Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

OK people, what's your HOP level? (poll)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-11-03 02:20 AM
Original message
Poll question: OK people, what's your HOP level? (poll)
It's been awhile, where are you in this?

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-03 08:14 AM
Response to Original message
1. Good poll question
Chalk me up for LIHOP. Making it happen would require keeping a lot more people quiet than letting it. Though I do not dismiss the idea that it happened because of gross incompetence and corruption (calling off the dogs investigating bin Laden/Saudis, for instance).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
study_war_no_more Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-19-03 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
58. I disagree
LIHOP would definitely take more people than MIHOP also whereas LIHOP iis inherantly the coverup for MIHOP one cannot be true without the other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-03 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
2. Biased poll.

Where are the other options?

:puffpiece:

Put me down for DIFTHOI (did it for the hell of it)

:nuke:

or WKHTSWCG (wouldn't know how to shit while chewing gum)

:hurts:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-03 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. My apologies
Although I'd argue WKHTSWCG lives in the same zip code as LIHBBIAI :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-03 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Same zip code.
yeah, near enough, but another wavelength.

:-)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-03 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
4. How about
HBUSIAAATW (Happened Because USA Intelligence Was Asleep At The Wheel)

or


DTICHETTWWOTW (Didn't Think It Could Happen Even Though Writing Was On The Wall)


or my Favorite

RIWPSIITE (Radical Islamics Who Poked Sleeping Infidel In The Eye)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Allah Akbar Donating Member (231 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-03 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Maybe some day we'll actually see some proof
that Islamists did it, rather than people just opening their mouths and SAYING it, as if that were some type of proof.

People can say they have seen proof all they want, they haven't seen any and no one can produce any proof of it here. Just more "The CIA says this...." and "The FBI says that....".

A fucking rental car with a Koran in it is not "proof" of anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-03 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Ignroing...
the OVERWHELMING evidence that Islamic Arabs did it, who do you think did it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Allah Akbar Donating Member (231 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-03 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Since there's all the OVERWHELMING evidence
let's hear some.

Guys drinking in a titty bar and a rental car with some papers and a Koran is not evidence of anything.

Bush said they had evidence remember? Here it is nearly 2 years later and no one has seen any that I'm aware of. Oh, that's right, they can't show us, National Security, doncha know!

Yeah, we wouldn't want to take a chance of jeapordizing any national Security! Heck, someone could attack us and kill 3000 people!

Well, Bush said we have the evidence, so that is good enough for me I guess. Not!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-03 06:21 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. So.....
if radical Islamics were not responsible, who is? And just how did those four jets fly into the WTC, pentagon and PA?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Allah Akbar Donating Member (231 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-03 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. No, it was not me convince you Arabs didn't do it
It was let's see some of this alledged OVERWHELMING evidence that they did.

Put up or shut up.

I would hope that it would be the latter, since I've been waiting 2 years now and haven't seen any evidence to date.

They showed 19 pictures of specific people and said these people did it. Where is the EVIDENCE?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-03 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Where is the EVIDENCE?
What type of evidence would be satisfactory to you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Allah Akbar Donating Member (231 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-03 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. In one word
ANY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-03 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. OK
Bin Laden Names Hijackers On Tape

Osama bin Laden names some of the Sept. 11 hijackers and commends them to Allah, according to a more thorough translation by one of the experts hired by the government to review a videotape of the suspected terrorist.

Riyadh: 15 Saudis Took Part in Attacks

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia In a startling admission considering the Arab kingdom took five months to confirm most of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi, Saudi Arabia revealed Wednesday that 15 Saudis carried out the deadly car bomb attacks in Riyadh and acknowledged gaps in security.

Mohammed Atta's will

This will was written by a terrorist of the worst kind; the kind who takes no prisoners, shows no mercy, tortures, cloaks it all in religion as the command of God, and believes mass killing provides a ticket to paradise via a martyr's death. Terrorists of this stripe find encouragement in Islamic Fundamentalism. a very effective incubator for religious terror.


But as sure as the sun shines I doubt this will convince you.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-03 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Bin Laden Names Hijackers On Tape?

That tape contained nothing to convince me.

The fat face of the alleged "Bin Laden" fails to fit and what if names were mentioned?

Names have also been mentioned here.

Are we therefore guilty?

With some considerable kudos to be gained it would suit the interests of all sorts of Arabs to pretend to be connected.

Ask any police investigator. False confessions are a routine event.

Did you also believe that the documents cooked up to frame George Galloway were real?

Does anybody here remember the 'Hitler Diaries'?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-03 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Allah Akbar asked for ANY evidence....
Edited on Thu Jul-10-03 08:05 PM by LARED
So I provided a few links that are clearly evidence that radical Islamics were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Of course it is not evidence that leaves no doubt, but it is evidence nonetheless. It is pretty unlikely that we will even see evidence that leave no doubt in the mind of a skeptic.

Assuming it was OBL on the tape. His words hold far more weight than an anonymous poster on DU. Also what purpose would OBL have to make a false confession. He's already revered by a lot of radical Islamics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Allah Akbar Donating Member (231 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-03 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. No,
I'm not convinced by the "fat Osama" tape, sorry.

Quite frankly it's a load of horseshit and anyone looking at that tape objectively can tell it is not even Osama Bin Laden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-11-03 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. A question
you state "Quite frankly it's a load of horseshit and anyone looking at that tape objectively can tell it is not even Osama Bin Laden." While you a certainly entitled to your opinion, do you have any evidence it is or is not him.

Just trying to maintain a reasonably clear line between evidence and opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonasQuinn Donating Member (69 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-11-03 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Okay, fine
You don't believe that the OBL tape is genuine.

What about the other two links LARED provided?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-11-03 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. the other two links ?
Upon what basis should anybody be convinced by the Riyadh report?

:shrug:

Dealing largely with a more immediate event, re. 9/11 it appears to present a second hand conclusion with no discussion of any evidence.

:shrug:

The Atta will appears to have been dated 1996, hardly therfore valid as evidence of character let alone any connection to events that took place 5 years later.

:shrug:

The "written by a terrorist of the worst kind" comment is spurious.

:shrug:

The picture that emerges from it nothing more than a tendancy towards a fanatical indulgence.

:shrug:

So what else is new?

:shrug:

Was this supposed to be the best available evidence?

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-11-03 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. a false confession?
With due regard to OBL confessing the problem would rather arise form his categorical denial, in an interview given to 'Ummat'

"....I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act."

O8)

http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=23...

The implication would hardly therefore be that OBL would make a false confession, rather that a number of people would or could have done so, just as it would possibly benefit an impostor to pose as OBL, with or without the connivance of the CIA or Mossad.

:puffpiece:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-11-03 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. OBL 's credibility has been impeached
OBL has been quoted condemning the 9/11 attacks and denying any responsibility for them.

"OBL" has been quoted saying things that give comfort to those who believe he was responsible for the attacks.

Either OBL or "OBL" is lying. It's hard to see what OBL would have to gain by the attacks, and even more difficult to believe he had the means to carry out the attacks if he'd wanted to.

Assuming that "OBL" is OBL, then they're either twins, and one's a liar or both are liars.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-11-03 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Making sense.

Never mind the quotes.

What was the provenance?

We know where the Ummat article came from and why it came about is not so difficult to make sense of.

What then, please, was the provenance of the alleged OBL video?

Who vouches for it?

Is any charcter within it reliably identified?

For what purpose exactly would it have come about to begin with?

It resembles nothing previously produced for OBL propaganda purposes.

In terms of jurisprudence I doubt that it would ever be admissible to a Court of Law.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-03 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #22
41. Would your evidence hold up in a court of law?
I think not. Osama was also on record as saying he had nothing to do with it. Circumstantial evidence of the car at Boston with the Koran and flight manuals and the Atta at the bar is hardly the solid evidence to make a case.

Allah Akbar's challenge is quite interesting, actually. Where is the body of evidence that supports the government's case on 9/11?

The only evidence I see is a massive cover-up/stonewalling by this administration not to let the entire truth of 9/11 be known.

This is, by the way, same government who told us that Iraq was behind 9/11 and Saddam had WMD ready to attack us in 45 minutes.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-03 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #41
45. in a Court of Law?


Good question.

O8)

Better question: when would it ever get to a court of law?

:freak:

By then what passes for a court of law may be all but unrecognisable.

:hurts:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #45
53. If the US government had to make a case in a court of law
based on the evidence and "facts" as they have been presented to the US people, could they win they case? Or would the jury (of public opinion) return a "no verdict" find for the accused (I guess that would be OBL). Based on what I've seen and read, I'd say there would be a "hung jury".

Maybe we will see this case. James Baker is representing Saudi Arabia against a multi-billion dollar lawsuit by families of the victims of 9/11....so their official US case of what happened might very well be tested in court of law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 04:21 AM
Response to Reply #53
55. as presented ?

The comment is incidental for it is just as clear that a good deal of evidence is available that has not, for whatever reason, been presented.

At the Pentagon on and after 9/11, for instance, the FBI collected, sorted and photographed a great deal of evidence. It may not have appeared on the internet. So what? The Internet is not omnipotent.

Did you ever put any further questions directly to the proper authorities, through the proper channels?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SkyIsGrey Donating Member (288 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-03 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #20
34. Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SkyIsGrey Donating Member (288 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-03 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Ignore the screw up with the link
I will get HTML down to a science yet :argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Allah Akbar Donating Member (231 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-03 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. The first link is an article with a pic of the "fat Osama"
You can tell even from that tiny, blurred picture that it is not Osama bin Laden.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-03 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. National Securtiy assertions = taking the 5th
The only evidence for who is responsible for 9/11 would implicate the Government of the United States. Therefore; the Government has chosen to assert its 5th Amendment rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
psychopomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-03 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Seems to be the case.
Very interesting take on it; yes, that puts it nicely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Allah Akbar Donating Member (231 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-03 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. That has been the case for 20 + years now
National Security is Bushspeak for "we can't tell you because it would show what lying bastards we are".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-03 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #14
23. I certainly believe...
that the government of the US made many mistakes and was lax with security. I certainly believe that they have lied about this and have tried to cover it up. I do NOT believe that they would have permitted it if they knew that it ws coming.

By the way, welcome to DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-03 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #10
32. You didn't answer the question...
Who do YOU think planned and carried out the September 11th attacks? Or did the planes fly into the WTC and Pentagon by accident?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Allah Akbar Donating Member (231 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-03 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. I do not know for sure, I have my suspicions
Edited on Sat Jul-12-03 06:22 PM by Allah Akbar
But that is the difference I speak of, I make no claim to "know" due to "overwhelming evidence" that no citizen of this country has seen to date.

I do know that Bin Laden was a CIA operative during the Russian/Afghan war. Once you are in the company, you stay in the company or you die, plain and simple.

I do know that literally hundreds of Israeli agents have been arrested and "deported" (why not locked up?)in the US and virtually no "Al Queda" members have been arrested. Some of these agents were caught celebrating and taking pictures of themselves as the WTC fell in the background. Sounds like someone was having a celebration over a Mission Accomplished to me. (I'd like to point out that pics of Palistinians "celebrating" were played on our media at that time and people were ready to go kill Palistinians. Why no outrage over the same behavior by our "allies"?) Many of these spies were located in the same areas that the alleged hijackers were located in.

I know that someone involved in our intelligence/ military complex mailed Anthrax and made a piss poor attempt to make it look like Arabs were behind it.

See, these kinds of things are evidence that would be used in a court of law. Circumstantial, yet evidence none the less.

For the official conspiracy theory, I have seen nothing but pictures of some arab looking men and the assurance that "they really did do it".

So if I had to make a statement on what I think actually happened, I'd say the evidence points more to a black op conducted by the CIA and MOSSAD with the specific aim to do exactly what is going on now, ie, conquest and control of the middle east and oil revserves.

It certainly points more to that than it does some guy living in a cave on the other side of the Earth did it because they hate our freedom.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-03 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #33
38. Usual conspiracy theories...
What I expected. For your information, the Arab news sources made that up about the Mossad. So no, you don't know. Hussein was associated with the CIA, too. He's hardly in conspiracy with the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
plaguepuppy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-03 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Usual ignorant debunking
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Allah Akbar Donating Member (231 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-03 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. Nah
He (She? I don't know) is allergic to facts.

Seems to be allergic to posting anything at all to back up claims as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-03 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. I a "he"
for your information. Next time you want to know something like that, check the profile.
No, I am not allergic to facts. Far from it. I simply do not spend hours on the internet looking up things on conspiracy websites. I do not provide links, because that is not where I get my information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-03 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #40
46. I generally abstain...
from reading about things on whatreallyhappened.com. They are extremely anti-Israel, and overwhelmingly biased. The last link made a bit more sense, except for the fact that the theories contradicted each other.
If the Israelis knew about the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks, they would have told American authorities. In fact, it seems that they did. Why would they have, if they had planned them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #40
50. Facts?

So because something appears on the Internet it is a fact?

:eyes:

I am not saying that because something appears on the Internet it is not a fact, just wondering what the test is supposed to be, already having had occasion, all too often, to look into supposed "facts" only to find that they were nothing of the sort.

:puke:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Allah Akbar Donating Member (231 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-03 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #38
43. No, Arabs didn't "make-up" anything Iput in that post
and you post more unsubstantiated tripe, ie, how do you KNOW Hussein is not in conspiracy with the US?

Where is he? He sure isn't in custody or dead, is he?

I thought he was in cahoots during Gulf War I too. It was as set up job from day one to get Poppy Bush re-elected and that is why they did not "go to Baghdad".

Hopefully, this sham war (in which real people are dying) will not be any more successful for Shit For Brains, Jr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ani Yun Wiya Donating Member (639 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #38
57. Maybe it was a Black OP , with CIA, MI6 and MOSSAD working together
Have you read about the recent radio interviews broadcast in Israel ?
The very same fellows (art students or moving company workers), who were happily filming the WTC
event from the roof of their van parked across the way in Jersey, stated that it was their mission to do
exactly that: photograph the "event". These were the suspiciously acting people who were thought to
be "Arabs" that some people reported to police and whom the police hunted down, only to release them
some short time later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
study_war_no_more Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-19-03 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. Bingo we got a winner
yessirree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shatoga Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-19-03 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. evil aunt Cia & insane uncle Dod wagged the dog for W
Edited on Sat Jul-19-03 06:44 PM by shatoga
our evil aunt Cia, and our insane uncle Dod
assisted by other NWO agencies

Wagged the Dog for our dear dubya?


Business as usual!

(use everything in "quotes" as a search term to read the truth from multiple sources.)

"Gulf of Tonkin" was an "Operation Northwoods" scam.

Wag the Gulf One was a scam based on lies about "tanks massed to invade Saudi Arabia" which the "St Petersburg FL Times" proved by buying photos from soviet spy sats which showed empty desert.


Wag the Gulf One
Bush the First had cited (crazy uncle Dod's) spy sat photos showing Saddam's tanks massed to invade Saudi Arabia-
PR agencies manufactured bogus stories about "preemies thrown from incubators in Kuwait"-
Bush's ambassador told Saddam:
"Your Arab to Arab disputes are none of our concern." thus approving the invasion of Kuwait.


note that China considered Hong Kong exactly like Iraq considered Kuwait.
A renegade province manipulated away by western powers.


a North American Air Defense Command;
NORAD- designed to track and destroy radar jamming soviet ICBMs
was unable to track 4 jumbo jets on 911.
Even though Fox news Weather Radar daily tracks rain clouds!

Let the 'tinfoil-hat Bush coincidence theorist' loonies answer:

Who puts those transponders on the clouds for Fox?


What rational person can doubt the "military stand down on 911"?

Anyone remember "Payne Stewart"?

During Clinton's Administration;
5 National Guard jets escorted Payne Stewart's out of contact jet until it crashed.
Why?
It was out of contact with the air traffic controllers-
who (ATC) back when America had a good President;
scrambled the Military whenever an airborne threat happened.

Stand down on 911 is self evident!

"What really happened" was "Operation Northwoods" "Wag the Dog"
as "serendipity.cia.com" among hundreds of others has found.

"controlled demolition" was the first clue to many.

The stand down was evident to me as I watched live, as Bush sat and did nothing on stage at a local school.
(while kids read a story about a goat)
Then stood up and claimed to have called the governor of NY, and military commanders.

Delusional President and tinfoil hat coincidence theorists/
embedded in a cover up?












Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Allah Akbar Donating Member (231 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-03 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #32
37. Notice I answered the question asked of me
and am still waiting to see any of the overwhelming evidence proving the "official" conspiracy theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-03 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. such as?

So what sort of proof, exactly, would you expect to see?

A signed confession?

Many years ago I was aquuainted in passing with a drug dealing outfit.

Guys now established as respected Irish Republican politicians were involved. That's where the cash came from to run the IRA in the 70s, but on the whole it was just kids out to stretch their experience to its limits. There were characters around who would drop 100 tabs of acid just for the hell of it, to impress their friends, which is pretty much the picture I get of the Atta gang, thrill seekers living for the moment, indulging whatever whim as and when it arose.

Some of those I knew were eventually busted, but only on a circumstantial conspiracy charge.

Everything, and I mean EVERTHING was done by word of mouth, on trust. Telephone calls used coded language. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING was ever written down and no more than a small quantity of incriminating substances were ever kept on one place.

So if somebody were to tell me that some really hard evidence did turn up, that's when I'd have doubts about it.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Allah Akbar Donating Member (231 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-03 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. Well, since the govt is claiming they HAVE this evidence
and some on this thread are claiming they have seen overwhelming evidence that PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt to them that arabs did it, why don't we see some? I'm just calling them on their statements that there is overwhelming evidence. No one in this country (outside of Bush Co) has seen it.

I'm not just pulling this out of my ass you know!

See the post above in regards to the "overwhelming evidence that shows arabs did it".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-03 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. statements?


Hard evidence is not the same thing as overwhelming evidence, just as an expectation of evidence is not the same thing as the veracity of any governmental claim.

:think:

Have you ever sat on a jury?

Nothing is ever certain.

You have to weigh the probabilities.

With regard to conspiracy theories, for instance, a good measure is the number of people supposed to be deliberately involved, the pobability being inversely proportional to that factor.

A suspicion of mine is that there were really no more than two or three hijackers on each plane and that was immediately exaggerated to cover the embarrassment.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-03 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #9
42. i'd settle for names on the airline manifests.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that all these plane manifests get released on 9/11 and none have the names of the people the FBI fingered?

The FBI figures out every person associated with the hi-jacking in, what, 48 hours? But no corroborating evidence by way of the manifests. And they can't catch the Antrax killer after 2 years?

But, if Bush and the government are clean, why haven't they been on the leading edge of the investigation, throwing the entire resources of the federal government into getting the complete truth vetted?

Why have they gone out of their way to stuff and derail the investigation?

I can't prove who did it, but if I look at who benefited, this administration and Israel both appear to have benefited from the event. Of course, I can't explain why we didn't declare war on Saudi Arabia when most of the terrorists came from that country....you'd have to ask the Bush family why they weren't on the hit list.

So it could be Israel, could be the PNACer's, could be OBL, could be Mickey Mouse.....but no one really knows what happened because this administration has no interest in getting the facts aired out.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-03 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #42
48. Not so odd.

Think about it.

:loveya:

Names of the victims of any sort of acident are not usually released before the next of kin have been informed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #48
52. The manifests were released the same day the crashes occurred.
By the airlines. No one could have been in a position to know who was or who wasn't a terrorist hi-jacker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 04:14 AM
Response to Reply #52
54. in a position to know?

No one could have been in a position to know who was or who wasn't a terrorist hi-jacker?

On the contrary, it would be extraordinary not to know, at least to some extent. Hijackers would usually announce themselves, alongside a threat or demand of some kind.

Indeed, I would have thought it a more pertinent line of enquiry to wonder whether or not the the whole truth was ever been told in that respect.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChillEB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-20-03 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
64. I'd settle for ONE PIECE of hard evidence, myself...
Something like one of these things:
1) Actually hearing the tapes from any of the black boxes, or recordings of ANY of the cell phone conversations that took place between passengers and people on the ground, wherein someone is proven to say that the planes have been hijacked by Arab terrorists. I would have to see proof that the recording was authentic, however.
2) Airport surveillance video that shows ANY of these cats in the airport.
3) Any actual written evidence of the plot, either in Afghanistan, or the US.

I'm inclined to think Arab terrorists DID at least hijack A plane that morning, but I'm far from convinced. I'm extremely doubtful that they were actually in charge of all four planes, except perhaps fl. 93.

When I really consider everything I've read, which is A LOT over the past 1.5 years re: 9/11, I the conclusion I've come to is:

There were Al-qaeda terrorists training in flight schools in the US, with the intent to hijack at least one airplane, perhaps to crash it into a building like the WTC, or perhaps not.

I think its POSSIBLE that Fl. 93 was the only flight that was truly hijacked by these people. Not sure how many of these people there really were, though. It's possible all 19 were on that one flight. But I tend to believe that all four planes WERE in fact hijacked by the guys that the government says did it.

I believe the PNAC people were aware of this plot, when it was going to be, and decided to take advantage of the situation. They scheduled "Operation Vigilant Shield" that morning to provide cover, so that the air defense stand-down necessary could be attributed to confusion over whether or not the 'hijackings' happening that day were part of an exercise, or real.

This leads to one of three scenarios:

Scenarios A) and B) Aware of the exact plane(s) that were to be hijacked (scenario B: maybe fl. 93 was the only one truly hijacked, and the rest were simply picked to be on the same day by the PNAC'ers), they outfitted remote control technology on (at least the first three) planes, and used it to crash them into the three buildings. The planes were either controlled via equipment on other planes flying nearby, or some kind of 'homing beacons' were installed in the WTC/Pentagon. In this scenario, its unlikely that the hijackers had planned on the three targets that were hit, and that it's possible they were not going to actually crash them into buildings at all, rather they were just going to take hostages and make demands.

Scenario C) All four planes were really hijacked by these 19 guys, and crashed into their proscribed targets, just like the official story says

Why do I suspect A or B, i.e. remote-control?
a)I don't think that the Arab guys had the training to really fly these planes, esp. not into targets the way they did. Experts have said only a crack military pilot could've hit the Pentagon the way it was hit.
b)I don't think the PNAC'ers would've left so much to chance as was required for scen. C)
c)Looking at the passenger list for Flights 11, 175, and 77 and how many people were onboard that had links to the government and companies involved in Global Hawk (remote-control) technology, I think the passengers thought that they were participating in some sort of 'inaugural' use of the remote control that they helped develop. This serves the additional purpose of wiping out many of the people who knew such technology existed.

I do not believe Bush was aware of the plot beforehand, but I think Dick was intimately involved (uh-huhuhuhuhuh) in the orchestration of the days events, including making sure that Bush stayed at Booker and gave his press conference right on schedule. Although Bush may be slightly suspicious about the way he was kept at Booker when its clear he should've gotten out of there immediately, he probably still believes the 'official' version of events, verbatim.

My version does not explain a number of curious factoids about the day's events, however, and I am keen to figure a way in which they can be made to jibe with scenario's A or B. These include:
1) Why was a high-level Mossad agent on-board the first plane to hit the WTC? Was Israel or the Mossad involved somehow? There is somewhat compelling evidence to suggest that they had agents in the US at the time, who seemed to know of the players and the plot.
2) What about the cell phone calls that were made from 11, 175, and 77, that seem to describe a hijacking in progress? Were they fake, misreported, or what?
3) What was John O'Neill's role in all of this? Surely it's not coincidence that the FBI's TOP Al-qaeda expert had recently left the FBI to head up security at the WTC just weeks before 9/11, and that 9/11 was his first day on the job. Either he was involved (not in a good way), or they transferred him hoping to take him out in the attack because he simply knew too much.

At the very least, I believe the details of the plot were known by the PNACers, and that they took steps to facilitate the day's events. I think they acted to block investigations into Al-qaeda's presence (particularly into Zac Moussaoui) in the country during 2001. Either they scheduled Vigilant Shield on that day on purpose, OR they informed Al-Qaeda that that day was going to be "best for them".

Note that my scenario's do NOT require THAT many people to be involved in it's successful execution. Confusion over Vigilant Shield explains the 'stand-down'. Knowledge of the installation of the remote control devices could've been handled by wiping out the only people who knew about it, people who were onboard the planes themselves. It was already very easy for Saudi's to get into this country unchecked.

Only one person was actually caught by authorities before the event, Zac Moussaoui. This means the lawyer who was in charge of reviewing FISA warrant applications before submission (Dave Frasca?) most likely HAD to have knowledge about what was going on, otherwise the whole plot might've been uncovered when Zac was detained. Regarding this, note that Colleen Rowley stated that she and other FBI field agents used to 'joke that Al-Qaeda must have a MOLE at HQ'. Don't forget that there was a story about 6 months back wherein this same guy got himself a big bonus/raise/promotion which came directly from the White House.

Reading Rowley's testimony, O'Neills comments found in "The Forbidden Truth", etc, its clear that at least SOMEONE at FBI HAD to be involved in keeping the heat off of the hijackers whilst they trained to fly. Whether or not these FBI folk(s) actually knew WHAT they were involved in is still in question. Those people are trained to follow orders, and if Cheney told them NOT to look into all these Arabs taking flight lessons, they would not do so, and they would not tell that they were told not to. But because the FBI fumbled the ball SO BAD, both in ignoring the flight students AND Zac Moussaoui, I think someone there had to be involved.

But all in all, NOT very many people had to be involved in my scenarios A or B (who would not logicaly be dead at this point). In my opine, a fully manageable number. I haven't really explaned all the things that happened that cause me to believe that these scenario's provide a better explanation than the 'official' story, but I trust most of you are aware of all the anomalies and 'things that don't add up' that I don't have to spell it out for y'all...

PEACE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
study_war_no_more Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-19-03 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
59. CIA has a history of using radical Islamics to do dirty work
so finding proof of this says nothing about where the plan origionated In a cave in afganistan or in the ENRON board room?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qandnotq Donating Member (481 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-03 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
6. How about
none of the above? Just as easily could have happened on Clinton's watch. Or Gore's. It was a systematic breakdown of intelligence and security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-03 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #6
31. Systematic breakdown of intelligence and security
...that finally happened when BushCo took over. The policy under Bush was negligent ignorance of the threat Al Qaeda possessed. The diligence Clinton had and tried to pass on to his replacement kept Osama at bay, but Bush needed an excuse to go after Iraq, and a terrorist attack from the Middle East provided that handily.

Put me down for LIHOP, low grade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-03 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
39. Bias in your HOP poll
For those who buy the "official" version of what happened, it's fair to ask/poll readers to select from your choices, but for those who don't buy the "official" version of what happened, responding to your poll requires accepting the "official" version.

Wouldn't it be better/more fair to ask two questions:

1.) Do you believe the "official" version of the story?

2.) What is your opinion of how it could have happened?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
number6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-03 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
49. LIHBBIAI (Let it happen because Bush is an idiot)
that applies to economy, domestic isues, ect....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #49
51. Let it happen?

Why so generous?

:spank:

"Let it happen" would imply some sort of awareness that something would happen.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ani Yun Wiya Donating Member (639 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-03 05:56 AM
Response to Original message
56. Needs more options like...
DIFFAP
(Did It For Fun And Profit)

DITMAC
(Did It To Maintain Absolute Control)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
study_war_no_more Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-19-03 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #56
61. or DIWEP
Did it with extreme prejudice. Diwep's is a nice label for those empty warheads that can be found in the White house.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shatoga Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-19-03 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
63. just like FL 2000- my vote was miscounted

MIHOP and LIHOP were tied at 24 votes each.

I entered my vote for MIHOP.

LIHOP jumped from 24 to 25 while MIHOP stayed at 24.

Is the RNC active at this website?

Could they be the cause of the recent problems?





It's all just one big coincidence. right?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug 19th 2017, 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC