9/11

[flyingswan]

I think I have done a good enough job throughout this thread of explaining how the intelligence agency actions cannot be attributed simply to a “shortcoming” – a consistent prevention of agents to act when all were aware of a known terrorist threat illegally inside the United States for a period of months - this is not suggestive of a “shortcoming” but of a strategy, one that occurred specifically when the Bush administration came to power, began after meetings of the President and Vice President with intelligence heads and which suited the Neocon agenda. I won’t go over it all again - read up on the thread if you want the details.

Reading this thread just gives me the impression that you will put the most damaging twist on anything you can get hold of. It does not give me the impression that there exists any "smoking gun" evidence that your interpretation is correct.

[Q24]

Reading this thread just gives me the impression that you will put the most damaging twist on anything you can get hold of. It does not give me the impression that there exists any "smoking gun" evidence that your interpretation is correct.

I interpret a scenario that is best fit to all available evidence.

I don’t see what further evidence to support the interpretation should realistically be present.

If I were correct, in theory what should an example of this “smoking gun” evidence be that you think is missing?

[flyingswan]

I interpret a scenario that is best fit to all available evidence.

I don’t see what further evidence to support the interpretation should realistically be present.

If I were correct, in theory what should an example of this “smoking gun” evidence be that you think is missing?

Anything that is prima facie evidence for wrongdoing, ie does not rely on your "interpretation".

[alienmojo]

Hi,

I have seen a few various debates on 9-11 and I am very interested in actually pinning down the most common. To do this I would welcome the following from anyone with a theory:

a) culprit

how they did it

c) motive

thank you all in advance.

My feelings on this are that at the very least the government knew about this beforehand and let it happen so they could get the patriot act passed. At worst, they hired the Israeli Massad to mastermind it. Bin Ladin denied any involvement at first and these guys would have LOVED to have taken credit for it. Now I believe he says he did it...

There are just too many weird things; Building 7, where the Pentagon was hit, how the towers fell, no videos released of the Pentagon strike, all the war games going on, etc... that there HAS to be something going on here.

[alienmojo]

Don't forget that the Government has done stuff like this before, ie. killing its own people to achieve its own end. Gulf of Tonkin, Northwoods, The sinking of the Maine, Pearl Harbor, etc... I wouldn't put it past them to have been responsible... ESPECIALLY the Bush administration. Dick Chaney is SOOOOOO Evil!!!

[quillius]

Don't forget that the Government has done stuff like this before, ie. killing its own people to achieve its own end. Gulf of Tonkin, Northwoods, The sinking of the Maine, Pearl Harbor, etc... I wouldn't put it past them to have been responsible... ESPECIALLY the Bush administration. Dick Chaney is SOOOOOO Evil!!!

Hello Alienmojo, have you looked through this thread yet? there are some fascinating insights and conversations between Q and flying swan...if you havent I suggest taking the time to do so as it really shows how complex the whole 'conspiracy' actually is.

[Q24]

Anything that is prima facie evidence for wrongdoing, ie does not rely on your "interpretation".

Can you give a specific example in theory?

I believe that when neither the CIA or FBI acted against Hazmi and Mihdhar whilst aware of their terrorist connections and being in the United States illegally, with deliberate moves made resulting in the situation continuing for a period of months (none of this interpretation, but recitation of the facts)... this is prima facie evidence that wrongdoing has been committed.

I understand this is not enough evidence for you, thus my question above. That is, I already know what you do not find convincing, I am interested to determine just what level of specific evidence in theory you would find convincing.

What, short of a confession, if anything, would be enough for you?

[flyingswan]

Can you give a specific example in theory?

I believe that when neither the CIA or FBI acted against Hazmi and Mihdhar whilst aware of their terrorist connections and being in the United States illegally, with deliberate moves made resulting in the situation continuing for a period of months (none of this interpretation, but recitation of the facts)... this is prima facie evidence that wrongdoing has been committed.

I understand this is not enough evidence for you, thus my question above. That is, I already know what you do not find convincing, I am interested to determine just what level of specific evidence in theory you would find convincing.

What, short of a confession, if anything, would be enough for you?

Why does it have to be "short of a confession"? That would certainly be a good example. Not the Hazmi/Mindhar business which could easily be interpreted as a combination of excessive secrecy and incompetence. Some evidence of direct contact in the US between Hazmi and Mindhar and an intelligence operative who, unlike Bayoumi, actually knew that they were terrorists would be a start.

[Q24]

Why does it have to be "short of a confession"? That would certainly be a good example.

I say “short of a confession” because it’s no good waiting for evidence that should not reasonably be expected to exist. I am looking for evidence that should realistically be expected to exist given the scenario that Cheney and head of the CIA bin Laden unit conspired to deliberately allow the hijackers free reign in the U.S.

Not the Hazmi/Mindhar business which could easily be interpreted as a combination of excessive secrecy and incompetence. Some evidence of direct contact in the US between Hazmi and Mindhar and an intelligence operative who, unlike Bayoumi, actually knew that they were terrorists would be a start.

Yes, I can place a Saudi government agent meeting the hijackers in the U.S. at the airport right off their flight, I can place an FBI informant actually renting accommodation to the hijackers in the country, I can place CIA agents in the room of Hazmi and Mihdhar at the Malaysia summit, I can place an MI6 asset providing financing to the hijackers, I can place an Israeli intelligence asset as related to one of the hijackers, I can place a U.S. contractor sharing a laptop with the ‘20th hijacker’, I can place a former U.S. military officer as training one of the hijackers, I can place another two U.S. agents inside Al Qaeda operations... all very intriguing how fate brought this about, isn’t it?

However, in the scenario above – a conspiracy between Cheney and head of the CIA bin Laden unit – there is no necessity that intelligence operatives had direct contact with Hazmi and Mihdhar and be fully aware of the terrorist connections... there is therefore no reason that evidence of such should be present. Again, I am looking for evidence that should realistically be expected to exist given the scenario described.

You see, I don’t think any evidence that could realistically be expected is missing at all, everything pointing to the scenario and the characteristics of a covert operation are right under our noses already. I just had to confirm that you were being unrealistic in your expectations of evidence regarding the scenario.

Still, you have accepted possibility of the conspiracy and expressed support for a new investigation into the intelligence issues, that’ll do.

[flyingswan]

I say “short of a confession” because it’s no good waiting for evidence that should not reasonably be expected to exist. I am looking for evidence that should realistically be expected to exist given the scenario that Cheney and head of the CIA bin Laden unit conspired to deliberately allow the hijackers free reign in the U.S.

You don't accept the possibility of a conspirator having a change of heart, seeing as how your proposed motives for the conspiracy, justifying an Iraq war which was hardly a success, would be unlikely to give the conspirators a feeling of pride in their achievement?

Yes, I can place a Saudi government agent meeting the hijackers in the U.S. at the airport right off their flight, I can place an FBI informant actually renting accommodation to the hijackers in the country, I can place CIA agents in the room of Hazmi and Mihdhar at the Malaysia summit, I can place an MI6 asset providing financing to the hijackers, I can place an Israeli intelligence asset as related to one of the hijackers, I can place a U.S. contractor sharing a laptop with the ‘20th hijacker’, I can place a former U.S. military officer as training one of the hijackers, I can place another two U.S. agents inside Al Qaeda operations... all very intriguing how fate brought this about, isn’t it?

But none of it the "smoking gun" evidence you want, is it?

However, in the scenario above – a conspiracy between Cheney and head of the CIA bin Laden unit – there is no necessity that intelligence operatives had direct contact with Hazmi and Mihdhar and be fully aware of the terrorist connections... there is therefore no reason that evidence of such should be present. Again, I am looking for evidence that should realistically be expected to exist given the scenario described.

In that scenario, there is nothing apart from a confession that would ever prove your case.

You see, I don’t think any evidence that could realistically be expected is missing at all, everything pointing to the scenario and the characteristics of a covert operation are right under our noses already. I just had to confirm that you were being unrealistic in your expectations of evidence regarding the scenario.

How is the sort of evidence I asked for unrealistic? You have given evidence of plenty of encounters between the terrorists and intelligence agents. You just have to produce evidence in one of the cases where the agent assisted the terrorists that the agent was aware of who he was dealing with.

[Q24]

You don't accept the possibility of a conspirator having a change of heart, seeing as how your proposed motives for the conspiracy, justifying an Iraq war which was hardly a success, would be unlikely to give the conspirators a feeling of pride in their achievement?

The aim of “justifying an Iraq war” was only one facet of the wider strategy to increase American influence in the Gulf region, this itself one facet of the wider strategy to remain the world’s pre-eminent power... and even that does not encompass the full range of motive present. The motive was far bigger than Iraq and when comparing events which have unfolded to aims set out in the Neocon Rebuilding America’s Defenses document, it is seen that large swathes have been achieved.

Even if we do confine ourselves to Iraq, just scratching the surface – relations with Washington have been vastly improved, American military influence in the region has been extended, the regional threat to Israel has been diminished, the oil flow and trade have been... secured. This is but a part of the wider achievement in favour of the Neocon strategy.

So “hardly a success”? It has not been perfect, but I wouldn’t underestimate the achievements.

Do I think those conspirators would have, “a change of heart” about it all? Let’s see... they have just condemned thousands to death on 9/11, hundreds of thousands more to be wiped out in the following illegal wars, enacted a large service to their ideology... are they going to do a turnaround at this point and ‘confess’ all?

...

You’re a funny one, Swanny.

But none of it the "smoking gun" evidence you want, is it?

There is “smoking gun” evidence that the intelligence services were aware of the terrorist threat posed by these men long before 9/11, that there was ample opportunity for it to be removed but someone chose it should not be. There is the bullet wound that is 9/11. We have a “smoking gun” in prevention of agencies to act. The culprit holding that gun is the Bush administration and CIA bin Laden unit. Oh there’s a “smoking gun” alright, it’s just that you want to believe those holding it slipped resulting in a shooting accident, rather than took careful aim and pulled the trigger.

Mind you, given the Vice President’s record...

Dick Cheney hunting incident

... I could entertain the idea, although the large difference in this case being there was no evidence or prior confirmation that removal of Harry Whittington would further the Neocon agenda.

In that scenario, there is nothing apart from a confession that would ever prove your case.

How is the sort of evidence I asked for unrealistic? You have given evidence of plenty of encounters between the terrorists and intelligence agents. You just have to produce evidence in one of the cases where the agent assisted the terrorists that the agent was aware of who he was dealing with.

What this means is, “nothing apart from a confession that would ever prove your case”... to flyingswan.

This is what I wanted to confirm – that you are waiting for a confession.

It is unrealistic in all cases to rely on evidence that isn’t expected to exist.

And yet numerous more qualified individuals determine the available evidence is sufficient: -

• “It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with compelling evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited.”
  ~ Raymond McGovern, Former Chairman of National Intelligence Estimates and 27-year CIA veteran.
  
• “This single book could (and should) provide the basis for the United Nations‚ International Court of Justice, or some specially constituted global body (independent of the U.S.) to investigate with highest priority, and publicly report its findings about, the charge that unknown elements within the U.S. Government, and possibly some individuals elsewhere closely allied to the U.S., caused or contributed to causing the events of September 11 to happen.”
  ~ William Christison, Former National Intelligence Officer and 29-year CIA veteran
  
• “I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war, and I am forced to conclude that there is sufficient evidence to indict (not necessarily convict) Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and others of a neo-conservative neo-Nazi coup d'etat and kick-off of the clash of civilizations.”
  ~ Robert Steele, former clandestine CIA officer and 25-year U.S. intelligence career
  
• Interviewer: “What about political profit? There are those who suggest that ... someone in that chain of command ... had pretty good knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen -- and really didn't do much to stop it -- or even obstructed efforts to stop it because they thought it would lend legitimacy to Bush's ... failing presidency.”
  Baer: “Absolutely.”
  Interviewer: “So you are personally of the opinion ... that there was an aspect of 'inside job' to 9/11 within the U.S. government?”
  Baer: “There is that possibility, the evidence points at it.”
  ~ Robert Baer, Middle East field officer and 21-year CIA career.
  
• “The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence.”
  ~ John Loftus, Former U.S. Army Intelligence officer
  

I’m glad to see that everyone doesn’t sit around waiting for a confession.

[flyingswan]

Do I think those conspirators would have, “a change of heart” about it all? Let’s see... they have just condemned thousands to death on 9/11, hundreds of thousands more to be wiped out in the following illegal wars, enacted a large service to their ideology... are they going to do a turnaround at this point and ‘confess’ all?

Why not? I would have thought that a guilty conscience would be more likely to trigger a change of heart than would pride in a successful mission.

There is “smoking gun” evidence that the intelligence services were aware of the terrorist threat posed by these men long before 9/11, that there was ample opportunity for it to be removed but someone chose it should not be. There is the bullet wound that is 9/11. We have a “smoking gun” in prevention of agencies to act. The culprit holding that gun is the Bush administration and CIA bin Laden unit. Oh there’s a “smoking gun” alright, it’s just that you want to believe those holding it slipped resulting in a shooting accident, rather than took careful aim and pulled the trigger.

You have a strange idea of what constitutes a "smoking gun".

What this means is, “nothing apart from a confession that would ever prove your case”... to flyingswan.

That isn't what I said. I said that, in the particular case where the conspiracy was limited to a couple of people, there would be unlikely to be any other sort of evidence. If the conspiracy was broader, the could be plenty of evidence, such as evidence for your controlled demolitions that has been conspicuously absent.

And yet numerous more qualified individuals determine the available evidence is sufficient: -

Do all these insiders actually have any evidence, or is this just more opinion? If one of them was so sure there was evidence to bring a court case in 2007, why has nothing happened?

Edited April 5, 2011 by flyingswan

[Q24]

Why not? I would have thought that a guilty conscience would be more likely to trigger a change of heart than would pride in a successful mission.

You are making some horrible assumptions.

1. That conscience outweighs motive. If this were the case then every criminal would confess their crime(s) because they have a “guilty conscience”. The argument might then be, “Yes, but thousands of deaths (caused by 9/11 and war) might weigh more heavily on the conscience than your typical crime.” The obvious balance to that is, “Yes, but the motives were exceedinlgy grander also – to drive the future shape of the world.” This is how it is justified to those responsible.
   
2. That conscience outweighs self-preservation. Even if in the above case ones conscience did tip the balance against the motive, who is going to sacrifice themself and their ideology to reveal all? It is not just the individual who will be vilified (to say the least) for their part but also the wider benefactors of the agenda, say pre-eminence of the United States and Israel. No one can change the past and it makes little sense to self-destruct with such severity, rather than live with a “guilty conscience” and better act in the future.
   

That is all if any significant conscience is involved at all - what you must realise is that you are insignificant next to the agenda. You think those Neocons and Zionists mentioned wouldn’t trade your life in the blink of an eye for furthering their global agendas? The problem is, you think you are important and are looking at the situation from your own point of view rather than stepping into their shoes.

No, the conspirators are not going to have a “change of heart” about 9/11 for your benefit, not ever.

You have a strange idea of what constitutes a "smoking gun".

A “smoking gun” is conclusive evidence of wrongdoing.

There is conclusive evidence that the FBI were deliberately prevented from reacting to the future hijackers and that the CIA, at the least, failed to respond given ample opportunity to intervene. This is wrongdoing at a fundamental level... unless you are calling it right that these agencies handed known terrorists a free pass in the United States?

This is our “smoking gun”.

Now did the trigger finger slip or was the gun fired in anger? That’s the question.

Swanny, if an individual said they needed someone dead, and the same individual were found holding a “smoking gun”, a bullet hole in that someone’s head... would you call it an accident if the individual did not confess to their intent?

On the basis of your logic thus far – yes you would.

And this is how you wrongly come to your conclusion on 9/11...

If a Neocon group said they needed “a new Pearl Harbor”, and the same Neocon group were found holding a “smoking gun”, free pass to the terrorists providing that required event... would you call it an accident if the Neocon group did not confess to their intent?

Well yes, we have seen that you would.

Though it is not anymore right in the case of 9/11 than in the first example above.

That isn't what I said. I said that, in the particular case where the conspiracy was limited to a couple of people, there would be unlikely to be any other sort of evidence. If the conspiracy was broader, the could be plenty of evidence, such as evidence for your controlled demolitions that has been conspicuously absent.

You don’t seem to understand - the detailed evidence I have gone through in this thread (and much more that I have not) is sufficient to lead thousands of people, those career intelligence officers quoted above included, to conclude beyond reasonable doubt there has been a conspiracy of wrongdoing in the chain of command which allowed the hijackers to go unhindered.

We do not all need to wait to have it spelt out by a confession as you do.

Do all these insiders actually have any evidence, or is this just more opinion? If one of them was so sure there was evidence to bring a court case in 2007, why has nothing happened?

You mean have they obtained a confession? No Swanny, not so far as I know. I suggest the quoted individuals used their experience within the intelligence services along with the available evidence to make a reasoned judgement call.

If you question from both angles, “why has nothing happened?” the answer reveals itself: -

Why has there never been a court case against Cheney?

Why has there never been a court case against bin Laden?

Have sufficient facts been determined through investigation to raise this?

Who owns the courts?

Who runs the investigation?

Taken to the basics - you are asking for the United States to screw itself.

What’s done is done, there is no antoning for the past in this case, now is about making people aware so it doesn’t happen again in the near future.

[flyingswan]

You are making some horrible assumptions.

1. That conscience outweighs motive. If this were the case then every criminal would confess their crime...
   
2. That conscience outweighs self-preservation.
   

Do try and follow the argument. I'm not suggesting that every criminal confesses, I'm saying that if a criminal does confess then that's evidence.

How does self-preservation affect a death-bed confession?

It is an indisputable fact that criminals do confess occasionally, yet you argue that confession is impossible.

That is all if any significant conscience is involved at all - what you must realise is that you are insignificant next to the agenda. You think those Neocons and Zionists mentioned wouldn’t trade your life in the blink of an eye for furthering their global agendas? The problem is, you think you are important and are looking at the situation from your own point of view rather than stepping into their shoes.

Typical Q24 argument. Neocons and Zionists, evil by definition. That's not evidence, that's prejudice.

Swanny, if an individual said they needed someone dead, and the same individual were found holding a “smoking gun”, a bullet hole in that someone’s head... would you call it an accident if the individual did not confess to their intent?

No, that's prima facie evidence, the sort of evidence you don't have.

If a Neocon group said they needed “a new Pearl Harbor”, and the same Neocon group were found holding a “smoking gun”, free pass to the terrorists providing that required event... would you call it an accident if the Neocon group did not confess to their intent?

Er, you have shown no evidence whatever that these "Neocon groups" are the same people each time, and the "new Pearl Harbour" bit is another of those areas where you are certain of one interpretation and ignore the possibility of others.

Who owns the courts?

Who runs the investigation?

Taken to the basics - you are asking for the United States to screw itself.

Just to remind you what you quoted:

“This single book could (and should) provide the basis for the United Nations‚ International Court of Justice, or some specially constituted global body (independent of the U.S.) to investigate with highest priority, and publicly report its findings about, the charge that unknown elements within the U.S. Government, and possibly some individuals elsewhere closely allied to the U.S., caused or contributed to causing the events of September 11 to happen.”

~ William Christison, Former National Intelligence Officer and 29-year CIA veteran

Where does he even mention US courts?

Edited April 7, 2011 by flyingswan

[Q24]

Do try and follow the argument. I'm not suggesting that every criminal confesses, I'm saying that if a criminal does confess then that's evidence.

How does self-preservation affect a death-bed confession?

It is an indisputable fact that criminals do confess occasionally, yet you argue that confession is impossible.

I ask what evidence should necessarily exist, not what could exist.

In theory there could exist a photograph of the Vice President shaking hands each of the hijackers as they entered the United States, but expecting such evidence to exist is as realistic as waiting for a confession in this case.

Regarding a “death-bed confession”... can you not think these questions through instead of expecting me to fill in the logic every single time? I mentioned it is not only self-preservation of the individual at stake but the wider benefactors; the ideology itself would be hurt by a confession. Now, thinking for yourself – does the ideology die with the individual? You don’t work toward a goal throughout your life and then stab it (and everyone still associated with it) through the heart in your final breath.

No wait, you will come up with some ridiculous example meant to counter the above. Let’s see... Naomi Shemer gave a deathbed confession that she plagiarized some folk melody for her song Jerusalem of Gold... and that means I’m wrong, right? The difference is that nothing hinged on it, Swanny – there was no wider, ongoing and deep-rooted religious or patriotic reason to keep it under wraps.

And in any case, none of those I would point the finger at on 9/11 have passed away yet, so you are still unreasonably expecting something that cannot exist. Plus, didn’t someone claiming to be involved in the JFK assassination plot give a deathbed confession? It does’t seem to have helped the case there.

Typical Q24 argument. Neocons and Zionists, evil by definition. That's not evidence, that's prejudice.

I didn’t say evil... and the fact they have an agenda given higher priority than you or me is not prejudice.

No, that's prima facie evidence, the sort of evidence you don't have.

Er, you have shown no evidence whatever that these "Neocon groups" are the same people each time, and the "new Pearl Harbour" bit is another of those areas where you are certain of one interpretation and ignore the possibility of others.

The only interpretation is that a “new Pearl Harbor” would be of benefit to the Neocon agenda.

And of course they are the same people, if you you’re not even that far along then god help us! Those Neocon signatories to the statement of PNAC principles are the same ones who took up the highest positions of power in the Bush administration – the Vice President, the Secretary of Defence, the Secretary of State, Special Assistant to the President, ambassadors, defence advisors, amongst others, 9/11 Commission members even! – the same Bush administration which following election then restricted investigation of bin Laden related cases.

It is parallel to the first example I gave which you accept as prima facie. It is not the standard of evidence that changes when it come to 9/11, but your level of disbelief.

Where does he even mention US courts?

I think Christison is supposing an ideal world.

He does not mention a U.S. court... next daft question?

You’re going to ask why a foreign court doesn’t bring a case for 9/11. Well think it through how that might work (or not!); the barriers and implications along the way and end result before coming out with it. Do you suppose Vladimir Putin should invite Dick Cheney to Russia to face questioning regarding 9/11? Or wait, they could hold a Chinese court in Washington, right Swanny?! Or no, I got it, the Hague, America would provide unrestricted access of information to the Hague!!!

They would of course get the trial of bin Laden out of the way first, you might think.

[flyingswan]

I ask what evidence should necessarily exist, not what could exist.

No doubt the security services are as bureaucratic as any other branch of government. That means that an attempt to hide evidence is unlikely to destroy all the relevant paperwork. There is always the possibility of a leak.

No wait, you will come up with some ridiculous example meant to counter the above. Let’s see... Naomi Shemer gave a deathbed confession that she plagiarized some folk melody for her song Jerusalem of Gold... and that means I’m wrong, right?

Plagiarism? You do love these strawman arguments. There have been death-bed confessions to murder.

I didn’t say evil... and the fact they have an agenda given higher priority than you or me is not prejudice.

You don't think them evil? Could have fooled me. And of course, anyone as irredeemably evil as a Neocon or Zionist could never, ever have a change of heart, or a religious conversion.

The only interpretation is that a “new Pearl Harbor” would be of benefit to the Neocon agenda.

Rephrase that. Your only interpretation...

And of course they are the same people, if you you’re not even that far along then god help us! Those Neocon signatories to the statement of PNAC principles are the same ones who took up the highest positions of power in the Bush administration – the Vice President, the Secretary of Defence, the Secretary of State, Special Assistant to the President, ambassadors, defence advisors, amongst others, 9/11 Commission members even! – the same Bush administration which following election then restricted investigation of bin Laden related cases.

Really? Cofer Black signed the PNAC document?

...and "bin Laden related cases" is another bit of weaseling, you know perfectly well it was another member of the family and a Muslim youth organisation, not Osama and Al Qaeda.

I think Christison is supposing an ideal world.

If you think he is out of touch with the real world, why did you quote him in support of your opinion?

Edited April 8, 2011 by flyingswan

[Q24]

No doubt the security services are as bureaucratic as any other branch of government. That means that an attempt to hide evidence is unlikely to destroy all the relevant paperwork. There is always the possibility of a leak.

What ‘smoking gun’ paperwork do you think should necessarily be leaked?

Plagiarism? You do love these strawman arguments. There have been death-bed confessions to murder.

I did predict you would come up with your customary irrelevant example.

You don't think them evil? Could have fooled me. And of course, anyone as irredeemably evil as a Neocon or Zionist could never, ever have a change of heart, or a religious conversion.

I have not said they are evil. You are still looking in from the outside. Evil is a point of view. It is not the best term to use in understanding why a confession is not to be expected. It is better understood through the deep-rooted racial, religious and patriotic binds to the ongoing ideology. A conspirator would not be a part of the operation to begin with if one or more of these factors were not in place.

Rephrase that. Your only interpretation...

The PNAC’s own interpretation.

Really? Cofer Black signed the PNAC document?

Yes really those Neocon members of the PNAC who stated the benefit of “a new Pearl Harbor” were the same ones that took up office in the Bush administration in 2001. You initially asked if those Neocon groups were the same people – once that is addressed you go on a tangent by introducing Cofer Black who I have never claimed is of the same background.

Here’s the lowdown on Black: -

• 28 year career in clandestine CIA operations, long service as a foreign field officer arming and recruiting guerrilla movements/terrorists toward U.S. interests in numerous countries.
  Right, so he is essentially aiding unscrupulous foreign groups – an ‘official’ arms dealer and recruiter - at direction of the U.S. government. This is immoral and no doubt people died as a result. How could this be justified? Because he was serving a greater purpose – interests of the United States.
  
• Head of the new CIA bin Laden unit which initiated a plan from 1999-2001 to infiltrate close to bin Laden – the same timeframe that fifteen of the hijackers so happened to become affiliated with ‘Al Qaeda’.
  If you are content to believe in such coincidences, then the timeframe matching is just that – a coincidence. If you would rather look for reason behind such peculiarities, the suggestion is that the hijackers were in fact the same men the CIA bin Laden unit were guiding in the direction of bin Laden.
  
• Told his agents after 9/11, “I don’t want bin Laden and his thugs captured, I want them dead... They must be killed. I want to see photos of their heads on pikes. I want bin Laden’s head shipped back in a box filled with dry ice. I want to be able to show bin Laden’s head to the president.”
  Apart from the impression that Black can be a rather unsavory and ruthless character, it appears he did not want to bring in bin Laden for questioning for some reason. CIA officer Gary Schroen would later say it was the first time in his career he had been ordered to assassinate an enemy rather than attempt a capture.
  
• Also after 9/11 said he wanted, “to look the American people in the eye”. In a following interview said he could think of nothing, “we could have done that would have changed anything.”
  The first comment indicates Black is going out of his way in attempt to prove his honesty and innocence to the American people... why did he think we might doubt him in the first place, unless there was something to hide? The second comment shows Black is prepared to lie to avoid taking responsibility – there were obvious steps that could have been taken to change everything as we have seen on this thread.
  
• Served as Vice Chairman of the Blackwater mercenary force made notorious in the Iraq War.
  Further demonstration of the ruthless and immoral nature of Black... all in interest of the United States though you understand.
  

A better candidate for participation in this element of the operation would be hard to find given those indicators above. He would pass the test with flying colours when the idea of ‘allowing’ a terrorist attack and especially those benefits to the United States were put to him.

This is not to say he would know full extent of the inside job; his was a bit-part ordered by the new Neocon government, though a vital one at that – to lay the pathway allowing a large-scale attack to be played out. A ruthless and unscrupulous plot indeed but justified as for a greater cause in his mind.

Why don’t you apply your own values to Black and tell us what a kind hearted and genuine fellow he must be, flyingswan? Or better, step into his shoes and accept what is obvious – the result justified the means.

...and "bin Laden related cases" is another bit of weaseling, you know perfectly well it was another member of the family and a Muslim youth organisation, not Osama and Al Qaeda.

You had better talk to BBC reporter Greg Palast about his weaseling: -

“I received a phone call from a high-placed member of a US intelligence agency. He tells me that while there's always been constraints on investigating Saudis, under George Bush it's gotten much worse. After the elections, the agencies were told to "back off" investigating the Bin Ladens and Saudi royals, and that angered agents.”

The suggestion is that all investigation pertaining to the bin Ladens was restricted and it does seem unlikely the Bush administration would get into the detail of pulling the plug on one individual FBI investigation. We know that investigation of the 9/11 hijackers was also prevented at more than one turn as the likes of FBI agents Coleen Rowley and Steve Bongardt have confirmed.

If you think he is out of touch with the real world, why did you quote him in support of your opinion?

I didn’t say he is “out of touch”.

And you are missing the point of the quotes – they show individuals experienced in intelligence matters believe there is evidence enough to indicate elements of the U.S. government were complicit in 9/11.

[flyingswan]

What ‘smoking gun’ paperwork do you think should necessarily be leaked?

Minutes of meetings, orders, logs, all the ordinary lifeblood of a bureaucracy.

I did predict you would come up with your customary irrelevant example.

Er, the only irrelevant example so far is some case of plagiarism that you came up with.

I have not said they are evil. You are still looking in from the outside. Evil is a point of view. It is not the best term to use in understanding why a confession is not to be expected. It is better understood through the deep-rooted racial, religious and patriotic binds to the ongoing ideology. A conspirator would not be a part of the operation to begin with if one or more of these factors were not in place.

I see, the conspirators are such master psychologists that every person they recruit is absolutely guaranteed to never waver? How come real-life conspiracies come unstuck because they do rely on the wrong people? Look at the way the Watergate conspiracy unwound.

The PNAC’s own interpretation.

This is where you need to provide evidence rather than your usual cherry-picked quotes. From my reading of the document, what they said is they want the US armed forces to modernise, and this was likely to be a slow process unless a new Pearl Harbour event occurred. You really need to twist this to make "A new Pearl Harbour is what we want".

Yes really those Neocon members of the PNAC who stated the benefit of “a new Pearl Harbor” were the same ones that took up office in the Bush administration in 2001. You initially asked if those Neocon groups were the same people – once that is addressed you go on a tangent by introducing Cofer Black who I have never claimed is of the same background.

I mentioned Black because you picked him as someone you thought likely to be involved in letting the terrorists into the USA, not because I have any high opinion of him. My point was that you were suggesting that the PNAC signatories and the group involved in letting the terrorists in were the same people.

You had better talk to BBC reporter Greg Palast about his weaseling: -

“I received a phone call from a high-placed member of a US intelligence agency. He tells me that while there's always been constraints on investigating Saudis, under George Bush it's gotten much worse. After the elections, the agencies were told to "back off" investigating the Bin Ladens and Saudi royals, and that angered agents.”

Again, any evidence that "Bin Ladens and Saudi royals" in this context includes Osama bin Laden?

I didn’t say he is “out of touch”.

You said "I think Christison is supposing an ideal world", though I can't see that he mentions the idea.

And you are missing the point of the quotes – they show individuals experienced in intelligence matters believe there is evidence enough to indicate elements of the U.S. government were complicit in 9/11.

Well, the ones that are living in your ideal world do.

[Sakari]

It was a very elaborate thought out thing....It took a lot of Money , and a lot of research....

In the end, Donald Trump new the chaos it would cause into the future, ensuring his ability to have a chance at being President in 2012.

[Q24]

Minutes of meetings, orders, logs, all the ordinary lifeblood of a bureaucracy.

What, any old logs?

Minutes of the White House environmental committee meeting perhaps?

What “smoking gun” information should be found in whatever records you are referring to?

I see, the conspirators are such master psychologists that every person they recruit is absolutely guaranteed to never waver? How come real-life conspiracies come unstuck because they do rely on the wrong people? Look at the way the Watergate conspiracy unwound.

Yes, psychology is very important.

The conspirators themselves didn’t need to be master psychologists in knowing who had the potential to be recruited. The job was already done for them – it is inherent in the intelligence agency pool they were recruiting from.

You must understand – internally it can be an uncomfortable level of surveillance that agents come under, there are watchers watching watchers, constant monitoring and testing (that includes psychological), everything is known about them, their family and friends, their acquaintances, beliefs and views are analyzed until they know you better than you know yourself – it’s how they remove risk to the secrecy and deception that can come in such a role. And certain roles require a certain person.

All the conspirators had to do was read an agent’s profile.

Watergate unwound because the operation was botched, not because the participants wavered.

This is where you need to provide evidence rather than your usual cherry-picked quotes. From my reading of the document, what they said is they want the US armed forces to modernise, and this was likely to be a slow process unless a new Pearl Harbour event occurred. You really need to twist this to make "A new Pearl Harbour is what we want".

And why did they want the armed forces to modernize? To sit looking pretty you think? You would need to read the rest of the document to answer that. It might also give you a sense of the urgency in which the transformation was required. Then you will understand why those words I keep repeating are so important – “a new Pearl Harbor” was the lever that everything hinged on. You run a risk of falling behind if you sit waiting for a slow process to occur; completely opposite to the interventionist Neocon approach.

I mentioned Black because you picked him as someone you thought likely to be involved in letting the terrorists into the USA, not because I have any high opinion of him. My point was that you were suggesting that the PNAC signatories and the group involved in letting the terrorists in were the same people.

The operation did not belong to Black - he was just a certain person for a certain role (see above).

It is those PNAC signatories who set the wheels in motion – they are the constant throughout.

Again, any evidence that "Bin Ladens and Saudi royals" in this context includes Osama bin Laden?

You are ignoring that Saudis were implicated in 9/11, ignoring that FBI investigation of terrorist groups, plus specifically Hazmi, Mihdhar and Moussaoui were all prevented between Bush taking office and 9/11... and then asking for evidence that Osama bin Laden falls under the heading, “Bin Ladens”.

Okay.

Moving on...

You said "I think Christison is supposing an ideal world", though I can't see that he mentions the idea.

Well, the ones that are living in your ideal world do.

It is amazing how you selectively deal with information.

I quote five U.S. intelligence veterans who believe there is evidence indicative of inside complicity.

And all you focus on is that one of them followed up with an unrealistic solution.

No really, it’s interesting how you do that.

[Little Fish]

What “smoking gun” information should be found in whatever records you are referring to?

maybe a document written a few years before 911 where they imagined a transforming event such as the destruction of the twin towers, and how it would create a new society with less freedom.

It would be a real smoking gun if it was written by the head of the cia and the executive director of the later 911 commission.

It would be comical if that commission then concluded it was a "failure of imagination".

it would be diabolical if that document was named "Imagining the Transforming Event"

it would be obscene if in that document they warned of such an event coming about by taking advanatge of a wall between the fbi and the cia.

such a document would never exist

would it?

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/visions/publication/terrorism.htm

[Q24]

What else have you been keeping up your sleeve, Little Fish?

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/visions/publication/terrorism.htm

“Imagining the Transforming Event”

Astounding.

After discussing the lack of Cold War threat and asking, “What strategy should replace it?” they then cram...

• 
  
• “state-sponsored terrorism”
  
• “[u.S. retaliation] against both the individuals and the governments.”
  
• “ the World Trade Center ”
  
• “the unconventional alternatives [for an attack].”
  
• “An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands...”
  
• “Like Pearl Harbor, such an event... ”
  

... all into one short section.

And then it happened!

Right after a large number of those who shared the view took office.

This was no unforeseen terrorist attack that caught everyone off-guard, not in a million years.

9/11 was their vision of a “Transforming Event” come true.

And they wouldn’t have wanted that now... errr... would they?

Oh it’s beyond a joke, it really is.

They facilitated this thing – it’s plain as day.

[flyingswan]

What, any old logs?

Minutes of the White House environmental committee meeting perhaps?

Really, you should stop these strawman arguments. They are very silly.

You asked what evidence should exist if your ideas are correct. I am merely suggesting that if the conspiracy involved more than a couple of people, it would have left a paper trail.

All the conspirators had to do was read an agent’s profile.

Watergate unwound because the operation was botched, not because the participants wavered.

If they can't even select for competence, important in any employee selection, how can they select for more unusual characteristics?

And why did they want the armed forces to modernize? To sit looking pretty you think?

Why would any nation want to keep its armed forces up to date? The obvious answer is to maintain its position with respect to its competitors.

The operation did not belong to Black - he was just a certain person for a certain role (see above).

It is those PNAC signatories who set the wheels in motion – they are the constant throughout.

So your analogy should have read: "if an individual said something that q24 interpreted as meaning that they needed someone dead, and another individual who q24 thinks was an associate of the same individual were found holding a “smoking gun”, a bullet hole in that someone’s head... would you call it an accident if the individual did not confess to their intent?"

In that case, I would call it an unsupported chain of conjecture.

You are ignoring that Saudis were implicated in 9/11, ignoring that FBI investigation of terrorist groups, plus specifically Hazmi, Mihdhar and Moussaoui were all prevented between Bush taking office and 9/11... and then asking for evidence that Osama bin Laden falls under the heading, “Bin Ladens”.

You are ignoring the fact that you gave the impression that your evidence meant no investigation of Al Qaeda, when it actually meant no investigation of a Muslim youth organisation.

And all you focus on is that one of them followed up with an unrealistic solution.

I picked on that one because he said there was enough evidence to start a court action, and named possible courts. Another of them also suggested court action. Either this evidence exists, but for some reason they choose not to take any action, or it doesn't and they can't. If they don't take action because it is "unrealistic", one is left wondering what is a realistic course of action in the circumstances. Where do you think you are going with this? If all you do is post on the internet while the people you think are guilty sit smugly ignoring you, that is hardly an indication of dedication to your cause.

[flyingswan]

They facilitated this thing – it’s plain as day.

Breathtaking leap of logic - someone gives a warning of an impending disaster, a disaster then happens, so the person giving the warning is the obvious guilty party.

It's like blaming the seismologists for the earthquake.

[Little Fish]

Breathtaking leap of logic - someone gives a warning of an impending disaster, a disaster then happens, so the person giving the warning is the obvious guilty party.

It's like blaming the seismologists for the earthquake.

Do you think Zelikow's 911 commission conclusion of "failure of imagination" was a valid conclusion when Zelikow himself wrote a document on behalf of the Council on Foreign Relations called "Imagining the Transforming Event" two years before in which he imagined the destruction of the twin towers.

Do you think it fishy that the Zelikow 911 commission concluded that 911 happened because of the cracks betweent the fbi and the cia when Zelikow wrote a document 2 years before called "Imagining the Transforming Event" where they said such a thing could happen if the cracks between the fbi and the cia were exploited.

Do you think it fishy that the head of the cia co-wrote this "Imagining the Transforming Event" document too, so the top dog of the cia was aware of this threat and how it could occur given the existing institutional structures, you would think they would have taken those terrorist threats seriosuly, you know the ones where the terrorists were living with the fbi informer, terrorists being tracked by Able Danger program with Atta's picture at the head of the white board, the W199I fbi document ordering agents not to touch known terrorists, Michael Springman's testimony where he stated he was ordered to give visas to known terrorists to enter the US, the document detailing the standard operating procedure for hijack intercept orders changed two months 911 to require the nod from the defence secretary who noone could find on 911 effectively creating a air force standdown hijack response by default, etc, etc, etc, that Q24 has eloquently articulated, but let's ignore this because they found a passport and a will and a koran.

questions are rhetorical because I know what your answers are going to be.

Edited April 11, 2011 by Little Fish