BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Twin Towers conspiracy theory site

  
  

Page: 12(3)4

 
 
Tryphena Absent
11:29 / 17.09.03
Isn't the whole point of a conspiracy that it's a secret?

Well, no actually... conspiracy suggests an illegal action that attempts to be covered up. That doesn't mean that the conspirators manage to do so or that because it is revealed it is less of a conspiracy. It's not an oxymoron at all, let us consult dictionary.com for a little definition-

An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
A group of conspirators.
Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

Of course I don't think this is a conspiracy and I agree with the gerneral theme behind Jack Fear's post so I don't know why I'm pointing this out.
 
 
w1rebaby
21:14 / 17.09.03
I feel like a damn paranoid talking about "them", but we don't really know who pulls the strings, do we?

I think the known participants are quite clever enough to pull things off.
 
 
GreenMann
11:14 / 18.09.03
fridgemagnet, by "them" you mean of course the shape-shifters right?
 
 
Quantum
12:35 / 18.09.03
People conspire. Jack Fear, you're confusing my use of the word, I'm writing about conspiracy and you're reading THE conspiracy. I repeat, I don't think there's an illuminatus cabal controlling the whole world, but small groups of people act immorally, illegally and nepotistically to promote their own interests at the expense of others, and hide it- they are conspiracies.
The fact that there's a load of fucked up conspiracies on public record makes me think that it's possible some conspiracies succeed and aren't on public record. Don't you think?

the poison weed has no single root, only branches and stems, and must be fought back on a thousand fronts at once.
exactly. If there were a single cause there could be a single solution, which is nice and simple and what people yearn for.
 
 
Not Here Still
17:29 / 18.09.03
OPB Jrod: WHO PAID YOU??

Shit, I could be getting paid to do this? Where do I sign up?

OPB GreenMann: Not Me Again, i agree this subject is confusing at times, and there is an old saying "the less you know the better".
Why not make life easier for yourself and forget these conspiracy theories.

Thanks. You're the best. Anyway, what conspiracy theories?

Accept the official explanation that Osama carried out the 911 attacks; that Saddam was planning a WMD attack on US/UK but, in the end, just didn't, and that, because Iraq is so big, we haven't found evidence of the WMD "programmes" (i.e. paperwork) just yet and, at the end of the day, as the Sun says, it's all the BBC's fault.
See, it all makes sense now doesn't it?


1; I don't accept that Osama carried out the attacks; they were suicide missions, and he was seen alive after them. From the best that I can understand having looked into diverse sources on the matter, including non-Western newspapers and websites, 19 hijackers with links to al Qaida, an umbrella organisation or 'inspiration' to certain fanatics carried out the attacks. Apparently,. I have just discovered too, some of them were Saudi Arabian! Wow.

2; Well, Saddam probably did plan a WMD attack on both the US and UK. He probably planned what he'd do if he broke into Scrooge McDuck's magical pit of money after catching Duck Tales on tv once as well, but it doesn't mean he had the capability to carry out either plan, does it? See my next point.

3; I should think some evidence of weapons of mass destruction 'programmes' will, eventually, be found. There were, as far as can be ascertained from UN literature, weapons of mass destruction programmes in Iraq. As Hans Blix pointed out today, however, it looks more and more likely that Iraq was probaly fairly free of such weapons far earlier than was thought. And I don't believe the evidence will be current.

4; Have you seen the Vicar of Bloody Dibley? God, I'd blame anything on the BBC after that.

Personally, I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. Theories are, by definition, not fact; they are someone theorising about an event. But just because I don't happen to believe every conspiracy theory and am willing to take a step back if someone starts spouting, say, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it doesn't mean I don't think that, in the words of Bill Hicks, "All Governments are Liars and Murderers."

I prefer to think for myself about subjects, rather than accept things I'm told - official or conspiracy - at face value...
 
 
Pingle!Pop
09:05 / 19.09.03
Theories are, by definition, not fact

Surely theories are, by definition, speculations based on the potential that they could be factual? The fact that they are not *confirmed* to be fact (and, often, never will be) does not necessarily mean that they are false. Schrodinger's cat: the speculation that "the cat is dead" cannot be confirmed, but could well be fact.

[threadrot, if it wasn't already] (And, arguably, nothing can be more certain than "a theory, albeit a very likely one"; I'd challenge anyone to produce a statement which is unquestionably true...) [/threadrot, if it wasn't already]

I should think some evidence of weapons of mass destruction 'programmes' will, eventually, be found.

From a position of ignorance... how long can it take to scour a country for evidence of WMD "programmes"? I'm assuming they'd be looking for places in which the things would be developed, which surely couldn't be particularly small, and one would think at least one of those thousands of soldiers swarming all over the place would notice something if it were there. Though I suppose they aren't trying particularly hard, having seemingly more or less "gotten away with it" and being not too bothered about justifying the war retrospectively (and given that justification could probably only really be based on what was known beforehand, the insubstantialtiy of which is already pretty public, it would be difficult to claim the finding of WMD "programmes" as justification anyway).

I'm tired and possibly still have alcohol in my system from last night; I intend to use these facts as a disclaimer to any complete rubbish I may have written above.
 
 
Morpheus
21:05 / 19.09.03
We again prove to the world that we are all ugly bullies willing to kill our own for the greater good/bad.
The end is near. (That was an echo)
 
 
Ray Fawkes
02:29 / 20.09.03
Surely theories are, by definition, speculations based on the potential that they could be factual?

Theories can also by, by definition, conjecture - that is to say inference from defective presumption - which describes most of the theory here and elsewhere about 9-11 quite accurately, if you ask me. A whole lot of people seem to be throwing wild assumptions around in the so-called search for truth...

Even approaching the question from a "cui bono" angle is faulty - it assumes that anybody who appears to benefit must have been involved. Read The Onion's article about the JFK assassination in the excellent "Our Dumb Century" for the logical result of this kind of thinking.

What are the facts that we know? If you aren't willing to accept anything you've been told, then there's no point in conjecture - you're working on a completely blank slate. If you are willing to accept some of what you've been told, how do you decide what does or doesn't qualify?

What you can apply a "cui bono" approach to is conspiracy theory itself. Most of the people who throw 9-11 theories my way seem to be choosing the one that most comfortably dovetails with their own political thoughts and feelings. Isn't that just a little bit lazy?
 
 
Jrod
05:39 / 20.09.03
You make many good points, Ray. However, you may be a little too dismissive of using "cui bono" as an investigative tool. Isn't finding a motive a large part of solving any crime? If Bush and his handlers were looking for the political capital to take over the world or whatever they're doing, 9/11 provided it. And certainly, bin Laden and those he inspires had plenty of motivation as well. As far as I'm concerned, both of these groups are on the suspect list of this unsolved crime.

If you aren't willing to accept anything you've been told, then there's no point in conjecture - you're working on a completely blank slate. If you are willing to accept some of what you've been told, how do you decide what does or doesn't qualify?

Damn good question. I suppose everything we're told has to be judged on several merits: who's telling, when are they telling, does it contradict what we were told before, do other sources agree with what's told, does what we're told make sense in light of current events, yadda yadda, etc. In other words, employ some critical reasoning.

Based on what we "know", there's some good reason to believe that the current US administration had foreknowledge of the attacks, and was prepared to capitalize upon them. There's a massive amount of FBI paperwork on the terrorists who would commit these crimes, and warnings from foreign intelligence. It's possible that this was simply a failure of intelligence, but the "fact" that there were no mass firings and the "fact" that even more money is being sunk into the apparatus that supposedly failed does not really support this. It would seem that the people in charge were quite satisfied with the job intelligence did. If that was the case, it seems reasonable to consider that the top decision-makers were aware that the attacks would happen, but did nothing to stop them. Conjecture? I suppose it is. I wasn't there.

Then, after the attack, rather than take measures to dramaticly improve the civil defense, we've been treated to tax-cuts, two foreign wars (both ongoing), mass arrests of arabs, weakening of civil rights, a silly useless color "warning" system, consolidation of federal intelligence agencies, and instructions to cover our windows in duct tape. While some of these may help deter terrorist attacks, it's takes quite a lot of conjecture to say that the actions of the federal gov't have made us safer since 9/11. Here's some more conjecture: the Bush administration does not seem overly concerned with the safety of the American people, though they seem quite concerned with seeming quite concerned about our safety.

Also, the administration has a history of lying quite freely, and why wouldn't they when it's apparently so easy to get away with it? It's a "fact" that a disinformation campaign apparently designed to equate Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda was very successful. If polls are to be believed, a majority of Americans believe Hussein helped plan the 9/11 attacks, although nobody who's actually studied the matter thouroughly considers this possible. "Certainly" nobody in the Bush administration believes it. Yet hardly a White House press conference goes by without 9/11 coming up in response to a question about Iraq.

Finally, there hardly seems to be a problem with assuming there's a conspiracy in the government. All government, really. Unless we assume that all our world leaders are simply completely altruistic, then we have to assume that they expect some form of personal gain from ruling. If their personal goals are not something that the public, other members of the government, or members of other governments would tolerate, then conspiracy is their only recourse. Frankly, I'd be more surprised to find that the Bush administration was totally caught flat-footed on 9/11 and has since been trying to make us all safer, than to find that they planted bombs in the WTC.

Crap, there goes my political bias again! So what conclusion can be drawn from my confusing, contradicting, and run-on filled synopsis? Allow me to quote myself: "We don't know shit."

But somthing stinks.

P.S. As for getting paid for disinformation, let me make it clear to any massive conspiracies that I am for sale. I can spread lies to the fools at Barbelith for a fair sum. Are you reading this, Reptilians? And to the clever folks at Barbelith, rest assured that if I change my views in the coming weeks, it's simply because of, uh, soul-searching. Yeah, that works.
 
 
Ray Fawkes
00:08 / 21.09.03
While an investigative approach initiated with an assumed motive might seem attractive, it has a tendency to lead you down the garden path of personal prejudice rather easily. Motive is useful to explain the alleged activities of an investigative subject, but it isn't any kind of proof.

I'm curious about this: many people seem to think it's a given that the current administration had some kind of warning about the 9-11 attacks - opinions as to the extent and granularity of that warning are varied. But is foreknowledge a crime? Even if they failed to prevent the attacks? Put it this way: how could the government have acted to fend off the attacks without violating the perceived right to freedom and convenience for their population?

Even if they were warned, a failure to prevent the attacks is not necessarily evidence of complicity. It may just as easily be evidence of incompetence. It may even be evidence of superior strategy on the part of the attackers.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
11:53 / 22.09.03
What are the facts that we know? If you aren't willing to accept anything you've been told, then there's no point in conjecture - you're working on a completely blank slate. If you are willing to accept some of what you've been told, how do you decide what does or doesn't qualify?

Well... as JRod says, we *know* nothing. But we do have extremely good reason to believe that just about every part of the "official" line on 9/11, Iraq etc. is a lie. And therefore, while the following...

While an investigative approach initiated with an assumed motive might seem attractive, it has a tendency to lead you down the garden path of personal prejudice rather easily. Motive is useful to explain the alleged activities of an investigative subject, but it isn't any kind of proof.

... may be (well, almost certainly is) true, it doesn't mean that such an approach should be considered useless. For the most part, the theories stated on this thread are based on "knowledge" (for the sake of argument, I'd think it reasonable to consider this defined by possession of pieces of information which are sufficiently reliable and significant as to make the odds that the assertion made is untrue low enough as to be negligible) of certain untruths told by the US/UK governments, and speculate in order to attempt to fill the gaps more plausibly. Perhaps the purpose of all these speculations is to produce possible explanations for the "truth" of everything that occurred which are likely enough, considering what is "known" and other significantly probable pieces of information, to be worthy of consideration/investigation, and perhaps reach some reasonable conclusions. And if not, it's still arguably a worthwhile activity for people to question everything, even if for no particular purpose.

But yes, while admittedly many of the theories being discussed here do perhaps fit with my political worldview (or is my political worldview formed in part by the reasonableness of questions such as these?), I believe them to be worth following up as they seem, at very least, vastly more likely than the governments' explanation of events. Surely speculations such as, "The US (government) had prior knowledge of the attacks," and, "The US had plans for extremely dodgy ways to take advantage of public opinion if such an event were to occur," aren't dismissably unlikely claims?

How could the government have acted to fend off the attacks without violating the perceived right to freedom and convenience for their population? Even if they were warned, a failure to prevent the attacks is not necessarily evidence of complicity. It may just as easily be evidence of incompetence. It may even be evidence of superior strategy on the part of the attackers.

Is "complicity" defined, in this case, as actually having a hand in the attacks, or as just letting them happen? Is the latter effectively the same as the former? The evidence to suggest the US government actually had a hand in planning or carrying out 9/11 is, indeed, rather shaky. However, there's certainly quite a lot of evidence to suggest that they didn't do nearly as much as they "should" have done; as others have said, the protocol for suspected hijacked planes didn't seem to executed nearly as effectively as usual, more or less nothing was done about the whole thing for a rather bizarrely long time, when fighters were finally sent up they weren't sent from the closest base etc... it seems that a lot more could have, and in most similar situations would have, been done to at least *attempt* to prevent or lessen the situation. If one were to assume that the US government could have prevented the attacks easily, would their not doing so have been pretty much as bad as orchestrating the whole thing?
 
 
grant
15:00 / 22.09.03
Philly News: WHY DON'T WE HAVE ANSWERS TO THESE 9/11 QUESTIONS?

This is the mainstream news. They have a list of 20 questions that have never been answered, including:

5. Did any of the hijackers smuggle guns on board as reported in calls from both Flight 11 and Flight 93?

Quite possibly. An internal Federal Aviation Administration memo written at 5:30 p.m. on the day of the attacks said that a passenger aboard American Airlines Flight 11 - Israeli-American Daniel Lewin - had been shot to death by a single bullet before the jet slammed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. The FAA insists the memo was a mistaken "first draft," even though the alleged shooting is described in great detail.

Aboard Flight 93, passenger Thomas Burnett told his wife, Deena, in a 9:27 a.m. cell-phone call: "The hijackers have already knifed a guy, one of them has a gun, and they are telling us there is a bomb on board."

Why has this angle of Sept. 11 not been investigated in more detail?


and

8. How did Flight 93 crash in western Pennsylvania?

The most popular version - that heroic passengers who fought with the hijackers successfully stormed the cockpit - has become so widely accepted that people were jarred last month when an Associated Press report seemed to contradict it. The AP story took one line out of a congressional report and wrote that the FBI now believes the hijackers crashed the plane on purpose.


and

16. What was the role of Pakistan's spy agency in the Sept. 11 attacks and the subsequent murder of U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl?

The idea that Pakistan is considered a leading American ally in the war on terror is both ironic and a bit disturbing when one considers that there are proven links between Pakistan's intelligence agency, the notorious ISI, and the Taliban, as well as likely ties to al Qaeda and bin Laden.

In October 2001, the Wall Street Journal and many reputable news organizations in South Asia reported that the head of the ISI, Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, was fired after being linked to a $100,000 payment that had been wired to al Qaeda hijacker Mohamed Atta in America to pay for the Sept. 11 attacks. The New York Times said the intelligence service even used al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan to train covert operatives for use in a war of terror against India.



There's more detail under each of those, and for the other 17 questions.

The final one is, of course, "Where is Osama Bin Laden"?

Chilling, creepy stuff:

But this week, ABC News reported that the hunt for bin Laden has been narrowed to a different area - a 40-square-mile section of the Waziristan region of Pakistan. The report said that local residents suspected of trying to inform Americans about bin Laden's whereabouts were executed in broad daylight.
 
 
Ray Fawkes
21:19 / 22.09.03
If one were to assume that the US government could have prevented the attacks easily, would their not doing so have been pretty much as bad as orchestrating the whole thing?

I think the salient question is: could the US government have prevented the attacks "easily"? How easy is it to verify what's going to happen? Where it's going to happen? Even trying to verify it while it was happening must have been mind-bending. What kind of decisions should they have been prepared to make? Until that point, nobody had ever used a filled commuter jet as a tactical weapon. Had the government been forced to shoot down the jets, for example, we'd no doubt be debating their motives for doing so now.

Your question about whether complicity is any less despicable than opportunism after the fact is interesting...and worth bearing out. One wonders, when addressing it, where the line is drawn between acting on the urge to self-preservation and acting in destructive self-interest. Can we qualify the actions of the current administration on one side or the other, or are they too complicated to approach that way?

One thing I find interesting: conspiracy theory often tends to paint the participants in black/white us/them terms. Aren't these the terms we're so eager to see go out of fashion in our own governments?
 
 
rizla mission
21:26 / 22.09.03
ooh - that's an interesting bunch of stuff. Very conspiratorial for (what I assume is) a mainstream news site.

I particularly like:

. Who made a small fortune "shorting" airline and insurance stocks before Sept. 11?

On Sept. 10, 2001, the trading ratio on United Airlines was 25 times greater than normal at the Pacific Exchange, where traders could buy "puts," high-risk bets that the price of a company's stock will fall sharply. The next day, two hijacked United jetliners crashed, causing the company's shares to plummet and ultimately leading the airline into bankruptcy. CBS News later reported that at intelligence agencies, "alarm bells were sounding over unusual trading in the U.S. stock options market" on the day before the attacks.

The unusual stock trading suggests that someone with a sophisticated knowledge of finance also had advance information about the impending attack. But two years later, no one has been charged in this matter, and officials have not indicated even if the probe is still open.


and

4. Are all 19 people identified by the government as participants in the Sept. 11 attacks really the hijackers?

Probably not. Just 10 days after the attacks, a report by the British Broadcasting Corp. said that some of the supposed hijackers identified by the FBI appeared to be alive and well. The BBC story said Abdelaziz al-Omari, named as the pilot who crashed the jet into the World Trade Center's North Tower, was reported by Saudi authorities to be working as an electrical engineer. He reported his passport had been stolen in Denver in 1995. Saudi officials said it was possible that another three people whose names appear on the FBI list also are alive.

to say nothing of;

19. What is in the 28 blacked-out pages of the congressional Sept. 11 report?

It's not a total mystery. Everyone has acknowledged that the pages contain highly embarrassing information about links between the Sept. 11 hijackers and the government of Saudi Arabia, America's supposed ally in the Middle East and home to the world's largest oil reserves. One of those officials is said to be Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar, whose wife, Princess Haifa, indirectly funded at least two of the Sept. 11 terrorists during their time in San Diego. The prince is so close to the Bush family that he's known, incredibly, as "Bandar Bush." This week, Time reports that just after the Sept. 11 attacks, when U.S. commercial airspace was still closed to our citizens, Bush allowed a jet to stop at 10 U.S. cities to pick up and fly home 140 prominent Saudis, including relatives of bin Laden.

A new must-read book by investigative reporter Posner - "Why America Slept" - takes the conspiracy to the highest of levels of the Saudi government. He says a top bin Laden lieutenant, Abu Zubaydah, who was captured in March 2002, stunned investigators when - allegedly given the "truth serum" sodium pentothal - fingered three top Saudis. They were Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, the Westernized owner of 2002 Kentucky Derby winner War Emblem; Prince Turki al-Faisal bin Abdul Aziz, the kingdom's longtime intelligence chief, and Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir.

The most incredible part of the story is what happened next. In an eight-day period in late July 2002, Prince Ahmed died at age 43 from a heart attack, Prince Turki died in a car crash and Prince Fahd "died of thirst." Coincidence? What do you think?


Now there's some conspiracy you can get yr. teeth into..
 
 
w1rebaby
23:34 / 22.09.03
The Daily News is a pretty left-wing, pretty intelligent tabloid. The other paper they publish, the Philadelphia Inquirer, is more a liberal middle-class broadsheet, but has unusual flashes sometimes - for instance, today, along with the platforms of the two major mayoral candidates, it published the platform of the Socialist Workers Campaign candidate, who appears actually quite radical, not just "American socialist" ("Staggs said that crime was caused in part by a breakdown of human solidarity in a society that pits people against one another. He argues that the most important street crime to fight today is the crime of police brutality." are not comments that are exactly mainstream).
 
 
Pingle!Pop
08:53 / 23.09.03
I think the salient question is: could the US government have prevented the attacks "easily"?

Sorry, I should have made that last part slightly clearer; I didn't mean to actually suggest that they could have prevented the attacks "easily", but to present it as a hypothetical question, based on a more extreme version of events than I believe to be the case, i.e. that the government knew enough to have reasonable suspicions that something along the lines of 9/11 may have been about to happen, and that they did much less than their protocol reaction would dictate. Points made by others earlier: "if a jet goes off-course, it is assumed to be a hijacking and necessary precautions, such as sending up fighters, are taken", "it took an unusually long time for the government to send anything up at all, and when they did, it was from miles away"...

... But yes, the point was more regarding "whether complicity is any less[/more] despicable than opportunism after the fact". Though that is, perhaps, an unanswerable moral question which could have its own thread in the Headshop (any takers?) rather than being relevant to explanations of what actually happened on and around 9/11. But could you explain more what you mean by (or how you would apply) "acting on the urge to self-preservation" and "acting in destructive self-interest"? The urge to "self"-preservation (of the government) by not shooting jets down and causing a scandal? The urge to "self"-preservation (of the people) by doing so, and saving the lives of thousands in the WTC? The urge to self-preservation by being complicit in the affair in order to achieve long-term "self-preservation" goals (e.g. those expressed in the PNAC "manifesto" advocating complete American power)? And the same questions regarding definition of "acting in destructive self-interest"...

(Sorry, a lack of answers there, but I need to know the intended meaning before I talk nonsense about something irrelevant...)

One thing I find interesting: conspiracy theory often tends to paint the participants in black/white us/them terms. Aren't these the terms we're so eager to see go out of fashion in our own governments?

Mmm, yes. Perhaps 'tis because conspiracy theories are generally based on arguing against the official line; therefore, they can often only be portrayed as, "This is what they're saying," and, "This is what we're suggesting instead." Null hypothesis, alternative hypothesis. But while of course "black/white us/them" terms aren't what most would like to see in our own governments, is it possible for them not to exist in conspiracy theory? And if so, does the pressure to avoid them lie with the theorists? While different "extremes" of conspiracy are put forward, which could arguably constitute shades of grey, what is being argued against is always the same (in this case, "We knew nothing and we did everything we could to limit damage"), and therefore, would not anything disagreeing with it automatically create a "black/white" dichotomy? I think the desire for a government which thinks in less "black/white" terms probably applies more to areas of policy than to what they say... e.g. not saying, "Asylum seekers are evil," or, "All drugs are evil and should be treated equally harshly," etc. But [point at which paragraph simply becomes a pointless ramble] I'd consider conspiracy theories to be comparable to any other argument, and it would seem to depend on perception as to whether or not an argument is a "black/white" thing; if one side holds one view/stance and the other holds another, does that make the matter "black/white" (any way to avoid repeatedly using that phrase?) or does it, by presenting alternatives, create a whole spectrum of grey inbetween [ramble, ramble, ramble]?
 
 
Not Here Still
17:54 / 23.09.03
Well, I have to say I agree with Ray in a lot of ways. (Hey! That rhymed!)

The binary opposition argument (ie: black/white, off/on, with/against) certainly seems to suck.

For instance, and this is slightly unfair, I realise, Mme Angelique:

But we do have extremely good reason to believe that just about every part of the "official" line on 9/11, Iraq etc. is a lie.

would lead us to discount this: We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," Mr Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation.

Not fair to your line of argument, I think, and yes, I noted the use of 'just about', but it is easy to take things and distort them to fit an easy view - that American Foreign policy is totally evil, or that all Arabs are terrorists, for instance.

The shades of grey argument is certainly an interesting one, but it is kind of what I've been aiming at anyway. I don't really believe the US administration, or the British administration, on a lot of things - I think that might be fairly obvious from my postings elsewhere on Barbelith. But I also refuse to discvount what they tell me just because I can't trust some of it.

The problem with conspiracy theories can be that they polarise an issue to such an extent there is no shade of grey. That's what I've been moaning about in this thread anyway.

Oh, and as an aside - when I said there would be evidence of programmes found, I was talking about, say, a dusty notebook with a drawing of a centrifuge in it buried in some frightened scientist's backyard. Not weapons - as I said, and Hans Blix also said, finding these is almost certainly not going to happen.

But some dusty notebook with a few equations and a centrifuge diagram, and we got ourselves a programme...
 
 
Jrod
07:19 / 24.09.03
I'm curious about this: many people seem to think it's a given that the current administration had some kind of warning about the 9-11 attacks - opinions as to the extent and granularity of that warning are varied. But is foreknowledge a crime? Even if they failed to prevent the attacks?

Well, if they did know about the attacks, and failed to do anything to prevent them, they would be accessories to 3000+ murders. That's a rather pointless arguement, though. (I wouldn't want to be the prosecutor of that case, believe me.)

Much of the most blatant speculation is fueled, in part, by this administration's apparant refusal to tell the truth about anything. Certainly, this cannot prove anything, but it is enough to set a mind thinking. And, after thinking about it too long, a mind might just decide that the worst must be true.

I really don't think anyone here has fallen into that trap, but it's definitely a prevailant trait among hardcore paranoid conspiracy theorists. Actually, I think those in power welcome this, as the more outlandish theories (like the one that started this thread) help make all conspiracy researchers seem rediculous. Not to mention those researchers who insist on connecting everything to THE CONSPIRACY (Icke comes to mind).

I do agree that most conspiracy theory is crazy BS. I don't, however, think that mundane conspiracy is uncommon. People in power will abuse that power to gain more power. Or maybe just money. That's been the way of the world since civilization began, unfortunately. So, just as we shouldn't assume that conspiracy must be true, we shouldn't assume it to be false. Assume nothing...

Maybe the most we can gain from this idle speculation is some insight into why we think the way we do. At least, that's all I've gained from it. We're certainly not going to crack the 9/11 mystery in this forum...
 
 
Ray Fawkes
12:39 / 24.09.03
Well, if they did know about the attacks, and failed to do anything to prevent them, they would be accessories to 3000+ murders.

No, they wouldn't. To be an accessory to murder, you don't just have to know how the crime is going to go down, you also have to "encourage or assist". That means you're accusing the government of both possessing the knowledge to prevent the crime and actively making it easier to commit it. Since the criminals died in the process, the second definition of accessory, which is assisting the criminal in escaping justice, is not relevant.

Even if you wanted to accuse the administration of depraved indifference murder (and even if you could charge an entire administration as a single body), you'd have a hard time making your case. That's a charge stating that the murder resulted from reckless or wanton behavior, in which that reckless behavior causes imminent danger to the victim.

Can you prove that the administration had enough information to act effectively to prevent the attacks? If not, can you prove that they acted in any way differently than they would if they had no foreknowledge? If not, your accusation is baseless.

But that's what conjecture is for, isn't it?
 
 
Ray Fawkes
12:43 / 24.09.03
That is to say: conjecture like this - and conspiracy theory in general, seems to be about bolstering one's current social/political prejudice with baseless statements taken as fact.
 
 
Not Here Still
17:16 / 24.09.03
[off topic smug bastardness]

OPB: me!

Oh, and as an aside - when I said there would be evidence of programmes found, I was talking about, say, a dusty notebook with a drawing of a centrifuge in it buried in some frightened scientist's backyard. Not weapons - as I said, and Hans Blix also said, finding these is almost certainly not going to happen.

Iraq survey group report leak: "...according to the source, the report will say its inspectors have not even unearthed "minute amounts of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons material".
They have also not uncovered any laboratories involved in deploying weapons of mass destruction and no delivery systems for the weapons.
But ...the report would publish computer programmes, files, pictures and paperwork which it says shows that Saddam Hussein's regime was attempting to develop a weapons of mass destruction programme."


See Nick's thread.

[On Topic Question]

How many people actually believe the theory that started this thread, ie that explosives were placed in the twin towers?

Put me down as a 'no.'
 
 
Pingle!Pop
10:08 / 25.09.03
For instance, and this is slightly unfair, I realise, Mme Angelique:

But we do have extremely good reason to believe that just about every part of the "official" line on 9/11, Iraq etc. is a lie.

would lead us to discount this: We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," Mr Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation.

Slightly unfair, indeed... you acknowledge the inclusion of "just about" in that sentence, and surely that phrase is enough to indicate that I wouldn't immediately dismiss anything the governments said; though as a general rule, the sentence does mean I would take a defaul stance of "highly skeptical" with regards to anything the governments say until further investigation/analysis/consideration. However, it doesn't take much further consideration to show that particular statement as true (or "with negligible chance of being untrue", or whatever); Bush's motivation for saying it would be incredibly difficult to ascertain if it weren't the case... I have the feeling he wouldn't be too quiet about it if he actually did have any evidence (even, "Some bloke in a pub told one of my weapons inspectors..." would seem to be sufficient)...

It is easy to take things and distort them to fit an easy view - that American Foreign policy is totally evil, or that all Arabs are terrorists, for instance.

... And again: not "totally evil". Just... well, "mostly evil". It's not a brush with which to tar any future declarations, but as it currently stands, for every area in which American foreign policy shines, a fine ethical example for all aspiring "civilised" people, there are about ten which range from "imperfect" to "horrific".

Some dusty notebook with a few equations and a centrifuge diagram, and we got ourselves a programme...

... Enough evidence, certainly, to appease those who want to believe the whole "it's about WMDs" thing. Which, worryingly, is probably enough to have a marked effect on opinion polls. *Sigh*...

Much of the most blatant speculation is fueled, in part, by this administration's apparant refusal to tell the truth about anything. Certainly, this cannot prove anything, but it is enough to set a mind thinking. And, after thinking about it too long, a mind might just decide that the worst must be true.

We can believe barely anything for certain, and therefore know nothing? I was intrigued to note at some point that psychological tests have "proven" that if people lack explanations for anything, they will almost invariably make anything up that fits in. Which seems fairly evident in conspiracy theory. And, if you look for it, in much of religion... (though usually, when an explanation in a holy book is discovered to be wrong, with pretty much irrefutable evidence, e.g. "The world was created three thousand years ago", the official line, other than a few fundamentalists continuing to shout, "No! It is true! It is! It is!", runs along the lines of, "Oh, it was only actually meant as a metaphor...". Er, take that to another thread?)

I do agree that most conspiracy theory is crazy BS.

Depends what counts as conspiracy theory, really. If the government says, "We are certain that Iraq is holding huge stockpiles of WMDs," and someone else says, "Er... I don't think so," it's... presumably technically a conspiracy. But pretty much anyone who knows a few of the facts would agree, so it's just taken more or less as granted... perhaps "most prolific, highly-debated conspiracy theory is..." would be more accurate.

To be an accessory to murder, you don't just have to know how the crime is going to go down, you also have to "encourage or assist".

And what counts as "assisting"? Does not acting as per protocol count? If a security guard usually locks a door every night, but, knowing that a friend is going to break in on one particular night, leaves it open instead, is he aiding the friend by not acting as the impediment he would usually be?

(Of course, all still hypothetical; whether or not the US government did intentionally do less than they usually would have in a similar situation remains up in the air...)

Can you prove that the administration had enough information to act effectively to prevent the attacks? If not, can you prove that they acted in any way differently than they would if they had no foreknowledge? If not, your accusation is baseless.

"No" the former, and "no" to the latter, too. But to say that an accusation is entirely baseless unless *proof* can be given for the foundations seems a little odd. If I had enough evidence to be twenty per cent sure of the former, or twenty per cent sure of the latter, would the accusation be baseless? What about if I were fifty per cent sure? Ninety? 99.99? That's surely incredibly black and white: if you can't be one hundred per cent certain, you have no grounds to argue anything. This is all conspiracy theory; if anyone had proof of the above statements, it would be established fact, not conjecture.

That is to say: conjecture like this - and conspiracy theory in general, seems to be about bolstering one's current social/political prejudice with baseless statements taken as fact.

But it's not taken as fact. As JRod says, assume nothing. It is, simply, a matter of possible explanations being put forward for debate. And although obviously it's not inherent in conspiracy theories to be backed by logical reason - one could assert that the whole world is run by giant lizards - in this case, the statements made aren't baseless - they are created from other statements which, with our current knowledge, have a not insignificant chance of being true.

How many people actually believe the theory that started this thread, ie that explosives were placed in the twin towers?

Does anyone? Though I'd give it, say, a 0.001% chance of being true, and if that's a reasonable figure, then it's perhaps enough to say one shouldn't just discount it.
 
 
Ray Fawkes
12:18 / 25.09.03
And what counts as "assisting"? Does not acting as per protocol count?[...]

Your example does not apply directly to this case. If the speculation was that the government encouraged relaxed security in airports just before the attacks, it would make sense. But the protocols you mentioned above were for intercepting perceived threats...and we can't be sure what they did or did not know was happening that morning. To match up with the events we're discussing, your hypothetical might be better suited if a security guard interrupted criminals during a robbery and drew his pistol too slowly to stop them from shooting an innocent bystander. Would you accuse him of abetting the crime?

But to say that an accusation is entirely baseless unless *proof* can be given for the foundations seems a little odd.

To be perfectly clear: allegation of a crime without proof is baseless: it has no basis in demonstrable fact. If you had enough evidence to be 20%, 50%, or 90% sure, the accusation wouldn't be baseless...because you'd have some kind of proof. The absence of evidence is not proof, though.

Let's not mix up consideration of evidence in black and white terms with consideration of behavior in black and white terms. In the former case, something either proves a statement or it does not. In the latter case, there are many shades of gray between us/them, good/evil, etc.

I would rate the probability of the theory on the website in question to be 100% nil. The writer displays a limited understanding of explosive behavior, makes a number of flimsy statements of "fact" based on his/her inexpert opinion, and fails to create a compelling argument to prove that the events as officially reported are false.

"You have to realize that most of the top section had not been affected by the aircraft strike or fires and was thus still the same immensely strong structure that had supported the building for more than 30 years. If this section was going to fall at all, this section would fall as one piece (like a tree in the forest)." [- taken from the website in question]

This statement alone completely ruins the writer's credibility. They simply have no idea what they're talking about. If the lower part of a large structure is destroyed, the upper part disintegrates as it falls - it doesn't fall as one piece because an explosion travels - it doesn't just lop off the lower section in a single instant, it blows it apart from a radiating center point. So, the section at the center of the explosion begins to fall as the explosion moves outwards, followed by outer sections, etc. This would be even more extreme in a case where the explosion is preceded by a sizable impact to one part of the building.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
12:56 / 25.09.03
Your example does not apply directly to this case.

Why not? The point is to ask the question of whether someone can be considered to be aiding an action by intentionally not doing something they would usually do which would impede it. I think the eaxmple's fine, but whether you do or not, the question remains the same.

To be perfectly clear: allegation of a crime without proof is baseless: it has no basis in demonstrable fact. If you had enough evidence to be 20%, 50%, or 90% sure, the accusation wouldn't be baseless...because you'd have some kind of proof. The absence of evidence is not proof, though.

Evidence isn't proof, either. Only enough evidence to make something absolutely certain is proof. Evidence is evidence, and enough to base theories on, but even if one had evidence to be 99.99% sure, it wouldn't be proof. And let's say that there's a twenty per cent chance the US government knew the attacks were likely to happen, and, if they did, a twenty per cent chance they intentionally "stood back and let it happen" to some extent... a four per cent chance in total, then. Would you discount this possibility as not worth considering?

(And no, I have no way of quantifying those figures - they're just being used for argument's sake - but they don't seem unreasonable; there's certainly enough evidence for both to give them a fair level of credibility...)

I would rate the probability of the theory on the website in question to be 100% nil.

*Shrugs*... I know too little about that to come up with a figure, but I thought - given that people have attempted to plant things in it before, a 0.001% - one in ten thousand - chance on that particular day wasn't unreasonable.
 
 
Ray Fawkes
15:08 / 25.09.03
But earlier you stated that you can neither prove that the administration had enough information to effectively prevent the attacks, nor that they behaved any differently than they would if they had no foreknowledge whatsoever. Since it seems that you define "evidence" and "proof" as seperate concepts, maybe I should ask the question again:

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the administration had enough information to effectively prevent the attacks? Do you have any evidence to suggest that they behaved any differently than they would if they had no foreknowledge of the attacks?

If the answer to these questions is still no, than theorizing along this route is a kind of mental wheel-spinning. It might be interesting or entertaining, but it shouldn't bear any relation to what you think is actually happening in the real world. In fact, to present the theory as such instead of as a fiction, is distortion.

Your previously stated example does not apply to this case because you are operating on the assumption that the administration had it within their power to stop the attacks in advance - as simply as locking a door - something that can't be taken as a point of fact.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
10:23 / 26.09.03
Proof.
Evidence.

I think you'll be hard pressed to find people who define the above two words as the same thing.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the administration had enough information to effectively prevent the attacks? Do you have any evidence to suggest that they behaved any differently than they would if they had no foreknowledge of the attacks?

Surely we've been through this already? To the former: it's public knowledge that intelligence services were given warnings of the potential that something like 9/11 might happen, by whom, and even a fair bit to suggest the date.

I'm sure if you know where to look you could probably find a fair bit more (I know there were tips from Saudi, French and UK security forces as well, for example, but not sure of sources...):

US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice... said US airlines had been specifically warned in August that terrorist groups were developing ways of carrying out hijackings.

A memo sent last July from its Arizona office is reported to have warned that groups like al-Qaeda might have sent students to flying schools in the US.

Even though the memo was reviewed, the FBI did not take any action on its central recommendation - that flight school records and visa applications by foreign students be cross-referenced.

The White House acknowledged that President Bush was told a month before 11 September of a plot to hijack American planes by Osama Bin Laden.

Despite White House avowals that it would have been impossible to conceive before September 11 of a hijacked plane being used to attack U.S. targets, a 1999 report for the CIA envisioned a very similar threat. (Deleted now, alas, but contained details of likelihood of Al-Qaeda/OBL crashing airliners into targets including the Pentagon...)

And the latter?

The evidence is a battery of FBI memos and intelligence briefings - more coming out all the time - which seemed to anticipate with uncanny prescience the attacks of 9/11. In July 2001, a sharp-eyed FBI agent in Arizona noticed that a large number of suspects he'd been watching had taken up a new hobby: flying lessons. More worrying, they were asking their teachers lots of questions about airline security. His memo never got beyond middle-management. At the same time, America's "terrorism czar" was warning FBI and aviation officials that "something really spectacular" was in the works. On August 6, President Bush himself, receiving his daily briefing at his Texan ranch, was told there was a threat of al-Qaida hijacking planes within the US. Nothing happened.

(Oh, and back to the "how come they didn't send fighters up as per protocol/how come when they did they were from miles away?" argument...)

Indeed, no *proof*, certainly, but enough evidence that it certainly shouldn't be discounted as a possibility.

In fact, to present the theory as such instead of as a fiction, is distortion.

I've said about a thousand times that I'm Not Stating The Theory As Fact. It's a theory, and one I give a reasonable amount of credibility, a not unlikely explanation.

Your previously stated example does not apply to this case because you are operating on the assumption that the administration had it within their power to stop the attacks in advance - as simply as locking a door - something that can't be taken as a point of fact.

I said impede, not stop - if you insist on clinging to the example, rather than the continually unanswered *hypothetical* question - "whether someone can be considered to be aiding an action by intentionally not doing something they would usually do which would impede it" - then: locking a door wouldn't necessarily stop the criminals, but it would make things more difficult for them, and make them *less* likely to succeed. I:

Do not assume the government could have prevented the attacks, though there is a small possibility.
Do not assume the government could have impeded the attacks, though I believe it's reasonably likely.

The question, however, *does* make such assumptions, because as I've said more than enough alraedy, it's hypothetical, a point for discussion regarding what the government's moral position would be *if* either of the above statements were true. Whether or not they are or, indeed, whether or not I believe they are, is beside the point [intended in making that example].
 
 
Jrod
11:22 / 26.09.03
Do you have any evidence to suggest that the administration had enough information to effectively prevent the attacks? Do you have any evidence to suggest that they behaved any differently than they would if they had no foreknowledge of the attacks?

Do you have evidence to suggest that the administration did not have enough information to effectively prevent the attacks? Do you have any evidence to suggest that they behaved as they would if they had no foreknowledge of the attacks?

Why be so hung up on proof? If proof of the administration's complicity in the 9/11 attacks was available to any of us, I'd hope we wouldn't be wasting time discussing theories. Ray, you're blasting people's ideas about possibilities because we're not proving them to be true, when that was never the goal. I just want to sift through the possibilities, and one of those is that the Bush administration allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen. Is this the greatest possibility? I don't think so, but there are enough indications of the possibility to make it worth considering. The PNAC report that called for "a new Pearl Harbor" alone makes it vital that we consider the possibility.

I'd really like to just pooh-pooh the whole idea based on its rediculousness simply because it's very, very disturbing, and the implications if it's true are more disturbing still. Lacking absolute proof that any other possibility is true prevents me from dismissing this possibility out of hand, unfortunately.

The most likely possibility, as I see it (if you care) is that muslim extremists, either working for or inspired by Osama bin Laden, pulled off a daring suicide attack that caught the executive branch and the military by surprise. The administration had gotten rumblings and ideas about what was to happen, but shrugged them off as impossible, the same way an obese man might shrug off the possibility of a heart attack, until it happens. Once the dust began to settle, the administration fully took advantage of the situation by using it as a reason/excuse to begin exerting more direct control over the oilier region of the globe via military and extreme diplomatic action. Of course, this is a simplified version of the events, since the "administration" is made up of several men and women, many of whom may have differing agendas, and certainly differing levels of intelligence (military or mental, take a pick). Personally, if the administration at large did believe the attack was imminent, I don't believe that Dubya was ever made aware. This is all conjecture. Other than the part about the explosions and death.

To cover the bases, yeah, it's also possible that aliens from planet Narg are behind the whole thing. However, since the Nargans never produced a document saying that something like the 9/11 attack would be desirable, haven't benefited at all from the attack, haven't lied continually about their motives and actions, and indeed may not exist, we can safely disregard this possibility. Say, 1 in 8000x10^bazillion chances, whatever.

Seems to me that the possibility of the administration being complicit in the attacks is far greater, even to where we don't need exponents to show the odds. Yet it seems Ray would have us disregard the possibility just as readily, because there's no proof. Of course there's no proof, if Bush directed the 9/11 attacks he wouldn't send a press release outlining his insidious plot, he'd keep it secret! Just because Cheney didn't transform into a giant cyborg and blow away the WTC himself, it doesn't follow that he had nothing to do with it.

(I know, that was unfair. I just like the image of Cheney turning into a giant cyborg with death-rays. Back on topic...)

If the answer to these questions is still no, than theorizing along this route is a kind of mental wheel-spinning. It might be interesting or entertaining, but it shouldn't bear any relation to what you think is actually happening in the real world.

Call it mental wheel-spinning if you want. I'm willing to concede that it's a fairly apt description of what we're doing. Why is that such a problem? In the real world that I inhabit, stranger things than a government conspiring to start a war happen quite frequently, and I find it odd that considering that possibility should inspire such a vehement response.

...perhaps "most prolific, highly-debated conspiracy theory is [BS]" would be more accurate

Granted. Though it's tempting to say the same about most prolific news sources...

And for the record, I'll put the theory that started this thread firmly in the BS column.
 
 
Ray Fawkes
16:08 / 26.09.03
Mme. Angelique:
I concede this point: evidence and proof need not be considered one and the same.

On the matter of my repeated question: I don't believe it's been answered yet. While we all seem to accept and agree that the administration had some forewarning of the attacks, I am wondering whether that foreknowledge was enough information to effectively prevent the attacks. If not, or even "not necessarily", then the existence of the foreknowledge is not evidence of complicity.

You don't need to state something as fact - you're lending it credibility. I'm arguing against the credibility of the theory. I believe that a theory that cannot be proven credible is, at best, fiction.

I never answered your hypothetical: "whether someone can be considered to be aiding an action by intentionally not doing something they would usually do which would impede it" because it appears obvious to me that it would be considered aiding an action to do so.

However, the "nothing happened" statement in your post still does not go towards proving that the crime was aided by the government. Let me put it this way: what is being suggested that they should have done in that case? Round up and arrest people for taking flying lessons? Shut down airports? Arrest everybody they considered suspicious? It's clear to me that the government had little legal recourse before the crime took place, and anything beyond the scope of constitutional legal right would have offended the citizenry.

While it's also clear to me that you're speaking in hypothetical terms, it doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference (at least to me). A hypothetical situation that is not credible is just, as I mentioned earlier, spinning wheels.

Jrod:

One would wonder how the question "why so hung up on proof?" can be considered relevant in a discussion about the relative worth of conspiracy theory. If we're not worried about proof, why do we care what is or isn't being said to us, or whether or not it's true?

Yet it seems Ray would have us disregard the possibility just as readily, because there's no proof.

Uh...yes. Find some proof that the possibility is anything more than wild conjecture, and I wouldn't disregard it. Otherwise, I'd treat it as it is: idle chatter.

Hey, there's nothing wrong with idle chatter. There's nothing wrong with mental wheel-spinning either. I just wouldn't expect anyone to take any of it seriously.
 
 
Not Here Still
17:49 / 26.09.03
Mme Angelique: Thanks for answering my question re; the reason behind this thread and sorry if it seems like I'm giving you a hard time; I'm not trying to piss you off or trip you up, I was just pointing out how easily things can be twisted to fit a certain worldview, and suggesting a default setting of scepticism towards, well, pretty much everything.

And I agree that that evidence of a programme which I refer to will be taken up as evidence by many on the pro-war side, even though it (probably) won't be current - and I think that sucks.

With regards to this ongoing argument as to whether or not the US Government had ebnough forewarning of the attacks to prevent them: I'd say, as I did earlier when I was being sarcastic, that the Government wasn't consciously evil in allowing the attacks to happen.

I do, however, think they were in a similar position to two people, a doctor and a teacher here in the UK, who have just been convicted of manslaughter due to negligence.

I think there is a case to be laid that the US Government, while not actively evil with regard to 9/11, were, well, a bit shit to say the least in their assessments of and actions on intelligence. Not complicit; just crap.

(There's a link to an earlier thread on the Government's forewarning or otherwise further back in this thread. It's in one of my sarcastic posts where I say the government was a bit shit (and shit is a hyperlink. Not a sentence I thought I'd use much,'shit is a hyperlink'...)
 
 
Jrod
09:21 / 27.09.03
One would wonder how the question "why so hung up on proof?" can be considered relevant in a discussion about the relative worth of conspiracy theory.

It's only irrelevant if any one scenario can be proven. If irrefutable proof that the Bush administration had no idea about the 9/11 attacks, or that they had nothing to do with planning it, or that bin Laden outlined the attacks by himself, then the debate would end instantly. Unfortunately, all we have to deal with is evidence, incomplete and conflicting evidence. Much of the evidence points simply to the bin Laden scenario, some to the Bush administration complcity, some to other things.

It's apparant that the attacks were the result of a conspiracy, the only question is whose? Muslim fundamentalists were certainly involved, but historically such suicide attackers have been dupes... so who duped them? Such questions can go on and on, and are the basis of conspiracy theory.

So, Ray, if you can put forth a 9/11 scenario and prove it, then I'll stop worrying about all these possibilities. (not that I really spend that much worry on it...) If this can't be done, and I don't think it can be done, then all we're left with is a series of possibilities, some more plausible than others.

True, the Bush complicity theory of the 9/11 attacks is not the most probable, and I doubt that many here really believe it. If I thought Bush was personally responsible for the attacks, I wouldn't be chatting here, I'd be arming my bunker in Montana. Still, there is some evidence that could lead to that conclusion... and some other conclusions. Such is the nature of incomplete information.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
12:20 / 29.09.03
On the matter of my repeated question: I don't believe it's been answered yet. While we all seem to accept and agree that the administration had some forewarning of the attacks, I am wondering whether that foreknowledge was enough information to effectively prevent the attacks. If not, or even "not necessarily", then the existence of the foreknowledge is not evidence of complicity.

And because the argument is still the same one as has been answered a thousand times, but simply phrased differently, I'll give you the same answer as I have a thousand times, but simply phrased differently: "not necessarily" implies "possibly" or "probably", and therefore it is evidence of *possible* complicity. At no point have I said, or implied (except in the hypothetical question), that the administration was complicit in the attacks. What I've said, over and over again, is that there is enough evidence to suggest that it is a significant possibility, and therefore should not be dismissed.

You don't need to state something as fact - you're lending it credibility. I'm arguing against the credibility of the theory. I believe that a theory that cannot be proven credible is, at best, fiction.

I beg your pardon? Look at most of my last post. It consists almost entirely of evidence from which it is far from unreasonable to draw the conclusion that the administration *may* have been in some way complicit in the attacks. I don't think they were, but I think that to dismiss the possibility that they were, given the repeated evidence, would be foolish.

However, the "nothing happened" statement in your post still does not go towards proving that the crime was aided by the government.

Once again: I cannot prove anything. I've never claimed to have *proof* of anything. All I am doing is stating evidence which, collated, makes a not-dismissably-unlikely case for the *possibility* that the government may have been in some way complicit in the attacks.

The point made was that it is protocol for, par exemple, the government to send up fighters as soon as planes go off course, with the assumption that it is a hijacking. The fact that this did not happen, where usually it would have, is likely to be incompetence, but *could* have been complicity.

Let me put it this way: what is being suggested that they should have done in that case? Round up and arrest people for taking flying lessons? Shut down airports? Arrest everybody they considered suspicious? It's clear to me that the government had little legal recourse before the crime took place, and anything beyond the scope of constitutional legal right would have offended the citizenry.

And all the points you've picked out above were used as evidence that the Bush administration *may* have known about the attacks - basically, they had quite a lot of warning signs. Again, probably incompetence, possibly not.

And of course they couldn't have performed any of the courses of action you've mentioned there, but I don't think it would be unreasonable for the FBI to keep a fairly close watch on someone (with suspected ties to extremist/terrorist groups?) who enrols for flight school, declaring, "I don't need to know how to take off or land, just how to fly."

... Not Me Again:

I was just pointing out how easily things can be twisted to fit a certain worldview, and suggesting a default setting of scepticism towards, well, pretty much everything.

I agree. Though I think you'd agree that it's not unreasonable to alter the degree of skepticism towards anything according to context; I would take a much more skeptical default position on something any government tells us to persuade us how great it is, and, say, a newspaper. The latter is certainly far from infallible, and very likely to be biased, but it's more likely to be trustworthy than the former. And, say, a press release from a high-profile charity is likely to be more trustworthy again.

(There's a link to an earlier thread on the Government's forewarning or otherwise further back in this thread. It's in one of my sarcastic posts where I say the government was a bit shit (and shit is a hyperlink. Not a sentence I thought I'd use much,'shit is a hyperlink'...)

(I gleaned a little of the information above from there...)

So, Ray, if you can put forth a 9/11 scenario and prove it, then I'll stop worrying about all these possibilities. (not that I really spend that much worry on it...) If this can't be done, and I don't think it can be done, then all we're left with is a series of possibilities, some more plausible than others.

... Which is basically what I've been trying to point out for the past... god-knows-how-many posts. (And surely you can acknowledge that the evidence outlined does make the theory stated "more plausible" than many?)
 
 
Jrod
08:54 / 30.09.03
(And surely you can acknowledge that the evidence outlined does make the theory stated "more plausible" than many?)

Indeed. Also, though this may betray some supposed bias, I think that the implications of the stated theory require that it be taken seriously. In other words, we need more evidence, and the administration needs to be far more forthcoming with it. I should hope that investigators far more knowledgable and connected than myself are looking at this quite extensively.

And here's hoping they don't all die under mysterious circumstances...

That said, it's not something for the rest of us to obsess over, not yet. That may change, and soon, depending on evidence uncovered. I still can't get over the fact that nobody in our gov't has been fired or disciplined over the 9/11 gaffes. People like to compare the WTC to Pearl Harbor... Well, after the Japanese attack, the base's commander was held responsible for what happened. Indignant, he demanded a court martial, which cleared him of responsibility. (correct me if my history is wrong here) Perhaps this is why nobody has been dicsiplined: nobody wants the accused to defend themselves with evidence that might implicate the senior members of the executive branch. Just a theory...

(Also note that Pearl Harbor is also widely considered to be an attack that was allowed to happen to provide an excuse for war.)

So, are we getting back to trading theories rather than defending the whole idea of conspiracy theory? I'm down for either, but the former is more fun.
 
 
Lurid Archive
09:39 / 30.09.03
Personally, I hesitate to lend credence to conspiracy when an explanation in terms of incompetence will do. Also, and I think this is a major point, the idea that the US administration is willing to execute or fail to impede attacks on US citizens needs quite serious support.

You then add in the cost of the 9/11 damage, both directly and that due to the effect on the economy, which I think could have been and was predicted by the terrorists, and you have a situation where I'd need extremely compelling evidence to consider any conspiracy. Simply put, the damage to the US economy far outweighs the political benefit that the administration took advantage of after the event.
 
 
Not Here Still
17:54 / 30.09.03
Mme Angelique: . And, say, a press release from a high-profile charity is likely to be more trustworthy again.

Sorry to do this, and I'd like to stress I'm not certain I believe this article, but would you believe, say, AmeriCares?

Because this lot don't. And the Sandanistas certainly didn't; they said it was a CIA front.

[melodramatically] Trust No-One![/melodromatically]

JRod: Not sniping - but how do we know people weren't sacked? These are the ultra-secretive intelligence agencies after all... Doubt it myself, but you never know...
 
 
diz
18:35 / 30.09.03
Well, if they did know about the attacks, and failed to do anything to prevent them, they would be accessories to 3000+ murders.

No, they wouldn't. To be an accessory to murder, you don't just have to know how the crime is going to go down, you also have to "encourage or assist".

that's bullshit, actually. if you have foreknowledge of a crime, and take no action to prevent it, you are an accessory. you absolutely do not have to actively assist. failing to take appropriate action constitutes assistance in and of itself. it's up to a court to decide what consitutes appropriate action under the specific circumstances, but not notifying the appropriate authorities certainly counts.

if someone approaches me with a detailed plan to kill their wife, and i pass on the opportunity to help, but also don't notify the wife or the police, i'm an accessory if he carries out the plan. my silence and inaction allowed the murderer to proceed.

and, in any case, there is evidence that the administration did actively assist in the 9/11 attacks. when a plane goes off course and doesn't respond to air traffic control, fighter jets are immediately scrambled to intercept and, if necessary, shoot them down. this doesn't require an executive decision or direct approval of any kind. it's standard procedure.

fighter jets were scrambled to intercept the planes that destroyed the WTC, and they were recalled by executive order before reaching their targets. incidentally, that executive order in and of itself is a violation of some regulation or other, but hey, who's counting?
 
  

Page: 12(3)4

 
  
Add Your Reply