Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,447 posts in this topic

@Redhen: Fair enough. The harassing is ridiculous, I admit. Even if Gene Rosen were just a paid actor (and I'm going to be in the minority here and just say I don't know one way or another) I think it's pointless and rude to harass him or anyone else.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well guys. As ya look out unto the world and see, hear, feel and smell the fear as the police state closes its clamps around the necks of We The People... Need we contemplate the answer to the question which spawned this thread. Man oh man...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I posed the questions, it is upon the specific basis, “given CIA information that existed pre-9/11 on the terrorists”. Now I’m not familiar with the Dahmer case but I’d hazard a guess that what the police knew at the time is incomparable to that which the CIA knew of the terrorists prior 9/11. For example, if you could fill me in, did the police know that Dahmer had murderous tendencies, perhaps hung out with serial killers and had the appearance of preparing for a killing? Did a police colleague inform them that “someone will die” if Dahmer were not taken in, and complain that Dahmer received “protection”? I doubt it. Though the CIA knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were terrorists and connected to previous attacks, illegals inside the country, attended ‘Al Qaeda’ meetings, in all likelihood that they were undertaking flying lessons and the FBI had warned that, “someone will die” and complained that the terrorists received “protection”.

With this background information I can answer the questions I posed. Please answer the questions above to fill me in on the Dahmer case so that I can best respond to yours. I think the answer to your first question, “What might cops attempting to prevent murder have done?”, could well be, “Nothing, because they did not have sufficient intelligence available.” From there, the argument falls apart, as the answer to the third and final question becomes, “both/neither”.\

The point of the Dahmer analogy is to illustrate the absurdity and spin involved in boiling down a complicated question to a simple, dichotomous, misleading, 'preventing an attack' or 'allowing an attack'. You're right that the knowledge they had of Dahmer was incomparable to what the CIA knew of the terrorists, but in a vastly more relevant way the information they had is entirely incomparable in the opposite direction, because there is a serious crime occurring right in front of their faces. Not an unspecified attack by unspecified people at an unspecified date/time and unspecified specific manner like our hapless intelligence agencies who are not communicating with each other. These cops had direct evidence of a naked minor who was clearly drugged/drunk and raped, and they didn't even run Dahmer's name through the system nor verify the identity of the minor. You really honestly think as a comparison that the CIA/FBI had better 'sufficient evidence' of the impending attack than that? Can you see how the cops screwed up royally in this case, it doesn't really matter that it's Dahmer, do you really think somehow they are lacking probable cause here?

The Dahmer cops here pretty clearly screwed up, they failed to investigate a probable crime. No one suspects anything conspiratorial though, we all just accept that either these specific cops messed up or there's something more systemic in that city's department or maybe in law enforcment as a whole that was possibly the issue that resulted in Dahmer not being stopped and more lives being lost. I don't know how you've just swept away or compensated for these type of mundane, people-make-mistakes options, that are not at all unusual and in fact incredibly common especially in government agencies. I would think at a minimum the myriad explanations of this type need to be dealt with in order to arrive at, 'the CIA prevented the FBI from going after people who turned out to be 9/11 terrorists, and thus, the best explanation for this is a conspiracy'. As I stated, you're leaving out all kinds of nuance and other possible answers, such as, 'the CIA was trying to work covertly to infiltrate Al Qaeda in order to better prevent attacks ongoing'. Do you have an issue with this approach, with undercover work? You know that sometimes that requires not going after criminals for relatively less serious crimes so that you can catch them in a big one/gain more intelligence/etc? In other words, that making those kinds of decisions to not bust people as soon as you can is inherently risky?

I cannot abide your argument here at all, you are passing the buck. Come on, this is not difficult – comparing it to brain surgery is poppycock.

I'm comparing it to brain surgery because I'm not pretending I'm an intelligence agent and have all the information that the intelligence agent has who is not allowing the FBI to make their arrest. Not just information on the terrorists, but information on how I'm instructed to do my job, how I am rewarded, my personal desires as far as wanting to take credit for my busts, and a whole host of other info directly related to how people make decisions. About which, I know as much specifically as I know about brain surgery. Why are you pretending you know all this?

I do find the questions relevant and have incorporated them into my conclusions.

Glad to hear that. I still don't see any reflection that you actually have though, nor any indication as to how you are privy to all that information. It really helps your case on this point if you can show that people's actions are entirely unusual and have no other reasonable explanation outside of a conspiracy, and I'm not seeing not only where you've done that, but how you can possibly have even close to the amount of information you'd need to accomplish it. It's a tough environment for you in that most of this information is classified, I don't envy you, but regardless it doesn't change the vast amount of information that you do not have access to.

Ok. Let it be known, that because ‘Al Qaeda’ would not stop their attempts of an attack, LG would tolerate the presence of such terrorists on U.S. soil (figure that one out). Further, that although his colleagues are straining at the leash to intervene and it would take all but a handful of agents a morning to apprehend said terrorists, LG would declare lack of manpower (even though he could muster the manpower in Kuala Lumpur to monitor, break into the terrorists apartment and lead them to the accommodation of a U.S. informant inside the United States). And despite such terrorists, connected to ‘Al Qaeda’ and previous attacks, illegally inside the United States, with warnings that “someone will die” LG would not find this specific enough to act upon. Even when the terrorists are known to take flying lessons, LG would allow them to board civilian airliners!

<rest of strawman burned to save space>

To put it as nicely as possible, this is just loony. I've read what you quoted from me a couple of times, you know, the questions I just asked that you admit are relevant and that you have supposedly incorporated, and I ain't seeing where you get any of this garbage. The careful, sober, rational reader may note that LG said absolutely diddly-squat about what he personally would tolerate, declare, and/or allow. It's not even properly called a strawman, it's just delusional. I'm just going to rack this up to you spleen-venting and ignore it, let me know if there's an argument that needs responding to baked in there somewhere.

The Challenger is an interesting case for comparison...

In contrast to the 9/11 case, that engineer was not prevented from investigating nor attempting to rectify the O-ring problem, as the FBI were prevented from investigating or rectifying the terrorist problem. An apparent similarity is that the Challenger higher-ups ignored the engineer warning for political and financial reasons, namely that the mission was time critical... it follows there may have been similar political pressure for the CIA to ignore the FBI warning.

Well, if you spin it right, the engineer was 'prevented' in that he was never given the authority himself to cancel the launch in the first place. Regardless, I think the more interesting, and more analogous, aspect is to compare the behavior of the CIA with the behavior of the higher-ups. Both received warnings that could lead to catastrophe that they ignored, only to find these previous warnings to be tragically spot-on. We look at the Challenger disaster and attribute it to both systemic and individual issues, despite there being specific warnings of the exact problem that caused the accident that in hindsight don't appear to have been responded to rationally, but we basically understand to some extent how these things can indeed happen. Same with the Dahmer cops, it's a blatant oversight/laziness/systemic issue, but we're not left looking to conspiracies either to try and find a satisfactory answer. We switch to CIA agents preventing the FBI from busting their suspects, which would deprive the CIA agents of that privilege, reward, etc, and I'm then supposed to think conspiracy is the best answer? When the explanation for their action/inaction is possibly the same all-too-commonplace factors as it was for NASA/those cops? I grant that there's more evidence of a conspiracy involved in 9/11 than in either Challenger or Dahmer, but that introduction of conspiracy as another possible explanation for 9/11 does not magically remove these more common, albeit complex, explanations that lead people to make decisions that turned out to be very bad in hindsight, but that are eminently explainable without resorting to conspiracy.

Here is a big area which highlights the difference between a genuine mistake, where all parties are interested in getting to the truth of the matter to prevent a recurrence, and an event where politicians are not interested in the truth: In the case of Challenger, two investigations were completed, which identified not just cause of the disaster but the reasons behind it, holding those areas responsible to account and all within 7 months of the event. Yet in the case of 9/11, under protest of the Bush administration, it took over a year just to establish an investigatory committee, reasons for the failure and those responsible were not questioned and the report took nearly 3 years to see light of day.

I'm not happy about the delay in the investigation either nor Bush's stonewalling, but again it's not like there is absolutely no explanation as to why they would protest it: the investigation is an evaluation of their performance. Was Nixon doing all he could to cooperate with the Watergate investigation? Clinton on Lewinsky? Reagan on Iran-Contra? Jesus, any administration at all? Stonewalling is not just an expected reaction when what you have to hide is your involvement in a conspiracy, but your ineptitude also, and you shouldn't really need any evidence of the govt's ineptitude and display of it. Add in that unlike Challenger, 9/11 is larger in scope and a combination of multiple events, involves not just one agency, NASA, but several intelligence agencies, and by its nature involves sensitive and classified information, and I would expect the report and investigation to take longer to complete. I'm with you as far as any efforts you'd like to take to prevent the government from legally keeping so many secrets, but regardless, this is again business as usual for the time.

I disagree with your claim that it’s 20/20 in this case – the argument is based on facts that were known at the time/pre-9/11, not with hindsight. Of course the CIA did not know when and where the attacks were to occur. I have been repeatedly listing broadly what the CIA did know (you just quoted it), and it was more than enough to act upon, to end the threat right there. We can add this to the President’s daily brief, which in August 2001 did mention these specifics: -

  • “Bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to carry out terrorist attacks in the US
  • “his followers would follow the example of World Trade Centre bomber Ramzi Yousef”
  • “Bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington
  • “Bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the US
  • “Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft
  • “FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings

The assemblage of this data into what was to happen is hindsight though. Just reading these lines I'm not sure that 'WTC bomber', 'retaliate in Washington', 'hijack an aircraft' should logically be inferred as all referring to the same incident and not separate occurrences for example, you may have other evidence showing that the agents should have taken it that way. You said you are incorporating my other questions into your analysis, so how many other inspecific threats were there. How many other vague threats turned out to be nothing? How many false alarms do you need until it starts to take an effect on the decisions agents make when confronted with future alarms? Why are you giving me a list of just threats related to 9/11 just from August 2001 if Bin Laden has been threatening since '97, no threats were made in the intervening years?

For someone who won't challenge anything the CIA did, you seem very quick in your attempt to undermine the word of an FBI agent.

I'll keep in mind that this perspective is being offered by someone who thinks scientists who do not agree with a conspiracy and whose opinions and analysis of the details of the WTC collapses are not at all in conflict with the scientific consensus should be tried for treason.

It is not hindsight when the FBI wanted to act before 9/11, attempted to act before 9/11, and were blocked before 9/11. These are the actual acts that took place - it doesn't matter that it was reported in 2009. It does not take hindsight to know that under normal procedure terrorists should be hindered, not provided free passage.

And under normal procedures, drug dealers should not be allowed to freely travel and deliver drugs, and undoubtedly engage in violence, yet that's exactly what they are 'allowed' to do as part of sting operations, undercover infiltration of drug organizations, etc. Right? How many police investigations have been halted and criminals 'protected' so that the feds can possibly prosecute higher level criminals in the future? If one of these higher level criminals orders an attack and we look back and find that an IRS agent wanted to prosecute them and put them away for a couple years for tax evasion or something, is that what you think should have been done, it's inexcusable that they continued their operation to try and get at the top level leaders? After all 'the attack as we know it wouldn't have happened if we would have just busted him earlier'.

No, I don't think the CIA or any of the agencies responsible for not preventing 9/11 should necessarily be 'defended' against anything but insufficient arguments, there's plenty that we do know of that they deserve to take the blame for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this thread is going nowhere but straight to hell fast...I will post this link...watch if you want...don't if you don't...I gave it to Palladin already in a PM:

LINK

It is an hour or so long and no one is going to watch it because no one really wants their deep rooted understanding of the garbage the government feeds us upset. But if you actually care about the truth...watch it...and then go back to your opinions.

I just finished watching joc's link here and what the *snip*??? I didn't realize three buildings fell down...not just wtc1 and wtc2 but wtc7 also, which if I understand, wasn't even HIT by a plane...and according to this link, it fell at even FASTER than free fall speeds (sorry Redhen I know this isn't what you were looking for but I couldn't resist).

edited cuz I messed up as usual

Edited by Gummug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously Gummug, or are you kidding?

Are you really just discovering WTC7? If you are, I can totally relate. It took me 4 years to discover that fact.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously Gummug, or are you kidding?

Are you really just discovering WTC7? If you are, I can totally relate. It took me 4 years to discover that fact.

Yeah, sometimes I'm a retard. Or more accurately, an idiot-savant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to be ashamed of. You're to be admired for openly admitting it. Cheers :clap:

Some folks like to pretend it was just another Tuesday afternoon in Manhattan, when it came down, no big deal.

That was what changed my perspective, because before I had more or less supported the official story, having been traumatized psychologically that morning.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was what changed my perspective, because before I had more or less supported the official story, having been traumatized psychologically that morning.

Looking at the facts, all of the evidence support the official story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(sorry Redhen I know this isn't what you were looking for but I couldn't resist).

Thanks, but I was already briefed.

"Along with the 110-floor Twin Towers, numerous other buildings at the World Trade Center site were destroyed or badly damaged, including WTC buildings 3 through 7 and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church.[69] The North Tower, South Tower, the Marriott Hotel (3 WTC) and 7 WTC were completely destroyed. The U.S. Customs House (6 World Trade Center), 4 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, and both pedestrian bridges connecting buildings were severely damaged. The Deutsche Bank Building on 130 Liberty Street was partially damaged and demolished later.[70][71] The two buildings of the World Financial Center also suffered damage.[70]"

http://en.wikipedia....mber_11_attacks

So obviously, the CIA/Mossad/Illuminati/Reptiles wanted revenge against the Greek Orthodox Church for suppressing true knowledge of the Holy Grail. Everything else was just a cover, obviously.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, but I was already briefed.

"Along with the 110-floor Twin Towers, numerous other buildings at the World Trade Center site were destroyed or badly damaged, including WTC buildings 3 through 7 and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church.[69] The North Tower, South Tower, the Marriott Hotel (3 WTC) and 7 WTC were completely destroyed. The U.S. Customs House (6 World Trade Center), 4 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, and both pedestrian bridges connecting buildings were severely damaged. The Deutsche Bank Building on 130 Liberty Street was partially damaged and demolished later.[70][71] The two buildings of the World Financial Center also suffered damage.[70]"

http://en.wikipedia....mber_11_attacks

So obviously, the CIA/Mossad/Illuminati/Reptiles wanted revenge against the Greek Orthodox Church for suppressing true knowledge of the Holy Grail. Everything else was just a cover, obviously.

You uncovered the plot, Redhen! Finally someone did it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that Walmart bought up the complete supply of novelty USA flags days after 9/11. Could Walmart have slammed those planes into the towers for profit?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that Walmart bought up the complete supply of novelty USA flags days after 9/11. Could Walmart have slammed those planes into the towers for profit?

Nah ! THey were busy buying up all the AR 15`s and Smelly-Belly Jell for Hot Flashes ! You know Walmart ! Always one step ahead of Insanity !

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of the Dahmer analogy is to illustrate the absurdity and spin involved in boiling down a complicated question to a simple, dichotomous, misleading, 'preventing an attack' or 'allowing an attack'. You're right that the knowledge they had of Dahmer was incomparable to what the CIA knew of the terrorists, but in a vastly more relevant way the information they had is entirely incomparable in the opposite direction, because there is a serious crime occurring right in front of their faces. Not an unspecified attack by unspecified people at an unspecified date/time and unspecified specific manner like our hapless intelligence agencies who are not communicating with each other. These cops had direct evidence of a naked minor who was clearly drugged/drunk and raped, and they didn't even run Dahmer's name through the system nor verify the identity of the minor. You really honestly think as a comparison that the CIA/FBI had better 'sufficient evidence' of the impending attack than that? Can you see how the cops screwed up royally in this case, it doesn't really matter that it's Dahmer, do you really think somehow they are lacking probable cause here?

The Dahmer cops here pretty clearly screwed up, they failed to investigate a probable crime. No one suspects anything conspiratorial though, we all just accept that either these specific cops messed up or there's something more systemic in that city's department or maybe in law enforcment as a whole that was possibly the issue that resulted in Dahmer not being stopped and more lives being lost. I don't know how you've just swept away or compensated for these type of mundane, people-make-mistakes options, that are not at all unusual and in fact incredibly common especially in government agencies.

There is nothing absurd or misleading about the questions. The answers are designed to weigh up two options through comparison to actual events, answering the question, “did the CIA action best prevent an attack or facilitate an attack?” The answer is simply, “the CIA action best facilitated an attack.” I’m sure you don’t like that, but it is fact, and one that should be considered along with the wider body of evidence. The questions are equally fair applied to the Dahmer case though less useful, as I have shown, it is necessary to understand background to the events.

Anyhow, Dahmer, Dahmer and more Dahmer. Thank you, but as suggested in my last post, this is incomparable to the situation on 9/11. Not only was intelligence at the forefront different – the two police officers involved were apparently unaware of Dahmer’s criminal history – in addition there was no known crime to act upon and no attempt by the officers to impede other authorities. I agree, failure to prevent the murder of Sinthasomphone was clearly an accident due to lack of knowledge and poor police follow-up work/inaction.

In contrast, at risk of repeating myself, CIA agents on the case were aware of the 9/11 hijackers connection to ‘Al Qaeda’ and attacks on the USS Cole and US embassies. The aforementioned crimes were already committed, the case underway, and along with an immigration violation were sufficient to act upon – indeed should have been acted upon, according to law and standard procedure. The accompanying warning from the FBI could not have been clearer, “these guys are clearly bad” and “someone will die”, and yet the CIA blocked action – the CIA blocked upholding of the law and standard procedure. All agents involved, unlike the Dahmer police officers, were in possession of this intelligence. What followed was not due to lack of information or inaction.

Then account for the CIA’s Saudi agent who actually assisted the hijackers and it’s ever further from the Dahmer case - agents had the knowledge and were aware of the threat, along with an operation and deliberate moves surrounding the hijackers prior to 9/11. The intelligence involvement and ongoing action with the hijackers is entirely incomparable to that one instance of inaction from the Dahmer police officers. Heck, did police officers pay Dahmer’s rent and put him in contact with a combat training school? The CIA’s Saudi agent paid the hijackers’ rent and put them in contact with flight schools.

Enough of the Dahmer case, it is not relevant to the specific 9/11 circumstances.

I would think at a minimum the myriad explanations of this type need to be dealt with in order to arrive at, 'the CIA prevented the FBI from going after people who turned out to be 9/11 terrorists, and thus, the best explanation for this is a conspiracy'. As I stated, you're leaving out all kinds of nuance and other possible answers, such as, 'the CIA was trying to work covertly to infiltrate Al Qaeda in order to better prevent attacks ongoing'. Do you have an issue with this approach, with undercover work? You know that sometimes that requires not going after criminals for relatively less serious crimes so that you can catch them in a big one/gain more intelligence/etc? In other words, that making those kinds of decisions to not bust people as soon as you can is inherently risky?

This is more like it, you are being serious now. Well, it’s a ‘conspiracy’ even if you believe the CIA were trying to infiltrate ‘Al Qaeda’ (and I do believe this is what lower level CIA agents were told). It is still a ‘conspiracy’ against the FBI, the law and standard procedure – heads should have rolled, preferably those who put such an approach in place. Do I have an issue with this approach? You mean... except for the fact that it allowed the 9/11 attack, 3,000 deaths and war to proceed? It would be better to ask, how can you not have an issue with this approach? An approach which so conveniently supported the new Neocon government ideology. You have no issue with that? No questions?

Yes it was risky. Would you have taken that approach off your own back? Would you have disregarded the law and standard procedure, allowed known terrorists free passage in America and risked a terrorist attack, to gain some intelligence? Of course you would not, neither would I, neither would redhen. It is unreasonable – you don’t gamble with lives like that – unless there is clearly a greater aim to be achieved. The order to do so came from higher. The only conclusion is exactly as Richard Clarke said, “it is inexplicable” and “there was a high-level decision in the CIA ordering people not to share information.” In fact, we know that the order you mention, to not go after the terrorists/catch them in a ‘big one’, came from Bush. It was described by Condeleeza Rice: President Bush understood the threat, and he understood its importance. He made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al Qaeda one attack at a time. He told me he was "tired of swatting flies.”

What are you not getting? The Neocon administration stated the requirement for a “new Pearl Harbor”. The Neocon administration placed an order that facilitated a “new Pearl Harbor”. That approach resulted in the “new Pearl Harbor”. The Neocon administration took advantage of that “new Pearl Harbor”. We have motive, cause, effect, benefit. The attack did not ‘slip through’, the actions taken facilitated it. There is no defence for not questioning those involved.

To put it as nicely as possible, this is just loony. I've read what you quoted from me a couple of times, you know, the questions I just asked that you admit are relevant and that you have supposedly incorporated, and I ain't seeing where you get any of this garbage. The careful, sober, rational reader may note that LG said absolutely diddly-squat about what he personally would tolerate, declare, and/or allow. It's not even properly called a strawman, it's just delusional. I'm just going to rack this up to you spleen-venting and ignore it, let me know if there's an argument that needs responding to baked in there somewhere.

There sure is an argument, though it doesn’t require response. Suffice to say that you just labelled your own defence of CIA actions, “loony”. Look, I just reiterated your suggestions, every one. For example: -

Had our intelligence agencies stopped other potential attacks prior to 9/11 by pouncing on AQ agents as soon as they discovered them, only to find that strategy was not stopping at all the continued attempts, so they had moved on to other strategies?

Let it be known, that because ‘Al Qaeda’ would not stop their attempts of an attack, LG would tolerate the presence of such terrorists on U.S. soil (figure that one out).

I was placing you in a position to test whether you personally find rationale in your own suggestion/such course of action.

And your response: -

To put it as nicely as possible, this is just loony.

So, it’s not what you would do, and it’s actually a “loony” suggestion/course of action, so far as you are concerned.

It does seem that we agree.

Now you need to prove that those who set the approach were mentally unstable/“loony”. Failing that, it appears necessary to invoke an ulterior motive, perhaps such as implementing their pre-stated “catalyzing” and “transforming event”, that would propel their policy.

I'm not happy about the delay in the investigation either nor Bush's stonewalling, but again it's not like there is absolutely no explanation as to why they would protest it: the investigation is an evaluation of their performance. Was Nixon doing all he could to cooperate with the Watergate investigation? Clinton on Lewinsky? Reagan on Iran-Contra? Jesus, any administration at all?

Is it not telling you anything that in all your examples of stonewalling the accused was found guilty?

The assemblage of this data into what was to happen is hindsight though. Just reading these lines I'm not sure that 'WTC bomber', 'retaliate in Washington', 'hijack an aircraft' should logically be inferred as all referring to the same incident and not separate occurrences for example, you may have other evidence showing that the agents should have taken it that way. You said you are incorporating my other questions into your analysis, so how many other inspecific threats were there. How many other vague threats turned out to be nothing? How many false alarms do you need until it starts to take an effect on the decisions agents make when confronted with future alarms? Why are you giving me a list of just threats related to 9/11 just from August 2001 if Bin Laden has been threatening since '97, no threats were made in the intervening years?

That’s an interesting note - I just found that Bush specifically requested that information contained in the August 2001 brief I quoted – he specifically asked about threats inside the United States - so he was certainly interested. Anyhow, it doesn’t matter whether the warnings referred to separate occurrences. The intelligence warnings in regard to an ‘Al Qaeda’ attack reached a crescendo in Summer 2001 – as CIA director George Tenet put it, “the system was blinking red”. You need to read the chapter named after that Tenet quote in the 9/11 Commission report to understand the level and severity of threat warnings received – it is necessary to understand these rising and imminent ‘Al Qaeda’ threats were not a drop in the ocean of intelligence... they were the ocean. Against that backdrop, you cannot rationally do what Bush and the Neocon administration did, or what that “loony” CIA unit did, if you are interested in preventing the foreboding attack.

I'll keep in mind that this perspective is being offered by someone who thinks scientists who do not agree with a conspiracy and whose opinions and analysis of the details of the WTC collapses are not at all in conflict with the scientific consensus should be tried for treason.

I’ll keep in mind that in lieu of an explanation for your own double-standard, you are trying to make some sort of attack on me, with a false argument too. Seriously, can you explain why you will come up with any and all kinds of speculative excuses to defend a warmonger Neocon administration and “loony” CIA unit, yet will quickly disregard the word of FBI agents knowledgeable of the case? The only answer I see is that you are arguing what you want to believe, rather than accepting expert evidence/statements on a fair basis, not to mention refusal to answer questions.

And under normal procedures, drug dealers...

Dahmer, Challenger, drug dealers, generalizations... anything to avoid the specifics of 9/11.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, it's possible, lots of things are possible, except contradictory claims. But in inductive reasoning we are looking for the inference to the best explanation.

Perhaps it is worth discussing why the official explanation is not the best. For one, the way that bin Laden was made out to be the mastermind/director of the attack, far from being best explanation, is sheer propaganda. Evidence in bin Laden statements, precedent, events and the hijacker backgrounds, etc, indicate that bin Laden was an accessory to the crime at most. He had foreknowledge and appears to have granted moral support to the operation, but little else. Where did the funding and real direction come from? Why was bin Laden held up as the instigator?

A few facts to start off: -

Bin Laden denied responsibility for the attacks.

Bin Laden credited Atta for the attacks.

Bin Laden has never been found guilty by any legal case.

Bin Laden apparently had to be informed of how much the operation cost.

Bin Laden was informed of the day the attack would take place (i.e. he did not dictate it).

Bin Laden did not appear to know the time the attack would take place.

Bin Laden recordings have been analysed and found to be edited/unverified.

Bin Laden was a prisoner of the ISI after 2001.

There are plenty more details.

Of course this is all quite contradictory to the official claim.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:whistle:

so I have to take it you trust the so called official story 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that Walmart bought up the complete supply of novelty USA flags days after 9/11. Could Walmart have slammed those planes into the towers for profit?

Ah yes! Walmart did it!

Wait til the troothers gobble that one up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes! Walmart did it!

Wait til the troothers gobble that one up.

Actually Saudia Arabia did it but shush its a secret.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so I have to take it you trust the so called official story 100%

I do. What I know of it, I cannot say 100% because I do not know every aspect that has been discussed in this forum. But I am now going back to page 1 so I cannot be accused of repeating points, or skipping posts, but I do plan to come back here and support Skyeagle to the best of my ability. I have always been appalled at the way people refuse outright confessions from murderers who danced in the streets, happy they had killed innocent people. I do not believe the Government did this. It has always been too much for me to discuss, as the death of thousands made my heart too heay to debate this atrocity, and people who tried to get the murdering sickos off the hook have always appalled me. So personally, I have not had the strength to speak my piece on this subject. Sorry mate, I have always respected your posting, and right now, that has not changed one bit, but for me, I think the time has come to roll my sleeves up and step up to this plate where Skyeagle is doing much good. I have fought bitterly with Sky in the past over passionate views on other subjects, yet I have to say his experience and his marvellous services to his country, and indeed all of us allied, is something that deserves respect. And indeed, I do respect the man very much. He made me better at defending myself because he made me work my butt off for every answer I gave him. He is one man that does know how the USAF works, and I hope to be able to support him adequately.

This subject has always touched a nerve for me, I do not think that will change here. But it has driven me to support those whom I believe are fighting the good fight. Considering the past I have with Skyeagle, not one person can call me a fanboy, but when a man is right, a man is right, and it is completely my understanding not belief, that Sky is indeed right, and made of the right stuff.

Sky mate, I'll be back in a day or two when I chew through the last 50 odd pages. You know me, I do not go into anything halfassed. Mate, it will be an honor to be on your six. Go get 'em fella. If anyone can right this wrong, you can. With Boon gone, I hope I can fill that space adequately.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few facts to start off: -

Bin Laden denied responsibility for the attacks.

Reality time.

Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11

Usama bin Laden made his first televised appearance in more than a year Friday in which he admitted for the first time ordering the Sept. 11 attacks and accused President Bush of "misleading" the American people. Injecting himself into the campaign four days ahead of the presidential election, bin Laden said the United States can avoid another Sept. 11-style attack if it stops threatening the security of Muslims.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html#ixzz2KqrMa9CB

Bin Laden credited Atta for the attacks.

Bin Laden has never been found guilty by any legal case.

Reality time rerun

Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11

Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so because of injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the United States.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html#ixzz2KqrtR1ZD

Bin Laden apparently had to be informed of how much the operation cost.

Bin Laden was informed of the day the attack would take place (i.e. he did not dictate it).

Bin Laden did not appear to know the time the attack would take place.

Rerun of the Reality time rerun

Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11

Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so because of injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the United States.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html#ixzz2KqrtR1ZD

Bin Laden recordings have been analysed and found to be edited/unverified.

Bin Laden was a prisoner of the ISI after 2001.

Let's take a look.

Osama bin Laden Tape

Al-Jazeera, which is based in Qatar, broadcast about seven minutes of the tape. The station's spokesman, Jihad Ali Ballout, said Al-Jazeera aired what was "newsworthy and relevant" and refused to describe the unaired portions, including whether they included any threats. Ballout said the station received the tape Friday but would not say how.

Before the tape was aired, the State Department asked the government of Qatar to discourage Al-Jazeera from broadcasting it, a senior State Department official said. In the video, bin Laden accused Bush of misleading Americans by saying the attack was carried out because Al Qaeda "hates freedom." The terrorist leader said his followers have left alone countries that do not threaten Muslims.

"We fought you because we are free ... and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours," bin Laden said. He said he was first inspired to attack the United States by the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon in which towers and buildings in Beirut were destroyed in the siege of the capital.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html#ixzz2KqtLAnNW

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do. What I know of it, I cannot say 100% because I do not know every aspect that has been discussed in this forum. But I am now going back to page 1 so I cannot be accused of repeating points, or skipping posts, but I do plan to come back here and support Skyeagle to the best of my ability. I have always been appalled at the way people refuse outright confessions from murderers who danced in the streets, happy they had killed innocent people. I do not believe the Government did this. It has always been too much for me to discuss, as the death of thousands made my heart too heay to debate this atrocity, and people who tried to get the murdering sickos off the hook have always appalled me. So personally, I have not had the strength to speak my piece on this subject. Sorry mate, I have always respected your posting, and right now, that has not changed one bit, but for me, I think the time has come to roll my sleeves up and step up to this plate where Skyeagle is doing much good. I have fought bitterly with Sky in the past over passionate views on other subjects, yet I have to say his experience and his marvellous services to his country, and indeed all of us allied, is something that deserves respect. And indeed, I do respect the man very much. He made me better at defending myself because he made me work my butt off for every answer I gave him. He is one man that does know how the USAF works, and I hope to be able to support him adequately.

This subject has always touched a nerve for me, I do not think that will change here. But it has driven me to support those whom I believe are fighting the good fight. Considering the past I have with Skyeagle, not one person can call me a fanboy, but when a man is right, a man is right, and it is completely my understanding not belief, that Sky is indeed right, and made of the right stuff.

Sky mate, I'll be back in a day or two when I chew through the last 50 odd pages. You know me, I do not go into anything halfassed. Mate, it will be an honor to be on your six. Go get 'em fella. If anyone can right this wrong, you can. With Boon gone, I hope I can fill that space adequately.

News media that lobbys so much to promote an agenda left or right is no longer trust worthy. It`s like watching the news as a fortune teller ot just a teller. The media is not about news. For example Canada has banned basic cable from airing fox news because it lies and has been proven. Hence it`s not legal unless you subscribe for it on cable. I have fox but only watch the hilights from certin sites that show what is relivant or massive erilivant lol

101 great to hear from ya buddy, lets keep it real and try always to look at why not so much as what we are fed. Sometime I go into work and the things I hear ar nuts as the Dorner was killed by 2 ladies in a truck oh wait thats not what happened. Got your 6

Sky egale and his views on ufo`s look back at his goverment coverups there. He quotes fox news far to much for my liking as far as what can be passed on as news.

Edited by The Silver Thong
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

News media that lobbys so much to promote an agenda left or right is no longer trust worthy. It`s like watching the news as a fortune teller ot just a teller. The media is not about news. For example Canada has banned basic cable from airing fox news because it lies and has been proven. Hence it`s not legal unless you subscribe for it on cable. I have fox but only watch the hilights from certin sites that show what is relivant or massive erilivant lol

101 great to hear from ya buddy, lets keep it real and try always to look at why not so much as what we are fed. Sometime I go into work and the things I hear ar nuts as the Dorner was killed by 2 ladies in a truck oh wait thats not what happened. Got your 6

To be honest the media has not had much of a say downunder on the subject. The main media exposure I have been exposed to was at the time. Whilst I read news sites regularly, I tend to read local sources as it pertain to my everyday.

One thing I do not plan on referring to the media, in that we surely are in agreeance, they tend to get things wrong more often than not, that is the nature of it. Largely over the years I have sought documentaries, explanations, reports and I have done quite some lurking in these thread since Sky and Boon came over here, and my own personal angles that have interested me, but mate, it's a deal, I will do my level best to keep the media put, and only verified information in.

Always good to hear from you mate, mostly why I took your post as an opportunity to break the ice so to speak. I had a feeling you would be good with it mate and I know to expect a good clean discussion with you, my only hope is that such is uniform in this part of the forum. But I see you as a shining example of a decent discussion. Heck, I owe you one too mate, you opened my eyes to a side of Dawkins that I did not see, and one day, I hope I can buy you a beer for that. It's the beauty of UM. Some great people here and we all seem to be able to share.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:whistle:

Just to clear up for those who don’t click the link - it’s a spoof/comedy.

Reality time.

Excellent, your ‘reality’ is to link the same Fox News article and inaccurate headline four times. Why don’t you quote the part of the 2004 videotape where “Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11”? But you wont... because he doesn’t.

So we have one guy posting spoofs and another linking fallacious Fox News headlines, - OCTs really know their stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

101 my friend you give me to much credit. I don`t post nearly as much as I us to. I don`t think my views have changed to much but as anybody views are changable. Imo the facts and the hear say so to speak tell a tail that has both if not three sides involved and OBL as a scape goat. I will not jump on a tail coat but for such a thing as 9-11 to happen with 4 plains and a 75% accuraccy from 19 morons seems improbable. i am willing to look at any aspect of that but will not buy into a government report that used trillions on a war and a few million on an investigation as to how and why. Im not a ct guy but I know what a dead rat smells like. I`m not like Boon as he often went with the popular midia as sky does.

I want an open investigation and that was never allowed. The lies as to to the wars are now transparent ad a joke I feel the people need an honest investigation. That will never happen though. So I guess we believe the govenment 100% as well as politicians or we just keep getting called Ct`folk when we want better answers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clear up for those who don’t click the link - it’s a spoof/comedy.

shhhhhh lol

It`s the Onion, I could see how some could take it as Fox news but we should not lie or decieve right.

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.