Re: POLITICS: 9/11 - an inside job? ( was...economic disaster and gov't surveillance like we've never known before)

[Guest guest]

I agree with you that IF the Bush Administration planned 9/11, within

that implausibility one can imagine Bush either being in on it, or

not. But this has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying.

The notion that believing in the 9/11 conspiracy is analogous to

believing that whole foods are better for you is simply ludicrous. I

don't think that there is anything in the diet argument analogous to

the notion that in order for 9/11 to be orchestrated, lots of people

would have had to know, and there could not be any leak of any kind.

Plus, anyone involved would have to know that if the plot were

discovered, they'd be facing some serious legal issues, to say the

least. It's one thing to believe that our government is corrupt in all

sorts of ways, but I think it's another to believe that if the facts

came out, it would simply be dropped. The public pressure alone would

be quite astounding, actually....

Has there been one shred of real evidence, btw? I think that it's been

pointed out that other than people raving about building collapses,

etc, no bit of evidence or testimony that would hold up in court has

ever been found.

And why, btw, even if the planes didn't account for all of the

phenomena viewed that day, is it more plausible to believe that the

Bush administration carried it out, rather than there were other

players cooperating with Al Quaeda (or whoever else it might have

been)? To jump to the conclusion that it was the government itself is

tempting, but ultimately, I think that the 9/11 industry is just that.

Do ALL architects and scientists agree with this theory? I doubt it

very, very, very much. You can generally find experts who will testify

to anything - what I'm saying here is that I don't consider myself

enough of one to differentiate between what all these experts might be

saying, but I can think a bit and realize that it is far more

plausible that the Bush administration took advantage of a great

opportunity.

There are great coincidences that occur all of the time, and one can

find them accompanying most major events, I'd imagine. Anecdotally, I

remember all of the coincidences that used to be mentioned between the

Kennedy and Lincoln assasinations - and that's what they were - just

plain coincidences.

But there is a market in all of this crap, and in this big occult

conspiracy that has engulfed us all, and I'd understand why the Bush

administration would actually prefer that people believe stuff like

that - it's a great distraction from real issues.

> > There is a big difference between believing that the government

> knows more

> than

> > they are telling, and even believing that there should be an

> independent

> > investigation into what happened ... and believing that the Bush

> administration

> > planned and executed the whole thing.

>

> Right, but you said that promotes the idea that the Bush

> administration carried out 9/11 and I pointed out that, in fact, he

> promotes

> the idea that Bush is simply a puppet for the power elite and may

> not have

> been aware rogue elements in the government having complicity in the

> attacks. Certainly some folks in the 9/11 truth movement do believe

> that

> Bush himself was in on it, but many believe that it could be carried

> out

> with gov't complicity or assistance without Bush having to have direct

> knowledge about it. Based on the evidence I've seen to date, I believe

> either scenario is plausible.

>

>

> I'm not a scientist/architect/etc, and I can't

> > validate claims made by some of these people - in that context it

> always

> seems

> > plausible when someone cites knowledge that I can't question, and

> don't

> have the

> > time to research, or the time to get another degree, etc....

>

> You don't have to be a scientist to understand that whole, real

> foods are

> better for you than processed refined foods, do you? Similarly, you

> don't

> have to be an architect to understand the arguments of architects and

> engineers that cite scientific reasons why building 7 or the towers

> had to

> have come down by a controlled demolition. You don't have to be an

> engineer

> to understand the many eyewitness accounts of multiple explosions

> within the

> building right before they collapsed. You don't have to be an

> architect to

> understand FEMA employee Barry Jennings' unedited testimony

> (http://www.loosechange911.com/blog/?p=105) that when he was on the

> 8th

> floor of building 7 there was an explosion and the floor below him

> exploded

> out from under him and he was left hanging from rafters. You don't

> have to

> be a scientist to understand firemen who say the *lobby* of the

> towers were

> blown out *before* the buildings collapsed, etc, etc, etc.

>

> You also don't have to be a controlled demolition expert to

> understand why a

> controlled demolition expert from Sweden (or some Scandinavian

> country) who

> was interviewed in " Loose Change: Final Cut " stated emphatically that

> building 7 was a controlled demolition and was so incredulous when

> told that

> building 7 came down the *same day* as the towers that he asked

> confirmation

> of this three times in a row because he didn't' believe his ears.

>

> There are so many pieces of evidence presented in " Loose Change:

> Final Cut "

> that makes it pretty obvious that something very fishy is going on

> with the

> official conspiracy theory of the 9/11 attacks (that a handful of

> cave-dwelling Islamic radicalists did it all on their own).

>

> I highly recommend this video for a better understanding of the

> controversial issues surrounding the 9/11 attacks:

> http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Loose+Change+final+cut & sitesearch=#

>

> Second video to watch is 9/11 Chronicles: Truth Rising, by :

> http://tinyurl.com/5nj7co

> This one is primarily about the First Responders and how much

> they've been

> suffering and dying off since working in the extremely toxic

> aftermath at

> Ground Zero (after being told by the gov't that it was safe). It can

> be best

> appreciated if one has some understanding of the globalist conspiracy

> theory, otherwise it may not make sense to viewers as to why

> Brzezinski i is

> confronted about his possible role in the 9/11 attacks (having

> nothing to do

> with the fact that he had a direct hand in propping up the

> Mujahideen during

> 's administration from whence Al Qaeda and Bin Laden arose).

> Many

> other politicians and powerbrokers are confronted in this movie

> about the

> events of 9/11 and about reopening an investigation. The only

> politician who

> rises to the occasion to help the First Responders turns out to

> be...Dennis

> Kucinich, unsurprisingly. Hillary ignores the questions as does

> Obama, and

> in one of the most amusing quotes in the movie trailer, Bill Clinton

> says... " An inside job? How daaaaare you! " . LOL

>

> >

> > I do find the notion that they planned the whole thing to be

> ludicrous. I

> do believe

> > that they are great opportunists, and took advantage of the

> opportunity to

> get a

> > bunch of stuff done. I also don't think that Cheney et all are above

> killing people to

> > gain their objectives, but I think that they are into doing it in

> ways

> that are less risky

> > than this.

>

> Less risky? You must be kidding. Is it less risky than lying

> outright to the

> American people that Iraq has WMDs? Surely the Adminstration must've

> realized that it could be verified that Iraq did NOT have WMDs or

> that no

> evidence would be found of such, which is what happened. During the

> impeachment hearings last Friday that Kucinich initiated, former LA

> prosecutor Bugliosi (who successfully prosecuted

> Manson)

> held up papers that he claimed were classified documents showing

> that the

> CIA had informed Bush et al. that there was no evidence of WMDs and

> a week

> later (or thereabouts) the administration claimed there was evidence

> of WMDs

> to justify the war. Is *that* not risky by your assessment?

>

> And what did the American people do? Go about their every day stupor

> and

> accept every criminal act this Adminstration has carried out. It's

> not very

> risky when the population acts like sheeple no matter how outrageous

> or

> criminal an Administration behaves.

>

> Secondly, I'm guessing it would take a very few people to be in the

> know in

> order for the Bush Administration or elements therein to be

> involved, as

> these type of operations are typically compartmentalized so each

> player has

> no idea who the puppeteer is or who the other folks involved are.

>

> > The more I listened to the more of a crackpot I thought

> he was.

> There is

> > some truly reprehensible stuff on his sites. For instance, search

> under

> > 'homosexuality' on prisonplanet. If you can't find this stuff, I can

> probably dig it up

> > again.

>

> OK, I did. I found some stuff (not written by ) that I don't

> agree with

> and some that were simply reports from other news agencies. However,

> whether

> or not you agree with or some of the writers whose work appears

> on his

> site on a particular issue has little bearing on the veracity of

> everything

> that appears on his site or the veracity of his radio show guests or

> his

> movies. I don't agree with him on everything either but have verified

> through other sources that many things he talks about on his radio

> show are

> evidence-based. The same goes for the WAPF site. Overall, I think

> their

> information is pretty solid, but there are things here and there

> where I

> know they are wrong or where I disagree, and there are some articles

> that I

> find a bit bizarre.

>

> Suze

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>. Based on the evidence I've seen to date, I believe

> either scenario is plausible.

Never fear. All is not lost. The SuperFriends to the rescue.

--

There's nothing like visiting a foreign country like China to get an

appreciation of what it's like to live under an authoritarian regime.

I was reminded of this when I arrived home and found that the TSA had

rifled through my baggage.

- Tabarrok

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> The notion that believing in the 9/11 conspiracy is analogous to

> believing that whole foods are better for you is simply ludicrous.

To begin with, I'd like to clarify that the official story of 9/11, is, in fact,

a conspiracy

theory. In fact, the government is charging the Guantanamo detainees with the

crime of

" conspiracy. "

======

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?

res=9B0CEED9153CF936A15751C0A9629C8B63

U.S. CHARGES TWO AT GUANTÁNAMO WITH CONSPIRACY

=======

> I don't think that there is anything in the diet argument analogous to

> the notion that in order for 9/11 to be orchestrated, lots of people

> would have had to know, and there could not be any leak of any kind.

I think I understood Suze's comment a little differently. The analagous part,

as I saw it,

was the ability to evaluate an argument without having expertise in the relevant

fields. In

other words, someone with expertise should be able to simplify an argument into

layman's

terms, so a layman in any given field should be able to evaluate an argument

based on

such simplified explanations. And, in any case, even if the layman is at a

clear

disadvantage, she or he nevertheless has to act on such information day in and

day out.

In this example, you have concluded that the majority of experts are wrong on

certain

dietary issues even though you have no expertise in nutrition.

> Plus, anyone involved would have to know that if the plot were

> discovered, they'd be facing some serious legal issues, to say the

> least. It's one thing to believe that our government is corrupt in all

> sorts of ways, but I think it's another to believe that if the facts

> came out, it would simply be dropped. The public pressure alone would

> be quite astounding, actually....

Who said anyone believed that if the facts came out, the issue would be dropped?

Obviously the Bush Administration has gone to GREAT lengths to keep the truth

from

coming out, since the investigation was railroaded at every turn of the way. In

fact, the

first time around Henry Kissinger was appointed the head of the 9/11 Commission!

This

man is not only, with Rumsfeld, one of the main supporters of the illegal

and

conspiratorial activities of the CIA discovered under the Church Committee in

the 1970s,

but still involved in world government conspiracy under the auspices of the

Bilderberg

group! After he quit due to a congressional demand that he reveal his business

contacts,

a new commission was appointed, which included two of the guys who were meeting

with

the Pakistani intelligence ISI chief on September 11, who wired $100,000 to

Mohammed

Atta on September 10, and who was convicted of killing the Wall Street Journal

reporter

who was investigating the links between Al-Qaeda and ISI. The fact is that they

have

railroaded every attempt to get any idea what happened leading up to this, and

have

repeatedly told lie after lie after lie, such that it is incredibly OBVIOUS that

there is a

deliberate coverup.

In fact, here are over 50 public servants, including FBI directors and CIA

veterans, who

have stated that there is clearly a cover-up going on:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport

> Has there been one shred of real evidence, btw? I think that it's been

> pointed out that other than people raving about building collapses,

> etc, no bit of evidence or testimony that would hold up in court has

> ever been found.

I'm not sure what you mean about holding up in court. The Loose Change: Final

Cut

video, which can be found here:

=====

http://video.google.com/videoplay?

docid=8510748876310097541 & q=loose+change+final+cut & ei=WRWXSIrbHpv0qgKsofiq

CQ

=====

.... concludes with " Demand a New Invesitgation. " Courts generally do not

perform

investigations, though they may grant court orders on the basis of " probable

cause. "

Usually they indict someone based on a reasonable evidence that they may have

committed the crime, I believe, and convict based on a demonstration beyond

reasonable

doubt. But investigations are performed by police or in some cases

congressional

commissions or committees, and I believe that the level of evidence that

suffices to

consider someone a suspect in an investigation includes circumstantial evidence.

There is certainly a large amount of circumstantial evidence connecting certain

members

of the government to 9/11. I think what they are saying is not so much " convict

now, " but

" launch an investigation with these suspects. "

> And why, btw, even if the planes didn't account for all of the

> phenomena viewed that day, is it more plausible to believe that the

> Bush administration carried it out, rather than there were other

> players cooperating with Al Quaeda (or whoever else it might have

> been)? To jump to the conclusion that it was the government itself is

> tempting, but ultimately, I think that the 9/11 industry is just that.

I agree with you. Even if the buildings were brought down with controlled

demolition, it

could have been Al-Qaeda. However, what you are missing, I think, is that even

if it was

Al-Qaeda, that does not mean it wasn't the government! After all our government

CREATED Al-Qaeda. Do you not think that the burden of evidence should be on

those that

claim the CIA links to Al-Qaeda have been completely demolished? Considering

all the

evidence of special treatment of and connections to bin Laden family members and

others

claimed to be associated with Al-Qaeda, and the support of the

Al-Qaeda-connected KLA

in Kosovo under Clinton, etc, one naturally has to question whether the

attribution to this

group is not a matter of the CIA doctrine of " plausible deniability. "

=====

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability

In politics and espionage, deniability refers to the ability of a " powerful

player " or actor to

avoid " blowback " by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf

by a third

party—ostensibly unconnected with the major player. [...]

History

The expression " plausibly deniable " was first used publicly by Central

Intelligence Agency

(CIA) director Dulles.[1] [...]

Plausible denial involves the creation of power structures and chains of command

loose

and informal enough to be denied if necessary. The idea was that the CIA (and,

later, other

bodies) could be given controversial instructions by powerful figures—up to and

including

the President himself—but that the existence and true source of those

instructions could

be denied if necessary; if, for example, an operation went disastrously wrong

and it was

necessary for the administration to disclaim responsibility.

=====

=====

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

9. Able Danger, Plus - Surveillance of Alleged Hijackers

a. The men identified as the 9/11 ringleaders were under surveillance for years

beforehand, on the suspicion they were terrorists, by a variety of US and allied

authorities

- including the CIA, the US military''s " Able Danger " program, the German

authorities,

Israeli intelligence and others.

b. Two of the alleged ringleaders who were known to be under surveillance by the

CIA also

lived with an FBI asset in San Diego, but this is supposed to be yet another

coincidence.

10. Obstruction of FBI Investigations prior to 9/11

A group of FBI officials in New York systematically suppressed field

investigations of

potential terrorists that might have uncovered the alleged hijackers - as the

Moussaoui

case once again showed. The stories of Sibel Edmonds, , Coleen

Rowley and

Harry Samit, the " Phoenix Memo, " Schippers, the 199i orders restricting

investigations, the Bush administration''s order to back off the Bin Ladin

family, the

reaction to the " Bojinka " plot, and O''Neil do not, when considered in sum,

indicate

mere incompetence, but high-level corruption and protection of criminal

networks,

including the network of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. (Nearly all of these

examples were

omitted from or relegated to fleeting footnotes in The 9/11 Commission Report.)

13. Who Is Osama Bin Ladin?

b. Did Osama Bin Ladin visit Dubai and meet a CIA agent in July 2001 (Le

Figaro)? Was he

receiving dialysis in a Pakistani military hospital on the night of September

10, 2001 (CBS)?

d. The terror network associated with Osama, known as the " data base "

(al-Qaeda),

originated in the CIA-sponsored 1980s anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. When did

this

network stop serving as an asset to covert operations by US intelligence and

allied

agencies? What were its operatives doing in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya in the

years

prior to 9/11?

20. Pakistani Connection -- Congressional Connection

a. The Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, creator of the Taliban and close ally

to both the

CIA and " al-Qaeda, " allegedly wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta just prior to

September

11th, reportedly through the ISI asset Saeed Sheikh (later arrested for the

killing of

Wall Street Journal reporter Pearl, who was investigating ISI connections

to " al-

Qaeda. " )

b. This was ignored by the congressional 9/11 investigation, although the

senator and

congressman who ran the probe (Bob Graham and Porter Goss) were meeting with the

ISI

chief, Mahmud Ahmed, on Capitol Hill on the morning of September 11th.

c. About 25 percent of the report of the Congressional Joint Inquiry was

redacted,

including long passages regarding how the attack (or the network allegedly

behind it) was

financed. Graham later said foreign allies were involved in financing the

alleged terror

network, but that this would only come out in 30 years.

27. Saudi Connections

a. The 9/11 investigations made light of the " Bin Ladin Airlift " during the

no-fly period,

and ignored the long-standing Bush family business ties to the Bin Ladin family

fortune. (A

company in which both families held interests, the Carlyle Group, was holding

its annual

meeting on September 11th, with Bush Sr., Baker, and two brothers

of

Osama Bin Ladin in attendance.)

======

> Do ALL architects and scientists agree with this theory? I doubt it

> very, very, very much. You can generally find experts who will testify

> to anything - what I'm saying here is that I don't consider myself

> enough of one to differentiate between what all these experts might be

> saying, but I can think a bit and realize that it is far more

> plausible that the Bush administration took advantage of a great

> opportunity.

Yes, that's possible, and like you said, the fact that the government and 9/11

commission

has completely railroaded a serious investigation into the use of controlled

demolition

does not necessarily indicate that the government, or a criminal element within

it, carried

out the explosives. But it makes a quite obvious question of how these

explosives could

be set up in the buildings without cooperation with people who had access to the

buildings' security.

Moreover, lets just ignore the engineering aspects for now. Why, if they were

not blown

up, why was Larry Silverstein, the lease-holder of the WTC, caught on video tape

saying

that they " pulled " building 7 because of the damage the fires were causing? Why

did

Giuliani say he was told ahead of time that the buildings would collapse? Why

did the BBC

anchor announce that building 7 fell 12 minutes before it fell, and did the BBC

reporter

continue to discuss the falling of WTC 7 while standing right there with WTC 7

standing

upright in the background? And why did the BBC communication with her all the

sudden

get cut off five minutes before WTC 7 fell -- is it because someone noticed the

anomaly

that they were reporting its having fallen while it was still standing on

screen? Does this

not reek of people not having their stories straight, issuing press releases too

early, etc?

> There are great coincidences that occur all of the time, and one can

> find them accompanying most major events, I'd imagine. Anecdotally, I

> remember all of the coincidences that used to be mentioned between the

> Kennedy and Lincoln assasinations - and that's what they were - just

> plain coincidences.

>

> But there is a market in all of this crap, and in this big occult

> conspiracy that has engulfed us all, and I'd understand why the Bush

> administration would actually prefer that people believe stuff like

> that - it's a great distraction from real issues.

So in your view, the fact that the Bush administration railroaded all attempts

at

investigation, that it and the commission reported blatant lies about what they

did and did

not know, and that Bush would only appear before the commission if he appeared

with

Cheney at the same time and if the white house had full ability to redact

anything that

came out of the interview was just to make it LOOK like they had something to

hide, and

just to make it LOOK like he needed to tell his story with Cheney so they could

keep their

stories straight just to make it LOOK like there was a conspiracy, all so people

could be

totally distracted from more important issues, like homophobia and

anti-feminism.

So in other words, Bush et al have conspired to create the illusion of

conspiracy. It's a

conspiracy to distract people from important things. And the conspiracy to

create the

illusion of conspiracy is more plausible to you than the conspiracy being real?

Chris

[Guest guest]

???? I simply don't understand the point of your post at all.

The fact that our government charges people with conspiring, doesn't imply that

our government conspired to bring about 9/11. Surely you recognize that?

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " chrismastrjohn " <chrismastrjohn@...>

> Gene,

>

> > The notion that believing in the 9/11 conspiracy is analogous to

> > believing that whole foods are better for you is simply ludicrous.

>

> To begin with, I'd like to clarify that the official story of 9/11, is, in

fact,

> a conspiracy

> theory. In fact, the government is charging the Guantanamo detainees with the

> crime of

> " conspiracy. "

>

> ======

> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?

> res=9B0CEED9153CF936A15751C0A9629C8B63

>

> U.S. CHARGES TWO AT GUANTÁNAMO WITH CONSPIRACY

> =======

>

>

> > I don't think that there is anything in the diet argument analogous to

> > the notion that in order for 9/11 to be orchestrated, lots of people

> > would have had to know, and there could not be any leak of any kind.

>

> I think I understood Suze's comment a little differently. The analagous part,

> as I saw it,

> was the ability to evaluate an argument without having expertise in the

relevant

> fields. In

> other words, someone with expertise should be able to simplify an argument

into

> layman's

> terms, so a layman in any given field should be able to evaluate an argument

> based on

> such simplified explanations. And, in any case, even if the layman is at a

> clear

> disadvantage, she or he nevertheless has to act on such information day in and

> day out.

> In this example, you have concluded that the majority of experts are wrong on

> certain

> dietary issues even though you have no expertise in nutrition.

>

> > Plus, anyone involved would have to know that if the plot were

> > discovered, they'd be facing some serious legal issues, to say the

> > least. It's one thing to believe that our government is corrupt in all

> > sorts of ways, but I think it's another to believe that if the facts

> > came out, it would simply be dropped. The public pressure alone would

> > be quite astounding, actually....

>

> Who said anyone believed that if the facts came out, the issue would be

dropped?

> Obviously the Bush Administration has gone to GREAT lengths to keep the truth

> from

> coming out, since the investigation was railroaded at every turn of the way.

In

> fact, the

> first time around Henry Kissinger was appointed the head of the 9/11

Commission!

> This

> man is not only, with Rumsfeld, one of the main supporters of the

illegal

> and

> conspiratorial activities of the CIA discovered under the Church Committee in

> the 1970s,

> but still involved in world government conspiracy under the auspices of the

> Bilderberg

> group! After he quit due to a congressional demand that he reveal his

business

> contacts,

> a new commission was appointed, which included two of the guys who were

meeting

> with

> the Pakistani intelligence ISI chief on September 11, who wired $100,000 to

> Mohammed

> Atta on September 10, and who was convicted of killing the Wall Street Journal

> reporter

> who was investigating the links between Al-Qaeda and ISI. The fact is that

they

> have

> railroaded every attempt to get any idea what happened leading up to this, and

> have

> repeatedly told lie after lie after lie, such that it is incredibly OBVIOUS

that

> there is a

> deliberate coverup.

>

> In fact, here are over 50 public servants, including FBI directors and CIA

> veterans, who

> have stated that there is clearly a cover-up going on:

>

> http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport

>

> > Has there been one shred of real evidence, btw? I think that it's been

> > pointed out that other than people raving about building collapses,

> > etc, no bit of evidence or testimony that would hold up in court has

> > ever been found.

>

> I'm not sure what you mean about holding up in court. The Loose Change: Final

> Cut

> video, which can be found here:

>

> =====

> http://video.google.com/videoplay?

> docid=8510748876310097541 & q=loose+change+final+cut & ei=WRWXSIrbHpv0qgKsofiq

> CQ

> =====

>

> ... concludes with " Demand a New Invesitgation. " Courts generally do not

> perform

> investigations, though they may grant court orders on the basis of " probable

> cause. "

> Usually they indict someone based on a reasonable evidence that they may have

> committed the crime, I believe, and convict based on a demonstration beyond

> reasonable

> doubt. But investigations are performed by police or in some cases

> congressional

> commissions or committees, and I believe that the level of evidence that

> suffices to

> consider someone a suspect in an investigation includes circumstantial

evidence.

>

> There is certainly a large amount of circumstantial evidence connecting

certain

> members

> of the government to 9/11. I think what they are saying is not so much

" convict

> now, " but

> " launch an investigation with these suspects. "

>

>

> > And why, btw, even if the planes didn't account for all of the

> > phenomena viewed that day, is it more plausible to believe that the

> > Bush administration carried it out, rather than there were other

> > players cooperating with Al Quaeda (or whoever else it might have

> > been)? To jump to the conclusion that it was the government itself is

> > tempting, but ultimately, I think that the 9/11 industry is just that.

>

> I agree with you. Even if the buildings were brought down with controlled

> demolition, it

> could have been Al-Qaeda. However, what you are missing, I think, is that

even

> if it was

> Al-Qaeda, that does not mean it wasn't the government! After all our

government

> CREATED Al-Qaeda. Do you not think that the burden of evidence should be on

> those that

> claim the CIA links to Al-Qaeda have been completely demolished? Considering

> all the

> evidence of special treatment of and connections to bin Laden family members

and

> others

> claimed to be associated with Al-Qaeda, and the support of the

> Al-Qaeda-connected KLA

> in Kosovo under Clinton, etc, one naturally has to question whether the

> attribution to this

> group is not a matter of the CIA doctrine of " plausible deniability. "

>

> =====

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability

>

> In politics and espionage, deniability refers to the ability of a " powerful

> player " or actor to

> avoid " blowback " by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their

behalf

> by a third

> party—ostensibly unconnected with the major player. [...]

> History

>

> The expression " plausibly deniable " was first used publicly by Central

> Intelligence Agency

> (CIA) director Dulles.[1] [...]

>

> Plausible denial involves the creation of power structures and chains of

command

> loose

> and informal enough to be denied if necessary. The idea was that the CIA (and,

> later, other

> bodies) could be given controversial instructions by powerful figures—up to

and

> including

> the President himself—but that the existence and true source of those

> instructions could

> be denied if necessary; if, for example, an operation went disastrously wrong

> and it was

> necessary for the administration to disclaim responsibility.

> =====

>

> =====

> http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

>

> 9. Able Danger, Plus - Surveillance of Alleged Hijackers

>

> a. The men identified as the 9/11 ringleaders were under surveillance for

years

> beforehand, on the suspicion they were terrorists, by a variety of US and

allied

> authorities

> - including the CIA, the US military''s " Able Danger " program, the German

> authorities,

> Israeli intelligence and others.

>

> b. Two of the alleged ringleaders who were known to be under surveillance by

the

> CIA also

> lived with an FBI asset in San Diego, but this is supposed to be yet another

> coincidence.

>

> 10. Obstruction of FBI Investigations prior to 9/11

>

> A group of FBI officials in New York systematically suppressed field

> investigations of

> potential terrorists that might have uncovered the alleged hijackers - as the

> Moussaoui

> case once again showed. The stories of Sibel Edmonds, , Coleen

> Rowley and

> Harry Samit, the " Phoenix Memo, " Schippers, the 199i orders restricting

> investigations, the Bush administration''s order to back off the Bin Ladin

> family, the

> reaction to the " Bojinka " plot, and O''Neil do not, when considered in

sum,

> indicate

> mere incompetence, but high-level corruption and protection of criminal

> networks,

> including the network of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. (Nearly all of these

> examples were

> omitted from or relegated to fleeting footnotes in The 9/11 Commission

Report.)

>

> 13. Who Is Osama Bin Ladin?

>

> b. Did Osama Bin Ladin visit Dubai and meet a CIA agent in July 2001 (Le

> Figaro)? Was he

> receiving dialysis in a Pakistani military hospital on the night of September

> 10, 2001 (CBS)?

>

> d. The terror network associated with Osama, known as the " data base "

> (al-Qaeda),

> originated in the CIA-sponsored 1980s anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. When

did

> this

> network stop serving as an asset to covert operations by US intelligence and

> allied

> agencies? What were its operatives doing in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya in the

> years

> prior to 9/11?

>

> 20. Pakistani Connection -- Congressional Connection

>

> a. The Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, creator of the Taliban and close

ally

> to both the

> CIA and " al-Qaeda, " allegedly wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta just prior to

> September

> 11th, reportedly through the ISI asset Saeed Sheikh (later arrested for

the

> killing of

> Wall Street Journal reporter Pearl, who was investigating ISI

connections

> to " al-

> Qaeda. " )

>

> b. This was ignored by the congressional 9/11 investigation, although the

> senator and

> congressman who ran the probe (Bob Graham and Porter Goss) were meeting with

the

> ISI

> chief, Mahmud Ahmed, on Capitol Hill on the morning of September 11th.

>

> c. About 25 percent of the report of the Congressional Joint Inquiry was

> redacted,

> including long passages regarding how the attack (or the network allegedly

> behind it) was

> financed. Graham later said foreign allies were involved in financing the

> alleged terror

> network, but that this would only come out in 30 years.

>

> 27. Saudi Connections

>

> a. The 9/11 investigations made light of the " Bin Ladin Airlift " during the

> no-fly period,

> and ignored the long-standing Bush family business ties to the Bin Ladin

family

> fortune. (A

> company in which both families held interests, the Carlyle Group, was holding

> its annual

> meeting on September 11th, with Bush Sr., Baker, and two brothers

> of

> Osama Bin Ladin in attendance.)

> ======

>

> > Do ALL architects and scientists agree with this theory? I doubt it

> > very, very, very much. You can generally find experts who will testify

> > to anything - what I'm saying here is that I don't consider myself

> > enough of one to differentiate between what all these experts might be

> > saying, but I can think a bit and realize that it is far more

> > plausible that the Bush administration took advantage of a great

> > opportunity.

>

> Yes, that's possible, and like you said, the fact that the government and 9/11

> commission

> has completely railroaded a serious investigation into the use of controlled

> demolition

> does not necessarily indicate that the government, or a criminal element

within

> it, carried

> out the explosives. But it makes a quite obvious question of how these

> explosives could

> be set up in the buildings without cooperation with people who had access to

the

> buildings' security.

>

> Moreover, lets just ignore the engineering aspects for now. Why, if they were

> not blown

> up, why was Larry Silverstein, the lease-holder of the WTC, caught on video

tape

> saying

> that they " pulled " building 7 because of the damage the fires were causing?

Why

> did

> Giuliani say he was told ahead of time that the buildings would collapse? Why

> did the BBC

> anchor announce that building 7 fell 12 minutes before it fell, and did the

BBC

> reporter

> continue to discuss the falling of WTC 7 while standing right there with WTC 7

> standing

> upright in the background? And why did the BBC communication with her all the

> sudden

> get cut off five minutes before WTC 7 fell -- is it because someone noticed

the

> anomaly

> that they were reporting its having fallen while it was still standing on

> screen? Does this

> not reek of people not having their stories straight, issuing press releases

too

> early, etc?

>

>

> > There are great coincidences that occur all of the time, and one can

> > find them accompanying most major events, I'd imagine. Anecdotally, I

> > remember all of the coincidences that used to be mentioned between the

> > Kennedy and Lincoln assasinations - and that's what they were - just

> > plain coincidences.

> >

> > But there is a market in all of this crap, and in this big occult

> > conspiracy that has engulfed us all, and I'd understand why the Bush

> > administration would actually prefer that people believe stuff like

> > that - it's a great distraction from real issues.

>

> So in your view, the fact that the Bush administration railroaded all attempts

> at

> investigation, that it and the commission reported blatant lies about what

they

> did and did

> not know, and that Bush would only appear before the commission if he appeared

> with

> Cheney at the same time and if the white house had full ability to redact

> anything that

> came out of the interview was just to make it LOOK like they had something to

> hide, and

> just to make it LOOK like he needed to tell his story with Cheney so they

could

> keep their

> stories straight just to make it LOOK like there was a conspiracy, all so

people

> could be

> totally distracted from more important issues, like homophobia and

> anti-feminism.

>

> So in other words, Bush et al have conspired to create the illusion of

> conspiracy. It's a

> conspiracy to distract people from important things. And the conspiracy to

> create the

> illusion of conspiracy is more plausible to you than the conspiracy being

real?

>

> Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> ???? I simply don't understand the point of your post at all.

>

> The fact that our government charges people with conspiring, doesn't imply

> that our government conspired to bring about 9/11. Surely you recognize

> that?

Did you read beyond that? I was making an introductory remark to

clarify that the word " conspiracy " does not reflect on the

plausibility of an argument. Many people often refer to something as

a " conspiracy theory " when they wish to imply its inherent

implausibility. I was simply opening up the discussion by noting that

everyone believes 9/11 is a conspiracy.

The rest of my post did not in the least bit rest on the Guantanamo

" conspiracy " charges at all, so I'm not sure why you seem to have

encapsulated my entire post into this one comment, unless you stopped

reading immediately after the first paragraph.

However, if you insist on asking me the point of my post rather than

to discern the point of it by reading it, here is a summary:

-- The criteria of evidence needed is not that for indictment or

conviction, but that needed for investigation, which can be

circumstantial and indirect.

-- Over 50 public servants including senators, former FBI directors

and CIA agents -- including the 27-year CIA Veteran Ray McGovern, who

signed a petition " which calls for immediate public attention to

unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current

administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen,

perhaps as a pretext for war " -- have made it public that they believe

there is clear evidence of a government cover-up of the truth about

9/11 (See here:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport)

-- The evidence of intentional demolition of WTC 7 does not include

only architectural arguments, but also obvious inabilities to keep the

story straight from officials and reports that it had fallen before it

actually did, evidence easily evaluated by non-experts.

-- Controlled demolition does not ipso facto indicate the complicity

of a criminal element within the gov't, but it does suggest it because

of the need for cooperation from those with access to building

security.

-- Responsibility of Al-Qaeda does not indicate lack of gov't

responsibility, because Al-Qaeda was created under the aegis of the

CIA, which operates with the doctrine of " plausible deniability, "

whereby third parties with loose and informal chains of command are

directed to carry out acts so that those responsible for the order can

deny any knowledge or responsibility.

Chris

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Masterjohn " <chrismasterjohn@...>

> Gene,

>

> > ???? I simply don't understand the point of your post at all.

> >

> > The fact that our government charges people with conspiring, doesn't imply

> > that our government conspired to bring about 9/11. Surely you recognize

> > that?

>

> Did you read beyond that?

Oops - sorry - my bad. I thought thaty our post ended there.

> I was making an introductory remark to

> clarify that the word " conspiracy " does not reflect on the

> plausibility of an argument.

Well, that's true. I'm not sure that the point needed to be made, however.

> Many people often refer to something as

> a " conspiracy theory " when they wish to imply its inherent

> implausibility.

Well, while there are conspiracies in life, I think that the grand scale

conspiracies that get so much attention are generally fanciful at best. However,

I don't think that I simply impugned these 9/11 theories as conspiracy theories,

implying that THEREFORE there was nothing to them. But, for the most part - yes

- calling something a conspiracy theory, or calling someone a conspiracy

theorist is generally, and rightfully, used as a pejorative. That's not the same

thing as saying that a conspiracy couldn't possibly ever exist.

>I was simply opening up the discussion by noting that

> everyone believes 9/11 is a conspiracy.

But this point was still somewhat of a non sequitur, since I never claimed that

no conspiracies have ever existed.

>

> The rest of my post did not in the least bit rest on the Guantanamo

> " conspiracy " charges at all, so I'm not sure why you seem to have

> encapsulated my entire post into this one comment, unless you stopped

> reading immediately after the first paragraph.

again - I thought that you ended the post with the link, and I didn't see that

you continued beyond that.

>

> However, if you insist on asking me the point of my post rather than

> to discern the point of it by reading it, here is a summary:

>

> -- The criteria of evidence needed is not that for indictment or

> conviction, but that needed for investigation, which can be

> circumstantial and indirect.

I'll all for an independent investigation of what exactly happened that day.

Never implied that I wasn't. However, I don't think that thinking that we've

been lied to is the same as believing that the government was behind it. Most of

the 9/11 conspiracy theorists automatically jump to that conclusion - if you

don't believe that our government planned this, then you either don't believe

that they are evil, or you don't believe that they lie to us, or both. Which is

a very wrong conclusion.

> -- Over 50 public servants including senators, former FBI directors

> and CIA agents -- including the 27-year CIA Veteran Ray McGovern, who

> signed a petition " which calls for immediate public attention to

> unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current

> administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen,

> perhaps as a pretext for war " -- have made it public that they believe

> there is clear evidence of a government cover-up of the truth about

> 9/11 (See here:

there is a HUGE difference between bringing it about deliberately and allowing

it to happen (which I don't believe is out of the realm of possibility, though

I'd imagine it would be closer to 'going through the motions' so that nothing

suspicious could ever be found. It has to look like you're fighting the war on

terror....

> http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport)

> -- The evidence of intentional demolition of WTC 7 does not include

> only architectural arguments, but also obvious inabilities to keep the

> story straight from officials and reports that it had fallen before it

> actually did, evidence easily evaluated by non-experts.

> -- Controlled demolition does not ipso facto indicate the complicity

> of a criminal element within the gov't, but it does suggest it because

> of the need for cooperation from those with access to building

> security.

> -- Responsibility of Al-Qaeda does not indicate lack of gov't

> responsibility, because Al-Qaeda was created under the aegis of the

> CIA, which operates with the doctrine of " plausible deniability, "

> whereby third parties with loose and informal chains of command are

> directed to carry out acts so that those responsible for the order can

> deny any knowledge or responsibility.

Of course, it is possible that the entire war on terror is a conspiracy, with

the CIA and al-qaeda as participants. There could always be the evidence that

hasn't been discovered yet, and the huge amount of circumstantial evidence that

this is not so might simply be part of the need for plausibility. So, many, many

people involved, and never the slightest leak. And you could never prove that

there wasn't 'something else' that you didn't know that brought the whole

conspiracy together. I never said that it was proven that there was no

conspiracy - just that the notion that there was/is one on this scale is

ludicrous. Gee, let's torture people, even though we are conspiring with them,

just to make it look good. Not that the Bush administration is above this

morally (they are war criminals after all), but I just don't think that they

could have ever pulled something off this perfectly, for years.....it's just

silly.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> I'll all for an independent investigation of what exactly happened

> that day. Never implied that I wasn't. However, I don't think that

> thinking that we've been lied to is the same as believing that the

> government was behind it.

No, it isn't. But if the government and the 9/11 commission is

clearly lying and covering something up, then it's either covering up

a) massive incompetence, foreknowledge, or c) complicity.

> Most of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists automatically jump to that

> conclusion - if you don't believe that our government planned this,

> then you either don't believe that they are evil, or you don't

> believe that they lie to us, or both. Which is a very wrong

> conclusion.

I'm not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist in that I haven't made up my mind

about any of this yet, but from what I've read and watched so far, no

one is making that jump. I provided more information in my first

post that you never addressed that suggest links. For example,

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are part of PNAC, which was saying a year

earlier that a " new pearl harbor " was necessary to catalyze American

global hegemoney and the militarization of space, so there's motive.

The Mujahadeen, bin Laden, etc, precursor to Al-Qaeda, were created

under the aegis of the CIA. It is not clear when or if Al-Qaeda and

bin Laden ever stopped being a CIA asset, and according to one

report, bin Laden may have met with a CIA agent in the summer of

2001. The Pakistani intelligence agency ISI chief met with two

future members of the 9/11 commission (uh, conflict of interest???)

on September 11, and ISI reportedly wired Mohammed Atta $100,000 on

September 10, via a member who was busted for killing the Wall Street

Journal reporter who was investigating the links between ISI and Al-

Qaeda. So the connections are clear. These are just a few of them.

Should we give the benefit of the doubt that these connections were

due to incompetence and intelligence failure? Well, of course that

MIGHT be the case, which would be revealed in a real investigation,

which the administration and those involved have been railroading and

making every effort to completely disallow.

Or, it MIGHT be the case that these connections indicate complicity.

Why on earth would we trust the CIA on this? The CIA has been using

the doctrine of " plausible deniability " since its inception, whereby

illegal acts are delegated to third parties through loose and

informal command networks so that the order cannot be back to its

source. If bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are known past CIA assets, and if

there are other indications that friendly communication was still at

work leading up to the attacks, why should we give agencies that have

expressed clear intent to engage in willful deception of the American

public the benefit of the doubt?

> there is a HUGE difference between bringing it about deliberately

> and allowing it to happen (which I don't believe is out of the

> realm of possibility, though I'd imagine it would be closer

> to 'going through the motions' so that nothing suspicious could

> ever be found. It has to look like you're fighting the war on

> terror....

I think the moral culpability is similar, and the evidence would look

the same. According to the doctrine of " plausible deniability, "

orders are never written, so it would be difficult to uncover

evidence of, say, a direct order from an intelligence agent to an Al-

Qaeda member to do such-and-such and prove actual orchestration. It

would be much easier to determine foreknowledge, which would indicate

either orchestration or mere allowance.

So, the risk -- which was your main argument about the inherent

plausibility -- is basically the same between allowance and

orchestration. So it turns out it's not so risky after all, if you

believe that foreknowledge and allowance is within the realm of

possibility.

> Of course, it is possible that the entire war on terror is a

> conspiracy, with the CIA and al-qaeda as participants. There could

> always be the evidence that hasn't been discovered yet, and the

> huge amount of circumstantial evidence that this is not so might

> simply be part of the need for plausibility.

What is the huge amount of circumstantial evidence that this is not

so?

> So, many, many people involved, and never the slightest leak.

Many people would have to be involved, but not many people would have

to actually no what is going on. You seem to be overlooking the fact

that these agencies have been honing their deception skills for 60

years -- do you not think they gain any experience with preventing

leaks over this interim?

As Ventury pointed out in his Stern interview, the first

way you prevent leaks is to not leave anyone disgruntled. In other

intelligence failure disasters, dozens of people have been demoted or

fired, but in 9/11 not one. Then there is blackmail and intimidation

of job loss or blacklist or prosecution, purchasing, worse types of

intimidation, and then there is, of course, what happened to the Wall

Street Journal reporter investigating the links between Al-Qaeda and

ISI, which could have been a rogue act by terrorists, or could have

been another example of " plausible deniability. "

In any case, there have been some limited types of leaks. For

example, the case of Sibel Edmonds:

http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18828res20050126.html

> And you could never prove that there wasn't 'something else' that

> you didn't know that brought the whole conspiracy together. I never

> said that it was proven that there was no conspiracy - just that

> the notion that there was/is one on this scale is ludicrous. Gee,

> let's torture people, even though we are conspiring with them, just

> to make it look good.

Well no, I'm not sure why you'd put it past them to torture people

they utilized if they would torture people they did not utilize. If

they'd do one they'd do the other. But, more importantly, just

because they may have utilized certain people they brand as

terrorists does not mean that *everyone* they've branded as

terrorists are being so utilized.

> Not that the Bush administration is above this morally (they are

> war criminals after all), but I just don't think that they could

> have ever pulled something off this perfectly, for years.....it's

> just silly.

Right... they didn't pull it off perfectly. However, it appears that

way to someone who uses the a priori assumption that it is

ridiculous, because in that case it still appears ridiculous 7 years

later. Only that is circular reasoning, because the reason it

appears ridiculous is not because of their skill at holding the story

together -- which actually falls apart at every end -- but because of

the a priori assumption that it is ridiculous.

Do you think that the conspiracy of the National Socialist German

Workers Party to take over Germany and use the threat of terrorism to

suspend the constitution and achieve global domination while

committing genocide against the Jews and other groups in a mass

depopulation campaign was ludicrous?

We may be dealing with the same circle of people. The CIA is a

fundamentally Nazi institution, formed by Hitler supporters who

imported Nazis to use for their science and mind control techniques:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA

Dulles, who was the first and longest-serving CIA director and

served until 1961 when he was fired by JFK (who just happened to be

assassinated...) served with his brother Dulles as legal counsel

for one of the main American banks involved in financing Hitler,

smuggling Nazi loot after the war, and setting up Nazi front

corporations all over the world. On the board of directors was

Herbert and Prescott Bush. Herbert was

Prescott Bush's father-in-law, and Prescott Bush was Herbert

Bush's father. HW Bush, who was named after

Herbert , served as CIA director, then as president, and is

father to W. Bush, current president. Prescott Bush was

prosecuted under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

These folks have a long history of being ardent Nazi supporters and

material enablers of the Nazi regime, and involved in the importation

of Nazi scientists after the war during the creation of the CIA.

Do you put these techniques past Nazis? Most historians believe that

the Nazis were responsible for burning down the Reichstag, an act

Hitler blamed on Communists terrorists and which he used to convince

the parliament to suspend the constitution and give him dictatorial

powers to fight a war on terrorism.

Chris

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> Gene,

>

> > I'll all for an independent investigation of what exactly happened

> > that day. Never implied that I wasn't. However, I don't think that

> > thinking that we've been lied to is the same as believing that the

> > government was behind it.

>

> No, it isn't. But if the government and the 9/11 commission is

> clearly lying and covering something up, then it's either covering up

> a) massive incompetence, foreknowledge, or c) complicity.

>

Well, sure - but the fact that their complicity is a logical

possibility does not make it plausible. Surely you don't think that I

denied that it's a logical possibility. My point is that it isn't

plausible, not that it is an internal contradiction.

>

>

> > Most of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists automatically jump to that

> > conclusion - if you don't believe that our government planned this,

> > then you either don't believe that they are evil, or you don't

> > believe that they lie to us, or both. Which is a very wrong

> > conclusion.

>

> I'm not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist in that I haven't made up my mind

> about any of this yet, but from what I've read and watched so far, no

> one is making that jump.

>

made it against Chomsky. But you say that you turned off

that interview before his rant. But you're correct - I typed

carelessly - most of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists that I've argued

with have done this. I shouldn't have suggested (unintentionally) that

most of the higher profile ones act this way.

You're going to wear me out again. I have other stuff to do than

engage you in hours and hours of debate. As far as I know, there IS no

evidence - just coincidences motives. However the motives were also

easily satisfied by simply taking advantage of an opportunity. You can

smugly tell me that since I haven't countered all of your arguments,

or possibly (I doubt it) haven't seen them all, I haven't made a

strong case against this conspiracy. You know what - I really don't

care. If you want to believe - go ahead.

> I provided more information in my first

> post that you never addressed that suggest links. For example,

> Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are part of PNAC, which was saying a year

> earlier that a " new pearl harbor " was necessary to catalyze American

> global hegemoney and the militarization of space, so there's motive.

>

I've never argued that there weren't motives, and I am fully aware

that people in the administration have been looking for a long time to

do some of the stuff that they have done since 9/11. That does not

constitute evidence that they actually conspired.

>

> The Mujahadeen, bin Laden, etc, precursor to Al-Qaeda, were created

> under the aegis of the CIA. It is not clear when or if Al-Qaeda and

> bin Laden ever stopped being a CIA asset, and according to one

> report, bin Laden may have met with a CIA agent in the summer of

> 2001. The Pakistani intelligence agency ISI chief met with two

> future members of the 9/11 commission (uh, conflict of interest???)

> on September 11, and ISI reportedly wired Mohammed Atta $100,000 on

> September 10, via a member who was busted for killing the Wall Street

> Journal reporter who was investigating the links between ISI and Al-

> Qaeda. So the connections are clear. These are just a few of them.

>

> Should we give the benefit of the doubt that these connections were

> due to incompetence and intelligence failure? Well, of course that

> MIGHT be the case, which would be revealed in a real investigation,

> which the administration and those involved have been railroading and

> making every effort to completely disallow.

>

> Or, it MIGHT be the case that these connections indicate complicity.

> Why on earth would we trust the CIA on this? The CIA has been using

> the doctrine of " plausible deniability " since its inception, whereby

> illegal acts are delegated to third parties through loose and

> informal command networks so that the order cannot be back to its

> source. If bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are known past CIA assets, and if

> there are other indications that friendly communication was still at

> work leading up to the attacks, why should we give agencies that have

> expressed clear intent to engage in willful deception of the American

> public the benefit of the doubt?

>

> > there is a HUGE difference between bringing it about deliberately

> > and allowing it to happen (which I don't believe is out of the

> > realm of possibility, though I'd imagine it would be closer

> > to 'going through the motions' so that nothing suspicious could

> > ever be found. It has to look like you're fighting the war on

> > terror....

>

> I think the moral culpability is similar, and the evidence would look

> the same. According to the doctrine of " plausible deniability, "

> orders are never written, so it would be difficult to uncover

> evidence of, say, a direct order from an intelligence agent to an Al-

> Qaeda member to do such-and-such and prove actual orchestration. It

> would be much easier to determine foreknowledge, which would indicate

> either orchestration or mere allowance.

>

> So, the risk -- which was your main argument about the inherent

> plausibility -- is basically the same between allowance and

> orchestration. So it turns out it's not so risky after all, if you

> believe that foreknowledge and allowance is within the realm of

> possibility.

>

> > Of course, it is possible that the entire war on terror is a

> > conspiracy, with the CIA and al-qaeda as participants. There could

> > always be the evidence that hasn't been discovered yet, and the

> > huge amount of circumstantial evidence that this is not so might

> > simply be part of the need for plausibility.

>

> What is the huge amount of circumstantial evidence that this is not

> so?

>

> > So, many, many people involved, and never the slightest leak.

>

> Many people would have to be involved, but not many people would have

> to actually no what is going on. You seem to be overlooking the fact

> that these agencies have been honing their deception skills for 60

> years -- do you not think they gain any experience with preventing

> leaks over this interim?

>

> As Ventury pointed out in his Stern interview, the first

> way you prevent leaks is to not leave anyone disgruntled. In other

> intelligence failure disasters, dozens of people have been demoted or

> fired, but in 9/11 not one. Then there is blackmail and intimidation

> of job loss or blacklist or prosecution, purchasing, worse types of

> intimidation, and then there is, of course, what happened to the Wall

> Street Journal reporter investigating the links between Al-Qaeda and

> ISI, which could have been a rogue act by terrorists, or could have

> been another example of " plausible deniability. "

>

> In any case, there have been some limited types of leaks. For

> example, the case of Sibel Edmonds:

>

> http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

>

> http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18828res20050126.html

>

> > And you could never prove that there wasn't 'something else' that

> > you didn't know that brought the whole conspiracy together. I never

> > said that it was proven that there was no conspiracy - just that

> > the notion that there was/is one on this scale is ludicrous. Gee,

> > let's torture people, even though we are conspiring with them, just

> > to make it look good.

>

> Well no, I'm not sure why you'd put it past them to torture people

> they utilized if they would torture people they did not utilize. If

> they'd do one they'd do the other. But, more importantly, just

> because they may have utilized certain people they brand as

> terrorists does not mean that *everyone* they've branded as

> terrorists are being so utilized.

>

> > Not that the Bush administration is above this morally (they are

> > war criminals after all), but I just don't think that they could

> > have ever pulled something off this perfectly, for years.....it's

> > just silly.

>

> Right... they didn't pull it off perfectly. However, it appears that

> way to someone who uses the a priori assumption that it is

> ridiculous, because in that case it still appears ridiculous 7 years

> later. Only that is circular reasoning, because the reason it

> appears ridiculous is not because of their skill at holding the story

> together -- which actually falls apart at every end -- but because of

> the a priori assumption that it is ridiculous.

>

> Do you think that the conspiracy of the National Socialist German

> Workers Party to take over Germany and use the threat of terrorism to

> suspend the constitution and achieve global domination while

> committing genocide against the Jews and other groups in a mass

> depopulation campaign was ludicrous?

>

> We may be dealing with the same circle of people. The CIA is a

> fundamentally Nazi institution, formed by Hitler supporters who

> imported Nazis to use for their science and mind control techniques:

>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA

>

> Dulles, who was the first and longest-serving CIA director and

> served until 1961 when he was fired by JFK (who just happened to be

> assassinated...) served with his brother Dulles as legal counsel

> for one of the main American banks involved in financing Hitler,

> smuggling Nazi loot after the war, and setting up Nazi front

> corporations all over the world. On the board of directors was

> Herbert and Prescott Bush. Herbert was

> Prescott Bush's father-in-law, and Prescott Bush was Herbert

> Bush's father. HW Bush, who was named after

> Herbert , served as CIA director, then as president, and is

> father to W. Bush, current president. Prescott Bush was

> prosecuted under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

>

> These folks have a long history of being ardent Nazi supporters and

> material enablers of the Nazi regime, and involved in the importation

> of Nazi scientists after the war during the creation of the CIA.

>

> Do you put these techniques past Nazis? Most historians believe that

> the Nazis were responsible for burning down the Reichstag, an act

> Hitler blamed on Communists terrorists and which he used to convince

> the parliament to suspend the constitution and give him dictatorial

> powers to fight a war on terrorism.

>

> Chris

>

> Chris

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I suggest the book " Crossing the Rubicon " by Rupert for anyone who's

interested in reviewing and weighing evidence.

Re: POLITICS: 9/11 - an inside job? ( was...economic disaster

and gov't surveillance like we've never known before)

>

> Gene,

>

> > I'll all for an independent investigation of what exactly happened

> > that day. Never implied that I wasn't. However, I don't think that

> > thinking that we've been lied to is the same as believing that the

> > government was behind it.

>

> No, it isn't. But if the government and the 9/11 commission is clearly

> lying and covering something up, then it's either covering up

> a) massive incompetence, foreknowledge, or c) complicity.

>

Well, sure - but the fact that their complicity is a logical possibility

does not make it plausible. Surely you don't think that I denied that it's a

logical possibility. My point is that it isn't plausible, not that it is an

internal contradiction.

>

>

> > Most of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists automatically jump to that

> > conclusion - if you don't believe that our government planned this,

> > then you either don't believe that they are evil, or you don't

> > believe that they lie to us, or both. Which is a very wrong

> > conclusion.

>

> I'm not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist in that I haven't made up my mind

> about any of this yet, but from what I've read and watched so far, no

> one is making that jump.

>

made it against Chomsky. But you say that you turned off that

interview before his rant. But you're correct - I typed carelessly - most of

the 9/11 conspiracy theorists that I've argued with have done this. I

shouldn't have suggested (unintentionally) that most of the higher profile

ones act this way.

You're going to wear me out again. I have other stuff to do than engage you

in hours and hours of debate. As far as I know, there IS no evidence - just

coincidences motives. However the motives were also easily satisfied by

simply taking advantage of an opportunity. You can smugly tell me that since

I haven't countered all of your arguments, or possibly (I doubt it) haven't

seen them all, I haven't made a strong case against this conspiracy. You

know what - I really don't care. If you want to believe - go ahead.

> I provided more information in my first post that you never addressed

> that suggest links. For example, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are part of

> PNAC, which was saying a year earlier that a " new pearl harbor " was

> necessary to catalyze American global hegemoney and the militarization

> of space, so there's motive.

>

I've never argued that there weren't motives, and I am fully aware that

people in the administration have been looking for a long time to do some of

the stuff that they have done since 9/11. That does not constitute evidence

that they actually conspired.

>

> The Mujahadeen, bin Laden, etc, precursor to Al-Qaeda, were created

> under the aegis of the CIA. It is not clear when or if Al-Qaeda and

> bin Laden ever stopped being a CIA asset, and according to one report,

> bin Laden may have met with a CIA agent in the summer of 2001. The

> Pakistani intelligence agency ISI chief met with two future members of

> the 9/11 commission (uh, conflict of interest???) on September 11, and

> ISI reportedly wired Mohammed Atta $100,000 on September 10, via a

> member who was busted for killing the Wall Street Journal reporter who

> was investigating the links between ISI and Al- Qaeda. So the

> connections are clear. These are just a few of them.

>

> Should we give the benefit of the doubt that these connections were

> due to incompetence and intelligence failure? Well, of course that

> MIGHT be the case, which would be revealed in a real investigation,

> which the administration and those involved have been railroading and

> making every effort to completely disallow.

>

> Or, it MIGHT be the case that these connections indicate complicity.

> Why on earth would we trust the CIA on this? The CIA has been using

> the doctrine of " plausible deniability " since its inception, whereby

> illegal acts are delegated to third parties through loose and informal

> command networks so that the order cannot be back to its source. If

> bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are known past CIA assets, and if there are

> other indications that friendly communication was still at work

> leading up to the attacks, why should we give agencies that have

> expressed clear intent to engage in willful deception of the American

> public the benefit of the doubt?

>

> > there is a HUGE difference between bringing it about deliberately

> > and allowing it to happen (which I don't believe is out of the realm

> > of possibility, though I'd imagine it would be closer to 'going

> > through the motions' so that nothing suspicious could ever be found.

> > It has to look like you're fighting the war on terror....

>

> I think the moral culpability is similar, and the evidence would look

> the same. According to the doctrine of " plausible deniability, "

> orders are never written, so it would be difficult to uncover evidence

> of, say, a direct order from an intelligence agent to an Al- Qaeda

> member to do such-and-such and prove actual orchestration. It would be

> much easier to determine foreknowledge, which would indicate either

> orchestration or mere allowance.

>

> So, the risk -- which was your main argument about the inherent

> plausibility -- is basically the same between allowance and

> orchestration. So it turns out it's not so risky after all, if you

> believe that foreknowledge and allowance is within the realm of

> possibility.

>

> > Of course, it is possible that the entire war on terror is a

> > conspiracy, with the CIA and al-qaeda as participants. There could

> > always be the evidence that hasn't been discovered yet, and the huge

> > amount of circumstantial evidence that this is not so might simply

> > be part of the need for plausibility.

>

> What is the huge amount of circumstantial evidence that this is not

> so?

>

> > So, many, many people involved, and never the slightest leak.

>

> Many people would have to be involved, but not many people would have

> to actually no what is going on. You seem to be overlooking the fact

> that these agencies have been honing their deception skills for 60

> years -- do you not think they gain any experience with preventing

> leaks over this interim?

>

> As Ventury pointed out in his Stern interview, the first

> way you prevent leaks is to not leave anyone disgruntled. In other

> intelligence failure disasters, dozens of people have been demoted or

> fired, but in 9/11 not one. Then there is blackmail and intimidation

> of job loss or blacklist or prosecution, purchasing, worse types of

> intimidation, and then there is, of course, what happened to the Wall

> Street Journal reporter investigating the links between Al-Qaeda and

> ISI, which could have been a rogue act by terrorists, or could have

> been another example of " plausible deniability. "

>

> In any case, there have been some limited types of leaks. For example,

> the case of Sibel Edmonds:

>

> http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

>

> http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18828res20050126.html

>

> > And you could never prove that there wasn't 'something else' that

> > you didn't know that brought the whole conspiracy together. I never

> > said that it was proven that there was no conspiracy - just that the

> > notion that there was/is one on this scale is ludicrous. Gee, let's

> > torture people, even though we are conspiring with them, just to

> > make it look good.

>

> Well no, I'm not sure why you'd put it past them to torture people

> they utilized if they would torture people they did not utilize. If

> they'd do one they'd do the other. But, more importantly, just because

> they may have utilized certain people they brand as terrorists does

> not mean that *everyone* they've branded as terrorists are being so

> utilized.

>

> > Not that the Bush administration is above this morally (they are war

> > criminals after all), but I just don't think that they could have

> > ever pulled something off this perfectly, for years.....it's just

> > silly.

>

> Right... they didn't pull it off perfectly. However, it appears that

> way to someone who uses the a priori assumption that it is ridiculous,

> because in that case it still appears ridiculous 7 years later. Only

> that is circular reasoning, because the reason it appears ridiculous

> is not because of their skill at holding the story together -- which

> actually falls apart at every end -- but because of the a priori

> assumption that it is ridiculous.

>

> Do you think that the conspiracy of the National Socialist German

> Workers Party to take over Germany and use the threat of terrorism to

> suspend the constitution and achieve global domination while

> committing genocide against the Jews and other groups in a mass

> depopulation campaign was ludicrous?

>

> We may be dealing with the same circle of people. The CIA is a

> fundamentally Nazi institution, formed by Hitler supporters who

> imported Nazis to use for their science and mind control techniques:

>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA

>

> Dulles, who was the first and longest-serving CIA director and

> served until 1961 when he was fired by JFK (who just happened to be

> assassinated...) served with his brother Dulles as legal counsel

> for one of the main American banks involved in financing Hitler,

> smuggling Nazi loot after the war, and setting up Nazi front

> corporations all over the world. On the board of directors was

> Herbert and Prescott Bush. Herbert was Prescott

> Bush's father-in-law, and Prescott Bush was Herbert

> Bush's father. HW Bush, who was named after Herbert

> , served as CIA director, then as president, and is father to

> W. Bush, current president. Prescott Bush was prosecuted under

> the Trading with the Enemy Act.

>

> These folks have a long history of being ardent Nazi supporters and

> material enablers of the Nazi regime, and involved in the importation

> of Nazi scientists after the war during the creation of the CIA.

>

> Do you put these techniques past Nazis? Most historians believe that

> the Nazis were responsible for burning down the Reichstag, an act

> Hitler blamed on Communists terrorists and which he used to convince

> the parliament to suspend the constitution and give him dictatorial

> powers to fight a war on terrorism.

>

> Chris

>

> Chris

>

>

>

>

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> You're going to wear me out again. I have other stuff to do than

> engage you in hours and hours of debate. As far as I know, there IS no

> evidence - just coincidences motives. However the motives were also

> easily satisfied by simply taking advantage of an opportunity.

Yes, naturally, but there is a large body of other evidence suggesting that

certain elements

within the government had friendly contacts with some of the hijackers, bin

Laden himself,

etc, leading up to the attacks, a variety of evidence suggesting possible

foreknowledge of

the attaacks, and a very long history of certain agencies and especially Bush

family-

associated factions of those agencies that have a history of doing frankly wild

illegal

things and covering them up.

> You can

> smugly tell me that since I haven't countered all of your arguments,

> or possibly (I doubt it) haven't seen them all, I haven't made a

> strong case against this conspiracy. You know what - I really don't

> care. If you want to believe - go ahead.

I don't think it would be smug to point out the facts, which is that you do not

seem to

have any desire to even consider any evidence one way or the other, becuase you

a priori

reject it as ridiculous.

> > I provided more information in my first

> > post that you never addressed that suggest links. For example,

> > Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are part of PNAC, which was saying a year

> > earlier that a " new pearl harbor " was necessary to catalyze American

> > global hegemoney and the militarization of space, so there's motive.

> I've never argued that there weren't motives, and I am fully aware

> that people in the administration have been looking for a long time to

> do some of the stuff that they have done since 9/11. That does not

> constitute evidence that they actually conspired.

It is part of a case. Even in a trial, motive is brought up. We aren't at the

point of trial or

even indictment. We are at the point of investigation and suspect

identification. All we

need is motive and a decent amount of circumstantial evidence constituting

probable

cause to justify an investigation.

Do you believe in the Mafia? They are a conspiracy, engage in rituals, and are

highly

organized and able to pull off illegal activities, generally without leaks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia#Maxi_Trial_and_war_against_the_government

Mafia participants have been convicted at some points in the past, but in

general, lots of

people know, and there are no leaks. Why? Because they'll bribe you or torture

you or kill

you if you leak.

But, oh, I suppose that is ridiculous. Just ridiculous. There is no reason a

Mafioso would

do something that risky. If people found out, they'd be furious. So, obviously

there is no

Mafia, something only conspiracy nutjobs, which is justly used as a pejorative,

believe in.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> I suggest the book " Crossing the Rubicon " by Rupert for anyone

who's

> interested in reviewing and weighing evidence.

I just googled this book and it's on google books for free:

http://tinyurl.com/5rtf4m

Suze