Was 9/11 Really A Surprise Attack?

[Kane]

There are a series of events that beg the question - was 9/11 really a surpise attack?

The Patriot Act was printed and ready to be taken off the shelf for passage into law as soon as 9/11 happened, various warnings from foreign governments, George W. Bush's Presidential Daily Briefing, etc., all imply that the National Security State as we know in America today, was a foregone conclusion.

Do you agree?

(some other facts)


Historical Precedent
-"repeated pattern of manufactured pretexts for galvanizing support for imperial wars - the blowing up of the Maine (1898), Pearl Harbor (which was allowed to happen, FDR had prior knowledge due to communication intercepts), the Gulf of Tonkin (1964), Operation Northwoods (1962 Pentagon plan to stage terror attacks on US citizens to justify invasion of Cuba), the encouragement of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait (1990), the first WTC attack in 1993 (which the FBI knew about in advance), Oklahoma City in 1995 (in which there was also "prior knowledge" at the very least) "

9/11

Progressive "left" media stand down on questioning official version of 9/11

[SIZE=+2]Best analyses of "left gatekeepers" who pretend 9/11 was a surprise attack[/SIZE]

left gatekeepers: the stand down of the liberal, alternative media about 9/11
denial is not a river in Egypt, psychological reluctance to confront the full truth
The Nation supports the official stories of JFK (Warren Commission) and 9/11
Norman Solomon FAIR and the Institute for Public Accuracy, helped lead defense of 9/11 official story in 2002
Chip Berlet Right Woos Left: Chip Berlet defends Bush regime against claims of complicity
Democracy Now 90% of their work is good, but they avoid the most important issues
Noam Chomsky Where Noam will not roam: Chomsky manufactures consent by supporting the official stories of 9/11 and JFK
Fahrenheit 9/11 Michael Moore and setting up the invasion of Saudi Arabia
Mother Jones defends 9/11 cover-up Commission and denies vote fraud in Ohio
Ward Churchill supports "Blowback" paradigm, misses real story of 9/11 complicity
Counterpunch Alexander Cockburn ridicules investigations into 9/11 complicity and vote fraud
Alternative Radio also avoids deeper understanding
Greg Palast great work on vote fraud but not on Peak Oil or 9/11
Institute for Policy Studies "progressive" party line
Inter Press Service liberal news service that dismissed 9/11 International Inquiry in Toronto (May 2004)
MoveOn Democratic Trojan Horse to control dissent
Larry Bensky Pacifica Radio correspondent

9/11 Best Evidence
​

 

[X Factor]

I imagine those "left gatekeepers" correctly concluded that there was no truth to truther conspiracy theories, and printed/posted articles accordingly. If there had been some credible proof that Bush was aware of the attack yet chose to do nothing about it, they would certainly have reported on that. That would have been the biggest scandal since Watergate.

 

[mike2810]

There are a series of events that beg the question - was 9/11 really a surpise attack?

The Patriot Act was printed and ready to be taken off the shelf for passage into law as soon as 9/11 happened, various warnings from foreign governments, George W. Bush's Presidential Daily Briefing, etc., all imply that the National Security State as we know in America today, was a foregone conclusion.

Care to share a source that backs up this statement that the Act was prewritten.

It is speculation that President Bush knew the exact date,time and method of the terrorist attack.
If you have 100% proof, you should take Bush, et.al. to court.

Heck I though most CT believed the buildings were taken down by nanothermite and not the jets, that the pentagon was hit with a missle, etc. Now its also the Patriot Act was prewritten.

 

[StillBallin75]

Dude, Chomsky is one of the most rabid anti-imperialists out there. (Nice play on "manufactured consent" btw.) If he says truther bull**** is bull****, then it probably is.

 

[Kane]

Dude, Chomsky is one of the most rabid anti-imperialists out there. (Nice play on "manufactured consent" btw.) If he says truther bull**** is bull****, then it probably is.

Do you think that the current wars are a way to level the playing field for American companies who had been losing to foreign competitors?

 

[mac]

There are a series of events that beg the question - was 9/11 really a surpise attack?

The Patriot Act was printed and ready to be taken off the shelf for passage into law as soon as 9/11 happened, various warnings from foreign governments, George W. Bush's Presidential Daily Briefing, etc., all imply that the National Security State as we know in America today, was a foregone conclusion.

Do you agree?

(some other facts)


Historical Precedent
-"repeated pattern of manufactured pretexts for galvanizing support for imperial wars - the blowing up of the Maine (1898), Pearl Harbor (which was allowed to happen, FDR had prior knowledge due to communication intercepts), the Gulf of Tonkin (1964), Operation Northwoods (1962 Pentagon plan to stage terror attacks on US citizens to justify invasion of Cuba), the encouragement of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait (1990), the first WTC attack in 1993 (which the FBI knew about in advance), Oklahoma City in 1995 (in which there was also "prior knowledge" at the very least) "

9/11

Progressive "left" media stand down on questioning official version of 9/11

[SIZE=+2]Best analyses of "left gatekeepers" who pretend 9/11 was a surprise attack[/SIZE]

left gatekeepers: the stand down of the liberal, alternative media about 9/11
denial is not a river in Egypt, psychological reluctance to confront the full truth
The Nation supports the official stories of JFK (Warren Commission) and 9/11
Norman Solomon FAIR and the Institute for Public Accuracy, helped lead defense of 9/11 official story in 2002
Chip Berlet Right Woos Left: Chip Berlet defends Bush regime against claims of complicity
Democracy Now 90% of their work is good, but they avoid the most important issues
Noam Chomsky Where Noam will not roam: Chomsky manufactures consent by supporting the official stories of 9/11 and JFK
Fahrenheit 9/11 Michael Moore and setting up the invasion of Saudi Arabia
Mother Jones defends 9/11 cover-up Commission and denies vote fraud in Ohio
Ward Churchill supports "Blowback" paradigm, misses real story of 9/11 complicity
Counterpunch Alexander Cockburn ridicules investigations into 9/11 complicity and vote fraud
Alternative Radio also avoids deeper understanding
Greg Palast great work on vote fraud but not on Peak Oil or 9/11
Institute for Policy Studies "progressive" party line
Inter Press Service liberal news service that dismissed 9/11 International Inquiry in Toronto (May 2004)
MoveOn Democratic Trojan Horse to control dissent
Larry Bensky Pacifica Radio correspondent

9/11 Best Evidence
​

9/11 was a surprise attack in the sense that we did not know that Bin Laden would be able to pull off such an attack, or in the manner that he pulled it off. It was not a urprise attack in the sense that we did not know that Bin Laden was planning on attacking America. The problem is knowing an attack is about to happen without knowing how and where it's going to happen.

 

[StillBallin75]

Do you think that the current wars are a way to level the playing field for American companies who had been losing to foreign competitors?

The two are almost entirely irrelevant. If what you say is true then we should be warring with China, not the godforsaken land of Afghanistan.

 

[Renae]

I heard the real reason Obama took out Osama is that Osama was going to tell the world the truth about 9/11.

Heard it on Coast to Coast I think. Or a bathroom wall at a gas station, both are equally credible of course.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Care to share a source that backs up this statement that the Act was prewritten.

It is speculation that President Bush knew the exact date,time and method of the terrorist attack.
If you have 100% proof, you should take Bush, et.al. to court.

Heck I though most CT believed the buildings were taken down by nanothermite and not the jets, that the pentagon was hit with a missle, etc. Now its also the Patriot Act was prewritten.

I actually mostly agree with you here :
I don't think bush COULD have known anything more then that there would be an event during his presidency, and that he would have to follow a script afterwards.

I mean, he was kept at that school for something like 45 minutes after finding out about the second plane.

Cheney, on the other hand, and the rest of the PNAC crew, were clearly more heavily culpable.

 

[BmanMcfly]

9/11 was a surprise attack in the sense that we did not know that Bin Laden would be able to pull off such an attack, or in the manner that he pulled it off. It was not a urprise attack in the sense that we did not know that Bin Laden was planning on attacking America. The problem is knowing an attack is about to happen without knowing how and where it's going to happen.

Even if we buy into this line on its face, bin laden was still working for the CIA for some 20 years prior beginning with his task to repel the Russians.

Unless there's some sort of evidence to suggest that working relationship had ended prior to 9-11.

 

[mac]

Even if we buy into this line on its face, bin laden was still working for the CIA for some 20 years prior beginning with his task to repel the Russians.

Unless there's some sort of evidence to suggest that working relationship had ended prior to 9-11.

Our support of Bin Laden dropped to non-existent following the withdrawal of Russian troops, and cooperation between Bin Laden and the CIA ended. This is why he attacked, after all. Besides, because someone is working with the CIA doesn't mean that person is co-operating or disclosing everything.

 

[Tanzio]

Our support of Bin Laden dropped to non-existent following the withdrawal of Russian troops, and cooperation between Bin Laden and the CIA ended. This is why he attacked, after all. Besides, because someone is working with the CIA doesn't mean that person is co-operating or disclosing everything.

"Dropped to non-existent" and "ended" according to you? Are you sure, "he attacked?" Is your argument that Bin Laden was a rogue CIA operative?

What was accomplished by the character of Bin Laden? Was the CIA damaged by what he accomplished?

What was damaged is the Constitution Of The United States Of America.

 

[Tanzio]

There are a series of events that beg the question - was 9/11 really a surpise attack?

Yes, but the question is who was attacked?

The answer to that can be deducted by examining the consequences of the attack. Who has benefited and who has not?

The Patriot Act was printed and ready to be taken off the shelf for passage into law as soon as 9/11 happened, various warnings from foreign governments, George W. Bush's Presidential Daily Briefing, etc., all imply that the National Security State as we know in America today, was a foregone conclusion.

Do you agree?

"The National Security State" was not formed as a result of 9/11. The choke chain was tightened.

 

[mac]

"Dropped to non-existent" and "ended" according to you? Are you sure, "he attacked?" Is your argument that Bin Laden was a rogue CIA operative?

No, he worked with the CIA at one point, not for the CIA.

What was accomplished by the character of Bin Laden? Was the CIA damaged by what he accomplished?

He accomplished the single largest and deadliest terror attack on US soil. You tell me what damage that caused the CIA.

What was damaged is the Constitution Of The United States Of America.

It cold be argued that any law enacted or Act passed damages the Constitution...If you are referring to the Patriot Act, then you need to do a lot more to justify your position and take an in depth look at the threat to civil liberties it caused vs the security it gained. It's the US's government duty to provide it's citizens both, but the methods to improve one almost always infringe the ability to provide the other. It's a balance that has to work out over time.

 

[mac]

Yes, but the question is who was attacked?

The answer to that can be deducted by examining the consequences of the attack. Who has benefited and who has not?

What can be deduced from the consequences does not change the act.

"The National Security State" was not formed as a result of 9/11. The choke chain was tightened.

National Security has been an integral function of government since governments came into existence.

 

[Tanzio]

No, he worked with the CIA at one point, not for the CIA.

Are you suggesting that you are privileged to know who works for and who "worked with the CIA" at any point?

He accomplished the single largest and deadliest terror attack on US soil. You tell me what damage that caused the CIA.

Care to explain how "he accomplished the single largest and deadliest terror attack on US soil?" Were the jets drones controlled by Bin Laden personally?

But first could you supply your definition of "terror attack?" I agree that it was an attack and that Bin Laden was a character in the plot.

It cold be argued that any law enacted or Act passed damages the Constitution...If you are referring to the Patriot Act, then you need to do a lot more to justify your position and take an in depth look at the threat to civil liberties it caused vs the security it gained. It's the US's government duty to provide it's citizens both, but the methods to improve one almost always infringe the ability to provide the other. It's a balance that has to work out over time.

I did not mention the Patriot Act. If you would like to go into deep water with the Constitution and the Patriot Act, I will swim with you. Anything "cold be argued" from any angle.

We could start with exploring who gained security from the Patriot Act and compare that to who lost their rights and liberty as a result of it, but that would be premature until "the US's government duty to provide it's citizens with both" civil liberties and security is explored.

Before we do that citizenship must be defined.

 

[Tanzio]

What can be deduced from the consequences does not change the act.

Of course you avoided the question. It appears that you are defending the position that Bin Laden accomplished 9/11 independently and that you believe that consequences do not define the act.

Is that correct?

National Security has been an integral function of government since governments came into existence.

And?

 

[mac]

Are you suggesting that you are privileged to know who works for and who "worked with the CIA" at any point?

No, but I understand the difference between working for and working with.

Care to explain how "he accomplished the single largest and deadliest terror attack on US soil?" Were the jets drones controlled by Bin Laden personally?

Irrelevant, he masterminded the attack.

But first could you supply your definition of "terror attack?" I agree that it was an attack and that Bin Laden was a character in the plot.

An attack designed to instill terror, and remove a sense of security.

I did not mention the Patriot Act. If you would like to go into deep water with the Constitution and the Patriot Act, I will swim with you. Anything "cold be argued" from any angle.

You mentioned damage to the US Constitution, to which the Patriot Act is often referenced.

We could start with exploring who gained security from the Patriot Act and compare that to who lost their rights and liberty as a result of it, but that would be premature until "the US's government duty to provide it's citizens with both" civil liberties and security is explored.

If you like, but know that I am not an ardent supporter of the Patriot Act as it is written. I know that some action had to be taken in order to improve security and the means to counter such attacks before they occured. I also know that Patriot Act goes to far in some areas.

Before we do that citizenship must be defined.

Citizenship does not need to be defined. That law is clear on who is an isn't a US citizen.

 

[mac]

Of course you avoided the question. It appears that you are defending the position that Bin Laden accomplished 9/11 independently and that you believe that consequences do not define the act.

Is that correct?

I'm not claiming that he operated independantly, I'm claiming (as has been proven) that he masterminded the attack. The attack exists in an of itself regardless of the changes it brought abut afterwards, intentional to the plan or not.

And?

And nothing, you implied a central responsibility of government was somehow an ominous endeavor.

 

[Tanzio]

No, but I understand the difference between working for and working with.

But you just admitted that you do not know whether or not Bin Laden was working for or with the CIA, therefore your understanding of "the difference between working for and working with" is irrelevant to this conversation.

Irrelevant, he masterminded the attack.

. . . working for or with the CIA?

An attack designed to instill terror, and remove a sense of security.

Your definition can be utilized to define any violent act. "Terror attack" is a term utilized to engineer intelligence.

Citizenship does not need to be defined. That law is clear on who is an isn't a US citizen.

Just as the Constitution evolves so does citizenship. It may be clear to you but the majority of us are unclear on the definition post the Citizens United decision. It would appear that there are over 300 million grades of citizenship.

In the current scenario, citizenship is directly proportional to how much you can afford.

 

[mike2810]

Yes, but the question is who was attacked?

The answer to that can be deducted by examining the consequences of the attack. Who has benefited and who has not?

QUOTE]
Care to give your take?

 

[mike2810]

Were the jets drones controlled by Bin Laden personally?

.

Are you saying the jes were "drones" and remotely controlled? If so, please prove.

You make a lot of statements without much backing.

 

[mac]

But you just admitted that you do not know whether or not Bin Laden was working for or with the CIA, therefore your understanding of "the difference between working for and working with" is irrelevant to this conversation.



. . . working for or with the CIA?

I admitted no such thing...and the reporting says that he was not working either for or with the CIA in the lead up to 9/11.

Your definition can be utilized to define any violent act. "Terror attack" is a term utilized to engineer intelligence.

There is a very specific connotation when you use the words terrorism or terrorist attack that is relevant to law enforcement, intelligence and military.

Just as the Constitution evolves so does citizenship. It may be clear to you but the majority of us are unclear on the definition post the Citizens United decision. It would appear that there are over 300 million grades of citizenship.

In the current scenario, citizenship is directly proportional to how much you can afford.

This is just paranoid nonsense.

 

[Tanzio]

Yes, but the question is who was attacked?

The answer to that can be deducted by examining the consequences of the attack. Who has benefited and who has not?

Care to give your take?

A major consequence of the attack is the evolution of individual rights into privileges and the accelerated implementation of corporate super citizenship.

 

[mac]

A major consequence of the attack is the evolution of individual rights into privileges and the accelerated implementation of corporate super citizenship.

Why do you think rights have become privleges and how does corporate anything have to do with the attacks?