9/11: PNAC Motive and Opportunity as evidence of an inside job

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
[Admin: Tread spun off and re-titled, starting with a question about what could be considered evidence]

Photos of the explosives in-situe. Multiple consistent whistleblower testimony. Documentary evidence.

But I think it's more relevant to ask what would make me suspicious that 9/11 was an inside job. It's a much lower standard, and something that you'd need to have as a first step before moving on to convincing.

I would suspect it was an inside job if there was physical evidence of a controlled demolition. Stuff like loud bangs, or times and det cord wrappers found in the debris.

I would suspect an inside job if there was ANYTHING that was inconsistent with the official story. Anything that could not be explained by the events of the day. Basically the kind of things that the truthers claim are all things that would be good evidence to provide suspicion - except they are invariably wrong. Freefall, microspheres, dustification, energetic material, all wrong. But that type of thing would be relevant.

Interesting and insightful answer. You make a good point about the suspicion being a precursor to the proof.

Would you agree that such criteria as motive, opportunity, ability and pre statement of intent would have bearing, at least as far as suspicion?

Do you think this may be a legitimate thread?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Interesting and insightful answer. You make a good point about the suspicion being a precursor to the proof.

Would you agree that such criteria as motive, opportunity, ability and pre statement of intent would have bearing, at least as far as suspicion?
They are relevant in identifying suspects. But then you've got to see if there's any actual evidence.

Do you think this may be a legitimate thread?

The thread is really about if the physical evidence is consistent with the official story. I'm not sure what you mean by legitimate, but people ask the questions, so the questions get answered. So far I've not seen any place where the physical evidence is inconsistent with the official story. I don't think the molten metal is a big deal either way.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
They are relevant in identifying suspects. But then you've got to see if there's any actual evidence.

The thread is really about if the physical evidence is consistent with the official story. I'm not sure what you mean by legitimate, but people ask the questions, so the questions get answered. So far I've not seen any place where the physical evidence is inconsistent with the official story. I don't think the molten metal is a big deal either way.

Ok, so would you agree that the Bush admin had the motive, opportunity, ability and at least 'in part' the pre statement of intent, (in terms of PNAC but also other statements), that place them as 'possible suspects', either indirectly or by direct involvement for the events of 9/11?

I think if we can at least agree that 'they were viable suspects at one time', even if you have since discounted that, it would be helpful in reaching a mutual understanding, (in terms of pro OS camp v pro CT camp) and to then see where the divergence, if any, took place and why.

Even the most pro OS supporter must have at some point at least 'wondered' if the Bush admin had any hand in it; the same as even the most devoutly religious must have at some point in their lives 'at least wondered' if there really is a God.

I think these are key questions in establishing why the CT's have gathered such traction for so many people and goes right to the heart of the problem of why so many people distrust governments in general but particularly in this instance the Bush admin.

When I asked "Do you think this may be a legitimate thread?", I meant do you think it is worth opening a new thread to explore this issue or are you happy for it to form part of this thread. It just seems a bit off topic, that's why I asked.
 

Met Watch

Moderator
Ok, so would you agree that the Bush admin had the motive, opportunity, ability and at least 'in part' the pre statement of intent, (in terms of PNAC but also other statements), that place them as 'possible suspects', either indirectly or by direct involvement for the events of 9/11?

Jumping in for the first time, but elaborate on this, please. What is the motive of the Bush administration to do this? I've tried to stay out of this stuff for the longest time because it always ends up becoming a giant mess but this got me curious.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Jumping in for the first time, but elaborate on this, please. What is the motive of the Bush administration to do this? I've tried to stay out of this stuff for the longest time because it always ends up becoming a giant mess but this got me curious.

A lot of people feel a powerful motive could be, a justification for war/invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S military expansion, American hegemony in the Middle East, regime change, the militarization of space etc as set out in the PNAC white paper which came into effect virtually in whole following 9/11 and the Neocon architects of same, became key players in the Bush admin. i.e. the ends justify the means.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Here is a bit more fleshing out:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/11/201211912435170883.html

This is in stark contrast to Kennedy's aspirations in his "We choose to go to the Moon" speech:

http://www.sudvarg.com/spacerace/wechoosemoon.htm

Currently, as was the case for years in Iraq, Iran is in economic meltdown due to sanctions which amount to economic warfare: In Iraq, prior to the 2003 invasion, it is estimated that as many as 2 million people died as a direct result of the sanctions, many of them children. The infrastructure was devoid of function as it was smashed in the Gulf War and unable to be rebuilt due to the sanctions. When you consider the second heart transplant in the world was carried out in Iraq, it just shows how it was devastated and how the people suffered.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/903...the-iranian-regime?source=email_rt_mc_focus_0


 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Ok, so would you agree that the Bush admin had the motive, opportunity, ability and at least 'in part' the pre statement of intent, (in terms of PNAC but also other statements), that place them as 'possible suspects', either indirectly or by direct involvement, for the events of 9/11?
They didn't have the motive. The PNAC was fixated on WMD being deployed by Saddam Hussein on Israel and US forces. Even after 911 they were so fixated. That suggests they were surprised.

Oxymoron said:
A lot of people feel a powerful motive could be, a justification for war/invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S military expansion, American hegemony in the Middle East, regime change, the militarization of space etc as set out in the PNAC white paper which came into effect virtually in whole following 9/11 and the Neocon architects of same, became key players in the Bush admin. i.e. the ends justify the means.
9=11 wasn't the only terrorist attack. Indeed it had been attacked before. Either another attack, or the previous 9=11 attack could have been used at any time as justification of war. The only strong reason for the successful attack, it seems to me, would be the previous failure of the perpetrator.

The reasons the terrorist conspiracy worked were a) minimum involvement with any other organizations b) foreknowledge of enemy movements c) a very minimum of equipment d) minimal time to completion e) utter simplicity. Only b) would be natural common ground in the West, except perhaps for the Seals who took out OBL, and their plan suffered from being over-equipped.

Any additions to the features of this plan would have brought complications, barriers, postponements, whistleblowers, and reduced the plan's functionality. It didn't need all, or even any, of that crap. Occam ruled completely, and Sun Tzu would have approved.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
They didn't have the motive. The PNAC was fixated on WMD being deployed by Saddam Hussein on Israel and US forces. Even after 911 they were so fixated. That suggests they were surprised.

The reasons the terrorist conspiracy worked were a) minimum involvement with any other organizations b) foreknowledge of enemy movements c) a very minimum of equipment d) minimal time to completion e) utter simplicity.

Any additions to the features of this plan would have brought complications, barriers, postponements, whistleblowers, and reduced the plan's functionality. It didn't need all that crap. Occam ruled completely, and Sun Tzu would have approved.

Jazzy, I really love your absoluteness and assuredness.

The PNAC document/plan was about American supremacy on all levels and how to achieve it both on Earth and in Space.

Everyone knows Saddam had no WMD's. Iraq was a well known absolute wreck, infrastructure such as water supplies, hospitals, education, agriculture, trade ... all wrecked and unable to be rebuilt because of the ongoing sanctions from 1st Gulf War. 80% of the people were surviving on food stamp rations handed out by the government. It is estimated 2million died through malnutrition and disease directly attributable to the blockade/sanctions. It got so embarrassing that the U.N stopped counting the deaths at 500,000 many years before the end of sanctions.

Virtually the only reports of WMD's came from a convicted fraudster and this was well known by the Bush admin which preferred to rely on this rather than the many verified reports which contradicted this.

I suggest you please take the time to read the whole piece to get a good idea of what was happening, although to be honest this is only the tip of the iceberg.

I hope you seriously research the reality of what I stated.

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

9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions... it was all pre planned and 9/11 simply allowed it all to go full speed ahead rather than take decades. It's all in the PNAC.

But I guess that is not a motive for at least allowing it to happen?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Jazzy, I really love your absoluteness and assuredness.
Reciprocated.

The PNAC document/plan was about American supremacy on all levels and how to achieve it both on Earth and in Space.
That actually makes no difference to the utility of the plan.

Everyone knows = the only reports of WMD's - an arrest warrant - charges were later dropped - 9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions
Those facts actually make no difference to the utility of the plan.

But I guess that is not a motive for at least allowing it to happen?
I can't accept there to be any common ground between arab men quite prepared to die in service of their god and hatred of their devil (WASPs) and WASPs determined to go to war to protect Israel and their common interests, stay in business, and make money. I'm sorry I can't see any sort of linkage or deal struck - ever.

There are no evidential signs of the foreknowledge of the scope of the attacks even after twelve years, and those that would have had to be complicit lack the competence or the courage to have achieved such a successful cover-up. They are afraid of death.

OBL wasn't.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Reciprocated.


That actually makes no difference to the utility of the plan.


Those facts actually make no difference to the utility of the plan.


I can't accept there to be any common ground between arab men quite prepared to die in service of their god and hatred of their devil (WASPs) and WASPs determined to go to war to protect Israel and their common interests, stay in business, and make money. I'm sorry I can't see any sort of linkage or deal struck - ever.

There are no evidential signs of the foreknowledge of the scope of the attacks even after twelve years, and those that would have had to be complicit lack the competence or the courage to have achieved such a successful cover-up. They are afraid of death.

OBL wasn't.

I cannot understand how you can possibly make such a statement.

White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) a closed group of high-status Americans mostly of English Protestant or Germanic or Nordic ancestry. The term implies the group controls disproportionate social and financial power ...

have made deals with anyone and everyone who it best serves their interests to deal with, including Saddam, Gadaffi, Shah of Iran, OBL, Chalabi, Von Brown to name but a few. Middle east tyrants, or any other tyrant for that matter, is fine so long as they are 'friendly' to the U.S.

eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

It is well known that virtually all those listed on 'the database'/Al Qaeda were funded by and assets of the CIA before they fell out over politics, (similar to Chalabi until he managed to worm his way back into the fold and another cushy position courtesy of the U.S.A.).

Again, I ask that you thoroughly read the link and think about your viewpoint.

http://www.atholbooks.org/archives/ipr/review_articles/iraq.php

You make them sound, (intentionally I presume), like crazed barbaric idiots who are jealous of Western success and happiness. That is what TPTB want people to think. They do not like people to research and know their dirty secrets and plans.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Would you agree that such criteria as motive, opportunity, ability and pre statement of intent would have bearing, at least as far as suspicion?

Can the above criteria also be applied to Al Qaeda?

Fatwa signed by OBL, Feb 3rd, 1998

 

Jazzy

Closed Account
You make them sound, (intentionally I presume), like crazed barbaric idiots who are jealous of Western success and happiness.
Well, look into your mirror. That may be the way you see it, but it isn't mine.

Success and happiness are fleeting phenomena, and more so in the west. Happiness needs no material aid beyond daily sustenance to exist - in my experience.

Anyone that believes in "imaginary friends" IS crazed. "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war", and all that.

That is what TPTB want people to think. They do not like people to research and know their dirty secrets and plans.
I shall pay more attention to you in the future. You're obviously a PTB. How would you know such stuff about them otherwise?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Can the above criteria also be applied to Al Qaeda?

Fatwa signed by OBL, Feb 3rd, 1998


https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/news/osama.htm

Yes, undoubtedly would agree they are suspects. What I am proposing is they are not the 'exclusive' suspects.

Perhaps they had a hand in it or were the sole perpetrators but were 'allowed' to succeed or perhaps they had nothing to do with 9/11 at all and were 'set up'... I don't know. Perhaps the Bush admin were just totally incompetent in protecting America from the attack. Let us just rationally discuss how suspect they are in all this instead of mindlessly chanting 'America good, terrorists bad'. (NB obviously I don't mean that personally)

Certainly American foreign policy and interventions were the cause of the hatred toward America and the West. Should this be looked at... I think it should.

What I object to, is the portrayal that they are simply 'evil mindless religious extremists who declared war on America and allies for no good reason'. Religion does not come into it other than, as is usual, all sides think God is on their side. This is about politics; it's about abuse of power and people over decades and dis empowered/marginalised people who have nothing left to lose, fighting back.

I have never seen this fatwa before so thanks for that. What I find very interesting about it is, OBL appears to be complaining about the same things that alarm me and many others, including Ron Paul; that is the systemic abuse of the people of Iraq, (the civilians that is) and the manipulation of the M.E states for the profit of the West and Israel. It is outright abuse of power and imperialism along the lines of the Romans and the British. In this day and age we should not be operating like this, IMO.

Apparently he says, and I highlight the most telling part (IMO), although all of it is a sad indictment:

As I read it, it seems clear that he believed a further attack on Iraq was imminent, whatever happened.

Make no bones about it... I cheered as much as anyone else when Hussein was driven out of Kuwait in the early 90's. He was a tyrant and a murderer a self gratifying abomination but we, and I mean the West, had no right to punish the people of Iraq to that extent. We are supposed to be the good guys. And BTW let's not forget that the Kuwaiti's and Saudi's are not the nicest of rulers either.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Well, look into your mirror. That may be the way you see it, but it isn't mine.
You lost me

Success and happiness are fleeting phenomena, and more so in the west. Happiness needs no material aid beyond daily sustenance to exist - in my experience.
Very philosophical... But?

Anyone that believes in "imaginary friends" IS crazed. "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war", and all that.
You lost me again
I shall pay more attention to you in the future. You're obviously a PTB. How would you know such stuff about them otherwise?

Yeah... nice try!! Lol
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Yes, undoubtedly would agree they are suspects. What I am proposing is they are not the 'exclusive' suspects.

Perhaps they had a hand in it or were the sole perpetrators but were 'allowed' to succeed or perhaps they had nothing to do with 9/11 at all and were 'set up'... I don't know. Perhaps the Bush admin were just totally incompetent in protecting America from the attack. Let us just rationally discuss how suspect they are in all this

There is overwhelming, irrefutable evidence that "they" perpetrated the events of that day. Any belief of complicity on the part of the US government is based on nothing more than extremely weak circumstantial evidence at best and/or distrust of the US government.


Religion does not come into it other than, as is usual, all sides think God is on their side. This is about politics; it's about abuse of power and people over decades and dis empowered/marginalised people who have nothing left to lose, fighting back.

This one of the most naive/misguided comments I have seen you make...Considering that "they" base their entire ideology on their religion, and that they justify killing based on their religion, that they use their religion to recruit soldiers for their "holy war", it is very much about religion for them. The underlying power politics help stir the pot but the drive for "jihad" goes deeper than that.


What I find very interesting about it is, OBL appears to be complaining about the same things that alarm me and many others, including Ron Paul; that is the systemic abuse of the people of Iraq, (the civilians that is) and the manipulation of the M.E states for the profit of the West and Israel. It is outright abuse of power and imperialism along the lines of the Romans and the British. In this day and age we should not be operating like this, IMO.

That you sympathize with Osama Bin Laden and his world view does not bear evidence that the Bush administration was somehow complicit in the attacks of 9/11.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
There is overwhelming, irrefutable evidence that "they" perpetrated the events of that day. Any belief of complicity on the part of the US government is based on nothing more than extremely weak circumstantial evidence at best and/or distrust of the US government.

Then answer me this, why do so many people in the West, (let alone the rest of the world), believe there is likely Bush administration/CIA complicity. Why do these CT's have so much traction from politicians, senior intelligence personnel, journalists, firefighters, engineers, scientists, pilots, military personnel.... Why do so many people distrust the government and especially the Bush regime? Let's face it, criminal actions by the President are not without precedent.


This one of the most naive/misguided comments I have seen you make...Considering that "they" base their entire ideology on their religion, and that they justify killing based on their religion, that they use their religion to recruit soldiers for their "holy war", it is very much about religion for them. The underlying power politics help stir the pot but the drive for "jihad" goes deeper than that.

I am sorry you feel that way but I disagree. You suggest this is all about religion but there is absolutely nothing to substantiate that. Did you not read what OBL apparently said.... millions killed and suffering... political pressures in the M.E... threats of invasions. I have every sympathy for the victims of 9/11 but I also have sympathy for the Middle East families that have lost their lives and suffered. I have yet to see anyone on this site even acknowledge... let alone express regret for the suffering that has been inflicted on these people. I find that very telling. And BTW, you conveniently fail to mention the multiple times that GWB refers to 'crusades' which is the western equivalent of Jihad.


That you sympathize with Osama Bin Laden and his world view does not bear evidence that the Bush administration was somehow complicit in the attacks of 9/11.
I did not say that I sympathised... there is a huge difference between understanding and sympathising. This demonising M.E Countries needs to stop. I do not agree with all that Ron Paul stands for but I do agree America should cease it's aggression and concentrate on defense and that includes not backing other nations into corners and pillaging their natural resources by force or installing puppet governments or cowing the peoples by force and threats or starvation just simply on the basis that they are big enough and powerful enough to do it. The only way it will stop is when the American people get up enough steam to stop it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Then answer me this, why do so many people in the West, (let alone the rest of the world), believe there is likely Bush administration/CIA complicity. Why do these CT's have so much traction from politicians, senior intelligence personnel, journalists, firefighters, engineers, scientists, pilots, military personnel.... Why do so many people distrust the government and especially the Bush regime? Let's face it, criminal actions by the President are not without precedent.

I think though that there is a large variety in the degree of complicity that people suspect. Many of them might simply be thinking that Bush (et al) de-prioritized counterterrorism because a terrorist attack of some kind would be useful. This does not then mean they knew anything about the 9/11 attacks.

Of it could mean that they think political forces were involved in the 9/11 commission report, which is hardly a controversial position.

Why do people distrust the government? Really? It's because the government is comprised of politicians.

http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/mostcorrupt
 

Met Watch

Moderator
Then answer me this, why do so many people in the West, (let alone the rest of the world), believe there is likely Bush administration/CIA complicity. Why do these CT's have so much traction from politicians, senior intelligence personnel, journalists, firefighters, engineers, scientists, pilots, military personnel.... Why do so many people distrust the government and especially the Bush regime? Let's face it, criminal actions by the President are not without precedent.

People always distrust the government in some way or another - there is no single one government out there that is trusted without a doubt. I don't see your point, unless you're suggesting suspicion is not normal, or if there was more suspicion than normal (if that's even measurable).

And I agree, criminal actions are not without precedent, especially by the President of the United States. That being said, the basis and evidence of criminal actions by the Bush administration (at least regarding 9/11) is weak at best.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Then answer me this, why do so many people in the West, (let alone the rest of the world), believe there is likely Bush administration/CIA complicity.

Your "so many" is likely a small percentage of the whole. Moreover, that suspicion does not substitute for lack of evidence.

You suggest this is all about religion but there is absolutely nothing to substantiate that.

Let me get this straight....OBL issues a religious edict based on the teaching of the Koran justifying the killing of people..and you say there is "nothing to substantiate" the role that religion has played in this? Fascinating. Not sure how to respond to such blatant disregard for the facts. Religion is, in fact, the prime motivating factor- or at least the underlying tenet- in suicide bomber missions.

For record- I did NOT say it was "all" about religion- but to suggest it does not play a major role and or is the prime moral justification used by jihadists is just flat out wrong.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I think though that there is a large variety in the degree of complicity that people suspect. Many of them might simply be thinking that Bush (et al) de-prioritized counterterrorism because a terrorist attack of some kind would be useful. This does not then mean they knew anything about the 9/11 attacks.

Of it could mean that they think political forces were involved in the 9/11 commission report, which is hardly a controversial position.

Why do people distrust the government? Really? It's because the government is comprised of politicians.

Yes quite, but we are not talking here of the 'usual' distrust such as Berlusconi or the U.K, M.P expenses etc, (disregarding that they have been proven), we are talking about major distrust verging on paranoia in that people think Bush et al are responsible or complicit in 9/11 and that there are plans to depopulate the World, including America. This is not normal IMO and yes I would argue that degree of mistrust is highly measurable, specifically in terms of the numbers who distrust and the degree of 'the crime' that politicians are thought capable of.

Plane says:
the basis and evidence of criminal actions by the Bush administration (at least regarding 9/11) is weak at best
Apart from noticing that yet again, the issue of America's foreign policy and it's affect on anti American feeling is totally ignored; if the evidence is weak at best, which I do not agree, then why are so many people convinced they had something to do with it. It does not make sense... people are generally patriotic and will not go against their government without good reason for suspicion, especially when their Country is the victim.

There are numerous accounts of prior warnings from divergent sources, including OBL himself. 'The Dancing Israelis' "documenting the event", (9/11) are just one instance of apparent foreknowledge and you state earlier that you consider 'high level whistle blowers', as evidence but you failed to comment on that when I offered video testimony from Susan Lindauer previously on another thread.

I am guessing you will say she is neither high level or a whistleblower, but put it this way, how is she so knowledgeable and connected and is it unsurprising that the authorities would want to discredit anyone revealing such secrets. They would hardly say "Oh, ok, we are caught, we own up".

She talks about pay offs, foreknowledge, planting explosives, the state of Iraq and the people who died as a result of U.S foreign policy, plans for regime change etc etc.

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



 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes quite, but we are not talking here of the 'usual' distrust such as Berlusconi or the U.K, M.P expenses etc, (disregarding that they have been proven), we are talking about major distrust verging on paranoia in that people think Bush et al are responsible or complicit in 9/11 and that there are plans to depopulate the World, including America. This is not normal IMO and yes I would argue that degree of mistrust is highly measurable, specifically in terms of the numbers who distrust and the degree of 'the crime' that politicians are thought capable of.

Not normal? It's perfectly normal! Haven't you read Paranoid Style?

http://paranoidstyle.com/
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There are numerous accounts of prior warnings from divergent sources, including OBL himself. 'The Dancing Israelis' "documenting the event", (9/11) are just one instance of apparent foreknowledge and you state earlier that you consider 'high level whistle blowers', as evidence but you failed to comment on that when I offered video testimony from Susan Lindauer previously on another thread.

I am guessing you will say she is neither high level or a whistleblower, but put it this way, how is she so knowledgeable and connected and is it unsurprising that the authorities would want to discredit anyone revealing such secrets. They would hardly say "Oh, ok, we are caught, we own up".

Dancing Israelis:
http://www.911myths.com/html/dancing_israelis.html

Lindauer does not seem at all credible. She offers no actual evidence.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Lindauer does not seem at all credible. She offers no actual evidence.
Except her verbal evidence of a certain degree of general foreknowledge of some form of imminent attack on the WTC. Absolutely true. The rest was opinion, and the technical part didn't ring true at all.

I like this: "the megalomaniac view of oneself as the Elect, wholly good, abominably persecuted, yet assured of ultimate triumph; the attribution of gigantic and demonic powers to the adversary; the refusal to accept the ineluctable limitations and imperfections of human existence, such as transience, dissention, conflict, fallibility whether intellectual or moral; the obsession with inerrable prophecies…systematized misinterpretations, always gross and often grotesque" from Paranoid Style. How accurate is that?

We are all against sin, Oxymoron. I accept her honesty and support much of her stance (except for the above considerations!), but there is no evidence of direct involvement with the PTB here.

I hope she gets on a lecture circuit and tells everyone her story. But it's a back story involving only a limited circle of names somewhere down the pyramid from an isolated individual's point of view, revealing only what it reveals. The rest of the pyramid may have been entirely placid, and yet the same story might unfold. That's assuming it to be true in the first place.

“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters”
― Albert Einstein
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Lindauer does not seem at all credible. She offers no actual evidence.

That is an interesting interpretation IMO. Perhaps you would offer some specific examples of the 'type' of 'actual evidence' you feel she, (or someone in her position), could have offered to make her/their verbal and written evidence 'credible', just so we know exactly what type of evidence is lacking and therefore are looking for?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That is an interesting interpretation IMO. Perhaps you would offer some specific examples of the 'type' of 'actual evidence' you feel she, (or someone in her position), could have offered to make her/their verbal and written evidence 'credible', just so we know exactly what type of evidence is lacking and therefore are looking for?

Documents
Recordings
Photos
Evidence that she was where she says she was, tickets, reciepts
Corroborating testimony, independently obtained.
Financial records
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Documents
Recordings
Photos
Evidence that she was where she says she was, tickets, reciepts
Corroborating testimony, independently obtained.
Financial records

And you find it strange that she is unable to produce such documentation after being held for four years under The Patriot Act or that it would be inappropriate to tape or steal documents in her position as an asset?




Even though prosecutors say they are not seeking the Death Penalty, many are calling for it!

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And you find it strange that she is unable to produce such documentation after being held for four years under The Patriot Act or that it would be inappropriate to tape or steal documents in her position as an asset?

I find that there is no such documentation. Now you can posit reasons as to why there would not be documentation, but regardless that does not make her story MORE credible, it's still the same level of credibility.

Reasons why evidence would not exist does not meant that the evidence likely did exist at some point.

And on top of this, her well documented history of mental illness does not reflect particularly well on her testimony.
View attachment 46046645-US-v-Susan-Lindauer-NYSD-448-F-Supp-2d-558-2006.pdf
There's lots more.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Then answer me this, why do so many people in the West, (let alone the rest of the world), believe there is likely Bush administration/CIA complicity.

Hey Oxy

Stick this in your PNAC basket, just for good measure

  1. Philip Zelikow | Foreign Affairs

    www.foreignaffairs.comAuthors
    25+ items – Foreign Affairs Focus: Homeland Security Since 9/11 With ...
    Philip Zelikow and Jonathan D. Tepperman
    Digital Diplomacy: U.S. Foreign Policy in the Information Age


  2. Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger | Foreign Affairs

    www.foreignaffairs.comFeaturesEssays
    By Ashton B. Carter, John Deutch, and Philip Zelikow ... Although the United States still takes conventional terrorism seriously, as demonstrated by the response ...


  3. Philip D. Zelikow | Foreign Affairs

    www.foreignaffairs.comAuthors
    Philip D. Zelikow. The executive director of the 9/11 Commission argues that American defenses against terrorism have been improved, but he says politics and ...


  4. Philip D. Zelikow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow
    Here he has been working on his newest book U.S. Foreign Policy: An Interpretive History. ... He was adjunct professor of national security affairs at the Naval ...
    Education - Career - Works written or co-written - Miscellaneous


  5. A Conversation with Philip Zelikow - Council on Foreign Relations

    www.cfr.org/united-states/conversation-philip-zelikow/p25860
    Sep 12, 2011 – Just recently the Council on Foreign Relations actually published a ..... ZELIKOW: It does make us -- it does make us somewhat more secure.


  6. Philip D. Zelikow - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs ...

    belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu › Experts
    "Almost from the beginning, a central theme of U.S. foreign policy has ... Member, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and Philip D. Zelikow, ...


  7. Shadow Government contributors - Shadow Government - Foreign ...

    shadow.foreignpolicy.com/node/10652
    He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Aspen Strategy Group. ... He coordinated the U.S. government's foreign assistance programs in .... (Dr. Philip Zelikow), as a Strategist in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, ...


  8. Bush regime retread, Philip Zelikow, appointed to Obama's ...

    911scholars.ning.com/.../bush-regime-retread-philip-zelikow-appoint...
    3 posts - 3 authors - 19 Sep 2011
    In the November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, Phillip D. Zelikow co-authored an article with Ashton B. Carter, and John M. Deutch ...


  9. Philip Zelikow | Corcoran Department of History

    www.virginia.edu/history/user/58
    Modern world, 20th century US, American foreign policy. Philip Zelikow is the White Burkett Miller Professor of History and also leads the University's Graduate ...


  10. Zelikow: 9/11 Master Criminal Appointed By Obama | My Catbird Seat

    mycatbirdseat.com/.../zelikow-911-master-criminal-appointed-by-ob...

    Sep 21, 2011 – Zelikow has admitted that the US public has been terrorized by ... Zelikow co-authored a 1998 article in Foreign Affairs speculating on the likely ...


Zelikow, the executive in charge of the 911 Commission Report; friend of Condoleezza Rice, the 'former' board member of, er, Exxon wasn't it - one of those big oil thieves (they also co-authored a book); Zelikow's college thesis - Creating Public Myths; Zelikow's Foreign Affairs white paper (co-authored with John Deutch and Ashton Carter - I recommend a quick look at these two charming characters for more context) - Catastrophic Terrorism: [...] Imagining the Transformative Event (1998), lucky for Z, D and C they didn't have to imagine it for very long; Zelikow's a professional liar and worse. And Obama appointed him, all liars together then.
But obviously, here in Meta world, that will gain no traction. It's 'irrelevant', didn't you know? The usual band of ardent denialists, astroturfers and the so totally committed that they spend the best part of their waking life running two websites designed to 'stay around'. For whatever reason, these people have backed themselves into a corner over this, there'll be no mind changing, just more digging in. I don't mean this in an inciteful way - it's just obvious.
It shouldn't be a surprise that the gangsters in charge enjoy support in places like this. In the end, none of this chit chat means anything in the absence of a full and proper inquiry, no stone unturned, no-one above the law (anymore). It's clear that hasn't taken place yet. That should be the aim, I reckon.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Its interesting to note that Zelikow's paper "Catastrophic terrorism" was entirely about being prepared for nuclear, chemical, and biological terrorism....and was not about conventional terrorism of hi-jacking planes and blowing up buildings.

But whatever...it has a catchy title so it must damning "evidence"- don't let the facts get in the way of your screed of insults and bitter ranting.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned


The philosopher, Albert Camus, said: While waiting to dominate space, the empire sees itself also compelled to reign over time. In denying every last truth, it is compelled to go to the point of denying the very lowest form of truth - the truth of history.

Seems apposite.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
^ grandiose but empty.

The philosopher Dr. Seuss once said: "I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells. Fantasy is a necessary ingredient in living.”


seems apposite.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
In the end, none of this chit chat means anything in the absence of a full and proper inquiry, no stone unturned, no-one above the law (anymore). It's clear that hasn't taken place yet. That should be the aim, I reckon.

I disagree. I think the discussions about physics and what-not are quite important. Because it primarily the incredulity surrounding the physical events that fuels the calls for "truth". The physics informs the type of inquiry. A world in which progressive collapse of the WTC is impossible without explosives is vastly different from one where it is not.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I find that there is no such documentation. Now you can posit reasons as to why there would not be documentation, but regardless that does not make her story MORE credible, it's still the same level of credibility.
I realise it is not the same but out of interest, are you suggesting that a witness' testimony on oath is not credible without photo's, tapes, or suchlike. Or if Susan Lindauer were to be the sole witness of a murder tomorrow, she could not give evidence or identify somone or relay a conversation without she produced corroborating evidence?

Reasons why evidence would not exist does not meant that the evidence likely did exist at some point.
Accepted but under the circumstances, your argument seems to imply 'if the evidence is removed it is a fait accomplis' Not sure why but the term "Burn Notice" comes to mind.
And on top of this, her well documented history of mental illness does not reflect particularly well on her testimony.
Yes but is it not very convenient and strange how the paper trail for her 'delusions' start in 2005, with government appointed psychiatrists.[/EX]

The FBI did really well though... it only took them 5 years to catch onto what she was doing:
There's lots more.
I would expect no less... BTW will you please provide a source for your previous extract as I cannot locate it. Thanks

Out of interest and obviously not qualifying as 'proof', there are other takes on her mental state of health.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0806/S00263.htm

 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Oxymoron, this could simply be a back story of a CIA operative who disagreed with the actions of her government, and its desperate attempts to keep her from public view.

There is no link except her premonition. Can't you see that the above proposition is at least of equal weight?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Zelikow, the executive in charge of the 911 Commission Report; friend of Condoleezza Rice, the 'former' board member of, er, Exxon wasn't it - one of those big oil thieves (they also co-authored a book); Zelikow's college thesis - Creating Public Myths; Zelikow's Foreign Affairs white paper (co-authored with John Deutch and Ashton Carter - I recommend a quick look at these two charming characters for more context) - Catastrophic Terrorism: [...] Imagining the Transformative Event (1998), lucky for Z, D and C they didn't have to imagine it for very long; Zelikow's a professional liar and worse. And Obama appointed him, all liars together then.
I reckon one gets the politicians one deserves.



But obviously, here in Meta world, that will gain no traction. It's 'irrelevant', didn't you know? The usual band of ardent denialists, astroturfers and the so totally committed that they spend the best part of their waking life running two websites designed to 'stay around'. For whatever reason, these people have backed themselves into a corner over this, there'll be no mind changing, just more digging in. I don't mean this in an inciteful way - it's just obvious.
Honi soit qui mal y pense, old boy.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the gangsters in charge enjoy support in places like this. In the end, none of this chit chat means anything in the absence of a full and proper inquiry, no stone unturned, no-one above the law (anymore). It's clear that hasn't taken place yet. That should be the aim, I reckon.
That must have been a comfort to you.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Oxymoron, this could simply be a back story of a CIA operative who disagreed with the actions of her government, and its desperate attempts to keep her from public view.

There is no link except her premonition. Can't you see that the above proposition is at least of equal weight?

But is it not the case that a CIA asset who disagrees with the actions of their government and who raises those issues at a high level, (only to be arrested and incarcerated for 4 years), and who then goes on to publicise why they disagreed with the actions of their government, qualifies as a legitimate 'whistle blower' under the definition of a whistle blower? Should such a person who has risked life and liberty not be given due regard, public support and an open investigation of the allegations made?

And if the information made public by that whistle blower includes specific foreknowledge of a devastating attack and the government deny knowledge that they had been forewarned about this specific foreknowledge which could likely have averted the attack; should this not be openly investigated and every effort made to get to the truth?

And if a government, willfully falsifies involvement of and manufactures reason to go to war with a foreign power, should this not be thoroughly and openly investigated and the truth ascertained?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I reckon one gets the politicians one deserves.


Thank you very much for that video Jazzy. That is an exceptionally well presented dissertation on a well coined philosophy IMO.

If you don't mind my saying, I thought your comment above was not really in the spirit of the message, perhaps a slightly negative interpretation of a positive?

Would you agree with what he says though?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I can't accept there to be any common ground between arab men quite prepared to die in service of their god and hatred of their devil (WASPs) and WASPs determined to go to war to protect Israel and their common interests, stay in business, and make money. I'm sorry I can't see any sort of linkage or deal struck - ever.

Just a bit more information which debunks your flawed to the core above statement.... there is lots more.... far wiser to retract IMO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war

Whoah... hang on a minute, was this not one of the reasons why Iraq needed to be invaded? But America was behind it? Something a bit fishy here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top