ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 20th March 2019, 06:16 PM   #121
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26,918
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
For some reason it's easier for CTists to believe 9-11 was all faked instead accepting that after 9-11 Americans went a little crazy.

Indeed. That evening, watching the news at my friend's place, I said, "The Americans are going to bomb the **** out of someone for this", and how right I was.


Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I always wondered why MIHOP is so very much more popular in the Truth Movement then LIHOP. Both are worthless BS, but at least with LIHOP you don't have the idiocy of trying to disprove indisputable facts:that four airliners were hijacked by Mideastern terrorist and flown into the WTC and the Pentagon and a meadow in Pennslyvania.

We've discussed this issue here before. I think the problem is, the vast majority of truthers got into it based on the fact that the collapses of the Twin Towers "just didn't look right". So they started off from a basis of trying to find a reason to explain that apparent discrepancy.

So, for them to move from MIHOP to LIHOP would require them to admit that their very first suspicions - that the buildings were demolished - were incorrect, without basis. And one thing we've seen, time and again for well over a decade now, is that people inclined towards CTs are fundamentally incapable of admitting a mistake*, no matter how trivial.

So, for them to admit that the fundamental basis for their entire "HOP" belief was incorrect is virtually impossible.



*Let us recall the Great Stundie.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2019, 07:05 PM   #122
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,436
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
...I think the problem is, the vast majority of truthers got into it based on the fact that the collapses of the Twin Towers "just didn't look right". So they started off from a basis of trying to find a reason to explain that apparent discrepancy.
Yes. And CD at WTC was - still is - easy to sell to the more gullible and physics incompetent end of the demographic spread. Hence one big reason why R Gage continues in being successful in selling to his chosen market.

Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
...So, for them to move from MIHOP to LIHOP would require them to admit that their very first suspicions - that the buildings were demolished - were incorrect, without basis.
Correct IMO - and consistent with my two preceding posts - within the definition of either as referring to "IT" as the whole entity of 9/11. "They" dare not abandon "CD at WTC" - and to a certain extent "No planes at Pentagon" and "Shoot down at Shanksville" followed the same rationale.

Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
... And one thing we've seen, time and again for well over a decade now, is that people inclined towards CTs are fundamentally incapable of admitting a mistake*, no matter how trivial.
Yes.
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
...So, for them to admit that the fundamental basis for their entire "HOP" belief was incorrect is virtually impossible.
...correct whether we focus on "HOP" OR my suggestion to focus on "I" - what is "IT"?
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2019, 01:20 AM   #123
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,880
It seems a useless exercise to explain the mind of a truther. I've always thought that they start from the premise... someone needed an excuse to launch was in the ME... for regime change and or to get at OPEC and oil "problem" the US claimed to have had. Hell war is candy (or would that be heroin?) for the MIC. War m eans profit$.

Technically the US can't start a war... and they need congress to declare war and it will almost always be because the US was attacked (Pearl Harbor anyone???) Congress did pass the AUMF which enabled war without a declaration of war. We recall the Gulf of Tonkin incident which was used a pretext to meddle in SE Asia. And let's not forget the domino theory. So we have a situation where there is PR to get the nation into military engagements on foreign soil Easy peasy.

Problem in the ME is that none of those countries would attack... the US over here... but they might respond to US military shenanigans over there. Maybe. US had been doing the usual propping up of a puppet leader who danced to our drum beat. And that meant denying democratic rights to the people of the ME. Restless natives is unacceptable.

Natives with no channels to express their political, economic and social grievances resorted to terrorism. No need to engage in military battles. Not even possible. And so the excuse... raison d'etre for military intervention presented itself. Restless natives had to be brought to heel and any government that might appear to support or not condemn acts of terrorism.

So although terrorism may have been a genuine expression of discontent... and not a military attack meriting response... these incidents began to escalate. Khobar towers, USS Cole... and finally the ballsy multiple hijacking incident on US soil. What should the response have been? Something for debate.

But also something to claim was a false flag and an excuse to launch the ME wars some wanted.,. and got. No will to start a war of a plane was simply hijacked... So they did multiple... and used the planes as missiles to strike iconic symbols of USA hegemony. We dont know the target of the Shanksville plane, but it was probably the Capitol... big and easy to hit.

But not relying on slacker amateur pilots... truthers reasoned.. would not cut it... demolish the suckers cos they weren't supposed to collapse from a airstrike... use programed APs and CD to get the job done. Americans will be pissed off and rushing to recruitment centers the next morning. MIC gets it's war. Flag makers make out big time. Oh and let's clamp down on freedom so no one can sneak around anymore,

It all makes perfect sense to the truther's mind.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2019, 02:02 AM   #124
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,653
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
But that is begging the question - several of them.
No, I don't think it is. Let's go back to the question: Why did the truth movement fail? The question itself is incomplete; why did the truth movement fail to do what? Unless and until the aims of the truth movement are defined - and I would argue that they never were - then how can anyone discuss what actions or attributes resulted in a failure to achieve those aims?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2019, 03:50 AM   #125
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,654
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Great!
Since you have posted the following:

"Further, I do not accept your claim that the most important question of 9/11 was why the CIA did not share information on Mihdhar and Hazm OR that this question remains unanswered." you can then answer the following questions.

What was the most important question that came out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and your comment "Further, I do not accept your claim that this question, (why the CIA did not share information on Mihdhar and Hazmi) remains unanswered", then explain the answer to this question, and back it up with a link to a reliable source.

I doubt very much, if you will ever be able to do this.
Start a thread. Off topic here.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2019, 07:15 AM   #126
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,603
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
No, I don't think it is. Let's go back to the question: Why did the truth movement fail? The question itself is incomplete; why did the truth movement fail to do what? Unless and until the aims of the truth movement are defined - and I would argue that they never were - then how can anyone discuss what actions or attributes resulted in a failure to achieve those aims?

Yep. I posted "Fail to do what?" in this thread a year ago, which as far as I'm concerned completely answered the OP insofar as it's possible to answer.

The closest thing to a coherent aim was the much-petitioned-for "new investigation." But the actual new investigations that were going on regularly at the time didn't count. The aim (though rarely straightforwardly stated) was a particular type of investigation that is inherently impossible: an "independent" investigation by investigators vested with coercive ("subpoena") powers. One might as well have marched on the campuses of MIT and CalTech demanding square triangles.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2019, 07:19 AM   #127
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,547
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
The closest thing to a coherent aim was the much-petitioned-for "new investigation." But the actual new investigations that were going on regularly at the time didn't count. The aim (though rarely straightforwardly stated) was a particular type of investigation that is inherently impossible: an "independent" investigation by investigators vested with coercive ("subpoena") powers. One might as well have marched on the campuses of MIT and CalTech demanding square triangles.
And all this is yet another variation on the "Maintain the facade that there is still a discussion happening" tactic.

It's the same thing as "Teach the Controversy" and similar, a desperate anti-intellectual game based on the idea that you aren't "wrong" as long as someone is still going through the motions of arguing.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2019, 07:19 AM   #128
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,597
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Yep. I posted "Fail to do what?" in this thread a year ago, which as far as I'm concerned completely answered the OP insofar as it's possible to answer.

The closest thing to a coherent aim was the much-petitioned-for "new investigation." But the actual new investigations that were going on regularly at the time didn't count. The aim (though rarely straightforwardly stated) was a particular type of investigation that is inherently impossible: an "independent" investigation by investigators vested with coercive ("subpoena") powers. One might as well have marched on the campuses of MIT and CalTech demanding square triangles.
And the only investigation they'd believe is one that confirms their theory, which makes investigations, of course, irrelevant. Which is why they didn't actually want a new investigation. The journey was more important than the destination.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2019, 08:01 AM   #129
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 13,234
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
It's the same thing as "Teach the Controversy" and similar, a desperate anti-intellectual game based on the idea that you aren't "wrong" as long as someone is still going through the motions of arguing.
Zombie argument. Just because it still moans and shambles along, doesn't mean it isn't dead.

__________________
Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. - Eugene Ionesco
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2019, 10:12 AM   #130
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,654
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
No, I don't think it is. Let's go back to the question: Why did the truth movement fail? The question itself is incomplete; why did the truth movement fail to do what? Unless and until the aims of the truth movement are defined - and I would argue that they never were - then how can anyone discuss what actions or attributes resulted in a failure to achieve those aims?

Dave
Fail to do anything other than make some noise.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2019, 01:43 PM   #131
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 600
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
This has been explained to you numerous times. Why was the information not shared? Because back then it was not common practice for the CIA and the FBI to share anything. The CIA's tactics for intel gathering often excluded any usefulness to the FBI for any chance of prosecution if they had the info. "The Wall" was created for this reason. Did "The Wall" prevent such communication? No. It was just policy and common practice back then.

The question you are repeatedly asked (and never answer) is, Was there any actually information (without hindsight) that clearly pointed to the plan to carry out the events of 9/11? Did anyone knowingly hide this knowledge with the intent to allow the attacks to take place?

The answer to both of these questions is, NO. This is why no one was prosecuted even though all the "facts" you post come from official investigations of the event.
Your post, "Because back then it was not common practice for the CIA and the FBI to share anything." is beyond stupid. It is, was, and always has been a crime for anyone to have knowledge of a crime, a potential crime or of persons engaged in a crime or potential crime, and not give this information to the proper authorities. The fact that the CIA was the one withholding infromation from FBI criminal agents on the Cole bombing and the east Africa terrorist attacks does not absolve them of criminal actions if they withheld information from these agents. If this was official policy at the CIA, then anyone who authorized these actions, would also be guilty of the crime of conspiracy.

The CIA's tactics for intel gathering often excluded any usefulness to the FBI for any chance of prosecution if they had the info. "The Wall" was created for this reason. Did "The Wall" prevent such communication? No. It was just policy and common practice back then.

This is total bull ****** The Wall was complete fiction in blocking any communication between intelligence agents and criminal agents or between the CIA and FBI agents. In the first place, the Wall protocol never went outside of the DOJ and FBI, so it never applied to any agency outside of the FBI, not the CIA, not the NSA, not to any agency outside of the DOJ, and it only prohibited DOJ prosecutors from directing the work of FBI intelligence agents. Later on when it was found that criminal FBI agents were using FISA search warrants instead of criminal warrants in criminal investigations, it prohibited FBI criminal agents from using FISA warrants after criminal indictments had been issued.

Where the Wall effected the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi was when FBI HQ’ Agent Dina Corsi, erroneously claimed that the Wall prevented FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, who had wanted to find these two al Qaeda terrorists before they had time to carry out the horrific attacks that both the CIA and the FBI had been warned about, from even having her EC to start an investigation for these two terrorists, because of a NSA cable in her EC. The protocol that covered NSA documents, was not the Wall but “ORCAN”. Agencies that wanted to distribute a NSA document had to get written permission from the originator of the document, in this case the NSA general council. A caveat on all NSA documents stated that these documents could not be given to FBI criminal agents without written permission from the NSA GC, due to the fact that the information may have been obtained using a FISA warrant.

But Corsi withholding this document from Bongardt and shutting down his investigation, because of this NSA cable, was criminally negligent for several reasons. First she had already gotten written permission from the NSA to give Bongardt this document on August 27, 2001, one day before she claimed she did not have this permission. She had lied to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, a major Federal felony. Second when Bongardt told her, that she must be confused, that this restriction only applied to information obtained using a FISA warrant, he asked her to get an opinion from the FBI NSLU to see if he could start this investigation. The NSLU attorney told Corsi that since there had been no FISA warrant connected to this NSA information, Bongardt could undertake any investigation that he wanted in order to find these terrorists. But on August 29, 2001 Corsi told Bongardt that the attorney had ruled that he could have no part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. Corsi had lied again, in order to shut down his investigation.

In her email to Bongardt on August 29, 2001, Corsi stated that if new evidence of a substantial crime by Mihdhar and Hazmi was developed, she would pass this information over the (fictional) Wall to allow Bongardt to start an investigation for these al Qaeda terrorists. But she admitted to DOJ IG investigators, after the attacks on 9/11, that she had been aware from at least August 22, 2001 that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, clearly a substantial Federal crime. These lies cost almost 3000 people, their lives on 9/11.

Your post: “The question you are repeatedly asked (and never answer) is, Was there any actually information (without hindsight) that clearly pointed to the plan to carry out the events of 9/11? Did anyone knowingly hide this knowledge with the intent to allow the attacks to take place?”

The answer to the first question is yes, and the answer to the second question also yes. So let’s be clear I have answered your questions, and in fact have answered these questions many times in the past. I have not only posted the exact information that was known prior to the attacks on 9/11 but have also listed exactly who knew what prior to these attacks.
paloalto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2019, 02:16 PM   #132
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,676
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Your post, "Because back then it was not common practice for the CIA and the FBI to share anything." is beyond stupid....
No.......It's reality without hindsight.

If you want to take this back to one of your other threads you can answer the questions you seem unable to. You use hindsight to accuse individuals of crimes without real evidence that was their intent. You never factor in the complacency that was inherent in our government agencies at that time. This was fixed by lessons learned and the loss of life on 9/11. Got that?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 21st March 2019 at 02:27 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2019, 10:16 PM   #133
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,343
Paloalto, I must ask again: are you a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement? If yes, please explain why you think so! If not, stop derailing this thread!
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2019, 12:01 AM   #134
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,099
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
... These lies cost almost 3000 people, their lives on 9/11. ...
You are off topic, how ever you are on topic with a great example why 9/11 truth failed. (thus you are indirectly on topic with BS you made up, and you don't have a clue which part you made up, just like 9/11 truth believers.)

Great example why 9/11 truth failed (in the real world) - nonsense made up to support BS.


All I get from your wall of words, two terrorists would be arrested before 9/11, and it would be a 17 terrorist plot.

... the murder of 3,000 is due to the act of 19 murderers, not the FBI, not the CIA.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2019, 05:22 AM   #135
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,244
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
No.......It's reality without hindsight.

If you want to take this back to one of your other threads you can answer the questions you seem unable to. You use hindsight to accuse individuals of crimes without real evidence that was their intent. You never factor in the complacency that was inherent in our government agencies at that time. This was fixed by lessons learned and the loss of life on 9/11. Got that?
I posted earlier that it was just an oversight by the CIA that the FBI wasn't made aware the possible plot. Perhaps complacency was the issue, but it isn't criminal in nature. Thus no one was brought to trial by the DOJ.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2019, 04:27 PM   #136
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 600
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Paloalto, I must ask again: are you a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement? If yes, please explain why you think so! If not, stop derailing this thread!
You might say I was one of "the genuine truth seekers who were around in the early days, genuinely looking for answers to as yet unanswered questions".

I am not nor have ever been a member of what might be called "9/11 Truth", as in believing someone placed bombs in the WTC towers, or that high energy beams from space brought down the towers or that green scaly reptilian like creatures from outer space brought down the towers in a plot to take over the country. I considered all of these theories just completely and totally nuts, promulgated by crackpots and charlatans. But the people who refuted these crackpot theories were even bigger crackpots themselves. First they were never going to convince any of these crack pots of anything. Second by debating these crackpots, they were actually giving all of these nut job, crack pots and their stupid theories credibility. Had they just ignored these crackpots, they would have gone away by themselves in a just very short time.

What I did, was to carefully research every single detail on these attacks, by going over virtually every single official government report numerous times, and aggregating all of this information in order to put it back together a complete picture of why the attacks on 9/11 were allowed to take place. I have carefully gone through, multiple times, the Pentbomb investigation report, the Joint Inquiry Report, 9/11 Commission report, and even all of the staff statements released during the April 13-14, 2004, 9/11 Commission public hearings, the DOJ IG report, the CIA IG report, the “FBI OUTLINE” of “What was known prior to the attacks on 9/11”, the book “Looming Tower”, by Lawrence Wright, the Book “State of Denial”, by Bob Woodward, the material by Ken Silverstein in the 2007 January issue of Harpers, “Meet the new CIA Bagdad Chief, (Richard Blee)”, the New York Times report “Warnings Revealed” by Kurt Eichenwald , the “Bush Question” New York Times, by Elizabeth Drew,” “the Inquiry into the Attack on the USS Cole in 2000 Missed 9/11 Clues”, New York Times, by David Johnston and James Risen, the web site, “al Quds al Rabbi”, run by Abdul Atwan, which, held actual emails and warnings directly from bin Laden himself (warnings from bin Laden of a huge terrorist attack inside of the US, 3 weeks prior to 9/11), and the hundreds and hundreds of PDF Moussaoui trial Defense Exhibits.

I have also contacted, the FBI criminal agents many times, and have been in contact with investigators from the Joint Inquiry Committee of the House and the Senate including investigator Michael Jacobson, Joint Inquiry Deputy Chief Rich Cinquegrana, and Joint Inquiry Chief Elinore Hill, contacted the 9/11 Commission, Al Felzenberg assistant to Philip Zelikow, and talked to several of the 9/11 Commissioners, Governor Kean, Tim Roemer, Bob Kerrey, and Richard bin Vinesta, while attending the 9/11 Commission hearings on April 13-14 2004. I have been in email contact with Lawrence Wright over many years, and have interviewed Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, Chris Whipple of Newsweek, Scott Shane from the New York Times, Jeff Stein from Newsweek, Greg Miller from the Washington Post. I have interviewed virtually every FBI criminal agent who had tried to stop the attacks on 9/11, to find out exactly why they were unable to stop the attacks on 9/11, FBI agents including Boston FBI on 9/11, Colleen Rowley, MPLS FBI and Moussaoui investigator, Joseph Rivers MPLS FBI, Harry Samit MPLS FBI and Moussaoui investigator, Robert Stow in the San Francisco FBI, Vince Tagleari in the San Jose FBI, Dan Reynolds in the San Jose FBI, Steve Bongardt in the New York City FBI, and FBI Cole bombing investigator, and Mark Rossini, FBI Manger at the CIA bin Laden unit during 9/11.

I had carefully detailed exactly what people at the CIA and FBI knew prior to the attacks on 9/11, when did they know this, where did they get this information, and finally did they act like a prudent person would have acted with this same information. This is called the “prudent man test”, used in many investigations, to judge the actions of persons who may have committed a crime. I then verified, with interviews, what people knew by talking to the actual FBI criminal agents who had actually worked on the 9/11 investigations, just prior to the attacks on 9/11. The question I was trying to answer was why were the attacks on 9/11 allowed to take place, when the CIA and the FBI had way more than enough information to have prevented these attacks.

The official account prior to the attacks on 9/11 is clearly perhaps the biggest crackpot theory of all, that this was a complete screw up or maybe one giant cluster **** is not only ludicrous but makes absolutely no sense.

The CIA top managers all knew on August 22, 2001, not only that a huge al Qaeda attack was just about to take place inside of the US, that would kill, perhaps thousands of Americans, but knew that two al Qaeda terrorists, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were already inside of the US in order to take part in this terrorist attack.

The CIA had known since June 12, 2001, that this attack would involve multiple hijacked aircraft flown into many iconic buildings in the US, including the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and the US Capital building. They were even warned three weeks ahead of this attack that this huge terrorist attack was just about to take place. On August 23, CIA Director George Tenet, and many other high CIA managers, found out that a terrorist had just been arrested by Minneapolis FBI, who were asking for help from the CIA, in order to get a search warrant for his duffel bag and computer. The CIA refused to help the Minneapolis FBI, even when they knew this huge attack was just about to take place, and even had the names and passports including photos of two of the terrorists who would take part in this attack.

The FBI had been informed these two terrorists were inside of the US, on August 21, 2001 by a low level employee at the CIA, so what did the FBI do when got this information and and knew this huge attacks was going to take place. They shut down the one FBI criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that could have stopped this attack.

Any one who thinks that makes the least bit of sense, and uses what can be call the "stupidity defense", i.e. as in these agencies were just too stupid, to justify these actions, is most likely even crazier than the crackpots who think 9/11 was caused by green scaly reptilian creatures from out space.

Last edited by paloalto; 22nd March 2019 at 04:48 PM.
paloalto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2019, 05:34 PM   #137
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,880
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
.....

Any one who thinks that makes the least bit of sense, and uses what can be call the "stupidity defense", i.e. as in these agencies were just too stupid, to justify these actions, is most likely even crazier than the crackpots who think 9/11 was caused by green scaly reptilian creatures from out space.
There seems to be little doubt that there was intel of some sort of terrorist strike coming. It was in the PDB. And this raises some questions in my mind.

How did they obtain that intel? Who from? When? What was the policy at the time or even today... to preemptively arrest or whatever to thwart a believed coming attack? Of course we know that intel likely breaks the law supposedly in the interest of the greater good.

It seems to stop a crime that is planned, but not committed.. a conspiracy case must be made. So if you have plans to rob a bank... and the authorities learn of your plans, they would arrest you and charge you with a conspiracy to commit say grand larceny.

So was there a decent enough case that could be brought against the terrorists before they pulled off 9/11 and arrest them charging conspiracy to commit mass murder hijacking and so on? I am not aware of the feds filing such claims and foiling a conspiracy plot... before 9/11. They may have thwarted some post 9/11. But many acts of terrorism have taken place since 9/11 with tons or intel resources trying to find these murderers and they have missed them many times. And they know terrorists are out there looking to cause mischief. France has had a number of these horrible incidents. Despite the gloves being off... intel and the DOJ seem unable to thwart terrorism and that includes the nuts in the US at military bases.

It happened. Was it a LIHOP because someone(s) who could have prevented it decided that the outcome would be desirable... such as the raison d'etre to invade the ME? USA can't invade unless attacked. None of the Arab states will attack the US and certain not on our soil.

MIC and DOD need "excuses" to wage war... the so called "new Pearl Harbor" or Gulf of Tonkin... or some sort of crazy threat to some navel vessel in foreign waters. Being so powerful few want to start a war with the US and if peace were truly to break out... there would eventually be calls for downsizing the DOD, the MIC would be taking a huge haircut and profits would dry up.

But why would the terrorists want to attack the USA in the first place? I suppose if they felt the USA was the cause of their misery... and propped up oppressive governments...and no one listened to or acted on their legitimate grievances.... you resort to asymmetrical warfare - terrorism. You don't cobble together a battleship and send it off to invade the USA to engage a naval battle group.

It can be argued that USA is the cause of terrorism which is simply what is called blow back. It's so obvious... that I can predict with 100% certainty that there will be terrorist attacks this year, next year and for the foreseeable future.... to the USA, France, UK, Spain... Germany, Italy and anywhere people can lash out against what they perceive as "the oppressor".

It's not hard to figure out where these terrorists meet...recruit and cook up their plans. Mosques for sure... not all but it's a meeting place. Prison... a meeting place for angry people... even the military itself could be a place to meet and conspire.

++++

What struck me as really odd post 9/11 is that there was no self examination in the USA as to what were the causes of terrorism and what role our policies played in fueling the hatred directed back at us. And I am sure that a lot of pols. police, military, intel and so forth figured that out but refused to say it and change our policies. And this may be because without an enemy there is no need for a national security state. Our policies create the enemies we need to justify our militarism. Sure there are loonie leaders out there and shouldn't be running and ruining countries. What should our policy be?

And we're back at it again in Venezuela. No good will come from that one either.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2019, 05:47 PM   #138
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,678
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
The CIA had known since June 12, 2001, that this attack would involve multiple hijacked aircraft flown into many iconic buildings in the US, including the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and the US Capital building. They were even warned three weeks ahead of this attack that this huge terrorist attack was just about to take place.
Not true. Nobody at Langley knew it would involve hijacked aircraft turned into missiles. If Alec Station knew, that information has yet to see the light of day.

The State Department issued a travel advisory for the Mediterranean that specified the possibility of Al Qaeda hijacking airliners in July, 2001. That warning expired in the first week in September. This means that some government agency other than the CIA had intel on Al Qaeda, chances are it was the same source, and therefore while they expected an attack they had no idea where in the world it would go down.

Quote:
On August 23, CIA Director George Tenet, and many other high CIA managers, found out that a terrorist had just been arrested by Minneapolis FBI, who were asking for help from the CIA, in order to get a search warrant for his duffel bag and computer. The CIA refuses to help the Minneapolis FBI, even when they knew this huge attack was just about to take place, and even had the names and passports including photos of two of the terrorists who would take part in this attack.
The parts you left out:

1. The Millennium Bomber, Ahmed Ressam, was never asked about Zacarias Moussaoui until AFTER 9-11, when he told the FBI he had trained with him inKhalden Camp in Afghanistan. So the FBI had the information it needed sitting in a cell, but dropped the ball. This means that the FBI had 19 months to obtain this information.

2. Moussaoui had training materials for a 747, not a 767, and was likely a backup incase the 9-11 attacks fell through.

3. Even with all of the evidence, the Prosecution still had problems directly connecting Moussaoui to the 9-11 conspiracy. He contended that he was planning a separate attack, something that other captured Al Qaeda members confirmed.

4. Moussaoui was arrested on 16, August. There is no guarantee the FBI gets anything out of him before the attacks, and this is before the Patriot Act, so all he had to do was lawyer up.

Quote:
The FBI had been informed these two terrorists were inside of the US, on August 21, 2001 by a low level employee at the CIA, so what did the FBI do when got this information and and knew this huge attacks was going to take place. They shut down the one FBI criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that could have stopped this attack.
So if the FBI knew, how is the CIA at fault? Do you understand that when you talk about the FBI you are talking about D.C., the New York Office, FBI Counter Terrorism desk, and finally John P. O'Neil's special Al Qaeda unit. O'Neil's abrasive personal style undermined his unit's work, and made the rest of the New York office, and D.C. tone-deaf to his concerns of an impending Al Qaeda attack.

I'm not saying Alec Station is not at fault, ultimately the attack is on them. Michael Scheuer didn't trust the FBI, and like O'Neil, had an ego that got in the way of his judgement. What I am saying is that the FBI was not up to speed on Al Qaeda thanks to lack of communication between its Al Qaeda Unit, and it's Counter Terrorism unit, and FBI management in general. They could have cracked the puzzle while working the USS Cole bombing in Yemen had O'Neil not gotten into a conflict with the US Ambassador, who tossed him out, and his conduct got him reassigned just at the wrong moment, and ultimately removed from the FBI.

What the 9-11 attacks revealed is that the FBI has not evolved very far from the Hoover days where politics and internal hierarchy override procedure all too often. This is still the case today.

Quote:
Any one who thinks that makes the least bit of sense, and uses what can be call the "stupidity defense", i.e. as in these agencies were just too stupid, to justify these actions, is most likely even crazier than the crackpots who think 9/11 was caused by green scaly reptilian creatures from out space.
Thanks for proving my earlier point.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:58 AM   #139
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,244
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
<snip>

What I did, was to carefully research every single detail on these attacks, by going over virtually every single official government report numerous times, and aggregating all of this information in order to put it back together a complete picture of why the attacks on 9/11 were allowed to take place. I have carefully gone through, multiple times, the Pentbomb investigation report, the Joint Inquiry Report, 9/11 Commission report, and even all of the staff statements released during the April 13-14, 2004, 9/11 Commission public hearings, the DOJ IG report, the CIA IG report, the “FBI OUTLINE” of “What was known prior to the attacks on 9/11”, the book “Looming Tower”, by Lawrence Wright, the Book “State of Denial”, by Bob Woodward, the material by Ken Silverstein in the 2007 January issue of Harpers, “Meet the new CIA Bagdad Chief, (Richard Blee)”, the New York Times report “Warnings Revealed” by Kurt Eichenwald , the “Bush Question” New York Times, by Elizabeth Drew,” “the Inquiry into the Attack on the USS Cole in 2000 Missed 9/11 Clues”, New York Times, by David Johnston and James Risen, the web site, “al Quds al Rabbi”, run by Abdul Atwan, which, held actual emails and warnings directly from bin Laden himself (warnings from bin Laden of a huge terrorist attack inside of the US, 3 weeks prior to 9/11), and the hundreds and hundreds of PDF Moussaoui trial Defense Exhibits.

I have also contacted, the FBI criminal agents many times, and have been in contact with investigators from the Joint Inquiry Committee of the House and the Senate including investigator Michael Jacobson, Joint Inquiry Deputy Chief Rich Cinquegrana, and Joint Inquiry Chief Elinore Hill, contacted the 9/11 Commission, Al Felzenberg assistant to Philip Zelikow, and talked to several of the 9/11 Commissioners, Governor Kean, Tim Roemer, Bob Kerrey, and Richard bin Vinesta, while attending the 9/11 Commission hearings on April 13-14 2004. I have been in email contact with Lawrence Wright over many years, and have interviewed Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, Chris Whipple of Newsweek, Scott Shane from the New York Times, Jeff Stein from Newsweek, Greg Miller from the Washington Post. I have interviewed virtually every FBI criminal agent who had tried to stop the attacks on 9/11, to find out exactly why they were unable to stop the attacks on 9/11, FBI agents including Boston FBI on 9/11, Colleen Rowley, MPLS FBI and Moussaoui investigator, Joseph Rivers MPLS FBI, Harry Samit MPLS FBI and Moussaoui investigator, Robert Stow in the San Francisco FBI, Vince Tagleari in the San Jose FBI, Dan Reynolds in the San Jose FBI, Steve Bongardt in the New York City FBI, and FBI Cole bombing investigator, and Mark Rossini, FBI Manger at the CIA bin Laden unit during 9/11.

I had carefully detailed exactly what people at the CIA and FBI knew prior to the attacks on 9/11, when did they know this, where did they get this information, and finally did they act like a prudent person would have acted with this same information. This is called the “prudent man test”, used in many investigations, to judge the actions of persons who may have committed a crime. I then verified, with interviews, what people knew by talking to the actual FBI criminal agents who had actually worked on the 9/11 investigations, just prior to the attacks on 9/11. The question I was trying to answer was why were the attacks on 9/11 allowed to take place, when the CIA and the FBI had way more than enough information to have prevented these attacks.

<snip>
You have used "I" quite a bit. Now none of us are able to verify that you did all these activities, but can you provide emails verify what you claim?
Secondly what did the DOJ do when you presented all this "evidence"? I would almost guarantee that IF you presented the case you built that the Obama administration would jump at the chance to expose the Bush administration for its lack of oversight or collaboration in one of the most horrible accounts in American history. But alas, no indictments no trials were conducted. As Axxmann300 pointed out there was an oversight and nothing more that the information wasn't shared. Maybe the sharing would have prevented the disaster, but I doubt it. Complacency at all levels is difficult to overcome. Of course in hindsight it is 20-20.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:44 AM   #140
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 884
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Troll's, POE's and the hopelessly unreachable.
Not really POE’s

Activivists aren’t Poe’s.

They, like Tony Sz, have a “cause”. They therefore see no problem in telling any lie, no matter how vile, if it will help their “cause”.

There’s lots of examples of this. The homeless situation years ago was a classic one. Conservatives are in power and there’s millions of blond haired blue eyed family of fours living in boxes, then when libs are in power they disappear. Ok, well that seems to prove the differing policies. But then one day, a disillusioned former homeless activist comes forward and produces documents and does interviews that show how it was all lies.

Imagine that.
Seymour Butz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:52 AM   #141
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,343
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
You might say I was one of "the genuine truth seekers who were around in the early days, genuinely looking for answers to as yet unanswered questions".

I am not nor have ever been a member of what might be called "9/11 Truth" ...
Since the topic of this thread is, per its title, "Why did the Truth Movement fail ?", your story of failure to get accountability for the responsible individuals within US agencies is off-topic.

Nor are you otherwise talking about the failing of the Truth Movement.

I do not wish to report your posts and the replies to it, but you are really quite wrong in this thread, and I kindly ask you, and those who respond to you, to stop the derail.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:17 AM   #142
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,654
Originally Posted by Seymour Butz View Post
Not really POE’s

Activivists aren’t Poe’s.

They, like Tony Sz, have a “cause”. They therefore see no problem in telling any lie, no matter how vile, if it will help their “cause”.
Tony is in the hopelessly unreachable category
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:21 PM   #143
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,244
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Since the topic of this thread is, per its title, "Why did the Truth Movement fail ?", your story of failure to get accountability for the responsible individuals within US agencies is off-topic.

Nor are you otherwise talking about the failing of the Truth Movement.

I do not wish to report your posts and the replies to it, but you are really quite wrong in this thread, and I kindly ask you, and those who respond to you, to stop the derail.
My apologies for helping the train wreck.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:46 PM   #144
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 884
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Tony is in the hopelessly unreachable category
I agree that it at times, seems that way. He can seem to be mentally incapacitated

But I’ve seen him post occasionally- and I will add that according to the time stamp, he was posting after the bars closed - where he goes off about how Bush and Cheney should be in jail for war crimes..... which of course leads to the stretch about the wars being an oil grab ( where we don’t get the oil ) etc, etc.

Granted, I believe that he was drunk when he wrote that - think I’ve seen 2, but maybe only once - and since alcohol is pretty good truth serum..... I believe that better describes his motivation.

Therefore, my belief that he’s an activist, and not a mentally challenged.

Hence, this is why the truth movement has failed. They are using old activist tactics. Everyone has seen them and they’re not fooling anyone except young dumb kids that HAVE’NT seen them, etc.

Last edited by Seymour Butz; Yesterday at 02:49 PM.
Seymour Butz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:04 AM   #145
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,436
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Since the topic of this thread is, per its title, "Why did the Truth Movement fail ?",..... and I kindly ask you, and those who respond to you, to stop the derail.
Agreed - it is off topic. Hence my failed and now aborted attempt to get it on topic and discussing the full scope of the topic question.

Last edited by ozeco41; Today at 01:07 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:45 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.