Bush/Rummy/Chenny convo planning 9/11

[Zyphlin]

This is taken from Rolling Stone. My appologizes, I don't have an actual link, but it explains what REALLY happened on 9/11

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of farking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of farking nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? shiat, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!

 

[nort_12345]

9/11 wasn't a conspiracy. there is barely any proof if any that there was a conspiracy

 

[ashurbanipal]

And here's how I debunk this ridiculous op-ed piece:

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

Implies that if the objective had been to invade Iraq, the neocons would have made it seem like Iraqi agents did it. They didn't, ergo, it couldn't have been a neocon conspiracy.

It's a good enough point, but most propagandists understand that the American people can be made to accept connections that aren't there. Last I heard, something like a third of the population still thinks that Saddam Hussein was directly involved with 9/11.

The whole thing also seems to assume that Bush and Rumsfeld were in on it. I don't think that's necessarily true--Cheney almost certainly was but we don't really need to assume that either of the other two were.

The whole thing also misdirects you as to what the actual probably objectives of 9/11 were. Here they are, in order of importance:

1) To provide a reason for establishing a greater foothold in the middle east (exactly where is less important than just getting there with as much military presence as possible).

2) To destroy records of connection between the big Wall Street banks and Enron, Tyco, and other corporations that were about to go under.

3) To provide a reason to destroy the Taliban, who had cut down on world heroin production.

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

Implies that blowing the buildings up and masking it with plane crashes was entirely too complicated. But assume for a moment that your objective is to make certain that the buildings come down without taking out all of lower Manhattan--and it has to look like an act of terrorism. If the buildings had simply been blown up the way a terrorist would do so, the buildings would have fallen over like a felled tree, and who knows what kind of real damage that would do. So there had to be a demolition, but there also had to be something that would mask it.

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of farking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

1) But if you suppose that there were sensitive pentagon files being destroyed by that attack, then...

2) Flight 93 was almost certainly shot down by people not involved in the conspiracy who thought they were doing their jobs. If it wasn't, then it may certainly have played out the way the official story says it did. The best lies involve an element of truth.

One big mistake that people make in thinking about 9/11 being a neocon conspiracy is that every last thing had to be under the control of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. etc. I think nothing is likely to be further from the truth. They laid their plans as carefully as possible, but there were plenty of people who weren't in on the conspiracy who did their best to stop it. Whoever was participating was not in complete control once things got going that morning.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

Not all conspiracy theorists agree that a missile struck the pentagon. And it's certainly not the case that everything was planned out this carefully beforehand. If it is the case that a missile was used, it may have been a last-minute ad-hoc solution to a remote pilot explaining that this maneuver can't be done. I think it more likely that it was a plane, and it was supposed to hit elsewhere.

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

It would have taken very few people actually knowing why they were doing what they were doing. 9/11 could have been done with fewer than 50 people.

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? shiat, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

Implying that the neocons wouldn't bite the hand that feeds them....

Nonsense.

But even if they wouldn't, reason number 2, above, is a pretty plausible reason for getting over this objection.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

And here's how I debunk this ridiculous op-ed piece:

Implies that if the objective had been to invade Iraq, the neocons would have made it seem like Iraqi agents did it. They didn't, ergo, it couldn't have been a neocon conspiracy.

No it implies that not putting Saddam's fingerprints on the attack if the goal was to invade Iraq would not have made any sense what so ever.

It's a good enough point, but most propagandists understand that the American people can be made to accept connections that aren't there. Last I heard, something like a third of the population still thinks that Saddam Hussein was directly involved with 9/11.

Ya because controlling the free press would be much simpler to do than simply having the Iraqi's fingerprints placed on the attack in the first place. As to a thrid of the population you are misquoting the survey actually a third of the people believe that Iraq had ties to AQ because they infact did. And even if your figure was correct more than 1/3 believe in Ghosts and 90% of the people believe in a giant man in the sky who sees everything you do so that's not really saying much.

The whole thing also seems to assume that Bush and Rumsfeld were in on it. I don't think that's necessarily true--Cheney almost certainly was but we don't really need to assume that either of the other two were.

Why was Cheney "most certainly," involved? Do you have any evidence that he was involved in the conspiracy or better yet do you have any evidence of the existence of the conspiracy in the first place?

1) To provide a reason for establishing a greater foothold in the middle east (exactly where is less important than just getting there with as much military presence as possible).

And why would we need that if there wasn't a terrorist threat in the first place?

2) To destroy records of connection between the big Wall Street banks and Enron, Tyco, and other corporations that were about to go under.

Ya because planting explosives, flying planes into buildings, and murdering 3,000 innocent civilians is the easiest way to destroy files. :roll:

3) To provide a reason to destroy the Taliban, who had cut down on world heroin production.

Oh ya because it's not like we have spent billions of dollars on the "war on drugs."

Implies that blowing the buildings up and masking it with plane crashes was entirely too complicated.

No it implies that it would have made no ****ing sense to do that when it would have been much easier to blow up the buildings and blame it on a bomb.

But assume for a moment that your objective is to make certain that the buildings come down without taking out all of lower Manhattan--and it has to look like an act of terrorism. If the buildings had simply been blown up the way a terrorist would do so, the buildings would have fallen over like a felled tree, and who knows what kind of real damage that would do. So there had to be a demolition, but there also had to be something that would mask it.

If they can defeat your whacked out conspiracy theorists about controlled demolition by blaming it on planes which according to your ilk could not bring down towers, wouldn't it have been alot easier to blame it on a bomb?

1) But if you suppose that there were sensitive pentagon files being destroyed by that attack, then...

Do you know what a database is? You could not have wiped out pentagon files by taking out a few offices, **** their database is almost certainly under ground and capable of withstanding a ground zero nuclear attack.

2) Flight 93 was almost certainly shot down by people not involved in the conspiracy who thought they were doing their jobs.

Evidence?

If it wasn't, then it may certainly have played out the way the official story says it did. The best lies involve an element of truth.

Ya like conspiracy theories you people blend alot of fiction with a little fact and take curious leaps in logic by connecting the imaginary dots in order to work backwards to your pre-conceived conclusions and in the process stretching credulity past any rational point of believability.

One big mistake that people make in thinking about 9/11 being a neocon conspiracy is that every last thing had to be under the control of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. etc. I think nothing is likely to be further from the truth. They laid their plans as carefully as possible, but there were plenty of people who weren't in on the conspiracy who did their best to stop it. Whoever was participating was not in complete control once things got going that morning.

Why won't you people start naming names and proving the identity of the conspirators? Are these people ****ing invisible or is it that you know you'll get sued for libel because you have no evidence whatsoever to prove that these conspirators even exist? You can't get a blow job in Washington without it being picked up by the media, if there was any hint of evidence that anyone in the Bush administration was involved it would be picked up so fast by the New York Times that it would make your head spin. Just look at the Iran Contra scandal. I'm done this crap is trivially debunked with facts and evidence.

 

[Billo_Really]

TOT absolutely right on this one!

 

[ashurbanipal]

No it implies that not putting Saddam's fingerprints on the attack if the goal was to invade Iraq would not have made any sense what so ever.

That's what I said in the first clause. In the second clause, I drew the obvious inference that the author is therefore stating the attacks were not a conspiracy to get a war with Iraq. So, here's a hint about arguing with someone--if you want to argue, don't just repeat what they say, otherwise you'll seem to agree.

Ya because controlling the free press would be much simpler to do

Why would they need to control the Swedish press?

than simply having the Iraqi's fingerprints placed on the attack in the first place.

Really? How would you put their fingerprints on an attack? How would you not raise the hackles of foreign disinterested intelligence services who are aware that Iraq is being carefully watched?

As to a thrid of the population you are misquoting the survey actually a third of the people believe that Iraq had ties to AQ because they infact did.

1) No, according to this harris poll:

Harris Interactive | The Harris Poll - Iraq, 9/11, Al Qaeda and Weapons of Mass Destruction: What the Public Believes Now, According to Latest Harris Poll

almost one half believed that. It refers to an earlier poll that had a little over a third believing it.

47 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001 (up six percentage points from November).

2) Al Qaeda had made brief low-level contact with Saddam's regime, and the quickly decided they didn't want to work together. They had no ties.

And even if your figure was correct more than 1/3 believe in Ghosts and 90% of the people believe in a giant man in the sky who sees everything you do so that's not really saying much.

This seems to go to my point, not yours. I was making a claim about what people could be caused to believe. I was also claiming that the 911 conspirators likely knew that with the right disinformation, the American public could be made to believe nearly anything.

Why was Cheney "most certainly," involved?

Norman Minetta's testimony before the 9/11 commission seems to implicate him. Additionally, he's the only one who was in a position to order radar inserts on the morning of 9/11 which served the purpose of confusing the normal response mechanisms.

Do you have any evidence that he was involved in the conspiracy or better yet do you have any evidence of the existence of the conspiracy in the first place?

The above two mentioned bits implicate Cheney directly. As to evidence for a conspiracy...tons. Read "Crossing the Rubicon" by Mike Ruppert for a large portion of it. Or, if you want to get right to it, go to this link and follow the white rabbit:

The 911 Coincidence Guide: At Last, A Cogent Response to Those Nutty 911 Conspiracy Theories (May 3, 2005)

And why would we need that if there wasn't a terrorist threat in the first place?

Read also Zbigniev Brezinski's 1996 book "The Grand Chessboard." He lays out quite clearly at that time why the United States, to maintain its hegemony, must maintain a strong military presence in the region. To sum up, it's because the majority of the remaining mineral wealth of the world is contained there, and geopolitically it is the crossroads between Europe, Africa, and Asia. Who holds the middle east controls everyone and everything else.

Ya because planting explosives, flying planes into buildings, and murdering 3,000 innocent civilians is the easiest way to destroy files.

Actually, I can't think of very many easier ways to destroy them. These would have been files that were required by SEC regulation to be kept--destroying them by the normal means (like, shredding or incinerating them in an incinerator) would have been illegal, and in the oncoming investigation, would have added guilt and penalties to the parties in question, and would also have led to significantly more American companies coming under investigation.

Oh ya because it's not like we have spent billions of dollars on the "war on drugs."

We've spent billions trafficking drugs. That's what Iran-Contra was all about (well, one side of it, anyway). Tell me, if we had really been spending billions of dollars every year to put a stop to drug trafficking, why is it just as easy for me to find drugs today as it was in the 1970's (it is, you know). Tell me why, after the invasion of Afganistan, we've seen the poppy fields re-sown and heroin and opium production back up to pre-Taliban levels?

Again, Crossing the Rubicon contains a few eye-openers about our country's relationship with drugs.

No it implies that it would have made no ****ing sense to do that when it would have been much easier to blow up the buildings and blame it on a bomb.

Aside from the use of expletives and the, um, novel use of language, that's what I just said.

If they can defeat your whacked out conspiracy theorists about controlled demolition by blaming it on planes which according to your ilk could not bring down towers, wouldn't it have been alot easier to blame it on a bomb?

Not only no, but obviously, painfully no, especially after the 1993 bombing, for two reasons:

1) That was a really big bomb, and it failed to bring the towers down.

2) After that event, the FBI was supposed to be watching for a repeat performance.

Controlled demolition had to occur. Trying to blame it on a single bomb would have raised questions related to points 1 and 2, above. Not that airplanes haven't raised questions, but it would certainly have seemed like a better option beforehand. Given the scrutiny which 9/11 has received from us conspiracy theorists, ask yourself what would happen if planes crashed into other prominent buildings one morning. We were caught a little off guard and had to swim against the stream to make any headway in the early days, and a lot of evidence was lost (like, the steel from the site of the attacks in New York). Now, that couldn't happen again.

Do you know what a database is? You could not have wiped out pentagon files by taking out a few offices, **** their database is almost certainly under ground and capable of withstanding a ground zero nuclear attack.

Yes, I know what a database is. I work with a rather large number of rather large databases for a living. One thing I know about databases is that data can be eliminated from them without effecting any physical changes. If I wanted to destroy data that was only contained in a database somewhere and not leave any tracks, it would be fairly easy. Paper is a more permanent kind of data storage; it takes physical destruction to eliminate the information stored on it.

Evidence?

1) Rumsfeld said it was and then retracted his statement.

2) The debris field was spread over a very large area--one of the engines was found nearly a mile from the crash site, implying that it detached from the airplane while it was still at some altitude in the air.

Why won't you people start naming names and proving the identity of the conspirators?

We can name names and I already named one: Richard Cheney. I would also name Richard Armitage, Dave Frasca, George Tennet, Condi Rice, Mahmmoud Ahmad, and (of course) Osama Bin Laden. There are undoubtedly others.

Are these people ****ing invisible or is it that you know you'll get sued for libel because you have no evidence whatsoever to prove that these conspirators even exist?

I doubt I would get sued for libel because any of the above-mentioned people don't exist. Again, Rubicon named all of them and the author didn't get sued. Alex Jones has openly blamed some of the same people and he hasn't been sued.

You can't get a blow job in Washington without it being picked up by the media

Red Herring. Had Clinton been conspiring about 9/11 with Monica Lewinsky, you can bet any blow-jobs necessary to the plan would have been kept quiet.

if there was any hint of evidence that anyone in the Bush administration was involved it would be picked up so fast by the New York Times that it would make your head spin.

Actually, they've shown a curious lack of interest in the reams of evidence that have been published--including in stories they themselves have carried.

Just look at the Iran Contra scandal.

Iran-Contra took 7 years or longer to expose and it was a much larger and ongoing operation.

I'm done this crap is trivially debunked

I agree-your "debunkery" is trivial.

with facts and evidence.

I didn't see anything that would qualify as evidence in your post. I, on the other hand, have cited 2 books, 1 poll, and given a link to a survey of other links, and made other factual claims which I can back up if you wish. I don't see any factual claims in your post, just a bunch of hot air.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

That's what I said in the first clause. In the second clause, I drew the obvious inference that the author is therefore stating the attacks were not a conspiracy to get a war with Iraq. So, here's a hint about arguing with someone--if you want to argue, don't just repeat what they say, otherwise you'll seem to agree.

If it was a grand conspiracy to attack Iraq then why didn't they just simply put Saddam's fingerprints in the first place?

Why would they need to control the Swedish press?

Umm the Swedish are socialists, do they even have a Constitution or a First Amendment?

Really? How would you put their fingerprints on an attack? How would you not raise the hackles of foreign disinterested intelligence services who are aware that Iraq is being carefully watched?

Probably the same way that they put the fingerprints on OBL.

1) No, according to this harris poll:

Harris Interactive | The Harris Poll - Iraq, 9/11, Al Qaeda and Weapons of Mass Destruction: What the Public Believes Now, According to Latest Harris Poll

almost one half believed that.

You cited 1/3 and your link even states that is a claim the administration never even made.

It refers to an earlier poll that had a little over a third believing it.

Actually it doesn't it says that that figure is up by 6% since the last poll but hay don't bother reading your own sources.

2) Al Qaeda had made brief low-level contact with Saddam's regime, and the quickly decided they didn't want to work together. They had no ties.

Really that's funny the DOCEX release would prove otherwise.

This seems to go to my point, not yours. I was making a claim about what people could be caused to believe. I was also claiming that the 911 conspirators likely knew that with the right disinformation, the American public could be made to believe nearly anything.

Norman Minetta's testimony before the 9/11 commission seems to implicate him.

How so?

Additionally, he's the only one who was in a position to order radar inserts on the morning of 9/11 which served the purpose of confusing the normal response mechanisms.

Umm there is no normal response mechanism, NORAD looks for planes coming into the U.S. not at Domestic flights.

The above two mentioned bits implicate Cheney directly.

No they don't.

As to evidence for a conspiracy...tons. Read "Crossing the Rubicon" by Mike Ruppert for a large portion of it. Or, if you want to get right to it, go to this link and follow the white rabbit:

The 911 Coincidence Guide: At Last, A Cogent Response to Those Nutty 911 Conspiracy Theories (May 3, 2005)

Well I don't have to go to far down the rabbit whole because your link debunks itself within three lines with this statement:

"That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is."

Proving that your source is nothing but disinformation based on inuendo and speculation not fact. OBL was never a CIA asset the CIA didn't even know who he was until 1996:

"The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.

The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him."

CNN.com - Bergen: Bin Laden, CIA links hogwash - Aug 24, 2006

Actually, I can't think of very many easier ways to destroy them.

Well that is because you are not very bright.

These would have been files that were required by SEC regulation to be kept--destroying them by the normal means (like, shredding or incinerating them in an incinerator) would have been illegal,

And flying planes into building isn't? Sorry but if these guys managed to plant explosives in the WTC then it would have been a cake walk for them to destroy files.

and in the oncoming investigation, would have added guilt and penalties to the parties in question, and would also have led to significantly more American companies coming under investigation.

Why would there have been an investigation if they were destroyed in secret? You kind of have to know something exists in order to know it has been destroyed and I highly doubt that incriminating files aren't exactly something you keep on the public record.

We've spent billions trafficking drugs. That's what Iran-Contra was all about.

That's a lie, the investigation concluded that no direct or indirect links had been found between the CIA and Narco traffickers the most the CIA ever did was to turn a blind eye to it.

Tell me, if we had really been spending billions of dollars every year to put a stop to drug trafficking, why is it just as easy for me to find drugs today as it was in the 1970's (it is, you know).

The laws of supply and demand.

Tell me why, after the invasion of Afganistan, we've seen the poppy fields re-sown and heroin and opium production back up to pre-Taliban levels?

Opium production is illegal under the Karzai government, however, remnants of the Taliban in Pastun border region are using it to fund there terrorist war against the Democratically elected government. And by the way the Taliban actively encouraged opium production until their drug baron mafia partners wanted them to cut supply in order to increase price and street value, the Taliban cutting opium production aided the drug trades profitablity which is why they did it.

The Taliban, having taken control of 90% of the country, actively encouraged poppy cultivation. With this, they not only fulfilled their promises and obligations to their partners - the regional mafia - but also increased their own desperately needed income by imposing taxes on local farmers and through subsidies by international organised crime gangs. According to the above UN source, Afghanistan saw a bumper opium crop of 4,600 million tonnes in 1999, which was the height of the Taliban rule in Afghanistan.

According to a Swiss security publication, 'SicherheitsForum' (April 2006, pp:56-57), this resulted in supply exceeding demand and a drop in the high-street price of heroin and morphine in the West, endangering the profitability of European drug smugglers. To stop this trend, Westerns international drug barons demanded a reduction in supply. The regional mafia instructed the Taliban accordingly. It is alleged in the report that, Obeying his financiers, Mullah Omar (the Taliban leader) issued a ban on poppy cultivation "on religious grounds", resulting in one of the lowest opium production levels in 2002. [5]

Opium production in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not only no, but obviously, painfully no, especially after the 1993 bombing, for two reasons:

1) That was a really big bomb, and it failed to bring the towers down.

So blame it on a bigger bomb.

2) After that event, the FBI was supposed to be watching for a repeat performance.

And wouldn't they be looking to prevent someone setting up a controlled demolition? Oh right the UBER-patriots at the F.B.I. were in on the attack right?

Controlled demolition had to occur. Trying to blame it on a single bomb would have raised questions related to points 1 and 2, above.

Just blame it on a bigger bomb, and if the F.B.I. was watching the building then they might have noticed someone setting up a controlled demoltion don't you think?

Yes, I know what a database is. I work with a rather large number of rather large databases for a living. One thing I know about databases is that data can be eliminated from them without effecting any physical changes. If I wanted to destroy data that was only contained in a database somewhere and not leave any tracks, it would be fairly easy. Paper is a more permanent kind of data storage; it takes physical destruction to eliminate the information stored on it.

Ya it takes a plane loaded with jet fuel to destroy papers. Do you know how ridiculous you sound?

1) Rumsfeld said it was and then retracted his statement.

Well the recordered conversations between the passengers and their families before "let's roll," would beg to differ. And what Rumsfeld said was: "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania." It is obvious to anyone but conspiracy theorists that he mispoke because how would the people who attacked the U.S. in New York have "shot down," anything it is clear that what he meant to say was "brought down."

2) The debris field was spread over a very large area--one of the engines was found nearly a mile from the crash site,

Ya it was a plane crash.

implying that it detached from the airplane while it was still at some altitude in the air.

Why does it imply that?

We can name names and I already named one: Richard Cheney.

And you have no evidence what so ever to back this assertion only an accusation, your statements about the Vice President are nothing more than vicous slander and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I would also name Richard Armitage, Dave Frasca, George Tennet, Condi Rice, Mahmmoud Ahmad, and (of course) Osama Bin Laden. There are undoubtedly others.

Ya let's see the ****ing evidence that anyone besides AQ was responsible buddy.

I doubt I would get sued for libel because any of the above-mentioned people don't exist. Again, Rubicon named all of them and the author didn't get sued. Alex Jones has openly blamed some of the same people and he hasn't been sued.

Ruppert and Jones are conspiracy theorist wingnuts and they probably haven't been sued because no one wants to give them any further publication, these bottom feeding scum live off of controversy.

Red Herring. Had Clinton been conspiring about 9/11 with Monica Lewinsky, you can bet any blow-jobs necessary to the plan would have been kept quiet.

Not a Red Herring there is no way on gods green earth that a conspiracy of this size could be kept secret from the MSM.

Actually, they've shown a curious lack of interest in the reams of evidence that have been published--

Ya probably because your so called "reams of evidence," are nothing more than grassy knoll type bullshit.

including in stories they themselves have carried.

And what stories are these?

<<<CONTINUED BELOW>>>

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Iran-Contra took 7 years or longer to expose and it was a much larger and ongoing operation.

Much larger than a plan which involves manipulating the free press and the American public in order to trick them into fighting a war by carrying out the most successful false flag operation in the history of the world and killing three thousand U.S. civilians? Ya selling some arms to Iran in order to fund some third world anti-communist freedom fighters was much larger than that. :roll:

I agree-your "debunkery" is trivial.

You so called "evidence" is trivial.

I didn't see anything that would qualify as evidence in your post. I, on the other hand, have cited 2 books,

On of which was written by a conspiracy theorist and the other has nothing to do with 9-11. And as for "The Grand Chess Board," you don't have to control territory to control resources infact thanks to those wonderful things called free trade and open markets nobody needs to control resources that's kind of the whole point of free trade in the first place IE to avoid war over resources by making them accesable to everyone through trade.

Ruppert's web site (From The Wilderness Publications Home Page) highlights his keynote piece, titled "A timeline Surrounding September 11th -- If CIA and the Government Weren't Involved in the September 11th Attacks What Were They Doing?" In the third paragraph, Ruppert states flatly that the timeline he assembled, "listing crucial events both before and after the September 11 suicide attacks, which have been blamed on bin Laden, establishes CIA foreknowledge of them." But the timeline and statements that he presents do not "establish" any such foreknowledge. Instead, he has hammered together fragments of reports from various sources and used them as a springboard for a gigantic leap -- to conclusions that aren't supported by what he cites.

Some of the problem is in how he characterizes news reports. These citations can be narrowly factual yet presented in a misleading way. Yes, such--and--such newspaper reported that thus-and-so claim was made by so-and-so. The paper reported on the claim, but that doesn't mean the claim is true.

For Instance: Last Friday night, when I ended up debating Ruppert live on KPFK, in his closing statement he stressed the purported significance of an item remaining on his current timeline article (tagged as "Expanded and Revised, February 11, 2002"). At first glance, Ruppert's written description of the point is impressive: "August 11 or 12 -- U.S. Navy Lt. Delmart 'Mike' Vreeland, jailed on Toronto on U.S. Fraud charges and claiming to be an officer in U.S. Naval intelligence, writes details of the pending WTC attacks and seals them in an envelop which he gives to Canadian authorities. [Source: The Toronto Star, Oct. 23, 2001; Toronto Superior COurt Records]"

Ruppert's summary, "expanded and revised" on February 11, makes it seem like the most significant report about the Vreeland matter in the Toronto Star is his October 23 citation. But just as easily available were subsequent articles published in the Toronto Star shortly afterward. On October 27, under the headline "Judge Nixes Spy Story," the same newspaper quoted the presiding judge, Archie Campbell, referring to Vreeland: "There is no independent evidence to support his colossal allegations and the allegation of conspiracy on its face has no air of reality." Another news article, published in the Toronto Star on October 31, quoted the judge as describing Vreeland as a "petty frauds man with a vivid imagination."

I can only think two possibilities as to why, in Ruppert's timeline still posted on his site in early March, he cites the October 23 article in the Toronto Star but makes no mention of the existence or content of the October 27 and October 31 articles that appeared in the same newspaper: Either several months later, Ruppert didn't know about those articles, or he knew about them and went out of his way to leave them unmentioned. In other words, as a researcher and a public polemicist, he's either shoddy or less than honest.

We could call this the "selective vacuum cleaner approach" -- pulling in whatever supports a these and excluding context and perspectives that undermine it. So, for instance, if a newspaper in Indian or an Indiana intelligence service is the attributed source of a report linking a high-up Pakistani official or Pakistani intelligence agency to the hijackers, it won't do to acknowledge that Indian sources would have a strong motive for pinning terrorism on Pakistan. Yes, the newspaper printed such a report -- but what does it really mean?
But even if we accepted the idea that many of the reported claims are factual claims and not just reported, Ruppert tends to use convoluted substitutes for logic in his eagerness to make the case for CIA " foreknowledge" and U.S. government "criminal complicity" in what happened September 11. When connecting the dots, many innuendoes and suppositions are so central to the case that logic sometimes points backwards. So, the fact that oil companies and the Bush administration have done all they can to take advantage of September 11 events is presented by Ruppert as backing up their claim of "foreknowledge" and "complicity."

Read More: The Public Eye : Website of Political Research Associates

1 poll,

That you attributed a false quote too and just how exactly does a public opinion poll prove anyting thing?

and given a link to a survey of other links,

Which much like you spreads disinformation and false claims.

and made other factual claims which I can back up if you wish.

You present factual statments in a misleading way and you intentionally take them out of context and exclude other relevant information in order to connect your imaginary dots.

 

[ashurbanipal]

If it was a grand conspiracy to attack Iraq then why didn't they just simply put Saddam's fingerprints in the first place?

I don't think it was a grand conspiracy to attack Iraq. I've already said exactly this. why do you insist on mischaracterizing my position?

Probably the same way that they put the fingerprints on OBL.

Yeah, but OBL can be used to instigate all sorts of conflicts. Saddam couldn't. Saddam ran a country that was being watched 24/7--and more importantly one the American public knew was being watched. OBL wasn't on the public's radar screens to the extent Saddam was. It could be made to seem that he snuck up on us from behind.

You cited 1/3

So what? The point was that quite a number of people believed it. The more people that believed it, the stronger my point. If anything, you could only accuse me of being too cautious and understating my case.

and your link even states that is a claim the administration never even made.

Of course not--they didn't need to, and I never said they did. They just needed to keep mentioning "Saddam Hussein," "Al-Qaeda" and "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in close proximity. This was something that Joseph Goebbels noticed many years ago. There's no denying that this is exactly what Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and others did.

Actually it doesn't it says that that figure is up by 6% since the last poll but hay don't bother reading your own sources.

41% is a little over a third.

Really that's funny the DOCEX release would prove otherwise.

So post a link or provide a cite.

How so?

Minetta testified that he was in the room with Cheney as they tracked the plane that hit the pentagon. A young officer kept coming into the room with increasing consternation to tell Cheney that the plane was 50 miles out...40 miles out...30 miles out. Finally, the officer asks "Do the orders still stand?" Cheney snapped back "Of course they do--have you heard anything different?"

Minetta "resigned" the next day.

What orders, other than a stand-down, could they possibly be? We can reasonably assume the orders in question didn't have to do with what kind of sandwiches everyone wanted. The Orders had to have been concerning the approaching aircraft. If they were shoot-down orders, why wasn't the young officer saying something like "we don't have planes to scramble" or "we sent the planes towards another target" or "our missile batteries need time to become operational" or something? If they weren't either shoot down or stand down orders, what other orders could they be? Effectively, orders not to shoot it down would have been stand down orders.

So, logically, what other categories are left? I don't see any.

Not surprisingly, the Kean Commission report omits his testimony (which also directly contradicts the official timeline).

Umm there is no normal response mechanism, NORAD looks for planes coming into the U.S. not at Domestic flights.

The FAA does. They intercepted something like 67 flights in American airspace over the preceeding year. Remember Payne Stewart's plane that crashed? They had a jet on his plane within a couple of minutes of it straying off course and becoming unresponsive. Within 10 minutes (IIRC) they had 4 jets. And that was in Florida. We had four near-simultaneous hijackings in the most heavily guarded airspace in the world, but had no response.

No they don't.

Yes they do. "Implicate" just means "to imply involvement."

Well I don't have to go to far down the rabbit whole because your link debunks itself within three lines with this statement:

"That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is."

Proving that your source is nothing but disinformation based on inuendo and speculation not fact. OBL was never a CIA asset the CIA didn't even know who he was until 1996:

Quote:
"The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this...{snip}...The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him."

CNN.com - Bergen: Bin Laden, CIA links hogwash - Aug 24, 2006

1) We know the CIA funded the Mujahideen, and principally foreign fighters, during the Soviet occupation of Afganistan.

2) We know that total funds sent amounted to 6 billion dollars--OBL's personl fortune of a few tens of millions (at the time) wouldn't have payed for much in terms of military weapons.

3) But his personal fortune did guarantee that he was well known among the Mujahideen. So Bergen's assertion that the CIA didn't even know who he was until 1996 seems at best disingenuous and hollow.

4) But stories that came out prior to 9/11 tended to show that Bin Laden was known to and funded by the CIA. See a very long article about this in the August 24th, 1998 edition of the New York Times.

5) Other stories have also surfaced in the mainstream press documenting a link. See, for instance:

CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

Bin Laden comes home to roost - - MSNBC.com


Al-Qa'ida (the Base)

6) Of course, you're never going to find an interview with, say, the DCI, in which he states categorically that OBL was a CIA asset. Finding that would be grounds for thinking it wasn't true.

7) Finally, and importantly, finding a single flaw or even a few flaws with a source is not grounds to dismiss everything. If a single untruthful statement condemned a source, no one on the planet would have any grounds for asserting anything.

Well that is because you are not very bright.

You seem most eager to assume just that; I tend to think that it's never good to think one's opponent weak, soft, or stupid.

And flying planes into building isn't?

Clearly it was illegal--but it was also possible to blame on someone else, which is the blindingly obvious point.

Sorry but if these guys managed to plant explosives in the WTC then it would have been a cake walk for them to destroy files.

1) Planting explosives in the WTC is how they destroyed files.

2) OK, then, if I'm making such a ridiculous point, it should be easy for you to propose a different scenario in which many millions of documents contained in different offices could be destroyed. It would have to be done in such a way that the SEC would not suspect any malfeasance on your part. Emergency services are not in on the plot and can't be brought into the plot, so you have to destroy them in a way that can't be stopped by the police, fire, and eventually the national guard. You have to get them all. You can't destroy lower Manhattan--no toppling the buildings over or nuclear blasts. Got anything that's not roughly on a level with some kind of 9/11 event?

Why would there have been an investigation if they were destroyed in secret? You kind of have to know something exists in order to know it has been destroyed and I highly doubt that incriminating files aren't exactly something you keep on the public record.

The SEC requires certain documents and records be kept to back up P&L, net worth, cash flow, and other regulated reporting. If the SEC comes knocking, you have to have those documents or they can shut you down and even send you to jail. The investigation was coming--it's a matter of historical fact that the Enron thing was blown from within. It was a matter of time. It's also historical fact that they were in bed with the companies that are the real foundation of our economy--Goldman Sachs, Citicorp, (at the time)JP Morgan Chase, etc. etc. When Enron blew up, the SEC went knocking at Wal Street's door, but they were generally able to say they didn't have the documents requested because they were lost during 911, thus escaping implication.

That's a lie, the investigation concluded that no direct or indirect links had been found between the CIA and Narco traffickers the most the CIA ever did was to turn a blind eye to it.

What investigation was that?

The laws of supply and demand.

Ah yes, Reagan should have figured....however, normally, if a government spends billions of dollars to restrict even black market trade within its own borders, supply tends to get quashed. So why didn't that seem to have an effect?

Opium production is illegal under the Karzai government, however, remnants of the Taliban in Pastun border region are using it to fund there terrorist war against the Democratically elected government.

That's not the point--why were the Taliban so effective at stopping the trade even in the face of an open rebellion in their country while the Karzai government can't stop it even with the aid of the U.S. military?

And by the way the Taliban actively encouraged opium production until their drug baron mafia partners wanted them to cut supply in order to increase price and street value, the Taliban cutting opium production aided the drug trades profitablity which is why they did it.

It doesn't matter why they did it--that they did it, and we seem to have reversed that trend, is what counts.

So blame it on a bigger bomb.

At some point the needed bomb gets so big that airplanes seem like a better option...

And wouldn't they be looking to prevent someone setting up a controlled demolition? Oh right the UBER-patriots at the F.B.I. were in on the attack right?

I suspect one or two people at the FBI were in on it, but the majority of the agency was not. Dave Frasca and possibly Robert Mueller are the main suspects IMO. In any case, it was quite enough to misdirect them for a while.

Just blame it on a bigger bomb, and if the F.B.I. was watching the building then they might have noticed someone setting up a controlled demoltion don't you think?

I didn't say they were watching the building, I said they were watching for bombs. That means checking shipping manifests, keeping track of known potential bombers, etc. The World Trade Center had become private property earlier that summer; it wasn't legal for the FBI to be watching it any longer.

Ya it takes a plane loaded with jet fuel to destroy papers. Do you know how ridiculous you sound?

Did I say it takes a plane loaded with jet fuel to destroy papers? Of course it doesn't. It takes a plane loaded with jet fuel to destroy papers (or something as dramatic) in this case.

All this can be turned around on you, you know, and I suppose now is as good a time as any to do it. Given airport security (hijacking airplanes wasn't exactly a new or novel crime by September 2001), and given that New York and Washington D.C. are highly protected airspace, and given that one bomb had already nearly succeeded, why didn't the terrorists just opt for another, bigger bomb? If a bigger bomb was easier for insiders to place, it would have also been easier for outsiders to place. A bomb big enough to topple one or both towers would be quite large indeed, and toppling the towers would surely have generated as much or more terror as what actually happened.

 

[ashurbanipal]

(continued...)

Well the recordered conversations between the passengers and their families before "let's roll," would beg to differ.

How so?

And what Rumsfeld said was: "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."

I think it was a Freudian slip. But by itself, it would be less convincing. With the physical evidence, however, it's harder to ignore.

Ya it was a plane crash.

Yes it was, and we know a lot about plane crashes. We know that if we find the engine over a mile from the rest of the fuselage, that means the engine separated in flight. That,in turn, usually means an explosion in flight.

Why does it imply that?

There wouldn't be enough energy in the plane crash to propel the engine a whole mile. Even shallow-angle crashes don't leave that kind of field.

And you have no evidence what so ever to back this assertion only an accusation, your statements about the Vice President are nothing more than vicous slander and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I have plenty of evidence which you don't seem to want to look at fairly. Not that I was expecting reasonable argument from you.

Ya let's see the ****ing evidence that anyone besides AQ was responsible buddy.

Let's see the evidence that AQ was responsible.

In the meantime, I've posted a link and suggested a book. I can suggest other books as well. There's plenty of evidence out there for anyone who isn't just hiding their head in the sand.

Ruppert and Jones are conspiracy theorist wingnuts and they probably haven't been sued because no one wants to give them any further publication, these bottom feeding scum live off of controversy.

Actually, they both live very modest lives. Why does being a "conspiracy theorist" automatically make you a "wingnut"? It seems to me that conspiracies are rife throughout history; why do people such as yourself assume that only recently, they stopped happening? People, especially governments, have conspired for thousands of years. You argue as if it's absurd to think that might still be going on.

Not a Red Herring

Oh yes it was--and that's why you've changed your implied claim. You were saying that because Clinton couldn't keep a blow-job secret, a 911 conspiracy couldn't be kept secret. But the relative importance and resultant incrimination are two entirely different ball games.

there is no way on gods green earth that a conspiracy of this size could be kept secret from the MSM.

I think you'd need very few people to carry out 9/11. 50 or 60 people in the right positions could do it. Far larger operations have been kept entirely secret for much longer.

Much larger than a plan which involves manipulating the free press and the American public in order to trick them into fighting a war by carrying out the most successful false flag operation in the history of the world and killing three thousand U.S. civilians?

Yes, operationally, much larger. The fact that I help run a business with 300 employees that makes about 40 million a year does nothing to change the fact that there are some people who run a business with three or four people that make 40 billion a year. It all depends on circumstance.

Selling arms to Iran and funding Nicaraguan rebels with the proceeds and with proceeds from Columbian and Mexican drug sales over a period of several years involved vastly greater exposure, a larger number of people, and more operational complexity than 9/11 would have.

On of which was written by a conspiracy theorist

As if someone writing a book about an inside 911 conspiracy couldn't be a conspiracy theorist in your view...

and the other has nothing to do with 9-11. And as for "The Grand Chess Board," you don't have to control territory to control resources

Then why would Brezinski insist that was the best course of action?

Ruppert's web site (From The Wilderness Publications Home Page) highlights his keynote piece, titled "A timeline Surrounding September 11th -- If CIA and the Government Weren't Involved in the September 11th Attacks What Were They Doing?" In the third paragraph, Ruppert states flatly that the timeline he assembled, "listing crucial events both before and after the September 11 suicide attacks, which have been blamed on bin Laden, establishes CIA foreknowledge of them." But the timeline and statements that he presents do not "establish" any such foreknowledge.

Actually, if you read the timeline and draw the most plausible inferences, it makes it very difficult to believe that there wasn't government involvement. The author of this little hit piece is depending on you not reading it.

Instead, he has hammered together fragments of reports

Ruppert always provides backup to the original story; I've checked his sources many times and always found them to be correct. So the word "fragments" seems to have little meaning here except as a way to bias the reader.

from various sources and used them as a springboard for a gigantic leap -- to conclusions that aren't supported by what he cites.

The chapter in Rubicon on insider trading is probably the best summary available on it. No reasonable person could read and understand that chapter and not think that there was something fishy going on. The same could be said for most of the other chapters--though there are a couple that I think don't rise to the needed level, and one I am quite critical of.

Some of the problem is in how he characterizes news reports. These citations can be narrowly factual yet presented in a misleading way. Yes, such--and--such newspaper reported that thus-and-so claim was made by so-and-so. The paper reported on the claim, but that doesn't mean the claim is true.

He's usually careful to distinguish when that's the case.

For Instance: Last Friday night, when I ended up debating Ruppert live on KPFK, in his closing statement he stressed the purported significance of an item remaining on his current timeline article (tagged as "Expanded and Revised, February 11, 2002"). At first glance, Ruppert's written description of the point is impressive: "August 11 or 12 -- U.S. Navy Lt. Delmart 'Mike' Vreeland, jailed on Toronto on U.S. Fraud charges and claiming to be an officer in U.S. Naval intelligence, writes details of the pending WTC attacks and seals them in an envelop which he gives to Canadian authorities. [Source: The Toronto Star, Oct. 23, 2001; Toronto Superior COurt Records]"

Ruppert's summary, "expanded and revised" on February 11, makes it seem like the most significant report about the Vreeland matter in the Toronto Star is his October 23 citation. But just as easily available were subsequent articles published in the Toronto Star shortly afterward. On October 27, under the headline "Judge Nixes Spy Story," the same newspaper quoted the presiding judge, Archie Campbell, referring to Vreeland: "There is no independent evidence to support his colossal allegations and the allegation of conspiracy on its face has no air of reality." Another news article, published in the Toronto Star on October 31, quoted the judge as describing Vreeland as a "petty frauds man with a vivid imagination."

A search for "Delmart Vreeland" on the Star's Website turns up the October 23rd story, but not the one this author claims ran on the 27th.

The Toronto Star Archive

There is a story on the 25th which shows the title of "U.S. looks into inmate's story." You have to pay to read the whole thing, but I don't have to because Ruppert reported on its contents on his website.

There is also one that comes up on the 31st, but it doesn't have anything to do with 9/11. Why would Ruppert include that one on a timeline about 9/11? And why would this author criticize him for not doing so?

I can only think two possibilities as to why, in Ruppert's timeline still posted on his site in early March, he cites the October 23 article in the Toronto Star but makes no mention of the existence or content of the October 27 and October 31 articles that appeared in the same newspaper: Either several months later, Ruppert didn't know about those articles, or he knew about them and went out of his way to leave them unmentioned. In other words, as a researcher and a public polemicist, he's either shoddy or less than honest.

I can think of one other, it's that whoever this guy you're quoting is, he doesn't know how to do research, and is bent on finding any reason to discredit Ruppert's work. Ruppert openly calls Vreeland a liar and an a$$hole in Crossing the Rubicon, but (rightly) insists that this doesn't mean we have nothing to learn from his case.

So, for instance, if a newspaper in Indian or an Indiana intelligence service is the attributed source of a report linking a high-up Pakistani official or Pakistani intelligence agency to the hijackers, it won't do to acknowledge that Indian sources would have a strong motive for pinning terrorism on Pakistan. Yes, the newspaper printed such a report -- but what does it really mean?

Just because they might have such a motive doesn't mean their allegations are false. If the allegations were false, Ahmad would hardly have resigned two days later, would he?

But even if we accepted the idea that many of the reported claims are factual claims and not just reported, Ruppert tends to use convoluted substitutes for logic in his eagerness to make the case for CIA " foreknowledge" and U.S. government "criminal complicity" in what happened September 11. When connecting the dots, many innuendoes and suppositions are so central to the case that logic sometimes points backwards.

I'm afraid I don't know what logic "pointing backwards" could mean. Logic doesn't "point" anywhere, unless, speaking loosely, he means that [a] logic[al argument] points to its conclusion. I've never seen any serious fallacies in Ruppert's work.

So, the fact that oil companies and the Bush administration have done all they can to take advantage of September 11 events is presented by Ruppert as backing up their claim of "foreknowledge" and "complicity."

Actually, he hardly ever mentions that as evidence of foreknowledge. The evidence of foreknowledge has more to do with the administration's reaction to warnings delivered, and that other actions before 911 seemed awfully suspicious.

That you attributed a false quote too and just how exactly does a public opinion poll prove anyting thing?

What false quote? I was pointing out what people could be made to believe. I'm not sure how a poll could not be taken as evidence of that, unless you suspect faulty methodology.

Which much like you spreads disinformation and false claims.

OK, so pick a few (say, 14--that'd be 20% of the claims made) and show why they're false.

You present factual statments in a misleading way and you intentionally take them out of context and exclude other relevant information in order to connect your imaginary dots.

If that's the case, you ought to be able to show why in such a way that leaves me without a reply. So far, you haven't remotely done so.

 

[SixStringHero]

Ah yes, Rolling Stone, the mouth piece for moderate America. :roll:

Does anyone take their political views seriously? It's bad enough they call themselves a music magazine, and their reviews are quite abysmal. Anything that is remotely "indie" and trendy gets 5 star reviews.

The magazine is now geared towards liberal, thumb- sucking, latte drinking douchebags who have no grasp of reality.

I read their tripe for a good laugh, nothing more.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I don't think it was a grand conspiracy to attack Iraq. I've already said exactly this. why do you insist on mischaracterizing my position?

Oh I beg to differ and I quote:

1) To provide a reason for establishing a greater foothold in the middle east

Now if the conspirators wanted to establish a greater foothold in the middle east why did they not blame it on the country where they intended to establish that foothold? Your assertion doesn't make sense.

Yeah, but OBL can be used to instigate all sorts of conflicts. Saddam couldn't. Saddam ran a country that was being watched 24/7--and more importantly one the American public knew was being watched. OBL wasn't on the public's radar screens to the extent Saddam was. It could be made to seem that he snuck up on us from behind.

But if they can make false connections to OBL and 9-11 why couldn't they use false connections to Saddam and OBL to 9-11?

So what? The point was that quite a number of people believed it. The more people that believed it, the stronger my point. If anything, you could only accuse me of being too cautious and understating my case.

And public opinion polls prove nothing.

Of course not--they didn't need to, and I never said they did. They just needed to keep mentioning "Saddam Hussein," "Al-Qaeda" and "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in close proximity.

I've seen this argument made time and time again and it just makes me laugh harder every time I hear it.

This was something that Joseph Goebbels noticed many years ago.

Oh really? Prove it.

There's no denying that this is exactly what Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and others did.

What said Saddam and 9-11 in the same sentence or speech? Well that tears it there's a massive conspiracy intended to manipulate the masses!

Minetta testified that he was in the room with Cheney as they tracked the plane that hit the pentagon. A young officer kept coming into the room with increasing consternation to tell Cheney that the plane was 50 miles out...40 miles out...30 miles out. Finally, the officer asks "Do the orders still stand?" Cheney snapped back "Of course they do--have you heard anything different?"

So because in the heat of the moment Cheney refused to give the order to shoot down a civilian aircraft that means he was part of a conspiracy? Let's see you make the decision to kill over 100 innocent passengers buddy.

The FAA does.

The FAA doesn't shoot down planes and regardless the hijackers turned off the transponders the FAA would have had to discern the 4 planes from the various hundreds that were in flight at the time it would have been like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Yes they do. "Implicate" just means "to imply involvement."

And not giving the order to shoot down a civilian aircraft does not imply involvment except to conspiracy theorists ofcourse to conspiracy theorists giving orders to shoot down a civilian aircraft also implies involvement.

1) We know the CIA funded the Mujahideen, and principally foreign fighters, during the Soviet occupation of Afganistan.

And we know that we didn't fund OBL.

2) We know that total funds sent amounted to 6 billion dollars--OBL's personl fortune of a few tens of millions (at the time) wouldn't have payed for much in terms of military weapons.

LOL do you even know what AQ is? It was formed out of OBL's fundraising apparatus which consisted of wealthy Arabs and front group charities. OBL had his own funds he didn't need to get them from the U.S.

3) But his personal fortune did guarantee that he was well known among the Mujahideen. So Bergen's assertion that the CIA didn't even know who he was until 1996 seems at best disingenuous and hollow.

No it's a fact we didn't know who the hell OBL was until 1996 when he began launching attacks against the U.S..

4) But stories that came out prior to 9/11 tended to show that Bin Laden was known to and funded by the CIA. See a very long article about this in the August 24th, 1998 edition of the New York Times.

Yes unsubstantiated rumors and accusations with no basis in fact what so ever.

5) Other stories have also surfaced in the mainstream press documenting a link. See, for instance:

CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

Yes more unsubstantiated bullshit, who is the source? Oh that's right there is none, all you have is an accusation from a far left newspaper using an unamed source claiming that some meeting went down in some Dubai hospital that is impossible to prove or disprove.

Bin Laden comes home to roost - - MSNBC.com

An article which tries to connect OBL to our funding of the Mujahadeen but fails to do so, oh bravo, still no proof that the CIA funded OBL.

Al-Qa'ida (the Base)

Still doesn't show that the CIA ever funded OBL.

6) Of course, you're never going to find an interview with, say, the DCI, in which he states categorically that OBL was a CIA asset. Finding that would be grounds for thinking it wasn't true.

Do you know what the freedom of information act is? We know that the CIA funded the Contras we know that they funded the Mujahadeen why wouldn't we know that the CIA funded OBL? Well it's real easy we never did fund OBL because he had his own sources of funding.

7) Finally, and importantly, finding a single flaw or even a few flaws with a source is not grounds to dismiss everything. If a single untruthful statement condemned a source, no one on the planet would have any grounds for asserting anything.

Well I'm not going to disprove your conspiracy crap line for line all I need to show is that they are willing to push the disinformation therby calling into question their credibility of which your sources have none.

You seem most eager to assume just that; I tend to think that it's never good to think one's opponent weak, soft, or stupid.

You can't think of an easier way to destroy files than flying planes into buildings I'm not assuming that you aren't very bright your own statments prove this conclusively.

Clearly it was illegal--but it was also possible to blame on someone else, which is the blindingly obvious point.

Ya because that's much easier than shredding incriminating files that no one even knew existed and still don't because they never did infact exist they are fignment of your imagination.

1) Planting explosives in the WTC is how they destroyed files.

And that's so much simpler than blaming it on a break in.

2) OK, then, if I'm making such a ridiculous point, it should be easy for you to propose a different scenario in which many millions of documents contained in different offices could be destroyed.

What millions of documents? So now there were millions of incriminating documents? Damn do you have any proof of that or are they just figments of an overactive imagination?

It would have to be done in such a way that the SEC would not suspect any malfeasance on your part. Emergency services are not in on the plot and can't be brought into the plot, so you have to destroy them in a way that can't be stopped by the police, fire, and eventually the national guard. You have to get them all. You can't destroy lower Manhattan--no toppling the buildings over or nuclear blasts. Got anything that's not roughly on a level with some kind of 9/11 event?

A) If there were any incriminating documents there wouldn't be millions of them.

B) Do you evidnece of any incriminating documents let alone millions?

C) Why would people not immediately destroy the incriminating documents in the first place?

The investigation was coming--it's a matter of historical fact that the Enron thing was blown from within. It was a matter of time. It's also historical fact that they were in bed with the companies that are the real foundation of our economy--Goldman Sachs, Citicorp, (at the time)JP Morgan Chase, etc. etc. When Enron blew up, the SEC went knocking at Wal Street's door, but they were generally able to say they didn't have the documents requested because they were lost during 911, thus escaping implication.

Oh give me a break are you honestly trying to assert that these companies had knowledge of ENRONs shading dealings?

What investigation was that?

The CIA internal investigation. The only evidence is that the CIA turned a blind eye to what the Contra's were doing not that we aided in what they were doing.

Ah yes, Reagan should have figured....however, normally, if a government spends billions of dollars to restrict even black market trade within its own borders, supply tends to get quashed.

Supply never gets squashed when there is high demand if there are billions of dollars to be made someone will always be there willing to take the risk that's kind of the basis of capitalism you know risk vs. gain.

That's not the point--why were the Taliban so effective at stopping the trade even in the face of an open rebellion in their country while the Karzai government can't stop it even with the aid of the U.S. military?

A) The Taliban controlled 90% of the country.

B) The U.S. military needs the backing of the tribal leaders who rely on opium sales in the Pashtun region to help us against the Taliban remnants.

It doesn't matter why they did it--that they did it, and we seem to have reversed that trend, is what counts.

No sir it does matter why they did it, because you were trying to assert that the reason why the U.S. ousted the Taliban was because of our connections with the international drug trade thus proving your conpsiracy when the fact of the matter is that the Taliban was working on the behest of the international drug cartels to cut supply to increase profitablity thus disproving your assertions completely.

I didn't say they were watching the building, I said they were watching for bombs. That means checking shipping manifests, keeping track of known potential bombers, etc. The World Trade Center had become private property earlier that summer; it wasn't legal for the FBI to be watching it any longer.

Uh huh, so the reason why they couldn't have simply used another bomb was because the F.B.I. should have been watching for potential terrorists, well shouldn't they have been looking for the hijackers too?

Did I say it takes a plane loaded with jet fuel to destroy papers? Of course it doesn't. It takes a plane loaded with jet fuel to destroy papers (or something as dramatic) in this case.

Yes because we all know that people who fly planes into buildings would have scruples about destroying files illegally and then falsifying figures.

If a bigger bomb was easier for insiders to place, it would have also been easier for outsiders to place. A bomb big enough to topple one or both towers would be quite large indeed, and toppling the towers would surely have generated as much or more terror as what actually happened.

I'm not saying that they would actually plant another bomb I'm just showing how ludicrous your assertions are, if they used controlled demolition and blamed it on planes surely they could have used controlled demolition and blamed it on a bigger bomb.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

So post a link or provide a cite.

Sure thing:

Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show

By ELI LAKE
Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 24, 2006

CAIRO, Egypt - A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a "significant set of facts," and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

In an interview yesterday, the current president of the New School University, Bob Kerrey, was careful to say that new documents translated last night by ABC News did not prove Saddam Hussein played a role in any way in plotting the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Nonetheless, the former senator from Nebraska said that the new document shows that "Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States." Mr. Kerrey said he believed America's understanding of the deposed tyrant's relationship with Al Qaeda would become much deeper as more captured Iraqi documents and audiotapes are disclosed.

Last night ABC News reported on five recently declassified documents captured in Iraq. One of these was a handwritten account of a February 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Mr. bin Laden himself, where Mr. bin Laden broached the idea of "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. The document, which has no official stamps or markers, reports that when Saddam was informed of the meeting on March 4, 1995 he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by Mr. bin Laden.

The question of future cooperation is left an open question. According to the ABC News translation, the captured document says, "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." ABC notes in their report that terrorists, believed to be Al Qaeda, attacked the Saudi National Guard headquarters on November 13, 1995.

The new documents suggest that the 9/11 commission's final conclusion in 2004, that there were no "operational" ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, may need to be reexamined in light of the recently captured documents.

Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show - March 24, 2006 - The New York Sun

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

(continued...)
How so?

Because the flight recordings along with the passengers recordings with their families prove that the terrorists brought down the plain when the passengers stormed the cockpit.

I think it was a Freudian slip. But by itself, it would be less convincing. With the physical evidence, however, it's harder to ignore.

And I think he simply mispoke shot down is a phrase that I could see very easily saying instead of brought down.

Yes it was, and we know a lot about plane crashes. We know that if we find the engine over a mile from the rest of the fuselage, that means the engine separated in flight. That,in turn, usually means an explosion in flight.

Ya do you work for the FTAA? Do you have a Doctorate in physics? What makes you qualified to make such an assertion?

There wouldn't be enough energy in the plane crash to propel the engine a whole mile. Even shallow-angle crashes don't leave that kind of field.

Again are you a physicist? But let me get this straight shooting a civilian plane down proves a conspiracy and not shooting a plane down proves a conspiracy, am I getting this right?

I have plenty of evidence which you don't seem to want to look at fairly. Not that I was expecting reasonable argument from you.

No you don't all you have are baseless accusations.

Let's see the evidence that AQ was responsible.

Well A) We have the confession of OBL and, B) there's this:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

In the meantime, I've posted a link and suggested a book. I can suggest other books as well. There's plenty of evidence out there for anyone who isn't just hiding their head in the sand.

There's plenty of baseless accusations and ludicrous conspiracy theories for anyone who is prepared to believe anything they read on the internet.

Actually, they both live very modest lives. Why does being a "conspiracy theorist" automatically make you a "wingnut"?

Because they are one in the same.

Oh yes it was--and that's why you've changed your implied claim. You were saying that because Clinton couldn't keep a blow-job secret,

No I was saying that they can't keep anything a secret in Washington especially something not as large as 9-11.

a 911 conspiracy couldn't be kept secret. But the relative importance and resultant incrimination are two entirely different ball games.

Oh and Iran-Contra wasn't in the same ball game?

I think you'd need very few people to carry out 9/11.

That's a ridiculous assertion, you would need thousands of people to carry it out such an operation the size of which you are asserting, you have asserted that the media is on it, you have asserted that the FTAA is in on it, you have assserted that the CIA is on it, you have asserted that the F.B.I. is in on it etc etc etc.

Far larger operations have been kept entirely secret for much longer.

Name one.

Yes, operationally, much larger. The fact that I help run a business with 300 employees that makes about 40 million a year does nothing to change the fact that there are some people who run a business with three or four people that make 40 billion a year. It all depends on circumstance.

Selling arms to Iran and funding Nicaraguan rebels with the proceeds and with proceeds from Columbian and Mexican drug sales over a period of several years involved vastly greater exposure, a larger number of people, and more operational complexity than 9/11 would have.

More time, exposure, larger number of people, more operational complexity than manipulating the media, the American public, infiltrating key postions in every branch of the U.S. government and intelligence apparatus as well as the F.B.I? You can't be serious.

As if someone writing a book about an inside 911 conspiracy couldn't be a conspiracy theorist in your view...

The guy is a typical conspiracy theorist who uses the exact same flawed logic as the rest of you, you cite group think authors to prove the theories of the group. Kudos to you sir.

Then why would Brezinski insist that was the best course of action?

Why don't you ask him? I really don't care this mans opinions I never even heard of him before.

Actually, if you read the timeline and draw the most plausible inferences, it makes it very difficult to believe that there wasn't government involvement. The author of this little hit piece is depending on you not reading it.

Umm no he's not, Ruppert does what all conspiracy theorists do they get old newspaper articles which were nothing more than reports not facts and have usually been corrected or the stories have changed, and they use those false and dated reports to prove something that isn't true.

Ruppert always provides backup to the original story; I've checked his sources many times and always found them to be correct. So the word "fragments" seems to have little meaning here except as a way to bias the reader.

Bullshit the guy will take one line out of a 10 paragraph article and string it together with other one liners that favor position to prove it while ignoring the counter evidence found in those exact same articles in order to prove his false claims, this is what we refer to as "quote mining," a technique favored by conspiracy theorists.

A search for "Delmart Vreeland" on the Star's Website turns up the October 23rd story, but not the one this author claims ran on the 27th.

October 27, 2001

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]JUDGE NIXES SPY STORY[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]GRETCHEN DRUMMIE[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The conspiracy theory put forward by an accused fraud artist, who claims he knew in advance about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was described by a Toronto judge yesterday as having "no air of reality."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Delmart Edward Vreeland, 37, who is fighting extradition to the U.S., says he had worked for the U.S. Navy on undercover drug investigations and was involved in spy missions to Russia. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But Justice Archie Campbell wasn't buying Vreeland's story.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"There is no independent evidence to support his colossal allegations and the allegation of conspiracy on its face has no air of reality," said the judge[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Vreeland was arrested Dec. 6, 2000, in Canada for fraud-related charges. The next day he was arrested on an immigration warrant. On May 8 of this year, while still in custody, he was arrested again on a warrant for extradition to the U.S. on credit card fraud and breach of probation charges.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Copyright 2001 Sun Media Corporation
The Toronto Sun[/FONT]

I can think of one other, it's that whoever this guy you're quoting is, he doesn't know how to do research, and is bent on finding any reason to discredit Ruppert's work. Ruppert openly calls Vreeland a liar and an a$$hole in Crossing the Rubicon, but (rightly) insists that this doesn't mean we have nothing to learn from his case.

Vreeland is a fraud and his story is just that; a story, and Ruppert is a quote mining hack not a serious researcher.

Just because they might have such a motive doesn't mean their allegations are false. If the allegations were false, Ahmad would hardly have resigned two days later, would he?

False allegations lead to resignations all the time what planet do you live on?

I'm afraid I don't know what logic "pointing backwards" could mean. Logic doesn't "point" anywhere, unless, speaking loosely, he means that [a] logic[al argument] points to its conclusion.

No what it means is that you people take a conclusion and then work backwards which is exactly what you do. You your evidence to the conclusion when true research would require you to fit your conclusion to the evidence.

Actually, he hardly ever mentions that as evidence of foreknowledge. The evidence of foreknowledge has more to do with the administration's reaction to warnings delivered, and that other actions before 911 seemed awfully suspicious.

Bullshit that's the basis of his thesis IE Bush-Oil ties.

OK, so pick a few (say, 14--that'd be 20% of the claims made) and show why they're false.

Like I said I'm not going to dig through the conspiracy bullshit line for line it gives me a headache, all I need to show is that your cites are more than willing to post disinformation thus calling in the legitimacy of their claims into question.

If that's the case, you ought to be able to show why in such a way that leaves me without a reply. So far, you haven't remotely done so.

You keep replying because you just keep shoveling on the bullshit, that's what you people do.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Now if the conspirators wanted to establish a greater foothold in the middle east why did they not blame it on the country where they intended to establish that foothold? Your assertion doesn't make sense.

It only doesn't make sense because you're not paying attention. Iraq was only one of the places they wanted to go; and especially in a changing situation in the ME, they wanted to be able to keep their options open. We needed to go into Afganistan, for instance, and we could hardly have done that if we'd blamed Saddam Hussein. On the other hand, blaming OBL got us both Iraq and Afganistan, and could provide a reason to go to Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia if necessary.

But if they can make false connections to OBL and 9-11 why couldn't they use false connections to Saddam and OBL to 9-11?

They did, with nearly as much success.

And public opinion polls prove nothing.

As I mentioned later, they do evince what the public's opinion is. That is the matter in question on this point.

I've seen this argument made time and time again and it just makes me laugh harder every time I hear it.

Yet your reply has no substance. If it's laughable, you ought to be able to explain why.

What said Saddam and 9-11 in the same sentence or speech? Well that tears it there's a massive conspiracy intended to manipulate the masses!

It's fairly easy to see that they intended for people to draw the conclusion they were linked. Conjuring up the spectre of an enemy that had ostensibly attacked us is exactly why people supported the war. And even after 4 years in Iraq and knowledge that there were no ties to 9/11, people still believe there were.

So because in the heat of the moment Cheney refused to give the order to shoot down a civilian aircraft that means he was part of a conspiracy? Let's see you make the decision to kill over 100 innocent passengers buddy.

It's clear from the testimony that an order had already been issued, but it wasn't a shoot down order. As to whether I would issue the order; I wouldn't like it, but it would clearly be the right thing to do.

The FAA doesn't shoot down planes and regardless the hijackers turned off the transponders the FAA would have had to discern the 4 planes from the various hundreds that were in flight at the time it would have been like looking for a needle in a haystack.

1) The FAA doesn't shoot down planes--they monitor domestic airspace and report to Northcom when they determine a plane has strayed from its flight plan.

2) They successfully found 67 planes that had strayed over the year prior to 9/11, and had intercept within minutes.

And not giving the order to shoot down a civilian aircraft does not imply involvment except to conspiracy theorists ofcourse to conspiracy theorists giving orders to shoot down a civilian aircraft also implies involvement.

No, shooting down the aircraft, while an awful choice, was the correct one. I don't have a problem with anyone admitting they shot down flight 93, I just have a problem with them lying about it later. Why, if he was having moral qualms, couldn't he just say "look, we didn't shoot down the plane that hit the pentagon because we weren't sure what was going to happen and we didn't want to kill American citizens." People would have bought that. Instead, the 9/11 commission was managed in such a way that made it appear we had an impossible task that morning.

And we know that we didn't fund OBL.

We don't know that we didn't. If we were funding the mujahideen, and had made up our minds to mainly fund foreign fighters in Afganistan, it seems likely that we did.

LOL do you even know what AQ is? It was formed out of OBL's fundraising apparatus which consisted of wealthy Arabs and front group charities. OBL had his own funds he didn't need to get them from the U.S.

Al Qaeda as an organization existed on OBL's funds initially. But he wasn't buying enough munitions to fund the resistance with his money.

No it's a fact we didn't know who the hell OBL was until 1996 when he began launching attacks against the U.S.

That seems very unlikely. How could you maintain such a position given that we funded a group of which OBL was a prominent member, and was of a specific type that we preferred dealing with?

Yes unsubstantiated rumors and accusations with no basis in fact what so ever.

You can't just say that without a reason. I quote a source, and if you think it's factually incorrect, you have to say why. Saying that it is just isn't enough.

Yes more unsubstantiated bullshit, who is the source? Oh that's right there is none, all you have is an accusation from a far left newspaper using an unamed source claiming that some meeting went down in some Dubai hospital that is impossible to prove or disprove.

Of course you don't want to believe it because accepting it might mean changing your mind about a lot of things, and that's an uncomfortable thing. But in the real world, it's standard practice to protect your sources. Newspapers, even newspapers in France, keep their sources confidential sometimes but we generally accept the stories as being factual.

An article which tries to connect OBL to our funding of the Mujahadeen but fails to do so, oh bravo, still no proof that the CIA funded OBL.

So just what would constitute proof to you?

Do you know what the freedom of information act is? We know that the CIA funded the Contras we know that they funded the Mujahadeen why wouldn't we know that the CIA funded OBL? Well it's real easy we never did fund OBL because he had his own sources of funding.

The FOI act specifically exlcudes classified information. If Bin Laden had been a CIA asset, you'd expect that to be classified.

Well I'm not going to disprove your conspiracy crap line for line all I need to show is that they are willing to push the disinformation therby calling into question their credibility of which your sources have none.

I didn't ask you to disprove it line by line. I'm insisting, however, that merely calling it all "crap" and "disinformation" is not enough to actually make it crap and disinformation. You have to say why, and if I respond with something other than that your answer is crap and disinformation, you have to deal with the reply. Otherwise, you really are presenting crap and disinformation. This is logical argumentation 101.

You can't think of an easier way to destroy files than flying planes into buildings I'm not assuming that you aren't very bright your own statments prove this conclusively.

If I were actually saying what you seem to insist I have been, then I would agree. But your favorite tactic seems to be presenting a straw man. I don't take it personally, I understand how difficult your position is.

Ya because that's much easier than shredding incriminating files that no one even knew existed

Stop right there--I already said that someone did know they exist. The SEC insists that certain documents be kept--Accounts Receivable records, General and Specific Ledgers, invoices, inventory and asset depreciation records, etc. etc. All businesses have to keep them, and the SEC has the power to ask for them. The problem that was occurring with Enron and with other businesses is that these documents did not support their SEC filings, on the basis of which investors were buying stock.

So, stop mischaracterizing my arguments, and if you have a reply, state it. Otherwise, have the decency to concede the point.

and still don't because they never did infact exist they are fignment of your imagination.

You think that there were no files destroyed in the WTC attacks?

And that's so much simpler than blaming it on a break in.

You know, my business generates about 15 pallet-loads of paper every year, and it's paper I have to keep for between 3 and 6 years (depending specifically on what it is). And my business isn't very big. To perpetrate the needed fraud, though, I would need to destroy those 15 pallet loads for the last six or eight years. Pretty hard to blame that on a break in.

What millions of documents? So now there were millions of incriminating documents? Damn do you have any proof of that or are they just figments of an overactive imagination?

For the point at hand, it doesn't matter if they existed or not. If they were destroyed, it's ipso facto impossible to prove their existence.

A) If there were any incriminating documents there wouldn't be millions of them.

I was actually trying to be charitable. There'd likely be tens of millions. We're talking about AR ledgers, general ledgers, receipts, invoices, etc. etc.

B) Do you evidnece of any incriminating documents let alone millions?

Sure--the fact that Enron had deep financial ties to big Wall Street banks is pretty much indisputable. Those banks escaped SEC prosecution because their records were lost.

C) Why would people not immediately destroy the incriminating documents in the first place?

Because, as I have said a few times now, the SEC required they be kept.

Oh give me a break are you honestly trying to assert that these companies had knowledge of ENRONs shading dealings?

Hmmm...I'd pose just the opposite question to you. Do you honestly think that they didn't?

The CIA internal investigation. The only evidence is that the CIA turned a blind eye to what the Contra's were doing not that we aided in what they were doing.

So post your cite, and I'll blow it out of the water. I bet I know a couple things you don't know. But show me the cite first.

Supply never gets squashed when there is high demand if there are billions of dollars to be made someone will always be there willing to take the risk that's kind of the basis of capitalism you know risk vs. gain.

Well, if it's that hopeless, we ought to just legalize drugs and be done. Clearly, those billions that we supposedly spent on the war on drugs had no effect.

A) The Taliban controlled 90% of the country.

B) The U.S. military needs the backing of the tribal leaders who rely on opium sales in the Pashtun region to help us against the Taliban remnants.

Yet, evidently, the Taliban were able to deal with these Pashtunis. Is this the same Taliban that we walked over when we invaded?

 

[ashurbanipal]

No sir it does matter why they did it, because you were trying to assert that the reason why the U.S. ousted the Taliban was because of our connections with the international drug trade thus proving your conpsiracy when the fact of the matter is that the Taliban was working on the behest of the international drug cartels to cut supply to increase profitablity thus disproving your assertions completely.

It makes perfect sense to me; we've got competition in the drug trafficking business. We needed the drugs flowing, others wanted the price raised. We're not the only drug traffickers in the world. Here's a hint--those billions spent on the war against drugs were spent trying to eliminate our competition.

Uh huh, so the reason why they couldn't have simply used another bomb was because the F.B.I. should have been watching for potential terrorists, well shouldn't they have been looking for the hijackers too?

Not only should they have, they had some of them under surveilance. Read Colleen Rowley's letter.

But you're missing the astoundingly simple point--the question is what could people have been more easily convinced of after the fact. Putting a story over about another bomb would have been more difficult; the FBI's anti-bomb measures had been widely reported by then. Anti-hijacking measures, however, hadn't been.

Imagine for a moment that you're Dick Cheney, and you have to engineer, sometime in the next few months, another attack. It's now widely known what kinds of measures have been put in place to prevent hijackings. If you go that route again, you're going to be crucified. You've got to do something else.

Yes because we all know that people who fly planes into buildings would have scruples about destroying files illegally and then falsifying figures.

Do you understand a thing about SEC and IRS filing and reporting requirements? You can't falsify your documents; if you do, they will know.

The new documents suggest that the 9/11 commission's final conclusion in 2004, that there were no "operational" ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, may need to be reexamined in light of the recently captured documents.

Yet, they didn't ever collaborate. How, exactly, does that contradict my account? I admitted that they met; that's known. They just didn't work together.

Because the flight recordings along with the passengers recordings with their families prove that the terrorists brought down the plain when the passengers stormed the cockpit.

How, exactly, do they prove that the terrorists brought the plane down? The sound stops abruptly. Perhaps instead of that event being the crash, that event was the missile strike.

Ya do you work for the FTAA? Do you have a Doctorate in physics? What makes you qualified to make such an assertion?

I don't work for the FAA, but my father in law did and was a supervisor for teams that would investigate crashes. My degrees are not in physics, but I nearly completed a physics degree.

Again are you a physicist? But let me get this straight shooting a civilian plane down proves a conspiracy and not shooting a plane down proves a conspiracy, am I getting this right?

Actually, it's a pretty minor point regardless of what happened. But doing either and then lying about it later doesn't look good.

No you don't all you have are baseless accusations.

Then it should be easy for you to show why.

Well A) We have the confession of OBL

No we don't. We have a very clear forgery.

There's plenty of baseless accusations and ludicrous conspiracy theories for anyone who is prepared to believe anything they read on the internet.

Moreover, the stuff that is baseless is easily exposed as exactly that. The stuff that isn't so baseless, though, is typically opposed by people with big egos who have to resort to ad hominem, red herring, and straw man attacks.

Because they are one in the same.

So, for instance, someone who in 1933 thought that there was something sinister and secret going on in Germany was a wingnut? I think history shows otherwise--but at the time there were plenty of people who were espousing just that "conspiracy theory," and who were ridiculed by their governments and by the majority of their co-nationalists.

Even Kurt Gerhardt was thought to be a "wingnut" by Churchill. After the camps started to be liberated, there was an attempt to keep quiet the fact that there had been numerous warnings about them, all ridiculed as "baseless conspiracy theories." And there are plenty of other examples.

No I was saying that they can't keep anything a secret in Washington especially something not as large as 9-11.

And my counter claim is that lots of big things were kept secret for a long time, that 911 wouldn't have been operationally as large as you might think, and its importance virtually guaranteed it would be kept secret.

Oh and Iran-Contra wasn't in the same ball game?

I think that's what I just said.

That's a ridiculous assertion, you would need thousands of people to carry it out such an operation the size of which you are asserting, you have asserted that the media is on it, you have asserted that the FTAA is in on it, you have assserted that the CIA is on it, you have asserted that the F.B.I. is in on it etc etc etc.

I didn't assert that the FTAA (whoever that is) was in on it. I didn't assert the media was in on it (not directly). Nor would you need everyone at the CIA or the FBI to be in on it. It seems that I've posted before how it could be done with a team of about 60 people and you never tried to refute it. So I'll do it again.

Here's who you'd need, and why:

Dick Cheney--Bush placed him in supreme control of both our energy and our anti-terrorism efforts. Ultimate command of our strategic air defenses rested with him on 9/11. He had the power via PTECH software to create radar inserts on FAA and NORAD screens.

Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft--each would have a key role to play in directing the NSA, Military Intelligence, and the Justice department away from investigating the ill goings-on.

Dave Frasca--head of the FBI radical fundamentalism unit and FBIHQ. He had the power to stop or start investigations of terrorism inside the United States.

Someone in the FAA--preferably the supervisors of the ATCs in Washington, New York, and Boston. Needed to manage the ATC's so they wouldn't suspect anything fishy.

A couple case officers at the CIA--just to run general interference. Also a couple DDI's or EDI's.

15 or so demolitions experts--to plant bombs. If the buildings weren't brought down with bombs, you could scratch these guys but I think there were bombs so they're necessary.

Head of the ISI, and a couple ISI case officers--to provide on the ground contact in the ME.

The head of Northcom and one or two others working there--linkup between FAA and NORAD.

OBL--goes without saying.

The actual hijackers--call it 20 guys.

Some security guys at the WTC and the Pentagon--say, about 8.

That's 62 people, and that's all you'd need. Other people would participate, of course. The ATC's at Boston, New York, and Washington, for instance, but their involvement wouldn't be knowing. All they'd have to do is respond as they normally would, or as they were ordered to do by their supervisors. The media would be involved, but not knowingly either. The white house is accustomed to feeding news channels their agendas; by now they can be trusted not to get too out of line.

Name one.

Manhattan project. The NSA. Nazi concentration camps. That's three. I could name lots more if you want.

More time, exposure, larger number of people, more operational complexity than manipulating the media, the American public, infiltrating key postions in every branch of the U.S. government and intelligence apparatus as well as the F.B.I? You can't be serious.

If you think I can't be, just show a flaw in what I'm saying. Give your own analysis that has it necessary to have thousands of people all in the know, all complicit.

The guy is a typical conspiracy theorist who uses the exact same flawed logic as the rest of you, you cite group think authors to prove the theories of the group.

Most of Ruppert's sources are from the mainstream press.

Why don't you ask him? I really don't care this mans opinions I never even heard of him before.

Brezinski was a foreign policy advisor to Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. He was one of three or four principle behind-the-scenes architechts of our foreign policy for the last 25 years.

Ruppert does what all conspiracy theorists do they get old newspaper articles which were nothing more than reports not facts and have usually been corrected or the stories have changed, and they use those false and dated reports to prove something that isn't true.

Ruppert posted a couple of times when his sources would withdraw their claims. Again, this is all on his website (which is now defunct, but still up on the web).

Bullshit the guy will take one line out of a 10 paragraph article and string it together with other one liners that favor position to prove it while ignoring the counter evidence found in those exact same articles in order to prove his false claims, this is what we refer to as "quote mining," a technique favored by conspiracy theorists.

If that were the case, he'd have gone down long ago. Again, I have checked his sources on numerous occasions and found that he documents correctly and meticulously.

JUDGE NIXES SPY STORY
GRETCHEN DRUMMIE

Find a link from the Toronto Star Website and I'll take a look. Until then, the point is that Ruppert reported on the fact that Vreeland was a liar. That doesn't change the relevant verifiable facts of his case.

False allegations lead to resignations all the time what planet do you live on?

So show a time or two where that happened.

No what it means is that you people take a conclusion and then work backwards which is exactly what you do.

I modify my positions all the time. I didn't used to believe that there were bombs in the WTC. It took a lot of video evidence and a lot of reading transcripts to convince me that there were.

Bullshit that's the basis of his thesis IE Bush-Oil ties.

I've read pretty much everything Ruppert's written at this point (not all of which I agree with), and I wouldn't characterize it that way at all.

Like I said I'm not going to dig through the conspiracy bullshit line for line it gives me a headache

Hey, if it's too much for you, you can bow out any time.

all I need to show is that your cites are more than willing to post disinformation thus calling in the legitimacy of their claims into question.

That's how you would do that--i.e. by picking a substantial number of claims and showing they're false. All you do is repeat the line "that's B.S., that's disinformation, that's misleading, etc. etc."

You keep replying because you just keep shoveling on the bullshit, that's what you people do.

Anyone can claim that about anybody. You ought to be able to say why, and you don't seem to be able to do that (indeed, I wonder if you even understand how to do that).

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

It only doesn't make sense because you're not paying attention. Iraq was only one of the places they wanted to go;

This is a charge of high treason. You are now charging the United States government with killing 3,000 of their own civilians and a pre-meditated plan to go to war with the Middle East at their liezure. I want names and charges filed or I want you slapped with a libel suit you lying traitorous scum sucking S.O.B.!!!! This guy is nothing but a Jihadist propagandist, I would not be one bit suprised if this guy believes in the Illuminati and thinks the Protocals of the Elders of Zion is a real book.

 

[ashurbanipal]

This is a charge of high treason. You are now charging the United States government with killing 3,000 of their own civilians and a pre-meditated plan to go to war with the Middle East at their liezure. I want names and charges filed

I've signed all sorts of petitions asking for just that. Apparently, it's not as easy as just going down to my local Police Station and filing a complaint. I will continue to do everything in my power to see that those charges are brought (because I think they should be), but I don't see it happening.

or I want you slapped with a libel suit you lying traitorous scum sucking S.O.B.!!!!

Funny that so many authors have made these same charges (Michael Ruppert, Alex Jones, Stephen Jones, Susan Woodward, James Fetzer, etc. etc.) and not one of them has been sued for libel or slander.

This guy is nothing but a Jihadist propagandist

Have you seen me calling for jihad anywhere?

I would not be one bit suprised if this guy believes in the Illuminati

Depends on what you mean. If you mean, do I think the lizard people from planet X are taking over the world? No, I don't believe that. The illuminati were, however, real. They were started by Adam Weishaupt in 1712 (IIRC) in Bavaria. They subsequently split up into a vast number of splinter groups, all working at cross purposes to each other. They're not secretly in charge of world affairs, if that's what you mean to imply.

and thinks the Protocals of the Elders of Zion is a real book.

I do not believe that. I've heard a little about it; it seems to amount to anti-Jewish rhetoric.

In the meantime, I'm guessing you have no substantive reply? You've resorted to calling me names after just a few posts. Perhaps you ought to take a few deep breaths and ask yourself why you have so little that could reasonably contradict my points.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Funny that so many authors have made these same charges (Michael Ruppert, Alex Jones, Stephen Jones, Susan Woodward, James Fetzer, etc. etc.) and not one of them has been sued for libel or slander.

Well if they were me I'd sue them for libel because all they spread is slander and lies.

Have you seen me calling for jihad anywhere?

You and the Jihadists have the same propaganda, you don't think 9-11 was perpetrated by AQ, just like the Arabs who don't believe the Uma is capable of any wrong doing.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Well if they were me I'd sue them for libel because all they spread is slander and lies.

Unless, if they were you, you knew they were telling the truth...

You and the Jihadists have the same propaganda

Actually, I'm against blowing people up...

you don't think 9-11 was perpetrated by AQ

I don't believe the official story, to be sure. But AQ had a hand in it; I just think they were helped along by someone in government.

just like the Arabs who don't believe the Uma is capable of any wrong doing.

How is anything I said like a statement of belief that the Uma can't do anything wrong?

 

[Vader]

This is taken from Rolling Stone. My appologizes, I don't have an actual link, but it explains what REALLY happened on 9/11

Why does Cheney keep calling everybody else "Dick" ?