slept2long

Are you equating information from the seizure of a computer belonging to a known terrorist with a Clanacy novel? What fallacy is that?

From
the Washington Post
" Friday, Rice gave an unprecedented account of the intelligence material about the al Qaida threat developed over the summer of 2001, including the preparation of the Aug. 6 document, called a Presidential Daily Briefing.
Between her remarks Sunday and Friday, a picture emerges of a document that told the president bin Laden was going to try and hit the continental United States, to use hijacked aircraft in some fashion, and to threaten buildings in New York."

Leave you rhetoric at the door Elwood.
You should know better.

Me and Me

Why do some of you believe the U.S. govt would never do such a thing? Do you guys believe that they are above this and should be worshipped?

cjack

The cracks in your reasoning (along with your bias) are starting to show.

It is clear that you want very badly to believe that the US government was either responsible or complicit in the attacks, and have more or less said that you refuse to believe anything else.

You've provided little if any evidence for that conclusion, yet you cling to it as if it were the gospel truth.

The quotes you posted above do not prove much.

An Egyptian journalist seems to think that this operation was beyond the scope of Al Qaeda, and that only a state government could pull off something of this magnitude.

Really? This operation was actually very simple. 19 fanatics willing to die for jihad are not hard to come by. The rest (boxcutters, fake bombs, credit cards, and some flight training) are hardly outside the scope of a dedicated terrorist cell. The reason the attacks were so effective and so stunning is that they were low-tech, low-budget affairs.

You also posted quotes that don't tell us anything new, but you DO put a rather far-fetched spin on this knowledge.

Did the CIA work together with ISI to create an army of Muslim fanatics?

Yes. Over 20 years ago. After the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the US left the freedom fighters to their own devices. In case you hadn't noticed, that army has long since turned against the US.

It is also a stretch to suggest that the US and Pakistan worked together on the 9/11 attacks. If this were the case, then why would the US pressure Pakistan to remove a high-ranking general suspected of being involved with Atta?

If they were able to cover up a massive conspiracy to "allow" the attacks, then how did that one slip by?

While we're on the subject of conspiracy...it would take a massive conspiracy to cover up complicity in the attacks by the US government. I find it very hard to believe that such a cover-up would be a hard sell for the military:

"General, we're going to attack the Pentagon and kill a few hundred of your people...make sure it goes off without a hitch!"

Again, this is the same government that couldn't keep a blow-job secret for more than a couple of months.

slept2long

Any guess as to why we haven't called for his extradition? And I was under the impression that there is no suspecting involved. That the evidence is that he did wire the money. I'd be thankful for a rebuttal of that.

How much effort did it take to cover up Vietnam's truths, the instatement of numerous SOA generals after removal of democratically elected governments? Not much because the MEDIA don't report that kind of stuff.

Wouldn't Ockam's razor rule that option out? Why bring more people into the fold than you need?

Interesting how you equate the breaking of the BJ story with the government and not the media. Are you saying you believe the government controlled that story or any others?

Soul Invictus

thanks a lot... I'd really like to read it. I'll try a google too.I heard Bush dumped his airline stock right before 9-11, but that may have just been a rumor that was spreading. How did the whole Jewish affair turn out- the one that I read in the newspaper stating that 2000? jews didn't go to work @ the WTC on 9-11. I read that it was true, and heard that it was inaccurate. Is anyone familiar with either of these stories?

yaktldg

si: "How did the whole Jewish affair turn out- the one that I read in the newspaper stating that 2000? jews didn't go to work @ the WTC on 9-11. I read that it was true, and heard that it was inaccurate. Is anyone familiar with either of these stories?"

truthorfiction.com says Fiction: "Nothing in this report fits with any of the facts that are known about the terrorist attacks. This report came from Al-Manar Television in Beirut Lebanon, a pro-Palestinian channel."

Note the ad hominem. Also, if by "facts" they mean "US propaganda," then that holds no significance.

I haven't seen any evidence for or against.

slept2long

Soul Invictus, regarding the insider trading around 9/11.

From
here I found:

"After 9/11 both the SEC and the Secret Service announce probes into an unusually high volume trade of five-year US Treasury note purchases around this time. These transactions included a single $5 billion trade."
Wall Street Journal

and

"Data recovery experts later looking at 32 hard drives salvaged from the 9/11 attacks discover a surge in credit card transactions from the WTC in the hours before and during the attacks. Unusually large sums of money were rushed through computers even as the disaster unfolded."
Rueters


Here's is some more info on the firms involved and other market oddities around 9/1.

Loren Pechtel

Since when would Bush have had any airline stocks to dump?! Due to the high potential of a conflict of interest I thought people at the top put their assets in blind trusts.

Soul Invictus

I'm not saying he did either way...I'm merely voicing a rumor I heard. I'll concede that there is no factual basis to it. I'm not supporting the claim, just asking if there was any merit to it, or if anyone heard this rumor also.

echidna

What occurred to me very strongly at the time, was how low-key the attacks were. I know that sounds bizarre, but the targets were always more symbolic than designed to inspire terror.

I haven�t seen discussions, but to me if I had a fully fuelled Jumbo & wanted to inflict maximum damage, I wouldn�t target a single building, even one as massive as the WTC, I would target a nuclear reactor or a dam.

My BIL works in petrochem & their risk management is extensive, but in all their detailed risk analysis, the meetings usually close with �well that�s about it except for a meteor or a jumbo�, because in reality defences against attack from above are nearly impossible to prevent. That has always been my fear since then, because as frightening as it may seem, 3 fully fuelled jumbos can actually kill a lot more than just a few thousand people.