- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 52,184
- Reaction score
- 35,955
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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!
RS said: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.
RS said: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!
RS said: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.
RS said: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.
RS said: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!
RS said: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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
TOT said: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.
TOT said:Ya because controlling the free press would be much simpler to do
TOT said:than simply having the Iraqi's fingerprints placed on the attack in the first place.
TOT said: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.
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).
TOT said: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.
TOT said:Why was Cheney "most certainly," involved?
TOT said: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?
TOT said:And why would we need that if there wasn't a terrorist threat in the first place?
TOT said:Ya because planting explosives, flying planes into buildings, and murdering 3,000 innocent civilians is the easiest way to destroy files.
TOT said:Oh ya because it's not like we have spent billions of dollars on the "war on drugs."
TOT said: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.
TOT 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?
TOT said: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.
TOT said:Evidence?
TOT said:Why won't you people start naming names and proving the identity of the conspirators?
TOT said: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?
TOT said:You can't get a blow job in Washington without it being picked up by the media
TOT said: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.
TOT said:Just look at the Iran Contra scandal.
TOT said:I'm done this crap is trivially debunked
TOT said:with facts and evidence.
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.
Why would they need to control the Swedish press?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
"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.
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.
We've spent billions trafficking drugs. That's what Iran-Contra was all about.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Iran-Contra took 7 years or longer to expose and it was a much larger and ongoing operation.
I agree-your "debunkery" is trivial.
I didn't see anything that would qualify as evidence in your post. I, on the other hand, have cited 2 books,
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,
and given a link to a survey of other links,
and made other factual claims which I can back up if you wish.
TOT said:If it was a grand conspiracy to attack Iraq then why didn't they just simply put Saddam's fingerprints in the first place?
TOT said:Probably the same way that they put the fingerprints on OBL.
TOT said:You cited 1/3
TOT said:and your link even states that is a claim the administration never even made.
TOT said: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.
TOT said:Really that's funny the DOCEX release would prove otherwise.
TOT said:How so?
TOT said:Umm there is no normal response mechanism, NORAD looks for planes coming into the U.S. not at Domestic flights.
TOT said:No they don't.
TOT said: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
TOT said:Well that is because you are not very bright.
TOT said:And flying planes into building isn't?
TOT said: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.
TOT said: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.
TOT said: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.
TOT said:The laws of supply and demand.
TOT said: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.
TOT said: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.
TOT said:So blame it on a bigger bomb.
TOT said: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?
TOT said: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?
TOT said:Ya it takes a plane loaded with jet fuel to destroy papers. Do you know how ridiculous you sound?
TOT said:Well the recordered conversations between the passengers and their families before "let's roll," would beg to differ.
TOT said:And what Rumsfeld said was: "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."
TOT said:Ya it was a plane crash.
TOT said:Why does it imply that?
TOT said: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.
TOT said:Ya let's see the ****ing evidence that anyone besides AQ was responsible buddy.
TOT said: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.
TOT said:Not a Red Herring
TOT said:there is no way on gods green earth that a conspiracy of this size could be kept secret from the MSM.
TOT said: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?
TOT said:On of which was written by a conspiracy theorist
TOT said: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
TOT said: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.
PE said:Instead, he has hammered together fragments of reports
TOT said:from various sources and used them as a springboard for a gigantic leap -- to conclusions that aren't supported by what he cites.
TOT said: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.
Public Eye said: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."
PE said: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.
TOT said: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?
PE said: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.
PE said: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."
TOT said:That you attributed a false quote too and just how exactly does a public opinion poll prove anyting thing?
TOT said:Which much like you spreads disinformation and false claims.
TOT said: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.
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?
Ashurbanipal said:1) To provide a reason for establishing a greater foothold in the middle east
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.
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.
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.
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?"
The FAA does.
Yes they do. "Implicate" just means "to imply involvement."
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
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.
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.
Clearly it was illegal--but it was also possible to blame on someone else, which is the blindingly obvious point.
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?
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.
What investigation was that?
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.
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?
It doesn't matter why they did it--that they did it, and we seem to have reversed that trend, is what counts.
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.
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.
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.
So post a link or provide a cite.
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
(continued...)
How so?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Actually, they both live very modest lives. Why does being a "conspiracy theorist" automatically make you a "wingnut"?
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.
I think you'd need very few people to carry out 9/11.
Far larger operations have been kept entirely secret for much longer.
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.
As if someone writing a book about an inside 911 conspiracy couldn't be a conspiracy theorist in your view...
Then why would Brezinski insist that was the best course of action?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
OK, so pick a few (say, 14--that'd be 20% of the claims made) and show why they're false.
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.
TOT said: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.
TOT said: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?
TOT said:And public opinion polls prove nothing.
TOT said:I've seen this argument made time and time again and it just makes me laugh harder every time I hear it.
TOT said: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!
TOT said: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.
TOT said: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.
TOT said: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.
TOT said:And we know that we didn't fund OBL.
TOT said: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.
TOT said: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.
TOT said:Yes unsubstantiated rumors and accusations with no basis in fact what so ever.
TOT said: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.
TOT said: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.
TOT said: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.
TOT said: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.
TOT said: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.
TOT said:Ya because that's much easier than shredding incriminating files that no one even knew existed
TOT said:and still don't because they never did infact exist they are fignment of your imagination.
TOT said:And that's so much simpler than blaming it on a break in.
TOT said: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?
TOT said:A) If there were any incriminating documents there wouldn't be millions of them.
TOT said:B) Do you evidnece of any incriminating documents let alone millions?
TOT said:C) Why would people not immediately destroy the incriminating documents in the first place?
TOT said:Oh give me a break are you honestly trying to assert that these companies had knowledge of ENRONs shading dealings?
TOT said: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.
TOT said: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.
TOT said: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.
TOT said: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.
TOT said: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?
TOT said:Yes because we all know that people who fly planes into buildings would have scruples about destroying files illegally and then falsifying figures.
TOT said: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.
TOT said: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.
TOT said:Ya do you work for the FTAA? Do you have a Doctorate in physics? What makes you qualified to make such an assertion?
TOT said: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?
TOT said:No you don't all you have are baseless accusations.
TOT said:Well A) We have the confession of OBL
TOT said:There's plenty of baseless accusations and ludicrous conspiracy theories for anyone who is prepared to believe anything they read on the internet.
TOT said:Because they are one in the same.
TOT said:No I was saying that they can't keep anything a secret in Washington especially something not as large as 9-11.
TOT said:Oh and Iran-Contra wasn't in the same ball game?
TOT 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.
TOT said:Name one.
TOT said: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.
TOT said: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.
TOT said: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.
TOT said: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).
TOT said: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.
TOT said: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.
TOT said:False allegations lead to resignations all the time what planet do you live on?
So show a time or two where that happened.
TOT said: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.
TOT said: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.
TOT said: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.
TOT said: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."
TOT said: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).
It only doesn't make sense because you're not paying attention. Iraq was only one of the places they wanted to go;
TOT said: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
TOT said:or I want you slapped with a libel suit you lying traitorous scum sucking S.O.B.!!!!
TOT said:This guy is nothing but a Jihadist propagandist
TOT said:I would not be one bit suprised if this guy believes in the Illuminati
TOT said:and thinks the Protocals of the Elders of Zion is a real book.
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.
Have you seen me calling for jihad anywhere?
TOT said:Well if they were me I'd sue them for libel because all they spread is slander and lies.
TOT said:You and the Jihadists have the same propaganda
TOT said:you don't think 9-11 was perpetrated by AQ
TOT said:just like the Arabs who don't believe the Uma is capable of any wrong doing.
This is taken from Rolling Stone. My appologizes, I don't have an actual link, but it explains what REALLY happened on 9/11
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?