I'm certainly not one to quote Chomsky, but I just happened upon this video where he, quite reasonably and logically, points out how absurd the ideas put out by the 9/11 Truthers are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc

What do you mean "even" Chomsky ? He's a serious Left intellectual, long focussed on US media and political realities. Why would anyone like him be chasing after BS like that ?

He has written quite a bit on the deflection of actual inquiry and accountability, by the US media, and the role of factions like the Truthers or the Swiftboaters. He would be the first to notice that, for example, the Truthers are being used by the power centers to damage Ron Paul and reduce Paul's influence, regardless of Paul's agreement with them.

Fisk ( another serious journalist) had some doubts about the US govt. lack of preparedness etc, but Chomsky never believed the conspiracy theories. He did make note of the use of the images and the spin coverage by the government.

The idea that we still have an incomplete picture of the events is not absurd. The focus on things like the melting point of steel and freefall speed are.

In such discussions as this, it's important to specify the degree of conspiracy. For example, suppressing the identities and backgrounds of the terrorist pilots of 9-11 after the fact would require a very different scale of conspiracy than the outlandish theories of massive "false flag" US Government conspiracy. Exploring the evidence for a more limited and likely conspiracy requires no leaps from reason. But in the public arena, the USA still lacks an environment hospitable to reasonable discussion about the perpetrators of 9-11. Having jumped to conclusions as a nation, we find it collectively disturbing and destabilizing to look back carefully to the origins of our rapid, historic, and irreversible national reaction.

Within the intellectual cliques of those who advance theories of vast and intricate conspiracies requiring thousands of accomplices (as with claims of the Loose Change variety (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/)), rigorous and rational thinking and discussion is necessarily substituted with obvious abandonment of reason; abandonment of the scientific method; abandonment of customary decorum.

It's not a question of political orientation when we consider who supports the most outrageous conspiracy theories. People who are seduced by the most outrageous theories are easily distinguishable from those who are truly motivated by a respect for truth by their lines of reasoning. Clear reasoning moves forward in reasonable steps. Hysteria leaps far ahead without rational thought.

Chomsky is a left-wing intellectual who is no friend of the masters of US Government, and he can rationally articulate his reasons. But Chomsky is not a contributor to the Loose Change (http://www.loosechange911.com/) phenomenon, because entertaining that perspective requires the protracted suspension of the most basic ad universal priciples of reason.

It is surely welcome cover for any real (if less grandiose) conspiracy to be immersed in a background din of public hysteria involving grand conspiracies. Within such an environment, due investigation of the perpetrators of 9/11 has been sorely neglected, and popular estragement from reason continues to enable that dereliction. Reasonable questions are often drowned out by an irrational rabble seeking glorious villains, and shunning the banality of dystopia. The vulnerabilities of our USAmerican society not only include our political apathy and blissful ignorance of the word outside. We're vulnerably crippled by a lack of collective reasoning skills. So handicapped, we're most inspired by fear. And the more USAmericans put our heads together in fear, the dumber we're going to collectively get.

Fear is a disease. Get over it quick!!!
Why fear death? Overcome this fear and you have overcame fear itself!

But Chomsky is not a contributor to the Loose Change (http://www.loosechange911.com/) phenomenon, because entertaining that perspective requires the protracted suspension of the most basic ad universal priciples of reason.

He may not be of like mind with such folks, but I don't think we remember the impact Chomsky's 9/11 pamphlet had when it was released. It came out relatively quickly after the actual event and it raised all sorts of ominous questions and attacked the US government. Most of the pamphlet's material was political in nature, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that the feeling of radical skepticisim it contains helped to enable the sort of kookery that came later...

Within such an environment, due investigation of the perpetrators of 9/11 has been sorely neglected, and popular estragement from reason continues to enable that dereliction.

You continually make this claim, but provide no evidence to support it.

9/11 has been scrutinized more than any event in recent history. There are few, if any, truths out there about the perpetrators — or their enablers — left to discover, I think. But then, you have displayed astonishing ignorance about this subject in the past...

the US hasnt gained anything out of this to this date. so blaming them for doing this is straight forward spinning.

countezero: "Chomsky's 9/11 pamphlet"

I'm Googling for that right now- Do you have a link to it?

--------------


Due investigation of the perpetrators of 9/11 has been sorely neglected, and popular estragement from reason continues to enable that dereliction.

"You continually make this claim, but provide no evidence to support it."

15/19 Hijackers Saudi- Yet no evidence of serious investigation within Saudi Arabia. Hijackers' false identities exposed- Yet no evidence of proper investigation.
Compare the public evidence from all 9-11 investigation with that of any major organized-crime investigation: The money trail; the organizational chart; the public testimony. It's been a shambles, and the lack of a coherent investigation remains buried in layers of bullshit and hysteria.

"9/11 has been scrutinized more than any event in recent history."

Not in terms of criminal investigation. There are drug-store robberies that have received much more thorough investigations.

"There are few, if any, truths out there about the perpetrators — or their enablers — left to discover"

Who were the pilots, countezero?

Is this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1583224890/counterpunchmaga) the "pamphlet" of which you speak, countezero?
http://www.sevenstories.com/Resources/Titles/58322100546790/Images/58322100546790M.gif

Shall we explore this kernel of "kookery" together? I don't have a copy. Do you?

Edit- Oh look: Here it is (http://www.scribd.com/doc/4312/Noam-Chomsky-911).

the US hasnt gained anything out of this to this date. so blaming them for doing this is straight forward spinning.

Well I don't think anyone has ever said it was a conspiracy for the sake of the average american, or the US as a whole. Certain people did successfully use 9/11 to their advantage.

First of all Hypewaders, perhaps you are speaking about yourself. There is plenty of money to be made from books and movies and net conspiracy videos. Wanna buy my DVD? only $19.95 plus tax.

but I don't think it's a stretch to say that the feeling of radical skepticisim it contains helped to enable the sort of kookery that came later... I don't think it's a stretch either. I think it's a deliberate and common ploy, in the first place, reiterated and amplified by reliable agency.

To accomplish what ? Among other things, this: Within such an environment, due investigation of the perpetrators of 9/11 has been sorely neglected, and popular estragement from reason continues to enable that dereliction. ”

side note: He may not be of like mind with such folks, but I don't think we should remember the impact Chomsky's 9/11 pamphlet had when it was released. I've mentioned before how striking the pattern of this kind of odd rhetorical confusion, especially the eventual saying of almost or exactly the opposite of what is apparently meant, has been on the Sandy side of political discourse , on this forum and in the general public arena.

Well, let's all try and dispel some of that confusion right here. I trust that I am referring to the very literature (http://www.scribd.com/doc/4312/Noam-Chomsky-911) that you brought up, countezero. In search of what you found kooky, I read the whole thing, which doesn't require much time at all. So what's kooky about it?

There is no serious doubt that the attack was "external." I presume that NATO's reasons for hesitation are those that European leaders are expressing quite publicly.

They recognize, as does everyone with close knowledge of the region, that massive assault on Muslim populations would answer to the prayers of bin Laden and his associates, and would lead the U.S. and its allies into a "diabolical trap," as the Foreign Minister put it.


Or was it this that you found kooky?

...we know quite well how the problem should be addressed, if we want to reduce the threat rather than escalate it. When IRA bombs were set off in London, there was no call to bomb West Belfast, or Boston, the source of much of the financial support for the IRA. Rather, steps were taken to apprehend the criminals, and efforts were made to deal with what lay behind the resort to terror. When a federal building was blown up in Oklahoma City, there were calls for bombing the Middle east, and it probably would have happened if the source turned out to be there. When it was found to be domestic, with links to ultra-right militias, there was no call to obliterate Montana or Idaho. Rather, there was a search for the perpetrator, who was found, brought to court, and sentenced, and there were efforts to understand the grievances that lie behind such crimes and to address the problems. Just about every crime- whether a robbery in the streets or colossal atrocities- has reasons, and commonly we find that some of them are serious and should be addressed.


The vague thesis of the madanthoywayne's OP seems to hint that the official US government explanation of 9/11 events and parties responsible is all we need know, and all further questions are kooky; that even Noam Chomsky finds all further questions kooky. That would obviously be a hasty assumption, all the more apparent when we look at what Chomsky actually has had to say on the subject. I suspect that if we look further into Chomsky's more recent comments, we'll find him characteristically reluctant to close the book, and still questioning of popular assumptions, even as he rejects the wilder fantasies such as expressed in Loose Change.

countezero has fittingly pointed us to some of Chomsky's early observations regarding 9/11, with the suggestion that Chomsky contributed somehow to the conspiracy-theory kookiness that supporters of present leadership like to lump everyone else together with. Reading this "pamphlet" for the first time, I've discovered some well-balanced food for thought, and can't find the kooky. How about you, c-0? Are you prepared to sincerely discuss the Chomsky interviews you have referenced, and the associated issues?

Let's read and discuss. Don't worry, it's safe. Reminds me of a cartoon, where a beagle is making a gleeful post: "On the internet, nobody can tell you're a dog!". Well, nobody will expose you in public, reading and discussing Chomsky, either. Take courage- dig in!

John99: "Hypewaders, perhaps you are speaking about yourself. There is plenty of money to be made from books and movies and net conspiracy videos."

Ha! Not so much as you might think. I can assure you my neighbor Dylan (http://www.myspace.com/loosechange911)'s 15 minutes of fame have not made the man. I have higher standards and aspirations.

Due investigation of the perpetrators of 9/11 has been sorely neglected, and popular estragement from reason continues to enable that dereliction.

Then I would ask you to define "sorely neglected." The identities of the hijackers are known, a timeline of their final months on earth has been put together by various governments, journalists and news organizations. Brief biographies about them have been published. What, of relevance, is left to know?

I would also point out that your reluctance to accept the identities does not qualify as a minor conspiracy to me. Covering up — or ignoring — who actually perpetrated the 9/11 attacks is a major act, by any definition.

Yet no evidence of serious investigation within Saudi Arabia.

For what? The terrorists were trained and financed by Al Qaeda, an organization that was located in Afghanistan. No one can deny that the Saudis, through their significant financial resources, have helped the rise of militant Islam, but the people who see some direct Saudi connection to 9/11 seem to be engaging in a spat of wishful thinking, carried out, I imagine, because of ideological problems with the desert kingdom.

Compare the public evidence from all 9-11 investigation with that of any major organized-crime investigation: The money trail; the organizational chart; the public testimony. It's been a shambles, and the lack of a coherent investigation remains buried in layers of bullshit and hysteria.

Here you show your ignorance. The evidence is overwhelming. The money-trail is well establishedm the organization of Al Qaeda, such as it is, has been documented and explained by various governments and intelligence agencies. What more do you want? Or rather, what do you see lacking? Again, this event has been combed over and explained in exhaustive detail...

Not in terms of criminal investigation. There are drug-store robberies that have received much more thorough investigations.

This is a ridiculous statement that implies a total disconnect from reality.

Who were the pilots, countezero?

I don't know their names offhand, but they aren't hard to find. Again, biographies have been written about them. And if you're still confused about them, go to your local bookstore and find a copy of The Looming Tower. The pictures of the hijackers are on the cover...

Well, let's all try and dispel some of that confusion right here. I trust that I am referring to the very literature (http://www.scribd.com/doc/4312/Noam-Chomsky-911) that you brought up, countezero. In search of what you found kooky, I read the whole thing, which doesn't require much time at all. So what's kooky about it?

It's been years since I read it, so I'm not in a position to speak about its merits and failures. I'd like to point out that I didn't say it was "kooky." I said it enabled "the sort of kookery that came later."

How about you, c-0? Are you prepared to sincerely discuss the Chomsky interviews you have referenced, and the associated issues?

Sure, but I would need to re-read it first. Again the tenor of my initial remarks concerned the atmosphere the book helped create, not the book itself. But given that you fail to see such distinctions, and fail to acknowledge universal facts about 9/11, I'm not certain our conversations will be that fruitful.

I think it's a deliberate and common ploy, in the first place, reiterated and amplified by reliable agency.

And who would that be? I came to opinion all by my lonesome...

I've mentioned before how striking the pattern of this kind of odd rhetorical confusion, especially the eventual saying of almost or exactly the opposite of what is apparently meant, has been on the Sandy side of political discourse , on this forum and in the general public arena.

I have re-read this sentence and noticed the word "should" is there. It shouldn't be. I have edited it, and hope my intention is more clear.

For what? The terrorists were trained and financed by Al Qaeda, an organization that was located in Afghanistan. The location of organization, financing, and training of the 9/11 hijackers has never been shown to have had much to do with Afghanistan, AFAIK, outside of some apparent advance knowledge of some kind of plan by OBL and his immediate associates there. Sums of money have been traced to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, organization to Germany, pilot training alleged to have taken place in the US at puddle jumper flight schools, etc. IIRC the only demonstrated connection to Afghanistan was some allegations of possible hand to hand fighting instruction for some of the thugs.
I'd like to point out that I didn't say it was "kooky." I said it enabled "the sort of kookery that came later." And I'd like to point out that there exists no evidence of any such "enabling", and some evidence (such as Chomsky's actual writings and well-known opinions in the matter, among those who pay any attention at all to Chomsky and would thus be vulnerable to such "enabling" were it to be a factor) against it.

You appear to "sort" the kookery according to the categories supplied by the Right Official Media, with Chomsky on the same general end of the same scale as the Truthers.
I think it's a deliberate and common ploy, in the first place, reiterated and amplified by reliable agency. ”

And who would that be? I came to opinion all by my lonesome... Just as you came to your vocabulary ("partisan" etc) and your concerns (Ahmadinejad's speeches, etc ) all by your lonesome, so that the alignments with the Righty ConMedia in style and substance are mere coincidence.

countezero: "...define "sorely neglected.""

The hijackers, and especially the pilots who flew the planes to target have yet to be plausibly identified.

"The identities of the hijackers are known, a timeline of their final months on earth has been put together by various governments, journalists and news organizations."

Under false aliases, and with many gaps and inconsistencies.

"Brief biographies about them have been published. What, of relevance, is left to know?"

What their real names were; where they learned to proficiently fly low-level jet attack; who recruited them; who bankrolled them; who their associates were, and yes, their biographies- basic things like that.

"your reluctance to accept the identities does not qualify as a minor conspiracy to me."

It would involve a minor conspiracy only in comparison with theories that the US government perpetrated the attacks.

"Covering up — or ignoring — who actually perpetrated the 9/11 attacks is a major act, by any definition."

Fine. Let's get to the bottom of it then. Saudi Arabia would be a fine place to start.

"For what?"

Arabia's flying mujaheddin. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=30590)

"The terrorists were trained and financed by Al Qaeda, an organization that was located in Afghanistan."

No, Bin Laden's organization primarily hailed from Saudi Arabia.

"No one can deny that the Saudis, through their significant financial resources, have helped the rise of militant Islam, but the people who see some direct Saudi connection to 9/11 seem to be engaging in a spat of wishful thinking...

Get a clue. (http://www.meforum.org/article/999)

"...[wishful thinking] carried out, I imagine, because of ideological problems with the desert kingdom."

No, al-Qaeda's roots are revolutionary- they despise the Sa'ud dynasty for inviting Western "cultural attack". This is often overlooked in superficial overgeneralizations about the "War on Terror". The Sa'ud family has always demurred when it comes to Western collaboration in their domestic terrorism problem, and the Bush administration has consistently obliged. No disclosures about 9-11 involving the KSA were pursued or revealed, and the lack of a coherent investigation remains buried in layers of bullshit and hysteria.

"Here you show your ignorance. The evidence is overwhelming. The money-trail is well establishedm the organization of Al Qaeda, such as it is, has been documented and explained by various governments and intelligence agencies."

That just isn't true. I've never seen a coherent description of who, what, and how al-Qaeda financed 9/11, and there has been no disclosure of al-Qaeda's actual Arabian connections.

"What more do you want? Or rather, what do you see lacking?"

Compare any major financial scandal like Enron, or BCCI. Compare famous organized crime cases, like those that involved personalities like Gotti, Luciano, Capone, etc. If you can't see the difference between those cases and the investigation of bin Laden's al-Qaeda, you must be willfully blind.

"Again, this event has been combed over and explained in exhaustive detail."

Not in terms of criminal investigation. There are drug-store robberies that have received much more thorough investigations.

"This is a ridiculous statement that implies a total disconnect from reality."

I don't think so. Thorough investigation means building a case. Our War on Terror has never built a convincing case identifying the perpetrators of 9/11 that would hold up in any court. Along the national warpath, the major media has never stopped to follow up when suspects identities were proven false. Who were the pilots, countezero?

"I don't know their names offhand, but they aren't hard to find."

Yes they are- several of the identities provided were products of identity theft, and those discrepancies have never been rectified.

"Again, biographies have been written about them."

Is that so? Name one book that positively links any individual to the controls of one of the 9-11 planes. Every account I've read is shaky (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/210305realidentity.htm). Got a link?

"And if you're still confused about them, go to your local bookstore and find a copy of The Looming Tower. The pictures of the hijackers are on the cover..."

Look, The Looming Tower (http://www.ebooks.com/ebooks/book_display.asp?IID=257840)'s cover art is not a complete chain of evidence. You're stretching credulity far beyond judging a book by its cover.

Speaking of going deeper than the cover, what's kooky about Chomsky's 9-11?

"It's been years since I read it, so I'm not in a position to speak about its merits and failures."

But you said that it enabled truther kookiness.

"I said it enabled "the sort of kookery that came later."

How? Are you prepared to sincerely discuss the Chomsky interviews you have referenced, and the associated issues?

"Sure, but I would need to re-read it first."

You can review it online right now (http://www.scribd.com/doc/4312/Noam-Chomsky-911). It's a quick 30 pages (or so) of text.

"the tenor of my initial remarks concerned the atmosphere the book helped create, not the book itself."

How did Chomsky's book help create an atmosphere?

"you fail to see such distinctions"

I'm sincerely trying to, and I'm offering you the opportunity right here to clearly make them.

"[you] fail to acknowledge universal facts about 9/11"

I'm sure we can agree that the hijackings of AA11, UA175, AA77, and UA 93 caused the destruction that occured on 9-11, and that bin Laden and al-Qaeda took oblique credit for the attacks. Beyond that, what do you consider to be the further "universal facts" of the case?

I thought it was to save money didn't the insurance or something come up.
(human life is the most expendable resource on the planet).
Professional demolition expert's say they could not of collapsed it better.
their trying to claim insurance which is going through the courts.
Pass blame to claim oil?
kill sadam quickly so there can be no inquiry?
America has suddenly become a kurdish country!!
'you can fool some people some of the time ,but you can't fool all the people all the time'.

Let's start this response by seeing if you're actually brave enough to answer a simple question you rebuffed several times before: Do you think there is evidence Osama bin Laden was involved in 9/11?

The location of organization, financing, and training of the 9/11 hijackers has never been shown to have had much to do with Afghanistan, AFAIK, outside of some apparent advance knowledge of some kind of plan by OBL and his immediate associates there.

As is usually the case when this subject and this region come up, you're either extremely ignorant or intentionally ignoring facts you don't want people to know, as they may harm the wobbly edifice of your argument. All of what appears below can be found in Ghost Wars, The Looming Tower or the 9/11 Commission report.

Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. This is well know and well documented. Khaled Sheikh Mohammed planned the attacks, with help from Mohammed Atef and bin Laden. The go ahead for the plan came in 1999 from bin Laden (in Afghanistan), who personally helped select the targets and altered part of KSM's plan by canceling a part wherein a hijacked plane would be flown to the Middle East and all the passengers releases "as a sign of mercy." The hijackers all visited Afghanistan and were personally selected for the mission by bin Laden after they were noticed in the training camps there (The Looming Tower).

The so-called Hamburg cell were in Kandahar in late 1999. "Nearly all of the supporting hijackers visited Afghanistan for the first time in 1999 or 2000, as Mohammed Atef and (KSM) began to organize the final version of their suicide hijacking plan" (Ghost Wars p. 570).

The "Hamburg Cell" eventually flew to Kuala Lumpur, where the CIA monitored their meeting and photographed the men meeting with KSM. There was no audio, and so no one knew what was discussed (The Looming Tower).

Bin Laden financed the plot, from all the pilot training to providing all the money for the airline tickets and such. The FBI interviewed a man who revealed he handed over $36,000 to Al Qaeda that was eventually passed to the hijackers to cover their expenses in America prior to the attacks. (The Looming Tower).

"The hijackers' money came from Al Qaeda contacts living in UAE. One of these, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali ... used Western Union and less formal currency exchange offices in Dubai and other Persian gulf cities to send $119,500 to (Atta) and others in his group while they attended school in Florida and elsewhere." Mustafa Alhawsawi sent another $18,000 and received a $42,000 balance in return of unused funds shortly before the attacks (Ghost Wars p 571).

If you tried read something beyond your usual fluff, you might actually know something about this...

And I'd like to point out that there exists no evidence of any such "enabling", and some evidence (such as Chomsky's actual writings and well-known opinions in the matter, among those who pay any attention at all to Chomsky and would thus be vulnerable to such "enabling" were it to be a factor) against it.

By "enable," I meant establish a foundation for. I never said there are any "facts" to link Chomsky to idiots like the Truthers, because there isn't. I was stating my opinion. Nothing more (You, being used to stating opinions as facts, probably can't tell the difference). Chomsky's too smart to associate with those fools, and I seriously doubt he believes in their claims.

What I said, or rather what I thought was clear, is that I think that when Chomsky directly attacked the US government while the WTC site and Pentagon were still smoldering, he kicked open the door through which other, more kooky people would follow (Leftists, like yourself, often worship the man and follow his singular arguments). Chomsky, in my opinion, used 9/11 as a convenient tool to promote his anti-American ravings, and while he is much more educated and interesting than boneheads like the Truthers (he's even right, sometimes), his obsessive mania, his overt bias and his rank opportunism were a preview of the sort of behavior that came later, in other, less acceptable forms.

You appear to "sort" the kookery according to the categories supplied by the Right Official Media, with Chomsky on the same general end of the same scale as the Truthers.

Yup, that's me man: A total sellout. You're the only independent thinker on this site, Ice. It's too bad plenty of your conclusions have no basis in reality and facts. But hey, go on believing man. Adhering to your own, unique brand of bullshit does, in fact, make you unique. So, to quote an old song, don't stop believing, Ice. Solipsism can be fun. It really is everyone else. You're special. You're different. You see more clearly. You know more...

Just as you came to your vocabulary ("partisan" etc) and your concerns (Ahmadinejad's speeches, etc ) all by your lonesome, so that the alignments with the Righty ConMedia in style and substance are mere coincidence.

Go look the word up. Maybe then you will quit boring us with your questionable attempts to control the language people use.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/partisan

The hijackers, and especially the pilots who flew the planes to target have yet to be plausibly identified.

They have been positively identified by the US government and its intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The identities have all been corroborated by other governments and various new organizations, the latter of which did independent investigations into said claims. There have been claims of stolen identities, which may be the source of your stupid insistence on continually feigning ignorance about them, but these claims have all been checked and discounted. Brief biographies of the men have been written and published in numerous sources, but The Looming Tower offers the best, most concise picture of the ringleaders who organized the cells and flew the planes.

If you remain unconvinced, I can't help it. But don't pretend like you are unconvinced because there isn't enough information out there for you to read and make a rational judgment about. There is. Either you haven't done this or don't want to do it. I don't care either way. Your remarks on this subject, just as they have in the past, so you are remarkably uninformed about it. I suggest you educate yourself before you try to dress up foolish opinion and ignorant suspicion as fact or legitimate doubt.

Under false aliases, and with many gaps and inconsistencies.

It's true many of them men used alias. They were, after all, terrorists conducting a terrorist mission. And yes, they did fall "off the grid" for certain periods of time. Again, this makes sense. They wanted to be anonymous. What you thinks this proves is less obvious. Their real identities are known and most of their relevant movements have been uncovered.

What their real names were; where they learned to proficiently fly low-level jet attack; who recruited them; who bankrolled them; who their associates were, and yes, their biographies- basic things like that.

Most of this is known. See my extended response to, Ice. Or try reading something relevant.

Saudi Arabia would be a fine place to start.

The Saudis, undoubtedly, have financed or inspired much of the militant Islam in Central Asia. But to lay bin Laden and his plotting on them is ridiculous. What's more it defies history. The Saudis wanted bin Laden almost as much as the US did. He was an embarrassment to the bin Laden clan, who cut him off financially, and the Saudi government, who was wary of the attacks he made on the Saudi government. Prince Turki al Faisal, former head of SA's intelligence survey, is the man who pressured Sudan to boot bin Laden from that country in the 90s. He also worked with the Taliban to try to get them to turn OBL over. The Taliban would not. This failure cost Turki his job.

You really want me to consider this:

"These experienced pilots acquired their elite and necessary skills in F-5Bs and F-15s based at Dhahran and King Khaled airbases in the Kindom of Saudi Arabia. These well-trained military pilots were trained by American instructors, among whom were graduates of Miramar, who had proven themselves to be excellent instructors, several with considerable Mideast life experience. The training records of these murderous and determined pilots and their instructors were once on file in multiple locations both in Saudi Arabia and in the US. ... I very strongly suspect that what I am accusing is common knowledge above certain levels of the military, all the way to the Pentagon and White House, and that there is a considerable chance of a credible leak exposing a paper trail."

And you wrote this more than four years ago, and none of it has come out. So do you really still believe this complete and utter bullshit? There's absolutely not a shred of proof to support it. None.

No, Bin Laden's organization primarily hailed from Saudi Arabia.

Can you read? I said it was located in Afghanistan. I didn't say it hailed from Afghanistan, though if one were to get technical one could say it does indeed hail from there, because that's where the principles all met or first came across each other. The actual founding came in Peshawar on Aug. 11, 1988.

No, al-Qaeda's roots are revolutionary- they despise the Sa'ud dynasty for inviting Western "cultural attack". This is often overlooked in superficial overgeneralizations about the "War on Terror". The Sa'ud family has always demurred when it comes to Western collaboration in their domestic terrorism problem, and the Bush administration has consistently obliged. No disclosures about 9-11 involving the KSA were pursued or revealed, and the lack of a coherent investigation remains buried in layers of bullshit and hysteria.

Wrong. While it's true Al Qaeda became highly critical of the Saudis, this came about only because of the Gulf War and the presence of US troops there. Initially, Al Qaeda's state goals were to "establish truth, get rid of evil and establish an Islamic nation." This would be done through military training and financing global jihad (The Looming Tower p. 142). There was a lot of arguments about where they would begin. Some wanted to head to Palestine, others to Egypt or Saudi Arabia. But the Saudis were never the direct focus, or at least they weren't until bin Laden got angry when the government started cracking down on him and decided to lash out against him...

That just isn't true. I've never seen a coherent description of who, what, and how al-Qaeda financed 9/11, and there has been no disclosure of al-Qaeda's actual Arabian connections.

It's not my fault what you haven't seen it. I've written about it and told you where you can read about it. That you choose to remain ignorant and enveloped in conspiracy theories is your fault, not mine.

Compare any major financial scandal like Enron, or BCCI. Compare famous organized crime cases, like those that involved personalities like Gotti, Luciano, Capone, etc. If you can't see the difference between those cases and the investigation of bin Laden's al-Qaeda, you must be willfully blind.

You can't assess terrorism the way you can white collar or organized crime, and if you think you can, you're a fool. I'm still not sure what your missing? Documents? Testimony? These things don't exist in violent plots in which people kill themselves at the end. But let's go with what we have. We have tickets and video evidence of who got on those planes and we have videos of the planes going into the buildings. We have subsequent financial traces and reams of circumstantial covert data. We have confirmed IDs and confessions. So yeah, the evidence all sounds pretty vague to me...

Is that so? Name one book that positively links any individual to the controls of one of the 9-11 planes.

The Looming Tower. I've told you this before. Or try Ghost Wars. Quit playing dumb. The information is out there. Either you want to find it or you don't.

How? Are you prepared to sincerely discuss the Chomsky interviews you have referenced, and the associated issues?

I am. But first I would need to re-read 125-page the book, something I am reluctant to do, given that I think the subsequent discussion between us wouldn't be terribly compelling. You've shown yourself to know little or nothing about what happened on 9/11. Why I am the person being asked to read some more before we continue a discussion in which you continue to ignore, overlook or obscure facts is beyond me...

How did Chomsky's book help create an atmosphere?

I think it encouraged people to expend the majority of their intellectual efforts looking for ways to attack the US government, rather than focusing on the holistic picture of why 9/11 really happened. Chomsky is notorious for doing this. By responding to what he sees as obsequious pro-American, pro-business coverage and such, he goes 180 degrees in the opposite direction and intentionally attacks the US, capitalism, etc. In other words, his biased response is little better than the problem of Right bias he invented with his Leftist bias. And his writings, what little I have read of them, are amazingly narrow and bitter. To think that similar approaches aren't in the heart and soul of the Truthers and the Code Pinks of the world strikes me as ridiculous.

I'm sure we can agree that the hijackings of AA11, UA175, AA77, and UA 93 caused the destruction that occured on 9-11, and that bin Laden and al-Qaeda took oblique credit for the attacks. Beyond that, what do you consider to be the further "universal facts" of the case?

See my post to, Ice and this one. There are numerous facts neither of you seem willing to acknowledge or accept. For starters, you both seem reluctant to accept Osama bin Laden's role in the attacks, which strikes me as stupid beyond belief.

Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. This is well know and well documented. Khaled Sheikh Mohammed planned the attacks, with help from Mohammed Atef and bin Laden. Al Qaida was in about twenty countries. Afghanistan was just one of them. The amount of money and kind of help supplied by bin Laden is not known (personal selection of the jackers is one of those stories that creates automatic doubt) and the purpose of the alleged (and quite likely) Afghan visits of the men recruited for the attack is not established, pace your no doubt fascinating books. Physical training for the thugs is quite possible. Pilot training, coordination, money and operational details etc, much less so.

OBL would have been a very unlikely co-planner, given his background and experiences. He'd never even visited the US. Had he ever bought an airplane ticket, himself ?

KSM or Atef would be more likely planners. But all of the info supplied by KSM was apparently obtained by torture, it has been passed to us through unreliable channels, and at least some of it is ludicrous - we have little idea what his involvement was, and we've apparently poisoned that well. Atef was supposedly in Afghanistan during the crucial preparations, which apparently took place elsewhere. We lost any chance at his info when we chose military invasion including aerial bombing, for handling AQ in Afghanistan. And so forth

As you point out, Kuala Lumpur and Pakistan and the UAE and Germany figure at least as prominently in the critical phases as Afghanistan. As does Florida, one might add, and Saudi Arabia of course. Were you agreeing with me, then, or disagreeing ?
By "enable," I meant establish a foundation for. Chomsky is just about the last intellectual one could credibly accuse of "establishing a foundation" for baseless irrationality, denials of plain physical fact, or denigration of genuine expert opinion.

So who's got a convincing argument in support of the destruction of all the evidence of the collapse of three large buildings, in the financial district of a major American city?

The investigation of a major building disaster was fairly superficial, given there was bugger-all to base it on. How come? I thought disasters like that were supposed to get the full monty. Even a plane crash gets more attention than that did, in terms of the investment of time and resources to uncover any causes, or potential construction problems.

Why were these issues not considered, or thought relevant? I think that's a bit odd, right there (but then, when I watched the whole thing happening live, I kept thinking "this does not happen in the USA, who let it?". I still wonder about this.).

Al Qaida was in about twenty countries.

Sure, Al Qaida people were all over, but every independent and governmental investigation has come to the same conclusion: the orders and training (aside from the piloting skills) came from Afghanistan. Up 'till now all any doubters have had to say is, "Nuh-uh! NO they didn't"

Afghanistan was just one of them. The amount of money and kind of help supplied by bin Laden is not known (personal selection of the jackers is one of those stories that creates automatic doubt) and the purpose of the alleged (and quite likely) Afghan visits of the men recruited for the attack is not established, pace your no doubt fascinating books. Physical training for the thugs is quite possible. Pilot training, coordination, money and operational details etc, much less so.

So, these are your doubts... I see, and they are supported by what? You're thorough investigation while jet-setting across the world to uncover the unsettling facts... or just the usual McConspiracy Theories that people drop because its ever-so-much more interesting to paint EVERYTHING the USA does as dubious.

OBL would have been a very unlikely co-planner, given his background and experiences.

What paucity of experience are you talking about? You think it took an engineering degree (which he may have had, but that's inconsequential) to decide to blow big stuff up? Either way, he had substantial experience in Sudan when it came to coordinating construction projects.

Several targets were selected, eventually they decided upon the big ones. MOUNTAINS of money weren't an issue: the hijackers worked and trained in the USA. It's not like it took trillions of dollars to say, "Eh, let's slam some jets into the WTC and the Pentagon."

He'd never even visited the US. Had he ever bought an airplane ticket, himself ?

Wow... that's a slam-dunk. He never visited the USA, therefore he couldn't have watched any of the USA dominated TV shows and/or movies and decided upon the WTC. Moreover, it was the Blind Sheik who actually decided to destroy the WTC, Al Qaida considered themselves to be merely finishing his work.

But all of the info supplied by KSM was apparently obtained by torture, it has been passed to us through unreliable channels, and at least some of it is ludicrous - we have little idea what his involvement was, and we've apparently poisoned that well.

"Apparently". Everything you have is total speculation that is founded upon your personal prejudice against the USA. First off: You have absolutely no evidence beyond HRW's claims that he may have been tortured which you throw out as if it acquitting evidence. Second off: You say, "...we have little idea of what his involvement was... poisoned that as well..." how the hell do you know any of what you said? You have NO clue what "we know" only what you know, which undoubtedly is a tiny fraction of what the government knows. Of course, to deny YOU something must mean that there's some horrible conspiracy afoot!

So who's got a convincing argument in support of the destruction of all the evidence of the collapse of three large buildings, in the financial district of a major American city?

No one, apparently.

The investigation of a major building disaster was fairly superficial, given there was bugger-all to base it on.

Well, first there's those numerous videos showing some planes crashing in to it when bundled with the two-year investigation (the convening of the commission was not the only investigation or the beginning and end of it), and numerous independent investigations if your not satisfied with the government one.

What I don't get is this: three people in this day in age can't even keep their genital herpes a secret to save their lives: yet all of you have this wild idea that a government who's single worst talent is keeping secrets, somehow strong armed THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ACROSS THOUSANDS OF FIELDS to tow a totally invented story.

Even a plane crash gets more attention than that did, in terms of the investment of time and resources to uncover any causes, or potential construction problems.

Huh? The only investigation needed was into structural issues and government failure: there was no doubt that it was a plane crash that caused the WTC to collapse. All those thousands of eye witnesses and video tapes probably led them down that path. You tell me, else should they have considered.

~String

every independent and governmental investigation has come to the same conclusion: the orders and training (aside from the piloting skills) came from Afghanistan. Up 'till now all any doubters have had to say is, "Nuh-uh! NO they didn't" What orders would those have been ? How to keep in communication ? What kind of apartment to rent ? Where to go for money, help, papars, flight school info, etc ? All the way from Afghanistan, all this stuff, every time a coordinated decision came up ?

What training ? The thug stuff, OK. How to buy an airplane ticket, and make sure you got on the correct flight, and navigate the various systems of the country? Driving on American roads ? The procedures and layouts of Amreican airports and airplanes ? Passports and visas and IDs and money-handling ?

Little common sense, here: They didn't organize all this stuff in Afghanistan.


“ . Physical training for the thugs is quite possible. Pilot training, coordination, money and operational details etc, much less so. ”
So, these are your doubts... I see, and they are supported by what? Read Count's stuff. Think a minute. They didn't even have an Amrerican airport in Afghanistan to practice in.


“
OBL would have been a very unlikely co-planner, given his background and experiences. ”
What paucity of experience are you talking about? He didn't know anything about American phone, airport, housing, transportation, language, customs, law enforcement, pragmatic bureaucratic procedures, etc etc etc. He didn't know how to fly a plane, or what would be involved in hijacking one. This is obvious . You know this.
. It's not like it took trillions of dollars to say, "Eh, let's slam some jets into the WTC and the Pentagon." I haven't heard an estimate under 2 million yet. There's a support and surveillance crew - or maybe four of them - in the US to consider, as well.


“ ”
Wow... that's a slam-dunk. He never visited the USA, therefore he couldn't have watched any of the USA dominated TV shows and/or movies and decided upon the WTC. Moreover, it was the Blind Sheik who actually decided to destroy the WTC, Al Qaida considered themselves to be merely finishing his work. If OBL picked the targets, no one would be surprised. So ?
"Apparently". Everything you have is total speculation that is founded upon your personal prejudice against the USA. First off: You have absolutely no evidence beyond HRW's claims that he may have been tortured which you throw out as if it acquitting evidence. Second off: You say, "...we have little idea of what his involvement was... poisoned that as well..." how the hell do you know any of what you said? You have NO clue what "we know" only what you know, which undoubtedly is a tiny fraction of what the government knows. Of course, to deny YOU something must mean that there's some horrible conspiracy afoot! You're the one fantasizing about some lethally competent secret organizations of government agents that know all, tell only some, have your back, and never just fuck up in plain sight. I know the CIA tortured KSM because they said they did and multiple more reliable sources confirm it. I think the info they got from him is garbage because the stuff they published of it contains garbage - physical impossibilities and false confessions and whatnot - and no hint that they noticed anything wrong. (There's where you could pounce on me for going wrong, of course: they might have been pretending to have tortured raving and nonsense out of him, and wasted tens of thousands of manhours running down bullshit, to reassure the real bad guys about their incompetence, as a setup. Anything's possible with this crap). They poisoned the well by torturing garbage out their detainee - by now he himself may not know truth from invention, or remember from twelve to noon, and there's no way to find out. That's one reason not to let your cowboy crew torture people. There are others.

The main problem seems to be the underestimation of the 9/11 operation. It's not just what they did, but what they didn't do: All the targets they rejected - after scouting. The plans made and changed. All the money they moved around, classes scheduled, apartmens rented, upwards of thirty guys - almost certainly more - organizing and preparing for a complicated and coordinated suicide in a strange country for months, any one of whom could have blown the whole deal open jsut buy not knowing how to act when they opened a checking account with big cash, or got pulled over by the cops, or signed up for flight school. The notion that this whole operation was run by cell phone from Afghanistan on a few thousand dollars is what needs serious evidence.

The investigation of a major building disaster was fairly superficial, given there was bugger-all to base it on. How come? I thought disasters like that were supposed to get the full monty. Even a plane crash gets more attention than that did, in terms of the investment of time and resources to uncover any causes, or potential construction problems.

The 9/11 Commission reviewed more than 2.5 million pages of documents, interviewed more than 1,200 individuals in ten countries and it held 19 public hearings, at which, more than 160 witnesses testified. The commission had unprecedented access to intelligence agencies, law enforcement, diplomatic channels and government subsidiaries. So yeah, it was pretty shoot-from-the-hip.

If you don't want to take the commission's word for it, there are mountains of independent journalism about the event. All of the journalism that warrants seriously consideration essentially agrees with the commission.

Al Qaida was in about twenty countries. Afghanistan was just one of them.

Now your playing a crude game of semantics (and one wonders why). Al Qaeda is a worldwide organization, but Afghanistan was its base of operations in 2001. The camps were there, the leadership was there. These are well known facts.

The amount of money and kind of help supplied by bin Laden is not known (personal selection of the jackers is one of those stories that creates automatic doubt) and the purpose of the alleged (and quite likely) Afghan visits of the men recruited for the attack is not established, pace your no doubt fascinating books.

So I have multiple sources that assert the same thing and your response is to posit an empty doubt that has no basis in fact. Ice, this is why it's extremely hard to take you seriously on this subject. You do little more than pontificate and offer your opinion. Most of the time, neither are persuasive, or even really worth considering, because you have no reasonable foundation.

OBL would have been a very unlikely co-planner, given his background and experiences. He'd never even visited the US. Had he ever bought an airplane ticket, himself?

I'm glad you think he was an unlikely co-planner, but the simple fact is it has been established, he gave the go ahead for the plan and altered some of its dimensions, as he did with all AQ's operations. Did he literally plan it? No, he did not. That was KSM and Atef, but bin Laden was involved the way a CEO would be involved with planning a corporate action.

But all of the info supplied by KSM was apparently obtained by torture, it has been passed to us through unreliable channels, and at least some of it is ludicrous - we have little idea what his involvement was, and we've apparently poisoned that well.

Some of KSM's confessions do indeed sound ridiculous, but much of what he has said about 9/11 has checked out and been confirmed by the intelligence services. You can't deny all his remarks, simply because torture was used to obtain them. He is also not the only source on 9/11...

As you point out, Kuala Lumpur and Pakistan and the UAE and Germany figure at least as prominently in the critical phases as Afghanistan. As does Florida, one might add, and Saudi Arabia of course. Were you agreeing with me, then, or disagreeing?

I've not denied this plot was hatched in numerous locations, because the record clearly shows that it was. Do I think they are as critical as Al Qaeda's base of operations in Afghanistan? No, I do not. Al Qaeda's ability to wage war against the US depended almost entirely on its safe haven. I also refuse to adopt your logic because I realize you're trying to undermine the basis for invading Afghanistan, and I cannot agree with such stupidity. This act was planned and executed by Al Qaeda, a group based in the Taliban's Afghanistan.

Chomsky is just about the last intellectual one could credibly accuse of "establishing a foundation" for baseless irrationality, denials of plain physical fact, or denigration of genuine expert opinion.

That's your opinion. I don't agree with it. Like you, Chomsky has a way of overlooking facts that don't support his conclusions, of looking at every situation through the prism of his bias and of twisting historical truths to fit said bias.

What orders would those have been ? How to keep in communication ? What kind of apartment to rent ? Where to go for money, help, papars, flight school info, etc ? All the way from Afghanistan, all this stuff, every time a coordinated decision came up ?

Your response to someone challenging your views is to spit up some counter-questions? Ice, you really are trending toward the pathetic. The simple fact is your parsing and nitpicking over tiny details, hoping that if you establish some manner of chinks in the overall picture, then the picture won't be worth considering. This is a rhetorical game, plain and simple. No one is saying OBL micromanaged the plot any more than a person would claim Jack Welch picked the drapes in some overseas office (I guess not picking those drapes, means he didn't really run the company, right?). So get your head out of your ass and try to post something worth considering.

I haven't heard an estimate under 2 million yet. There's a support and surveillance crew - or maybe four of them - in the US to consider, as well.

If you haven't heard, you aren't trying very hard. The 9/11 commission estimates Al Qaeda spent $400,000 to $500,000 over a two-year period to make the plan happen. Care to share you source on the $2 million?

Did he literally plan it? No, he did not. That was KSM and Atef, but bin Laden was involved the way a CEO would be involved with planning a corporate action. And KSM was not in Afghanistan.

Neither was a lot of the planning. Or the money. Or the operations management. Or the preparation.

Bin Laden seems to have been distant, outside of a pilgrimage and blessing or two. Perhaps more a Board Chairman, than a CEO ?
No one is saying OBL micromanaged the plot any more than a person would claim Jack Welch picked the drapes in some overseas office (I guess not picking those drapes, means he didn't really run the company, right?). There's quite a range between micromanagement and general approval of distant effort.

Illustrative example: Is it fair to say that OBL had less, or more, to do with 9/11 than Reagan had with Iran/Contra ? (Iran Contra being of course a larger terrorist operation, with more victims and so forth, but we're talking principle here).

but much of what he has said about 9/11 has checked out and been confirmed by the intelligence services. You can't deny all his remarks, simply because torture was used to obtain them. And you can't take much of what he said at face value, because all the "confirmation" and "checking out" is from the same guys, and similarly tainted.

You have to consider the source, here. What is the intelligence services' recent track record of reliability, in such matters ?
If you haven't heard, you aren't trying very hard. Ah, point. I had heard.

Let's take the low figure - 400k. How much of it came from Afghanistan ?
Like you, Chomsky has a way of overlooking facts that don't support his conclusions, of looking at every situation through the prism of his bias and of twisting historical truths to fit said bias. My guess is you would have a hard time turning up any actual examples of that. But I do take the compliment - although not of style.

First of all, let's return to how your intellectual cowardice continues unabated, in that you've refused to answer whether there is any evidence tying Osama bin Laden to the 9/11 plot yet again. In other words, on this topic, you're not an honest broker here. You refuse to answer simple questions or concede factual points that have been cited.

And KSM was not in Afghanistan.

He visited Afghanistan several times. This has been documented. The plan wasn't approved until the second time he raised it with bin Laden, and on that occasion, the gesture KSM suggested about releasing people from one plane was altered by OBL himself.

Neither was a lot of the planning. Or the money. Or the operations management. Or the preparation.

Ideas travel in peoples' heads. There are not bound to any specific geography. You seem to think that because money was collected in disparate places and people hatched a plan from various locales and that unless every single facet of the plan was hatched in Afghanistan, then ... I don't know ... insert something...

I'm not sure what you think, as you made no claims to the positive. All you've done is parse, pigeonhole and try to present doubt as being an equal cousin to fact. It's not.

Bin Laden seems to have been distant, outside of a pilgrimage and blessing or two. Perhaps more a Board Chairman, than a CEO ?

Bin Laden was not an X's an O's man. But he was a powerful nexus, in that he drew such plots together, financed them and enabled them with his connections in the worldwide jihad. You can ascribe whatever moniker to his behavior you like. The fact is, his involvement, or lack of it, is well documented. That you haven't familiarized yourself with the documentation or have chosen not to believe it is not a concern of mine. Again, you can't even answer simple questions on this subject, so my opinion of you, so far as the subject is concerned, is pathetically low.

Illustrative example: Is it fair to say that OBL had less, or more, to do with 9/11 than Reagan had with Iran/Contra ? (Iran Contra being of course a larger terrorist operation, with more victims and so forth, but we're talking principle here).

And I'm not taking this juvenile bait and switch. Sorry. Stick to the subject.

You have to consider the source, here. What is the intelligence services' recent track record of reliability, in such matters ?

They knew and know more about it than you and I do. The 9/11 report looked at everything they had. And again, the report has been vetted by independent reporting done by people like Lawrence Wright and Steve Coll. The fact you keep offering doubts without foundations is annoying. If you can show why something might not be so, then do so. Otherwise, keep your cheap skepticism to yourself. It's pathetic. It's useless to debate you when you present no facts and no rational foundation for anything you say. Apparently, you think it's legitimate to throw your hands up and yell "That's not true!" Doubting something without a reason to doubt it is irrational.

Let's take the low figure - 400k. How much of it came from Afghanistan?

I don't know, and neither do you. "Most of Al Qaeda's finances depend largely on abusing one of the central tenets of Islam, known as zakat, which requires that all faithful Muslims turn over a percentage of their income for charity" Richard Miniter, Disinformation p. 31). In other words, AQ collected donations and then used them for terrorism. Islamic charities, Imams in mosques, wealthy Arabs all gave and probably still give to people who funnel the money to Al Qaeda. But again, I fail to see what your point is about this and the geography. So all the money didn't come from Afghanistan (something I never claimed)? So fucking what? What are you trying to prove? Do you have a point?

My guess is you would have a hard time turning up any actual examples of that. But I do take the compliment - although not of style.

I'd have an easier time than you have in this thread, where you've been spanked and continue to get spanked because you think sharing your brilliant doubts with everyone equals a legitimate argument, while others show facts and cite secondary sources. But I don't want to debate Chomsky's merits. I don't care....

Let's take the low figure - 400k. How much of it came from Afghanistan? ”

I don't know, and neither do you. " I care. You don't. Your opinions are not based on such things.
I'm not sure what you think, as you made no claims to the positive. You noticed! Hold that thought - - -
That you haven't familiarized yourself with the documentation or have chosen not to believe it is not a concern of mine. Nor is it something you know about, or will shut up about.
They knew and know more about it than you and I do. But we can't tell, from what they release to us, much about that. By their track record, we should automatically doubt what they release to us. We certainly should not base firm conclusions on any of it, but should compare it with common knowledge and ordinary reasonableness.
But I don't want to debate Chomsky's merits. I don't care.... Despite the thread title and subject - OK. More stuff you don't care about, and aren't informed about, and nevertheless talk about.
You seem to think that because money was collected in disparate places and people hatched a plan from various locales and that unless every single facet of the plan was hatched in Afghanistan, then ... I don't know ... insert something... There was probably - almost certainly, and to be assumed unless better counter-evidence emerges - a major planning and organizational apparatus outside of Afghanistan, supporting 9/11. It was connected with AQ, and OBL, and probably under their general oversight and direction, but not under their daily - or even monthly - operational management. It has not been publically dealt with.

That is the material point. There is a lot of significant stuff about 9/11 we don't know.

What do you mean "even" Chomsky ? He's a serious Left intellectual, long focussed on US media and political realities. Why would anyone like him be chasing after BS like that ?
Chomsky is a fraud , You want to go further with this intellectual fake read his interview with David Barsamian ( secrets , lies and democracy=Odonian Press ) where he said Zionism wasnt racist and then went on to describe Arab nations as anti-semitic and racist .

Or read his book ' revisiting Camelot ' where he tries to prove Kennedy was really indeed building up for involvement in Vietnam . All the declassified documents Chomsky showed in the book about Kennedy clearly showed he was indeed pulling troops out Vietnam and was going to end US involvement in early 64 yet he was trying to argue elsewise that Kennedy had a secret agenda. He even spent 12 pages of the book debunking Assassination theories about Kennedy that he really was a victim of a lone nut ! That was the book that made me realize this guy was just what he was the acceptable face of intellectual criticism he knows clearly the guidelines and parameters of criticism and he knows not to cross them .

I have analyzed his views from his books on the problems in Central and South America to Sth East Asia . They are really a mass of quotes of cutting and pasting of articles from various sources and in-between he adds his comments accept it that man is a fraud . is already common knowledge what has happened in Central America nothing new comes out just that he has amassed a whole lot of information and put it all in one scrapbook . Again just a whole lot of information to read but no explanation and indictment .

So the master of rhetoric still won't answer a question. How typical...

I care. You don't. Your opinions are not based on such things.

My opinions are based on the facts, as best as I know them. Your opinions appear to be based on your bias, your other opinions and whatever cockeyed doubts your addled brain can cook up that will make the US look the least competent and the most evil. The notion of basing an argument or assuming a position based on anything other than your own solipsism seems a task that is beyond you.

Nor is it something you know about, or will shut up about.

I've shown myself, in this thread and others, to be more knowledgeable about this subject and the region. I consistently post arguments or make assertions that are based on well-established facts. What we get from you is what we always get from you: Biased opinion, cheap skepticism and juvenile theories that deny known facts at the same time they advance an agenda that seems to be based on little more than your unwillingness to accept something that clashes with your questionable worldview. This is what I mean about it being a total waste of time dealing with you. You haven't posted ONE FUCKING FACT in this thread that refutes anything I've written. NOT ONE. Instead, like the sort of carrion eater one sees perched on power lines, you've done little more in this thread than wait around to pick over the remains of something you're incapable of felling yourself. It might be fun for you, it might be cathartic, but it's not rational, it's not reasonable and I see it for what it is: A cheap rhetorical stunt.

But we can't tell, from what they release to us, much about that. By their track record, we should automatically doubt what they release to us.

Doubt cannot always be the default position, Ice. And even if it is, as seems to be the case here with you, doubt, at some point, has to give way to reason and fact. There are plenty of reasons and facts to abandon some, if not all, of the doubts you've put forward. Yet, you do not. The reason you don't, I think, is simple. You're incapable of letting your bias take a back seat to reality. Everything must pass through your prism. Doubt and skepticism are healthy things, but when they become absolutes they have become the very thing you think you are resisting: A dangerous orthodoxy.

We certainly should not base firm conclusions on any of it, but should compare it with common knowledge and ordinary reasonableness.

You never do this. Never. I've given you sources, facts, information. None of it has penetrated your obstinate cranium. Again, what's the point?

Despite the thread title and subject - OK. More stuff you don't care about, and aren't informed about, and nevertheless talk about.

For Christ sake, I have explained my remark about Chomsky two or three times now. If you want to keep talking about it fine, but I fail to see what there is left to say about it. The thread title deals with Chomsky's doubts about the 9/11. It was you and your buddy who moved onto to doubt in general, but if you want talk about Chomsky and nothing else, then by all means, continue without me. I'm sure the pair of you have plenty to agree about.

There was probably - almost certainly, and to be assumed unless better counter-evidence emerges - a major planning and organizational apparatus outside of Afghanistan, supporting 9/11. It was connected with AQ, and OBL, and probably under their general oversight and direction, but not under their daily - or even monthly - operational management. It has not been publically dealt with.

Now that sounds like a conspiracy theory. Do you have even one scintilla of proof to back it up? Or are we supposed to accept a lack or absence of evidence as proof of what really happened? Yeah, that sounds real rational...

That is the material point. There is a lot of significant stuff about 9/11 we don't know.

There is a lot we do know, which you do not accept, for personal reasons, which have been shown to be totally devoid of factual foundation. You're grasping at straws. Because we can't trace every single dollar used in the plot, there's a organizational apparatus? Give me a break. In one post, you scoff at the notion bin Laden was telling the hijackers which hotel to stay in, now you think there is an "organization apparatus," of which there is NO evidence, that might have enabled the men? Is it really so hard to fathom this plot? Is it really that complicated? Some guys learned how to fly some planes and they later flew them into buildings. I'm sorry if this doesn't mesh with your crackpot view of the world, but that's not my fault. You need to get out more...

countezero: "Some guys learned how to fly some planes and they later flew them into buildings."

No, it isn't that simple. In preparation for the 9-11 attacks, those murderers learned to fly high-speed jet attack, and they flew those attacks expertly. If you lack a certain breadth of flight experience, it may take a bit of a mental stretch to comprehend the difference between jet attack training and initial civilian pilot training, as provided at places like Huffman Aviation.

I've been a pilot for a quarter-century. I've taught hundreds of people to fly, and I've personally experienced the difference between the training that is provided for preparing civilians for airline and charter flying, and training directed at tactical combat maneuvering. There is a vast difference in equipment and curriculum. The difference in equipment and training is much more vast than what separates a high-school driving school from Grand Prix racing. There is also a vast difference in pilot performance between exceptional and poor students. By all popular accounts, the 9-11 hijackers were shitty students.

But we all know that on 9-11, these killers were 3-for-3 in executing picture-perfect attack runs. It was not luck- It was instead a clear demonstration of highly-specialized flying skills. You have parroted thin evidence, and affirmed your assumptions by the lack of contradictory evidence. You have challenged me to produce evidence to prove that evidence is not being suppressed. I cannot. I have invited you to consider the possibility that evidence has been suppressed in the 9-11 investigation of the identities and training of the 9-11 attack pilots. The very best evidence that I can offer is much more direct than what is available through the books and articles I have read.

I know what was taught at Huffman Aviation. I have taught that very same curriculum for many years. I also know what it takes to fly ground attack, because I have been involved in the flight evaluation and sales of military training aircraft. I was taught ground attack by active military instructors from around the world.

I will offer you something more: You come fly with me, and I will provide you with the information that the official version claims is sufficient for accurately maneuvering an unfamiliar aircraft at high speed and low level to impact with a fixed target. This can be simulated safely with nothing more exotic than my airplane and a few rolls of toilet paper, streaming down through the sky to simulate our "towers", and our "Pentagon".

After you have made several attempts using a basic working knowledge of autopilots and flight controls, I will be happy to provide you with a sample of the hands-on technical training that is not taught in civilian flight training; a sample of tactical attack maneuvering.

I can assure you that you will find that the difference dramatic, within only a few training sessions. We can fully explore this dichotomy in one interesting, legal, and safe day. Come to me at your expense (Northeast USA) and I'll provide you with the personalized flight training at mine.

PM me, and I promise to fully co-operate in setting it up. I would hope that in return, you will fully report on your experience wherever you like. You might forward your journalistic career considerably in the process.

If you have the guts.

My opinions are based on the facts, as best as I know them. Your most frequently and extendidly expressed opinions are about other posters' character and motives and concealed opnions and personal attributes, based on absolutely no facts whatsoever. Something like 2/3, by linear screen inch, of your postings consist of nothing else.

For example: "Nor is it something you know about, or will shut up about. ”

I've shown myself, in this thread and others, to be more knowledgeable about this subject and the region. Miscomprehension of a poster's reference, self-congratulation in response, followed by: What we get from you is what we always get from you: Biased opinion, cheap skepticism and juvenile theories that deny known facts at the same time they advance an agenda that seems to be based on little more than your unwillingness to accept something that clashes with your questionable worldview. This is what I mean about it being a total waste of time dealing with you. You haven't posted ONE FUCKING FACT in this thread that refutes anything I've written. NOT ONE. Instead, like the sort of carrion eater one sees perched on power lines, you've done little more in this thread than wait around to pick over the remains of something you're incapable of felling yourself. It might be fun for you, it might be cathartic, but it's not rational, it's not reasonable and I see it for what it is: A cheap rhetorical stunt. a full paragraph of thread irrelevancies addressed to the poster's nature, etc.
Doubt cannot always be the default position, Ice. Here, it's not the default position, it's the obtained one.
For Christ sake, I have explained my remark about Chomsky two or three times now. It was more than a remark, and your "explanations" reveal no sign of having comprehended the responses to it. As that is the topic of the thread, I see no reason to just move on from an unsettled issue.
There is a lot we do know, which you do not accept, for personal reasons, I have accepted every established fact you have presented, and argued none. They do not lead to your conclusions.
Now that sounds like a conspiracy theory. Do you have even one scintilla of proof to back it up? It would, given your ever-flexible notion of "conspiracy theory". Was 9/11 a conspiracy, think you ? I think it was. How many people involved ? At least 35, more likely double or triple that, on different continents over several years. Was it operationally managed, supervised, coordinated over months, and executed from a cave in Afghanistan ? Given the plain circumstances in front of us all, I have my doubts. Don't you ?

there was no doubt that it was a plane crash that caused the WTC to collapse. Any issues (doubt-wise) with the remaining physical evidence, which, in this case, was uniquely destroyed: placed intentionally beyond any possibility of investigation. The only time, apparently that this has ever happened: an executive order to destroy all the evidence. What reason was given?
When a plane crashes, they invest millions recovering the wreckage etc, they don't collect it and then destroy it.

So, your claim that "there is no doubt", looks a little wobbly. You simply can't be as sure that all those stacks of paper reports about eyewitness accounts and the bits and pieces of video look a bit pale next to all that missing wreckage that engineers should have spent months going over. No-one was even allowed to look at any of it. Why doesn't that seem odd? Even a little?

Frud11:"Why doesn't that seem odd? Even a little?"

Because aircraft structures impacting at more than 500 knots don't leave much that is recognizeable to those choosing to remain unfamiliar with the effects of such explosive shredding and burning. If you don't understand the exponential nature of impact energy, try walking and then running into a brick wall... then contemplate what a 500-knot impact with steel and concrete columns really means to a large, lightweight aluminum vehicle hauling twice its empty weight in fuel.

Even so, there was plenty of evidence discovered and disclosed to prove that the hijacked airliners hit the WTC, Pentagon, and the empty field in Shanksville. If you do the least bit of internet research beyond hype such as Loose Change, you will learn what positively-identifying materials and sub-assemblies do (and did) survive the intense impacts and heat.

So much for disintegrating aircraft. That still leaves more than a few tonnes of building debris to get rid of, by hauling it away in all those covered trucks. Your point is still kind of pointless.

Fud11: "That still leaves more than a few tonnes of building debris to get rid of, by hauling it away in all those covered trucks."

Dust was an issue. Covered trucks were necessary for hauling debris to where it was dumped and sorted in public, in open view. By what other method do you think the debris should have been more properly cleared?

"Your point is still kind of pointless."

Why?

Your most frequently and extendidly expressed opinions are about other posters' character and motives and concealed opnions and personal attributes, based on absolutely no facts whatsoever. Something like 2/3, by linear screen inch, of your postings consist of nothing else.

Like when I say you're an intellectual coward because you refuse to answer simple questions? I can't help it if only one of us is debating, and the other is arguing about arguing and playing silly rhetorical games...

Case in point, you've still posted nothing in this thread that warrants serious consideration. You've posted no facts — only doubts. How big of you...

For example: Miscomprehension of a poster's reference, self-congratulation in response, followed by: a full paragraph of thread irrelevancies addressed to the poster's nature, etc.

I think it's perfectly relevant that you've not posted any facts, that you think an absence of evidence is evidence and that you are incapable of honestly answering simple questions — not to mention all the times you been flat out wrong about things in this thread.

Here, it's not the default position, it's the obtained one.

And your evidence of a larger conspiracy is the absence of evidence and your apparent misunderstanding of known information, then such a position is patently absurd.

I have accepted every established fact you have presented, and argued none. They do not lead to your conclusions.

You accept bin Laden was involved?

You accept the operation was planned and financed by Al Qaeda, which was located in Afghanistan?

You accept that no foreign government was involved?

That the US government wasn't involved?

You accept the identities of the hijackers?

You accept there was no larger conspiracy beyond the one al Qaeda created and carried out?

Was 9/11 a conspiracy, think you ?

Yes, it was. It was a conspiracy dreamed up and carried out by Al Qaeda.

How many people involved ?

I don't know for certain. I don't know that anyone knows for certain. But 35 to 50 sounds about right.

Was it operationally managed, supervised, coordinated over months, and executed from a cave in Afghanistan ?

No, and if you knew ANYTHING about Al Qaeda or Afghanistan — and you've shown time and again that you don't — you would realize that bin Laden and Al Qaeda were not in a "cave" in the relevant period. They had a large, well-guarded complex near Kandahar and one or two large training camps in the country. They also had offices in Pakistan, Yemen and probably Saudi Arabia.

Given the plain circumstances in front of us all, I have my doubts. Don't you ?

Nope.

countezero: "They also had offices in Pakistan, Yemen and probably Saudi Arabia."

Had? Past tense? Probably? L(&C)OL

Well, I doubt they can operate so openly now. The US government has bunggled much of the War on Terror, but it has done a good job attacking Terrorist financing, phony Islamic charities, and in doing so, driven many of the "front" offices groups like Al Qaeda had underground.

And you consider that effective counterterrorism?

Did you even read what I wrote?

I wrote: "The US government has bungled (SP) much of the War on Terror, but it has done a good job attacking Terrorist financing, phony Islamic charities, and in doing so, driven many of the "front" offices groups like Al Qaeda had underground."

Notice I say how it has "bungled" much of the effort. That would suggest that I think the US isn't doing a great job overall. However, in the area of terrorist finances, the US has done a fairly good job, based on what I read.

I have accepted every established fact you have presented, and argued none. They do not lead to your conclusions. ”

1) You accept bin Laden was involved?

2) You accept the operation was planned and financed by Al Qaeda, which was located in Afghanistan?

3) You accept that no foreign government was involved?

4)That the US government wasn't involved?

5) You accept the identities of the hijackers?

6) You accept there was no larger conspiracy beyond the one al Qaeda created and carried out?
1) Of course.

2) first part yes, second part qualified - multiple locations were involved, some of significance, and "financed by AQ" is a vague reference to multiple sources of money.

3) No, that's not established. Important figures in foreign governments and governance from the Taliban to Pakistan to Saudi Arabia - even, yes, the US in peripheral roles - have been implicated. Whether that implicates the "government" of which they are part, I suspend judgment pending review.

4) define "involved". I don't believe any agency of the US government actively and knowingly cooperated in furthering the actual conspiracy, or the event.

5) Some of them. Some need further investigation.

6) Not established, and very unlikely. I think the conspiracy AQ created was larger than the event - the event was part of a strategy, which is still either being carried out or failing - which, we don't know. The US has certainly cooperated in its own undermining, as apparently foreseen.

And I also think that other conspiracies existed, and exist, for taking advantage of that and similar events. They are more dangerous, in my estimation, than AQ.

the US hasnt gained anything out of this to this date. so blaming them for doing this is straight forward spinning.

It got the Unocal-Taliban agreements put into effect.

It got perminant military bases constructed in Iraq.

It got the Unocal-Taliban agreements put into effect.

The Taliban never did a deal with Unocal, and the company eventually abandonned its plans for a pipeline.

1) Of course.

Then why have you refused to answer that questions at least a half a dozen times? Spite?

2) first part yes, second part qualified - multiple locations were involved, some of significance, and "financed by AQ" is a vague reference to multiple sources of money.

There was one source of money — Al Qaeda and its members. The fact Al Qaeda collected this money throughout the region from numerous sources does not mean it somehow is not "theirs." What they did is no different than what a corporation or non-profit does when they collect money. In other words, the money was centrally collected and controlled by Al Qaeda, which was located primarily in Afghanistan at that time.

3) No, that's not established. Important figures in foreign governments and governance from the Taliban to Pakistan to Saudi Arabia - even, yes, the US in peripheral roles - have been implicated. Whether that implicates the "government" of which they are part, I suspend judgment pending review.

The 9/11 Commission disagrees with you, as does every other source I have cited. Do you have any evidence to bolster your claim? You seem to understand the difference between individuals associated with a government supplying funds and government support. KSM, for example, worked for the Yemeni government at one point, but that doesn't mean Yemen was involved in 9/11...

As for Pakistan, there is evidence it could have been involved with Al Qaeda, in that it historically supported radicals training in Al Qaeda camps who would then head for the Kashmir frontier. However, there is no evidence tying the country to 9/11. More likely, money and fighters from the country's madrassas ended up with Al Qaeda, and from there onto the Taliban, as they had in the past. Such an arrangement is not a direct connection. The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, and in their arrangement with Al Qaeda, the money flowed entirely the other way: It's been estimated that Al Qaeda was giving the Taliban $20 to $30 million per year in the run-up to 9/11 to help with the jihad against the Northern Alliance.

It's equally dubious to talk about the Saudis being directly involved, too. The Saudi government hated bin Laden and Al Qaeda for reasons that I outlined in earlier posts. In fact, the Saudis quit supporting the Taliban because the Talibs would not give bin Laden up. Now, it's possible private individuals or Imams inside the kingdom might have collected money for bin Laden, but that's quite a different thing than the House of Saud and its officials.

4) define "involved". I don't believe any agency of the US government actively and knowingly cooperated in furthering the actual conspiracy, or the event.

Then we're in agreement here.

5) Some of them. Some need further investigation.

The pilots have all been indentified and are discussed explicitely in numerous secondary sources. The "muscle" has been trickier to pin down, but it's my understanding, based on the 9/11 report, that they have been correctly identified — and typically you've provided no facts here that lead me to doubt this conclusion. Nor have you shown how a different identity really changes anything. One Al Qaeda thugs is pretty much the same as the other — unless, of course, you're going to allege some sort of dramatic new identity?

6) Not established, and very unlikely. I think the conspiracy AQ created was larger than the event - the event was part of a strategy, which is still either being carried out or failing - which, we don't know. The US has certainly cooperated in its own undermining, as apparently foreseen.


This is speculation on your part, and I see nothing to base this on.

There are reports that Al Qaeda wanted to force the US to put boots on the ground in Central Asia so AQ would have a direct confrontation, ala the 1980s jihad, but there's never been any hard evidence to support this theory.

And I also think that other conspiracies existed, and exist, for taking advantage of that and similar events. They are more dangerous, in my estimation, than AQ.

Like what? And do you have ANY evidence for them?

This is speculation on your part, and I see nothing to base this on.

There are reports that Al Qaeda wanted to force the US to put boots on the ground in Central Asia There are also documents indicating that AQ strategists recognized the economy and political system of the US as a main target, and that terrorism could be designed to get them to wreck themselves. The obvious effects of the anti-terrorism politics and efforts in the US were possibly anticipated, in other words, by people more familiar with the US ruling class and economic or political stresses than is generally recognized in media accounts of these things.

And I also think that other conspiracies existed, and exist, for taking advantage of that and similar events. They are more dangerous, in my estimation, than AQ. ”

Like what? And do you have ANY evidence for them? One example: I think there is a conspiracy to expand the powers of the President in the US government, and centralize political power in that office. The evidence for that is public and widely available articles and publications and policy recommendations, as well as the behaviors of the Executive Branch in recent years. And as evidence of this conspiracy's preparations for 9/11 type events, I submit the Patriot Act: hundreds of pages of important legislation involving major restructuring of the way the US Government handles public order and responds to events, always to the result of centralizing power in the Presidency, somehow put together within a few weeks and rammed through Congress using a coordinated strategy that denied the Congressmen even time to read it.

What was it Addington (IIRC) said? "We are one bomb away from getting rid of that {FISA} Court completely".

Your point is still kind of pointless.

Why?

I'm going to have to spell it out. Evidence is not usually destroyed, during the investigation of a major building collapse, anywhere I know about.
This includes the USA, where, I believe there are Federal laws which prohibit interference in an investigation, and where destruction of evidence (of a plane crash or a building collapse), is a federal offence with jail time involved.

Why are you so confident that the eyewitness accounts, and a few seconds of video are all that the investigation needed to establish all the "facts".
One of the facts, is that vital evidence (the rubble from the collapse of at least three large structures), was destroyed on orders from the Administration.

Can you explain why they thought it was important to remove it and place it beyond scrutiny? I would say not.
Do you believe the evidence didn't need to be looked at, since the answer was "obvious" to everyone?

Do you think this is what should happen (collect all evidence and destroy it) any time a plane crashes, or any structure collapses, despite what the statutes actually say, about charging people with federal crimes if they do, etc?
I'm just curious, really.

The pipeline that was being discussed in the Unocal-Taliban talks has been constructed, and that is all that matters.

The pipeline that was being discussed in the Unocal-Taliban talks has been constructed, That one, last I heard, had been abandoned again after Iran hooked a better deal with Turkmenistan - and the Iranian deal last I heard had fallen through on security and economic grounds. It had been scheduled for completion IIRC 2012.

Some people thought the US erred in pulling its ambassador (a principal negotiator of the US favored deals, which do not involve Iran in any way) out of Kabul and rotating him to Iraq, a year or so ago - giving Iran an opening.

Nothing actually built, yet. And the Taliban coming back ?

The pipeline that was being discussed in the Unocal-Taliban talks has been constructed, and that is all that matters.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

There are also documents indicating that AQ strategists recognized the economy and political system of the US as a main target, and that terrorism could be designed to get them to wreck themselves.

This is certainly true. Al Qaeda, in part, wanted to harm the economy, which is one of the reasons it decided to strike in NY and to strike the WTC.

The obvious effects of the anti-terrorism politics and efforts in the US were possibly anticipated, in other words, by people more familiar with the US ruling class and economic or political stresses than is generally recognized in media accounts of these things.

Now you're speculating, and I see no basis in fact for these conclusions...

One example: I think there is a conspiracy to expand the powers of the President in the US government, and centralize political power in that office. The evidence for that is public and widely available articles and publications and policy recommendations, as well as the behaviors of the Executive Branch in recent years.

I acknowledge the possibility of such a conspiracy, but you do realize that even if it exists it is entirely seperate from the conspiracies associated with 9/11? Unless you're alleging this conspiracy is tied to 9/11, something for which there is no evidence? In other words, the fact you think the Bush administration has taken advantage of 9/11 to advance some agenda is a reactionary conspiracy, or more crudely, political opportunism. It is not something planned directly in conjunction with the event ifself.

And as evidence of this conspiracy's preparations for 9/11 type events, I submit the Patriot Act: hundreds of pages of important legislation involving major restructuring of the way the US Government handles public order and responds to events, always to the result of centralizing power in the Presidency, somehow put together within a few weeks and rammed through Congress using a coordinated strategy that denied the Congressmen even time to read it.

Are you alleging the Patriot Act was prepared before 9/11?

It is not something planned directly in conjunction with the event ifself. But pretty obviously planned in expectation - may we say hope? - of some such event.
Are you alleging the Patriot Act was prepared before 9/11? The bulk of it, in some form or another. Unless Congress has access to legislation-elves, and can leave general outlines on their desks next to a plate of cookies and a bowl of milk, the conclusion is hard to escape.

And besides, we have things like sworn court testimony W&Co were demanding warrantless access to domestic phone records, from the telecom companies, months before 9/11. The Patriot Act hardly came from nowhere.

But pretty obviously planned in expectation - may we say hope? - of some such event.

No, not pretty obviously. Again, you're speculating, and you haven't a scintilla of evidence to convince anyone who isn't bent the way you are that this is true.

The Bush administration had been in office for less than nine months when the attack occurred, and ascribing some sort of pre-planning for such an event is preposterous. Terrorism, as Richard Clarke and others have noted, was barely on the administration's radar.

The bulk of it, in some form or another. Unless Congress has access to legislation-elves, and can leave general outlines on their desks next to a plate of cookies and a bowl of milk, the conclusion is hard to escape.

No, it's easy to escape, because there is no evidence for it, beyond your apparent appreciation of reality and your gut feeling. When properly motivated, legislation can quickly be prepared and introduced in Washington. So far as I know, there is not a shred of evidence this bill was being worked o prior to 9/11. Not one Congressman or aide has said as much...

And besides, we have things like sworn court testimony W&Co were demanding warrantless access to domestic phone records, from the telecom companies, months before 9/11. The Patriot Act hardly came from nowhere.

Can you provide a legitimate source for the above claim, because the above sounds like conspiracy mongering at the worst?

Also, you'll remember that I have shown in the past by citing Tim Weiner's book Legacy of Ashes that it was Gen. Michael Hayden who began the wiretapping program in the days after 9/11. The Bushies had NOTHING to do with his decision, and only approved of it retroactively.

When properly motivated, legislation can quickly be prepared and introduced in Washington. So far as I know, there is not a shred of evidence this bill was being worked o prior to 9/11. Not one Congressman or aide has said as much... "Proper motivation" is not enough, for something like the hundreds of pages and major bureaucratic restructuring of the Patriot Act.

Work on a particular bill by Congressional aides and such is not the assertion. The assertion is that the many specific provisions of the Act and the restructuring involved had been largely worked out in advance - some of them years ago - and were ready to be written into law at opportunity (by "ready" meaning not only the desired provisions written, but the Congressmen and other political forces lined up); an opportunity anticipated as imminent from the inaugaration of W onward.
Can you provide a legitimate source for the above claim, because the above sounds like conspiracy mongering at the worst? It does? To anyone following the general matter of government spying and Federal surveillance and so forth, it's business as usual, jsut another possibility to consider; Echelon, Carnivore, backdoor internet monitoring, provisions and protocols built in to enable Federal tapping of digital and fiberoptic communications, this is just standard discussion matter.

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/process/europarl_draft.pdf Example of the common discussion, as of May '01. Note Chapter: "Why is it necessary to use clues?"

Two of hundreds regarding the pre-9/11 telecom records: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202485.html
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/qwest-ceo-not-a.html

Where did the language come from? Straight out of the dustbin of rejected national-security legislation. Viet Dinh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_D._Dinh) was the chief author. He's not sharing any notes, but there are no original measures in the USAPA, especially when it comes to domestic electronic surveillance. Refer back to the many examples of draft of legislation that had been shot down in the past for compromising our Constitutional protections, and every measure is there. Viet Dinh is a smart lawyer, but he didn't pull the Patriot Act out of his ass.

Robert O'Harrow's Six Weeks in Autumn (http://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/articles/sixweeksinautumn) is an informative account of the unprecedented process that whipped up the USA Patriot Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:4:./temp/~c107KGh7m1::) nad its precursor (http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/20010919_ata_bill_draft.html), including language earlier introduced (and in many cases rejected for unconstitutionality) from as far back (http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/) as the Reagan Administration.

In the rush to generate a legislative response to 9-11, challenged language from bills such as the 1996 Antiterrorism Act (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1996_cr/s_735_final.htm) and measures suggested in the Hart-Rudman Commision Report (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nssg/addendum/Vol_I.pdf) and Comprehensive Terrorism Act (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1995_rpt/h104383.htm) were souped up and issued forth (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02EFDD173CF936A35753C1A9679C8B 63&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) under threats by the Justice Department: AG Ashcroft demanded Justice's bill be passed by Congress within a week, lest Congress be to blame for further imminent attacks. Congress initially responded dutifully, expressing the definitive principle that our Constitutional liberties are not expendable for the sake of counterterrorism, and began the Constitutional process of drafting and legislative debate.

Then there was anthrax. It is not a casting of conspiracy theory to observe that the anthrax scare had a pronounced influence on the panicked atmosphere that soon propelled the Patriot Act through an unprecedented legislative shortcut: Debate was cut short, consideration of the Attorney General's proposal language ended, and the what the White House wanted was shunted wholesale into law without meaningful review- yes, and without the normal procedures (http://www.school-house-rock.com/soundfiles/bill.wav) schoolkids once could recite- including being read in Commitee.

The nauseatingly (or is it sarcasticly?) titled Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3171:) describes the language that should have stayed in Viet Dinh's circular file. It died, poor wretch. Maybe it's all in a name, now, and when it's the Star-Spangled Heaven-Sent Manifest Patriot Freedom Destiny, Bill, it will. How I hope and pray that it will, but today, we are still voting shills...http://www.school-house-rock.com/images/bill-pic.jpg

"Proper motivation" is not enough, for something like the hundreds of pages and major bureaucratic restructuring of the Patriot Act.

There are thousands of people who can be called upon to draft legislation, Mulder. It isn't that hard to do.

Work on a particular bill by Congressional aides and such is not the assertion. The assertion is that the many specific provisions of the Act and the restructuring involved had been largely worked out in advance - some of them years ago - and were ready to be written into law at opportunity (by "ready" meaning not only the desired provisions written, but the Congressmen and other political forces lined up); an opportunity anticipated as imminent from the inaugaration of W onward.

And you have no evidence that this is the case. None.

Once again, Fox, you're engaging in the causation/correlation fallacy, in which you you infer connections between events that line up chronologically. The problem is you have nothing beyond you inference to prove the relationships necessary to make your theory seem like something more than a garbled attempt at explaining reality. So try again...

It does?

Yes, it does, Mulder. Where's Scully when we need her?

To anyone following the general matter of government spying and Federal surveillance and so forth, it's business as usual, jsut another possibility to consider; Echelon, Carnivore, backdoor internet monitoring, provisions and protocols built in to enable Federal tapping of digital and fiberoptic communications, this is just standard discussion matter.

I was not aware of the allegations from QWEST. They are interesting, but as things stand, they are nothing more than allegations. There is no proof to substantiate them, Fox. And given that, "In the court filings disclosed this week, Nacchio suggests that Qwest's refusal to take part in that program led the government to cancel a separate, lucrative contract with the NSA in retribution. ... He is using the allegation to try to show why his stock sale should not have been considered improper," I tend to be more than a little suspicious of his motives.

But, for the sake of argument, say the Qwest claim is true. That in no way, shape or fashion proves your conspiracy theory of people waiting until an evil Republican was elected to infringe on our rights. All it proves is that the NSA was working on a tactic for information gathering that may or may not be illegal before 9/11 happened. Again, Fox, with the correlations. As Scully would tell you: Get some facts.

And then, of course, we have this from Legacy of Ashes, with Tenet and Hayden as the sources. It directly refutes what you are saying. Tenet asked Hayden if there was anything "more" he could do: "Hayden came up with a plan to eavesdrop on the communications of suspected terrorists within the United States without judicial warrants. It was arguably illegal but arguably justified justified on a theory of hot pursuit" (483).

"Came up with" means it didn't exist beforehand...

But don't worry, the Truth is out there, right?

The machinery of police states don't spring from a central conspiracy. It's a virus that organically takes over modern societies while the population apathetically goes about their lives unconcerned by the incremental and increasingly pervasive progression of official surveillance and paranoia. Freedom is agreeably forfeited in blissful popular ignorance, long before the authoritarian trap slams shut.

There are thousands of people who can be called upon to draft legislation, Mulder. It isn't that hard to do. But they can't think it up according to a central framework, from scratch. They have to have some idea of what's required of their little part, and the people arranging that have to have some idea of what they are doing overall.
Once again, Fox, you're engaging in the causation/correlation fallacy, in which you you infer connections between events that line up chronologically. So we have an agreement on the chronology ? Good. That's an improvement over this: - - W&Co were demanding warrantless access to domestic phone records, from the telecom companies, months before 9/11 "
- - - - the above sounds like conspiracy mongering at the worst?
I was not aware of the allegations from QWEST. Not just from Qwest. And you must have missed out on the matters at issue behind various recent headlines and kerfluffle over telecom immunity ? But I forget - that requires attention to the less respectable, disreputably reality-oriented press. As I understand it, you do not sully your mind with such. But you have as usual in your areas of ignorance complete confidence in your namecalling and derision.

But they can't think it up according to a central framework, from scratch. They have to have some idea of what's required of their little part, and the people arranging that have to have some idea of what they are doing overall.

That's your claim. And thus far, I've seen nothing to back it up. Nothing.

So we have an agreement on the chronology ? Good. That's an improvement over this:

Chronology is what it is. I will not attempt to rearrange it. However, your links between events are tenuous, your claims extraordinary and your reasoning suspect. So far as that goes, this is more of the same from you.

Not just from Qwest. And you must have missed out on the matters at issue behind various recent headlines and kerfluffle over telecom immunity?

Didn't really pay attention.

But I forget - that requires attention to the less respectable, disreputably reality-oriented press.

Yeah, like the Washington Post, which you cited. What a upstart Katherine Graham's boy and girls are. Seriously, do you read what you post, before you post it?

As I understand it, you do not sully your mind with such. But you have as usual in your areas of ignorance complete confidence in your namecalling and derision.

You mean the Socialist Quarterly? No, I don't read that, Fox. Sorry.

And yes, this is the point (or rather a few posts ago was the point) in the conversation where I pretty much cease(d) to take you seriously, because you've posted very little that warrants serious consideration, both in your last post, and in this thread generally.

And now you're seizing on one bit of data that I was unaware of and trying to use that to broad-brush me in a thread whose overall flow details how incredibly ignorant you are of the relevant events. I'm sorry you knew something I didn't in this one case, but rather than be an ass about it, rather than hide it or try to squirm away from it rhetorically (as you have done and continue to do), I held my hand up and admitted ignorance, a bit of humility you've been incapable of the entire time I've known you on this site, to say nothing of this thread, where you've generally lurched from unfounded opinion to unfounded opinion and left me to post facts that clean up your ridiculous claims and even more ridiculous conclusions.

Let's not forget it took you numerous posts to answer a simple question.

Let's also not forget the numerous inaccuracies you've attempted to pass off as facts above reproach.

Let's also not forget you've failed to respond to or acknowledge the material I posted to debunk many of your specious claims.

Let's also not forget that the latest bit of information you've posted, information that I offered to accept for the sake of argument even though it is little more than an unsubstantiated claim, still does not provide a sufficient foundation for any of the loony theories you've attempted to establish. Again, the fact the intelligence agencies may have been working on something prior to 9/11 in no way, shape or fashion proves there was a conspiracy waiting for a friendly administration. I know there is no way of making you see why this is logically so, for logic is something you abandon to your kooky delusions quite frequently.

But they can't think it up according to a central framework, from scratch. They have to have some idea of what's required of their little part, and the people arranging that have to have some idea of what they are doing overall. ”

That's your claim. And thus far, I've seen nothing to back it up. Nothing. Uh, Count baby, the original Patriot Act is over 300 pages long, and creates a huge bureaucratic restructuring (including the creation of entirely new agencies, combinations of hierarchies, etc), as well as many radical reformulations of policy and revamping of chains of authority.
still does not provide a sufficient foundation for any of the loony theories you've attempted to establish. I doubt I would recognise your version of any theories of mine. They've all been bullshit so far. And you must have missed out on the matters at issue behind various recent headlines and kerfluffle over telecom immunity? ”

Didn't really pay attention. Of course not. But you could, if you wanted to, right ?
As I understand it, you do not sully your mind with such. But you have as usual in your areas of ignorance complete confidence in your namecalling and derision. ”

You mean the Socialist Quarterly? No, I don't read that, Fox. Sorry. More like this: http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/071102nj1.htm
- - After terrorists attacked the United States on September 11, the NSA again asked Qwest, as well as other telecom companies, for similar information to help the agency track suspects with the aim of preventing future attacks, current and former officials have said. The companies responded in various ways, with Qwest being the most reluctant to cooperate. However, in February 2001, the NSA's primary purpose in seeking access to Qwest's network apparently was not to search for terrorists but to watch for computer hackers and foreign-government forces trying to penetrate and compromise U.S. government information systems, particularly within the Defense Department, sources said. Government officials have long feared a "digital Pearl Harbor" if intruders were to seize control of these systems or other key U.S.