9-11 Conspiracy

I'm positing an attempted cover-up that has failed. The memo saying "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the US" was found, and Condi Rice admitted knowing about it, but still stonewalled any attempt to place blame. The Bush Administration's "cover-ups" were merely the same type of thing employed by fundamentalists and children...if you don't acknowledge your responsibility, then you're not responsible. I'm using the Bush Administration's record. Whenever Bush was asked about mistakes, he never gave an answer. When he was presented with a mistake, he tried to deflect blame or would assert that it wasn't a mistake. At the end, all he would say is that historians would judge and that he couldn't spend his time looking to the past. That was his (and the entire admin's) M.O. What makes you think there are transcripts? The 9/11 Commission's questioning of Bush/Cheney was not conducted under oath. What makes you think, if there were a conspiracy that Bush and Cheney knew about, they would have told the commission? If they did tell the truth, you're now expanding the conspiracy to include every memeber of that commission, Republican and Democrat alike, who were tasked with finding the truth now deciding to lie and keep their mouths shut. It has been investigated and the vast majority of the public is content with the findings of that investigation. It would be more productive to investigae things we know happened, such as torture, the lead up to the war, and things, rather than some vague conspiracy of which there is little evidence and of that, most is debunked.

Al Qaeda told us it was Al Qaeda. They made videos about it. Complete with martyrdom videos made by the hijackers. Why isn't Nebraska Man on this list? Someone is wrong. You don't get to pick and choose who, nor accuse whoever is wrong of lying without evidence.My source was the 9/11 Commission, who have more details, had access to more evidence, and present more evidence, including transcripts of who said what to whom.However, I don't see why a few minutes here or there matter --- unless you believe that every small discrepancy is a sign of a vast conspiracy. Please use your hindsight to explain what should have been done. Assume that no-one involved had psychic powers. He was? In what sense was he "in command"? What orders did he give? Golly, it's almost like there was some secret Muslim conspiracy to crash planes into buildings. Thank you for uncovering it. The Pulitzer Prize is in the post. "Having a little fun", eh? You looked more like you were being wrong to me. Perhaps a few smileys next time, eh?Howbeit, if you want a new investigation, I suggest that you spend less time having "fun" with the "controlled demolition" stuff. People will take you more seriously if you don't "have a little fun" by talking nonsense.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Again, here is a "memo" stating that Bin Laden was gonna strike, found after all of the accusations started to come up. The memo does 2 things, (1) Shows a level of incompetency that at that point was so clear that it was expected, but (2) it restates Bin Ladens involvement.I'm skeptical of this particular memo, but whatever, it's unimportant.The cover up I'm refering to has nothing to do with Bin Laden, for now, since I don't know the details of the NORAD screw up and the actions of Cheney. Nor can any of this further impliment Bush/Cheney into a greater cover-up perhaps including his family, and foreign governments. Foreign governments that we, the US, have ties with. And that is why I agreed that it is a viable reason, but there could be more to it than just that. In fact, there could be more to all of their other lies. With the 911 Commision, you are right. Well sort of, there are transcripts but what was prinited was what was approved by the Bush/Cheney admin. However, the transcripts of what took place at NORAD that day and the actual sequence of events and command structures for both: the pre-scheduled wargames and the defense response to the unfolding attacks, are available, but would need to be subpoenaed. To this day none of it has been. Sadly, it hasn't. Here's the thing though, they're not going to investigate that either. They're not going to investigate any of it.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

One video, that's all that exists. One video shown to us by our government. You asked for the videos of them saying it. That was a video of them saying it.Concede and don't be a douche about it. They do not have more details than NORAD's exact timelines.You were wrong again, concede and don't be a douche about it.Plus, more proof that the 911 Commision was lied to if that, in fact, was their actual words. A few minutes...?You were off by 21 minutes, or rather, the 911 Commsion was off by 21 minutes - are you fuck'n serious that that is not a huge time difference...? What should have been done is the person posting to me, that gave me the wrong time frames, verified their source. That is all I was showing - that you and your source were wrong. Are you following my argument, dude?"What orders did he give"...? That's exactly what I'm saying needs to be investigated. According to your 911 Commision source of the timeframes, there was at least 1 thing they got wrong, the timeframes - did Cheney tell them that...?What did he order? Yes, please tell me, because that's all I want to know. It wasn't a Muslim conspiracy, unless you'd like to be the asshole who catagorizes the actions of one, or a few, to represent all of the Muslim faith? That'll be my choice.But hey, if it makes you feel better, I was wrong, I concede on the "controlled demo" - now don't be a douche and concede to the points that you were wrong on. Irrelevant.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Well, we are agreed on one thing;

quote:

---

So, if people support the actions of the suicide bombers, who are representing Al-Qaeda, who is lead, allegedly by Bin Laden, then by default you are supporting Bin Ladens actions. This is all I meant by "them having a different opinon of Bin Laden than the West."

---

Muslim fundies think Bin Laden is great. I agree with that. I fail to see though how any of this supports any conspiracy or cover up though. OBL is a Muslim fundamentalist extremist. Naturally, other Muslim fundamentalists think he kicks ass. They think he kicks ass because he was the guy responsible for 9/11, which they think was a brilliant idea. You just quoted Sam Harris' book! Last time I checked, books were part of the media. Unless you are using first hand information, you are as dependent on the media as any of us.

quote:

---

But will you agree that he is only viewed in ONE way by the West?

---

Not quite no. OBL is viewed pretty much unanimously as being a Muslim terrorist scumbag, but then, that's what he is; unless you are going to try and say that he bears no responsibility for any act of terror, which I can't imagine you are saying.Opinion does vary however about quite how closely OBL manages the day-to-day running of the "global Al Qaeda network". Some people view him as an international puppet-master, like some shitty Bond villain. My view is that OBL is more of a figurehead and fund-raiser. Whilst he is doubtless involved in planning some operations (as he most likely was for 9/11) he is probably only peripherally involved in worldwide terror campaigns.AQ itself is really only a reasonable term to use when applied to the terrorist groups in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Elsewhere in the world it is probably more of a loose affiliation or a kind of franchise. You can say that the London bombings were the work of AQ if you like (there are certainly links between the bombers and international terrorism), but that doesn't mean that OBL had any say in the matter or even knew of them.Nicities like this are often lost in over-simplistic media reporting, leaving some people with the impression that AQ is some monolithic worldwide organisation, with OBL as commander-in-chief. I don't think that is realistic.By the way; there are an awful lot of Muslims in "the West" and they have views of OBL and AQ that run the gamut from demonisation to idolisation.

quote:

---

Nor was it meant to be. It was meant as a comparison to how the western media demonizes one person for henious acts, but says nothing about the others, equally, and sometimes much more, henious acts.

---

Which has nothing to do with any 9/11 conspiracy. Bush and cheney are evil scumbags. So what? it doesn't mean that they were responsible for any conspiracy and it doesn't mean that they were responsible for any cover-up.

quote:

---

In my opinion, they are the same, if not worse, than Bin Laden. But you'll never hear any US news media say this, nor could they ever dream of being that up-front to the public, because they'll lose their advertisers.

---

Which has nothing to do with any 9/11 conspiracy. The poor state of US news media is not relevant, especially not to me. I live in Britain. I am well used to commentators comparing Bush to OBL.

quote:

---

but I don't think Bin Laden was either, at least not without the support of some very powerful governments - governments who MAY have ties with the Bush family.

---

Why would they need governments? they hijacked planes using box-cutters as weapons. I fail to see how any government would be needed for this. In fact, it all looks distinctly home-made.Besides, may well have got support from elements within the Pakistani or Saudi governments, as well as the Taliban. That's not news to anyone. Nor is the Bush family's ties to the Saudi royal family a secret. If you want to go somewhere with this though, you will need more than just "MAY". You need evidence of some kind of conspiracy, which you manifestly do not have.

quote:

---

On one video? That's it...that's all they have. Nothing else.

---

You know full well that that's not true. There is a long line of connections between the bombers and AQ.

quote:

---

And you know this how...?

​

You know this for a fact...?

---

Don't be silly. It's just Occam's razor. Either Bush and his cronies lied to make themselves look better, just like they have done a thousand times, or... What you're suggesting... What were you actually saying happened again? First it was controlled demolitions, now it's some cover-up... I'm confused.

quote:

---

Whoops, sorry...? I hope the families of the victims can accept that as easy as you have.

---

Notably, the 9/11 denial movement is not centred around the families of the deceased.

quote:

---

An investigation on the matter would clear the air.

---

Oh yeah. that worked so well with the Kennedy assassination. The truth is that conspiracy theorists are never satisfied and will continue bleating about this forever. I don't understand you. you say you want an investigation. Yet you also say; and [qs=onifre]How deep does the rabbit hole go...? We'll never know.[/quote]So what's the point?

quote:

---

My world is not NORAD - NORAD doesn't "fuck up" and says "whoops, sorry."

---

That's right. NORAD didn't fuck up beyond not being able to find the planes on their radar, due to the beacons being switched off by the hijackers. The tapes of the radio chatter from NEADS show clearly the confused situation there. Cheney wasn't in control of the situation; no-one was. It all happened too fast. There is no conspiracy here, just SNAFU.

quote:

---

I am not claiming some "mastermind consiparcy", in fact, that is the type of consiparcy crap that gets in the way of actually trying to figure out what happened.

---

Not so long ago you were arguing for a controlled demolition of WTC 7, classic "conspiracy crap". [quote]...Bush, Cheney, the Bush family, etc, we don't know how far the rabbit hole goes.[/qs]Oh please. You don't even know that there is a "rabbit hole".

quote:

---

A few within both governments, now you might be on to something.

---

And who might they be? And what might this "something" be? And what is your evidence?

quote:

---

Don't tell me I'm meerly giving consiracy theory opinions and then reply with a mainstream opinion, who gives a shit, they're BOTH opinions.

---

If you don't want my opinion, why ask about George Bush's motivations for lying? If you want the truth, you'd have to ask George, because he's the only one who knows why he tells porkies. Of course, you won't be able trust a word he says...

quote:

---

But why does one side NOT want an investigation to clear the air of ALL opinions? - Is it meerly for PR reasons?

---

No. It's because the conspiracy wallahs haven't come up with anything credible enough to be worth investigating. It's pretty much the same reason that scientist can't be bothered to fund research into special creation.

quote:

---

I have not said this at all. This is what you're saying I'm saying. You are trying to pigeon-hole my argument into standard, bullshit conspiracy theory crap.

​

What I'm suggesting it implies is that they're covering up information

---

What information. And why? And to what ends? All you can produce is a bunch more questions.Occam's razor applies here and it's a lot kinder to my explanation than yours.

quote:

---

Fact is, you have no evidence to support your assertions that the only reason they are covering up is so they "look good" or "not as bad".

---

Yes I do. The simple fact that lying to save face was standard policy within the Bush administration. That makes the idea that they were lying to save face pretty damn believable in my view.

quote:

---

You are claimng the same leprechaun in the cupboard as I am.

---

No I am not. I am claiming something utterly mundane; that politicians tell fibs to make themselves look better. That is not an extraordinary claim. You can't say the same for this nebulous conspiracy that you're arguing for.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

But the figure of 51 minutes has no more relevance to whether they could have prevented the Pentagon being hit than does Cheney's shoe size.According to the timeline on which you are relying for your figures, the FAA notified NEADS that flight 77 had been hijacked at 09:24. The order to scramble F-16's was given the same minute --- fuck-up? The fighters were airborne six minutes later --- fuck-up? And seven minutes later the Pentagon was hit --- at which point the fighters were still 12 minutes flying time away, and couldn't have prevented it --- fuck-up?Where is the fuck-up? And at what point did they phone Cheney and receive the wrong orders?

No. Yes, those statements were made. But why are they LIES rather than errors? They do, in fact, supply a much more detailed account than NORAD's bare-bones timeline. Clearly one timeline is wrong. Personally, I am going to try to find out which. I wouldn't call that "huge", no. That is not an answer to my question.You claim that NORAD fucked up.What should they have done?You have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, so would you care to suggest one thing that they should have done differently. If you don't know that, then on what basis do you claim that Cheney was "in command"? It was a Muslim conspiracy. The Gunpowder Plot was a Catholic conspiracy. Oklahoma City was a right-wing conspiracy. Pointing these things out does not entail blaming all Muslims, Catholics, or right-wingers respectively.

The apparent disparity between the two accounts of flight 77 are easily resolved by careful reading of the 9/11 Commission Report. Here's what it says in the report: Compare NORAD's timeline: In short, the 9/11 Commission's times for the scramble order and the time the planes were airborne agree perfectly with the times provided by NORAD --- their point in saying that "NORAD heard nothing about the search for American 77" is that at that time NORAD thought they were looking for flight 11, which had already crashed.---I'll let you know if I can find out about flight 175.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Regarding flight 175, this claim; is just nonsense.175 was actually being hijacked at about that time. There is no way the FAA could have known about it. As far as the FAA was concerned, nothing unusual occurred with 175 until 08:47 when its transponder codes changed and that took a while to sink in, given that the controller was somewhat distracted by flight 11's destruction.NEADS were clueless about 175 until about the time it hit the tower.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

There was an earlier thread on this subject: 9/11 conspiracy?

You are quite correct in this observation. No argument here. This is correct as well. Being here I see the truth of your last statement with my own eyes.The majority of the people we are fighting in this valley, and the neighboring valley (Korengal Valley) are actually villagers whose occupations were displaced when the United States pressured the Afghanistan Government into heavily taxing and regulating the logging industry.The vast majority of the people in the Pech and Korengal Valleys were dependent upon logging as it was a vast majority of their exported goods. Not only that, but one of our outposts was actually built on top of a logging mill (which was destroyed).If these things were to happen to me in my own homeland, I would definitely be fighting as well, for free. Never mind if a Taliban or Al-Qaeda member came up to me and offered to pay me to fight them. As we all rightly should do. The fact of the matter though is that the local villagers know about what happened, and it made Osama Bin Laden a hero over-night. I mean, we are talking about the same individual that you said yourself is famous because: Please do bear in mind that you are discussing this matter with an individual who experiences all these things you have mentioned first hand, and from the horse's mouth. Well, as I qualified with my previous statement, my knowledge based on first hand experience. I am curious as to what first hand sources have you acquired your information? I am really curious as to whether this is really the Bush Administration lying, or a demonstration of their ignorance in general. To me it would seem more likely that these are demonstrations of ignorance given the massive amount of examples of the incompetence of the administration. I appreciate that you did make that concession here: This "could be more" is pretty much meaningless unless you have solid evidence demonstrating:
A) The Bush Administration actually had a foreknowledge of the contradictory information.
B) The Bush Administration had the intention of distributing such a lie.Part A is fairly difficult to show, as we have no means of knowing what Dubya knew at the time. We do know what he should have known, but this doesn't mean he or his administration knew it.Take care.Edited by Michamus, : typos

I've explained the apparent discrepancy between the two accounts of flight 77.The differing accounts of flight 175 are also easily explained --- NORAD got it wrong, not the 9/11 Commission. Note that NORAD's timetable was released on 18th September 2001, when confusion still reigned and NORAD was overwhelmed by the initiation of the Noble Eagle effort.The Commission had full access to the NEADS tapes. As do we. This article has the NEADS tapes --- not just transcripts, but the actual audio as well. Note that the first mention of a "possible second hijack" comes at 0903, just seconds before United 175 hit the WTC. NORAD had no time to respond.

Thanks for confirming it, Michamus. Oh I'm well aware of the fact that you are there seeing first hand. And thanks again for confirming it from a first-hand perspective. I use as many independent news outlets as I can find. ZNews.com is very good, in my opinion the best source for non-bias news. However, more to a mainstream level, Reuters and the UK AP is good too. Al Jazeera, the London based one, is also very non-bias. I'd even say the NY Times, sometimes, gives a non-bias opinion in their op-ed pieces.My biggest issue is with the tv. media itself - CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, etc. The hyperbolic, propaganda driven networks that placate to advertiser wishes. It's all bias. It follows party lines and never gives both sides of the issues.Just look at the comparison between the Washington AP article I quoted in the H1N1 thread and the article I provide from ZNews. There is a clear bias in the AP article. There is a shit load of information about the actual source of the virus that is not given in the article, and I challenge you (or anyone else) to find a mainstream article that gives the full story on the source of the virus; I've tried and couldn't find anything.Now we turn our focus to things coming out of White House, like the 911 Commission, and their report. The fact that Cheney and Bush were not under oath, the fact that they interviewed together even though they were told not to, the fact that there seems to be no transcripts, no other witnesses, no family of the victims (who requested to be involved), etc - you have all these factors ADDED to the fact that (1) The Commission and NORAD differ in timelines (according to Cheney's testimony to them), (2) It changed and omitted quite a lot from the original form, (3) The final Commission report had to be approved by Bush/Cheney.With the NORAD issue and timeline differences, as it was reported by the media, which Dr. A provides the reason in his post, it was simply "confusion" that gave the different timelines. This is what was reported by the media - which we know to be bias - and has to be accepted by us. Yet the repot itself doesn't include the testimonies of the actual people working at NORAD and NEADS who have stated that the NORAD original timeline is the correct one. That the phone calls from NEAD came in at 0840, that the mistakes were made by those in command that didn't properly act in time, etc. These testimonies are avaliable online, all be it from labeled "conspiracy" sources. But they were omitted from the 911 Commision's final report.This all points to, IMO, something beyond "whoops, we fucked up". Granted I will have to rely on labeled "conspiracy" theories to provide evidence for my opinon, but that's only the case because the mainstream media has been compromised, they are bias, they withhold a lot of information, they deliberately try to paint a picture based on their bias, so it fits that anything not following these pre-approved opinions doesn't get reported.Even if it ends up being wrong, why not give it the same attention as the other stories, which have also, in the past, proven to be wrong?Bill Hicks used to have a joke that went something like this: "Why do we always see negative drug stories in the news?...". And that always stuck with me. Why don't we see possitive drug stories, hell, I have a shit load of great stories about drugs, but we'll never see it, because there is a media bias towards drugs. So it will always be stories about the negative side of them to continue the anti-drug propaganda that has it's roots in the Alcohol and Pharm industries, respectively. The problem is that the evidence I provide is discredited because it carries with it the "conspiracy" label. Unfortunatly, the "conspiracy" websites are the only ones, to some extent depending on what we're talking about, that have tried to exposed certain truths about the matter. The media, however, builds a propaganda to discredit these sources and makes a mockery out of them, but why? What does anyone actually know about the events on that day that they didn't get from a mainstream source? If the mainstream source of the news is clearly bias, then why should we trust what they say, especially when the report has gone through so many influencial eyes that by the time it hits the airwaves it has been edited to fit the networks opinion? I've been busy with traveling, I'm not trying to avoid answering this, but it will take me sometime to try to connect the dots.I'll provide the best evidence I can find, but note that the sources for this evidence may already be discredited because it comes from a consipracy website.Dr. A, I'll try to reply to your post as soon as I can.- Oni

It very well can be nonsense, but you'll have to explain why you accept the 911 Commissions timeline and reject NORAD's timeline. I direct you to NORAD's timelines that I provide Dr. A with. If you have issue with their timeline then I ask you why?Dr. A's post states that it's because there was confusion at the time and the timlines were given incorrectly. OK. But why do we accept that as the answer? Because that's what we were told?Curiously, have we ever been lied to before by the media?There are testimonies from the people working in both NORAD and NEADS that claim the NORAD timelines are the correct ones. That the mistakes came from top-brass and that there is a cover-up to not expose this. Why don't you believe that side of the story? Because the media didn't repot it that way?- Oni

I'll accept that as a full concession. What is a Muslim "fundie" and do you know for sure that all that agree with Bin Laden are "findies"?(According to Michamus, who is actually there, it's not just "fundies".)Or, is it that anyone who agrees with Bin Laden is automatically labeled a "fundie" by the news media...? Who labeled him this? He had the support of many, many, many Muslims long before 911. OK. I see your point here, and I can accept it.I do admit that I try to disipher, using other sources, what's factual and what seems bias, in both the indie media and mainstream, but shouldn't everyone? - All I'm saying is that we shouldn't just accept what one media source says. By this standard, Bush and the US government are Christian terrorist scumbags. I'm not saying OBL hasn't acted in a way that many in the West consider "terrorism", but IF we view his actions as terrorism, then we must view the actions of the US, UK and it's allies, as terrorism as well.Can you agree with that? Agreed. I would also add that he is supported financially, and perhaps ideologically, by many governments that have ties with the US, and the Bush family due to oil connections. Fair enough... I've never read anything, even from the UK, that has EVER compared Bush to OBL. I'm not doubting you, hell I wish they would, but could you provide an artcile or two that shows this comparison? You are just looking at the act itself. Look at the whole picture, from them getting visas to taking flight classes. Financing the attacks is a very important issue, who did finance it? The 911 Commission decided that "it was of little significance"...do you agree with that? Because I don't.Perhaps it was deemed "of little significant" because it pointed to too many people who didn't want to be signaled out?If we didn't have a bias media however, we would have plenty of information on who financed that attack, we don't, so we're fucked. I'll do my best to provide the connections, just give me a little time. We were talking about Bin Laden. What connects Bin Laden to the attacks? You said "He admited to it"...I said "yes he did, but only on 1 video"...Now, can you provide evidence for more of a connection, other than that video? - we were not discussing the "bombers". Don't be confused.I'm saying that their agreed upon lies - (which I noticed you are now calling "lies") - can have more to it than just "make themselves look better".To say that our government didn't anticipate the attacks, that there was never any idea of planes being used as missiles, that no administration could have predicted this, that the US had no plan to deal with such an attack, is such a outrageous lie, and so insulting to us, that their boldface bullshitting the American public should have been cause for impeachment!This is, for fuck's sake, the US government, the US military, so lets not pretend that they could fumble this that bad and simply make a mistake in what they said. This lie was deliberate. In the mass confusion they were able to salvage it by saying that they made "a mistake" when they said this, but that is also bullshit.The US government is NOT that stupid, they may give that impression because it can be used as an excuse when pressed for information, but they're not stupid. You don't become the worlds superpower being that stupid. But I'll agree that this is just a matter of opinion. I say "we'll never know" because we won't get the investigation that I'd like to see. In fact, there probably is no more info on it, because it has been made to disappear.And what do you mean by the Kennedy reference? What are "conspiracy theorist" not satisfied with? Oswald as the lone shooter? Are you satisifed with that? There's more to it, but I'll answer it when I reply to Dr. A.Again, I'll do my best to provide the infromation, remembering though that mainstream news sources can't be used for this. The issue here is bigger than "politicians telling lies". We are also talking about misinformation from the government, bias opinions from the media, connections between Bush and the governments that funded the attacks, timeline differences in 2 independent reports - however one report comes directly from the Bush/Cheney interview with the 911 Commission - but I guess more needs to be done by me to provide evidence for these connections. So, I'll try.- Oni