Even Chomsky doubts 9/11 conspiracies

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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...

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.

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...

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.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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 ?

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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"

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.

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."

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.

"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!

No one, apparently.

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.

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

 

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.


“

Read Count's stuff. Think a minute. They didn't even have an Amrerican airport in Afghanistan to practice in.


“

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.

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 OBL picked the targets, no one would be surprised. So ?

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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?

 

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 ?

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).

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 ?

Ah, point. I had heard.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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?

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....

 

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

You noticed! Hold that thought - - -

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

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.

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

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

 

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...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

 

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:

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.

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

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.

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

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 ?

 

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?

 

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...

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.