETHING, and inform the real investigators.

Why do I KNOW you will never contact them?

[A W Smith]

if you are going to argue on the basis on social consensuses, all polls show that of those who know the facts about 911, the overwhelming amount agree with me, not you.



produce valid evidence from legitimate scientific polls (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/readpoll.html)or concede.

[Corsair 115]

Where do the people of these countries come into matters?Let me refresh your memory.

Stateofgrace said:

Yet no reaction from the international community, why is that mjd?


You replied with:

As ive told you, it will be either because they dont know the facts, or because, like you, they are sheep.

[Dr Adequate]

And, incidentally, if you are going to argue on the basis on social consensuses, all polls show that of those who know the facts about 911, the overwhelming amount agree with me, not you. Where, let me guess, "those who know the facts about 911" are defined by their agreement with you.

[Dr Adequate]

1. They didnt have to shoot them down. They should have rammed them?

What?

2. It wasnt just 11 and 175 that were hijacked tht day. Did anyone say otherwise?

[Sabrina]

It may not have stopped them. The point is, and has always been, that they didnt try. This is where criminal negligence differs from incompetence.

How?

One of your ideas was already being done, four would have created a gigantic uproar among the American people and would have been seen as a removal of some of their freedoms, something which no sane politician would ever dip his/her hand into at the time, and the other two would have ultimately accomplished nothing. How does that translate into criminal negligence, pray tell?

[mjd1982]

Finally we are making progress so you now are not claiming that 84% of Americans agree with you that the USG committed mass murder on 911. OH wait.....



So how many agree with you? Please remember the US as a population of 300,000,000. How many millions agree with you?




Because these countries.


are part of Interpol, they make up an organisation who’s aim is this...


Who have stated this.

and this
http://www.interpol.int/default.asp

YOU have evidence and facts that prove the USG was involved in mass murder, a crime against humanity.

Don’t you think they are entitled to know? Or is it better to keep coming here, calling everybody sheep and excusing yourself for not telling them?

You want an investiagtion don't you? You have the evidence don't you? What are you waiting for?

Here you go.

http://www.interpol.int/public/mail/mail3.asp?id=info

Stop protecting mass murderers, stop coming here and telling me all about it, DO SOMETHING, and inform the real investigators.

Why do I KNOW you will never contact them?
1, i have never claimed that

2. To take one example of the notion that people who know about the facts side with the TM, read:
http://www.911truth.org/page.php?page=zogby_2006


25. World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day. This collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Are you aware of this skyscraper's collapse, and if so do you believe that the Commission should have also investigated it? Or do you believe that the Commission was right to only investigate the collapse of the buildings which were directly hit by airplanes?

I am not aware of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse
43%

I am aware of it and think the Commission should have investigated it
38

I am aware of it and think the Commission was right to investigate just the Twin Towers' collapse
14

Neither/Not sure
5


So 52% of US know about 7 of which ~70% believe it merits investigation by the 911 Commission. This is just one 911 fact that is not known by the general public. The pattern would repeat itself many many times, with other instances

3. They are not the people of the countries, as you well know. LMAO.

4. It is not the remit of Interpol to investigate state crime. Have you read their functions?


Secure global police communication services

INTERPOL runs a global police communications system called I-24/7, which provides police around the world with a common platform through which they can share crucial information about criminals and criminality.

Read more about I-24/7 and communications


Operational data services and databases for police

INTERPOL’s databases and services ensure that police worldwide have access to the information and services they need to prevent and investigate crimes. Databases include data on criminals such as names, fingerprints and DNA profiles, and stolen property such as passports, vehicles and works of art.

Read more about data services and databases.


Operational police support services

INTERPOL supports law enforcement officials in the field with emergency support and operational activities, especially in its priority crime areas of fugitives, public safety and terrorism, drugs and organized crime, trafficking in human beings and financial and high-tech crime. A Command and Co-ordination Centre operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Read more about operational police support services


As the name suggests, they are an international police force. Since it is not the remit of any police organisation to investigate state crime, rather that of intl courts, writing to Interpol (rofl) is not going to do anything.

What a bright bunch of folks we have here!

[mjd1982]

produce valid evidence from legitimate scientific polls (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/readpoll.html)or concede.
http://www.911truth.org/page.php?page=zogby_2006

just 1 example

[mjd1982]

How?

One of your ideas was already being done, four would have created a gigantic uproar among the American people and would have been seen as a removal of some of their freedoms, something which no sane politician would ever dip his/her hand into at the time, and the other two would have ultimately accomplished nothing. How does that translate into criminal negligence, pray tell?
If you refuse to take an act to protect your people,in the face of an unprecedented terror threat, just because you think it will "upset some people", then you are guilty of criminal negligence. Plain and simple, there is no argument about it.

[stateofgrace]

1, i have never claimed that

2. To take one example of the notion that people who know about the facts side with the TM, read:
http://www.911truth.org/page.php?page=zogby_2006



So 52% of US know about 7 of which ~70% believe it merits investigation by the 911 Commission. This is just one 911 fact that is not known by the general public. The pattern would repeat itself many many times, with other instances

3. They are not the people of the countries, as you well know. LMAO.

4. It is not the remit of Interpol to investigate state crime. Have you read their functions?



As the name suggests, they are an international police force. Since it is not the remit of any police organisation to investigate state crime, rather that of intl courts, writing to Interpol (rofl) is not going to do anything.

What a bright bunch of folks we have here!

Really? So when did 911 suddenly become a state crime?

I guess the fact that citizen from 70 countries were murdered on 911 means that the international community has nothing to do with it then?

Interpol investigate international crimes,crimes against humanity, they indict international criminals, 911 was a crime against humanity, not a state crime, but nice try in trying to weasel your way of informing them

what a bright spark you are.

[WildCat]

3 skyscrapers. 2 attacked
Just as I suspected, you don't have a clue. Or are you claiming that the 22-story Marriott WTC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriott_World_Trade_Center) is still standing? And I'm glad to see you backed off your claims that WTC 7 had bombs in it, as that would surely qualify as being attacked.

[Sabrina]

If you refuse to take an act to protect your people,in the face of an unprecedented terror threat, just because you think it will "upset some people", then you are guilty of criminal negligence. Plain and simple, there is no argument about it.

Going by that logic, we should have impeached Lincoln for not freeing the slaves earlier. :rolleyes:

[lapman]

MJ, what makes you think that the Air Force/National Guard would have been able to intercept them in time? Remember, they only had minutes from the time the plane was confirmed hijacked to the crashes.

[twinstead]

Is there a special branch of conspiracism that deals with demanding past events conform to what one can only know in hindsight? If so, what should we call it? Hindsightism? Twentytwentyacism? conspirasight?

[Jonnyclueless]

If you refuse to take an act to protect your people,in the face of an unprecedented terror threat, just because you think it will "upset some people", then you are guilty of criminal negligence. Plain and simple, there is no argument about it.

So anytime someone is attacked, they should be arrested for not having stopped it? Because it should be impossible for any party to attack another party right? The only reason conflict in the world is because someone on the receiving end didn't do their job right?

I think maybe MJ should be the one in charge of preventing attacks on the country and see what it's like for a while. Then we can all hold him accountable for anything that happens. So let us know MJ. If you were in charge, are you saying that the US would never ever get attacked again? All terrorism would be gone and the country would be completely safe?

[nicepants]

As is believed by 16% of the US population.

Source please.

[nicepants]

So 52% of US know about 7 of which ~70% believe it merits investigation by the 911 Commission. This is just one 911 fact that is not known by the general public. The pattern would repeat itself many many times, with other instances


Where are you getting your 70% number? From the data you posted:

I am aware of it and think the Commission should have investigated it
38%

[mjd1982]

Really? So when did 911 suddenly become a state crime?

I guess the fact that citizen from 70 countries were murdered on 911 means that the international community has nothing to do with it then?

Interpol investigate international crimes,crimes against humanity, they indict international criminals, 911 was a crime against humanity, not a state crime, but nice try in trying to weasel your way of informing them

what a bright spark you are.
1. I, and the TM, is alleging it is a state crime (OMG...)

2. Interpol merely facilitates international police cooperation. This should have been very simple for you to look up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol

And you wonder why I have ignored this stupid post for so long. End it.

[mjd1982]

Just as I suspected, you don't have a clue. Or are you claiming that the 22-story Marriott WTC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriott_World_Trade_Center) is still standing? And I'm glad to see you backed off your claims that WTC 7 had bombs in it, as that would surely qualify as being attacked.
1. If you implode a building, I would not say that you had "attacked" the building.

2. WTC 3 did not fall on 911.

[mjd1982]

Going by that logic, we should have impeached Lincoln for not freeing the slaves earlier. :rolleyes:
What the hell are you talking about?

Can you not understand, the simplest of simple facts- if there is an unprecedented threat of a spectacular, multiple attack on your country, you do something???

You may whinge about having Bush in office, but with such a total abdication of duty as a part of the electorate, reflected in your expectations for what a president should do for your security, I dont think you are in a position to whinge.

[mjd1982]

So anytime someone is attacked, they should be arrested for not having stopped it? Because it should be impossible for any party to attack another party right? The only reason conflict in the world is because someone on the receiving end didn't do their job right?

I think maybe MJ should be the one in charge of preventing attacks on the country and see what it's like for a while. Then we can all hold him accountable for anything that happens. So let us know MJ. If you were in charge, are you saying that the US would never ever get attacked again? All terrorism would be gone and the country would be completely safe?
What an unbelievably bad post. Read my reply above.

Boy oh boy.

[mjd1982]

Source please.
One of the most oft quoted polls.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469

[stateofgrace]

1. I, and the TM, is alleging it is a state crime (OMG...)

2. Interpol merely facilitates international police cooperation. This should have been very simple for you to look up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol

And you wonder why I have ignored this stupid post for so long. End it.

Because you are wrong

Resolution No AG-2001-RES-05 (http://www.interpol.int/public/ICPO/GeneralAssembly/AGN70/Resolutions/AGN70RES5.asp)


The Interpol General Assembly, meeting in Budapest from 24 to 28 September 2001 at its 70th session:
RECALLING the murderous attacks perpetrated against the world’s citizens in the United States of America on 11 September 2001,
SHOCKED by the loss of and injury to thousands of innocent lives from over 80 countries, including scores of police officers, firefighters and other public servants called to the scene to aid those in need,
DETERMINED that this abhorrent violation of law and of the standards of human decency must be condemned by every civilized person,
CONSCIOUS of our special responsibility as upholders of the laws of almost every nation of the world,
BEARING IN MIND the consistent record of Interpol at past General Assembly sessions in opposing all acts of terrorism, most recently at the 67th session in Cairo (http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/GeneralAssembly/AGN67/Resolutions/AGN67RES12.asp) (1998) and the 68th session in Seoul (http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/GeneralAssembly/AGN68/Resolutions/AGN68RES2.asp) (1999),
CONDEMNS these attacks as cold-blooded mass murder;
CONSIDERS that they constitute a crime against humanity;
COMMENDS the General Secretariat for its swift and decisive response to the 11 September tragedy in establishing an immediate and permanent 24-hour capability to respond to all Interpol member countries’ needs;
HONOURS the memory of the law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency workers and private citizens who selflessly gave their lives to save others;
SHARES in the grief of all those who have been touched by this tragedy and other tragedies caused by terrorism;
REITERATES its unwavering commitment to the 'Cairo Declaration against Terrorism' (AGN/67/RES/12 (http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/GeneralAssembly/AGN67/Resolutions/AGN67RES12.asp)) and calls for enhanced international police and judicial collaboration to tackle terrorism and organized crime more effectively, for example by exploring all opportunities to co-ordinate legal, judicial and operational approaches;
EMPHASIZES the importance of making full use of the services available through Interpol to secure the arrest of fugitive offenders, to improve information sharing between member countries, to develop analysis of the threat more effectively and to facilitate the timely sharing of good practice;
REQUESTS that the General Secretariat afford the highest priority to the issuance of Interpol Red Notices for terrorist offenders whose arrest is sought by member countries and to accelerate the creation of an international database of counterfeit, forged and stolen identity documents;
URGES member countries to develop robust systems for the monitoring of suspicious financial transactions linked to terrorist activities in order to improve the ability of competent authorities to freeze such assets and so disrupt the funding of terrorism;
SOLEMNLY PLEDGES that the Organization and each of its Members endorsing the present resolution will collaborate without reservation, to the fullest extent permitted by law, in identifying every individual who assisted in committing these acts and bringing those who were responsible for them to justice.


They have pledged to bring to justice those responsible for cold blooded mass murder, a crime against humanity. Neither you nor the TM has the courage to present your “evidence" to such an organisation.

Why is that?

[funk de fino]

What the hell are you talking about?

Can you not understand, the simplest of simple facts- if there is an unprecedented threat of a spectacular, multiple attack on your country, you do something???

You may whinge about having Bush in office, but with such a total abdication of duty as a part of the electorate, reflected in your expectations for what a president should do for your security, I dont think you are in a position to whinge.

Can you not understand that when the report says they started unprecedented operations against AQ with the aid of 20 countries that this is not doing ZERO?

Will you admit the fact that they did in fact step up operations that summer?

You have had your ass handed to you in this thread and actively ignored posts like the dishonest person you really are

[WildCat]

1. If you implode a building, I would not say that you had "attacked" the building.
If you did it illegally and while it was occupied you sure as hell attacked it! Can you show us the demolition permit for WTC 7 dated prior to 9/11?

2. WTC 3 did not fall on 911.
Are you going Ace Baker on us and claiming it was instead vaporized? Because it sure wasn't 22 storys tall at the end of the day on 9/11... :rolleyes:

[WildCat]

Can you not understand, the simplest of simple facts- if there is an unprecedented threat of a spectacular, multiple attack on your country, you do something???
It has been explained to you many times that unless you have a list of all intelligence threats for years prior to 9/11 you have no basis to claim the ones you posted were "unprecedented". When will you be posting a complete list of all threats prior to 9/11, in order to show that such threats were "unprecedented"?

[Sabrina]

In point of fact the warnings were NOT unprecedented. There were many, many, MANY warnings prior to 9/11 that were similar and of which nothing came. Hence the reason for investigations into the credibility of the source and into the intelligence itself.

As an example; prior to the embassy bombings in Kenya, Tanzania, and Libya, there were numerous warnings from the IC about possible attacks against US interests abroad, but as with 9/11, they were vague and unspecified enough to make it nearly impossible to determine possible locations or targets. Looking back in hindsight we run into the same problem we have with 9/11; we see the warnings and say, "see, we should have beefed up security at embassies! It's clear now that they were talking about the embassies!" All the while forgetting that when the warnings were initially delivered we had no clue where possible targets might be.

Intelligence is and always will be a vague practice. In essence, an intel analyst is playing a giant guessing game. They're giving their best guess as to what will happen based on a series of factors and knowledge of the group or groups in question. It is not a perfect practice by a long shot; mistakes, sometimes costly ones, are made more often than most people care to admit, but at least it's better than doing nothing. It is notable that, whenever catastrophes like 9/11 occur, blame is immediately placed on the intelligence as if the intel agents should be omniscient and be able to explain exactly what will happen ahead of time, and that just isn't the case. President Bush and the rest of the government were working with vague intelligence that came at a volume only slightly higher than normal, and in response they requested more information in order to be able to make a more definitive action possible (i.e. the 70+ investigations undertaken by the FBI and other agencies). Given that the warnings we received (you know, the forty warnings that mjd says are so specific) contained NO actionable intelligence, rather than going off half-cocked, the government decided it would be better to search out more information. It's a decision faced EVERY TIME warnings come in, and not just by the government, but by the intelligence agencies and the military as well. Collectively they have to decide if it's worth it to take action right away or if it's better to wait for more information. Sometimes they're wrong, but more often they are right. It's just a shame that some of the times they're wrong is when tragedies like 9/11 occur, but they are only human; they are not gods.

And by the way, mjd, I dislike you acting as though those were the ONLY reports received the entire time; there are, at any given time, thousands of reports on various intelligence investigations circulating in the IC in my estimate, and while not all of those get up high enough to be inserted into the PDB, there were dozens of other reports that were in the PDB BESIDES those forty reports. The President receives the top fifteen or twenty, as I understand it (and I might be making a low estimate) reports his advisors feel are most important on a daily basis, and prior to 9/11, there were EIGHT MONTHS worth of PDBs in which those forty reports were scattered. Even taking my lowest estimate of fifteen reports per day for eight months, you still have around 3600 items that the President saw in his daily brief prior to 9/11. Explain to me, please, how those forty reports supposedly stood out over the other approximately 3560 reports he received that year prior to 9/11. Trust me when I say you can't.

[funk de fino]

MJD

After the posts in this thread about your friend Scott Forbes and his false or exagerrated claims regarding the power downs in the tower, it became apparent that you were claiming he was keeping very quiet about them because he had been warned by his company to put a sock in it or he would be fired.

You were quite specific in this and the fact that you would like it if we stopped sayiong we would contact his work or he would get in trouble. You said he has attended a few 911 meetings in the UK and posted on a few 911 boards but that is it.

What I want to know is how do you explain the fact I have just heard an interview he has done that was dated the 19 july??

He reiterates all his previous claims in some detail. Does this mean he has now decided to come forward with his claims and ignore the possible threat of repercussions from his company?

How do his claims, as they stand now, cross check with the fact that we now know there was power on floors in the tower that weekend?

Could you chase this up as it seems to make your claims look a bit suspect?

cheers

[A W Smith]

One of the most oft quoted polls.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469

Methodology: Telephone interviews with 983 American adults

most employed people who I know who also have a life have no time to participate in phone polls and consider them a nuisance. It is conceivable that people with a political agenda will participate in an effort to give their agenda validity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics
Many people may not realize that the randomness of the sample is very important. In practice, many opinion polls are conducted by phone, which distorts the sample due in several ways, including exclusion of people who do not have phones, favoring people who have more than one phone, favoring people who are willing to participate in a phone survey over those who refuse, etc. Non-random sampling makes the estimated error unreliable

[JonnyFive]

One of the most oft quoted polls.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469

So you believe that "hiding something" with regards to the entirety of 9/11 implies "inside job?" Where did you get that particular interpretation?

Also, just as a technical aside, the MOE for the poll is +/-4%, so it's technically correct to say that 16% +/-4% (i.e.g 12 - 20 %) believe the Bush adminstration is hiding nothing about the 9/11 attacks, 49 - 57 % believe they are hiding something, 24 - 32 % believe they is mostly lying about what they knew, and 0 - 7 % are unsure. It doesn't say what the confidence level for the polling is, which is somewhat troubling.

All of which doesn't translate directly into "believe it was an inside job" or anything of the sort. Also, this is current as of October 2002, so you might want to consider getting more recent polling results.

Perhaps if some members of the Truth Movement could actually sponsor a scientific (e.g. as random as possible, unbiased sample) poll with unambiguous questions like "Do you believe that the Bush administration directly planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks using government agents? Yes/No" then you can make more definitive statements about how many people believe what... for whatever that's worth.

[Belz...]

wrong answer. Try again

What a brilliant riposte!

The scope of internet media is miniscule compared to that of MSM. Hence why only 42% of the US know the most rudimentary fact about the most newsworthy and reported evnent of their lives- how many skyscrapers fell on 911.

I wouldn't call that rudimentary. The most rudimentary fact is that a terrorist attack fell the Trade Center on 2001/09/11.

1. They didnt have to shoot them down.

How do you stop them, then ? Ask them to pull over ?

Where do the people of these countries come into matters?

:rolleyes:

And, incidentally, if you are going to argue on the basis on social consensuses, all polls show that of those who know the facts about 911, the overwhelming amount agree with me, not you.

I think it's time you educate yourself as to how polls work, Mjd.

It is the rest, who are sheep.

Precisely as I said before. To you "sheep" means "disagrees with me".

[Jonnyclueless]

What an unbelievably bad post. Read my reply above.

Boy oh boy.

That's because it's a response to a REALLY REALLY BAD post. And then your response is an even worse post. Hindsight is 20/20. Why weren't you raising these issues before 9/11? Oh right, YOU DIDN'T KNOW EITHER.

Perhaps you can tell us about all the future terrorist attacks that will happen so we can be ready now? Oh right, you don't know about them, just like everyone else. I guess it would only be fair to still fault you like you arr doing to others.

And you wanna know what? The biggest attack before 9/11 was unprecidented. And so was the one before that. And the one before that. Please stop using conjecture as facts.

[Belz...]

So 52% of US know about 7 of which ~70% believe it merits investigation by the 911 Commission.

Of course. The question was leading.

World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day. This collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Are you aware of this skyscraper's collapse, and if so do you believe that the Commission should have also investigated it? Or do you believe that the Commission was right to only investigate the collapse of the buildings which were directly hit by airplanes?

Most WOULD say it should.

This is just one 911 fact that is not known by the general public. The pattern would repeat itself many many times, with other instances

Twoofers. Always believing that they know more than everybody when they know less than most.

[Jonnyclueless]

One of the most oft quoted polls.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469

You're right, the majority of the some 300 million people think it was an inside job. 18 of which made donations to loose change. What amazing support. They are really dedicated.

[Belz...]

If you implode a building, I would not say that you had "attacked" the building.

So the 1993 bombing was not an attack ?

[jsfisher]

So you believe that "hiding something" with regards to the entirety of 9/11 implies "inside job?" Where did you get that particular interpretation?

Also, just as a technical aside, the MOE for the poll is +/-4%, so it's technically correct to say that 16% +/-4% (i.e.g 12 - 20 %) believe the Bush adminstration is hiding nothing about the 9/11 attacks, 49 - 57 % believe they are hiding something, 24 - 32 % believe they is mostly lying about what they knew, and 0 - 7 % are unsure. It doesn't say what the confidence level for the polling is, which is somewhat troubling.

Also, the poll was conducted just one month before the 2006 elections, not that that should bias anyone's responses. :rolleyes:

[nicepants]

One of the most oft quoted polls.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469

16% of people answered yes to this question:
" When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth?"

This has nothing to do with the number of people who believe the NIST theory.

[firecoins]

WTC#3 was completely and utterly destroyed on 9/11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriott_World_Trade_Center

[JonnyFive]

Also, the poll was conducted just one month before the 2006 elections, not that that should bias anyone's responses. :rolleyes:

Ah, I misread it as "October 2002," but this makes things even more subject to bias and suspect interpretation. The ambiguity of the poll question doesn't exactly help matters, either.

What, is this MOE at a 50% confidence level or something? *snork*

[Belz...]

WTC#3 was completely and utterly destroyed on 9/11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriott_World_Trade_Center

only 42% of the US know the most rudimentary fact about the most newsworthy and reported evnent of their lives- how many skyscrapers fell on 911.

:D

[Unsecured Coins]

keep in mind he also thinks that the reason you hear no bombs going off in any building (especially 7) is because the cameras were too far or the outside noise drowned them all out.

Ignorance, or innocence?

[jsfisher]

Ah, I misread it as "October 2002," but this makes things even more subject to bias and suspect interpretation. The ambiguity of the poll question doesn't exactly help matters, either.

What, is this MOE at a 50% confidence level or something? *snork*

I always take comfort in knowing that 73% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

[HyJinX]

keep in mind he also thinks that the reason you hear no bombs going off in any building (especially 7) is because the cameras were too far or the outside noise drowned them all out.

Ignorance, or innocence?

...or Ignoramus?

[volatile]

:D

Absolutely brilliant.

Good researching skills, MjD.

[mjd1982]

Can you not understand that when the report says they started unprecedented operations against AQ with the aid of 20 countries that this is not doing ZERO?

Will you admit the fact that they did in fact step up operations that summer?

You have had your ass handed to you in this thread and actively ignored posts like the dishonest person you really are
1. Which report states this?

2. What was the content of these operations. It doesnt matter if you are running after some chap in Dhaka, if when the FBI have Moussaoui handed to them by the French, the superiors prevent anyone from looking at his laptop even though agents are convinced he is about to fly a plane into the WTC, and recent intel suggests AQ are preparing to hijack planes and cause multiple, simultaneous attacks.

More to the point, it is common knowledge, understood and publicy stated by Clarke, Tenet and others, that the Bush admin didnt give a monkey's about the terror threat leading up to 911. This has been reported by all and sundry. If you are trying to argue against this, I dont think you are being very serious.