Jump to content
The Education Forum

Osama bin Laden's Views on the Assassination


Gary Buell

Recommended Posts

I can't think of a better explanation than the one you provided. The call makes no sense to me either.

Bush followed his mentor's orders. Harriman decided (I suspect, and thus speculate)

to cut his losses and push the cover-up away from the Castro-did-it scenario.

And towards a lone Parrott instead.

But what's the point if it's the wrong lone nut?

In apparent anticipation of your question, I amended my last post at

roughly the same time you posted the above.

"If the 'lone nut' scenario didn't hold through the weekend after the assassination,

a right-wing conspiracy was all framed up, Bush's call being part of that."

Or so I speculate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bush called the FBI in Dallas on 11/22/63 to tell them that a guy in Houston named Parrott had once threatened the president.

Golly, gee, he did this as his duty as any patriotic American would since he obviously thought that after what happened Parrott should be investigated.

Simple as that. Sometimes, indeed often, the simplest explanations are correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what Tim will say: he was just trying to catch the assassins!
Golly, gee, he did this as his duty as any patriotic American would since he obviously thought that after what happened Parrott should be investigated.

I was right!

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By your logic just about any conspiracy or conspiracy theory including the deaths of RFK, MLK and Marilyn would be on topic but John see fit to set up separate forums for those topics.

And by what alchemy of logic did you arrive at that conclusion?

Every conspiracy theory is of a false flag operation?

Note that I said “just about any”, but yes if your definition of a “false flag op” is one in which someone other than the true culprits is set up to take the blame than yes most conspiracy theories have as one of their basic assumptions the belief that the party blamed by the “official theory” was a patsy or a stooge.

Cliff: "I've never posited the deaths of RFK, MLK or MM as false flag operations -- please leave your own words to your own mouth, okay?"

Never said that you did. I cited them because there are separate forums concerning them and their deaths here. In all three cases there are theories that the truly guilty party is not the one named in most history books. But now that you brought it up do you believe that Sirhan Sirhan and James Earl Ray killed RFK and MLK all by their lonesome and that MM killed herself?

Cliff:

Dr. Quintiere scientifically ratifies the controlled-demolition scenario as possible albeit "less likely" than his pancake collapse theory.

Len:

Interesting spin on his comments you ignored the “he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives” part.

Cliff:

Those were the words of the writer of the article. If you actually read

Dr. Quintiere's comment he cites the pancake collapse as MORE LIKELY.

Hardly the blanket dismissal you suggest.

Your original post gave the impression he supported the CD theory. I posted the quote to show that was false. I doubt we’ll ever come to the same view as to how his comment should be interpreted. If you read his actual objections most are based on the assumption that fire and impact damage brought down the towers none seem to indicate he took CD theories seriously. But since he does not seem to have understood NIST’s theory his opinion is a bit moot.

Cliff: "He also says there's been no "official" explanation whatsoever for the

fall of WTC 7"

Once again he’s wrong. Though NIST hasn’t released a final report yet they announced their working hypothesis as spelled out in their “Interim Report” years ago.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

Josiah Thompson, author of “Six Seconds in Dallas” has been investigating the collapse for several years now and thinks that CD theories are rubbish. I’ll ask him to make a statement

Cliff: "-- which is equivalent to the clothing evidence in the JFK assassination.

WTC7 and JFK's shirt and jacket are the physical evidence defenders

of the Official Faith have to ignore."

You’re stretching more than Richard Simmons and revealing your ignorance of the facts re: 7 WTC.

Len:

Also there is a major problem with his objections from your article:

"Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; THEY SOFTENED IN THE HEAT OF THE FIRE AND SHORTENED AND THAT LED TO THE COLLAPSE. THEY PULLED IN THE EXTERNAL COLUMNS AND IT CAUSED IT TO BUCKLE. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”

Cliff:

And it then turned into billowing dust after it buckled?

What happened to the three-core structures, Len?

They didn't melt. There wasn't a huge pile of weak steel.

What happened to the massive steel cores and how did they collapse straight

down in free-fall speed?

Since the steel didn't melt why was there molten metal burning at Ground Zero

for TWO MONTHS afterward?

Why did Rudy Guiliani say he had been forewarned of the Towers collapse?

I believe all these topics have all been discussed on threads in the Political Conspiracies forum, I have no interest in rehashing issues already debated here. Note the dearth of structural engineers raising them. If you are interested in debating them do a search and if I’m wrong about them have been brought up already start a new thread there or add your questions to a relevant one.

I posted the quote above to show that your “expert” was a bit confused.

Cliff: "…the walls of dis-info are coming down, Len, whether you like it or not."

Yeah and I remember being told when I was in 1st grade in the early 70’s that the US was going to have switched to the metric system by decade’s end. But seriously there are a lot of real issues that need to be investigated involving 9/11 and the Bush administration.

The group you linked too only lists two. One is Charles Pegelow, the aforementioned oil rig specialist

The guy is an expert on the impact fire has on steel -- how does that disqualify him?

That doesn’t disqualify him, his lack of expertise in structures anything like the WTC or any other buildings makes his opinion far less authoritative that those of the numerous structural and fire engineers with decades of experience related to steel framed highrise BUILDINGS who disagree.

Cliff: "Haluk Akol, Architect & Structural Engineer

Lafayette, CA

Dennis J. Kollar, P.E., Structural Engineer

West Bend, WI"

You’re right, I missed them because they aren’t listed in the engineers section. But as I previously indicated I’m looking for structural engineers who’ve made statements so that we know what there actual views are.

Their names were taken from the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth website. It used to be possible to add a name to that site without verification and numerous fake names and names of people who weren’t really engineers were added so it’s possible their names were added without their consent. That is unlikely in the case of Akol because his firm hosted a AE911T event. However it seems that though the octogenarian earned a engineering license before you or I were born he worked as an architect rather than as an engineer (he has an architecture license as well).

His son described him as

“ an architect who came from Istanbul in 1945”.

http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetai...sonID=386453870

The name of him firm is “Akol & Yoshii Architects” in a web directory page for the company the entries for “Business Description” and “Industry Description” are “architects” and “Architectural Services” respectively.

http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/aspd...Area=0604000013

I couldn’t find any references to him on the Net as a structural engineer not referencing his membership in ae911truth

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navc...2dstopes+%2dtso

There is no verification that Kollar is a member of the group, he has made no public statements re: 9/11. The company he works for Ambrose Engineering or Cedarburg, WI seems to work mostly on single story buildings (and a few up to three) like small town stores and schools .

http://www.ambeng.com/projects/retail

William Rice, PE – Registered Professional Civil Engineer who worked on structural steel and concrete buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. Former Professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses.

The esteemed Mr. Rice isn’t a structural engineer and never claimed to be nor does he seem to have read the NIST report. He was discussed in this thread.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8183

So to make a long story short three bonafide structural engineers are listed on the site none it seems has experience with building remotely like the WTC towers only one has madea public statement. It is interesting to note that out of over 200 architects and engineers listed only 3, less than 1.5% are structural engineers. Presumably quite a bit less than their proportion among all engineers and architects if the collapse is as anomalous as “inside jobbers” believe why are structural far LESS likely than architects and other types of engineers to back such theories. Why are they so much LESS likely it seems than the general population. It seems the more you know about the subject the less likely you are to believe CD theories

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any discussion of 9/11 and NIST etc. must now include the info in the thread in the Political Conspiracies section about the countdown heard for the WTC7 demolition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josiah Thompson, author of “Six Seconds in Dallas” has been investigating the collapse for several years now and thinks that CD theories are rubbish. I’ll ask him to make a statement
That doesn’t disqualify him, his lack of expertise in structures anything like the WTC or any other buildings makes his opinion far less authoritative that those of the numerous structural and fire engineers with decades of experience related to steel framed highrise BUILDINGS.....

Mark Stapleton has had Len Colby accurately pegged for quite some time now.

Len, it's a big ask arguing on three fronts all at once--especially against formidable opponents like Ron, Robert and Cliff. The fact that you're getting trounced notwithstanding, I truly admire your fighting spirit, which is matched only by your ability to go to any lengths of logic-bending denial in order to avoid confronting the truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to correct a misstatement here:

The population of Iraq is around 27 million, the 43rd most populated country in the world, not a country with 100's of millions of people. The USA by the way is the third most popluated (around 300 million), following China (1.3 billion) and India some (1.1 billion).

Source:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_pop-people-population

(Len Colby Sep. 14th 12:06 a.m.):

You’re joking right? Iraq is in the middle of virtual civil war the US only has effective control over a small part of Baghdad and few other limited areas where car bomb attacks are very rare. Iraq is a country with 100’s of millions of people with motive to want to attack the US or other Iraqis, military stockpiles were looted after Saddam’s fall etc etc.

That was a typo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josiah Thompson, author of “Six Seconds in Dallas” has been investigating the collapse for several years now and thinks that CD theories are rubbish. I’ll ask him to make a statement
That doesn’t disqualify him, his lack of expertise in structures anything like the WTC or any other buildings makes his opinion far less authoritative that those of the numerous structural and fire engineers with decades of experience related to steel framed highrise BUILDINGS.....

Mark Stapleton has had Len Colby accurately pegged for quite some time now.

Len, it's a big ask arguing on three fronts all at once--especially against formidable opponents like Ron, Robert and Cliff. The fact that you're getting trounced notwithstanding, I truly admire your fighting spirit, which is matched only by your ability to go to any lengths of logic-bending denial in order to avoid confronting the truth.

Me getting"trounced" on this thread, only I imagine in the eyes of someone already convinced I'm wrong.

As for "Tink" no he's not an engineer but he was hired by one of the interested parties to investigate what happened. I only mentioned him because he is well known and respected by many members here. Our (Tink's and mine) view is backed by firefighter who were at the scene and structural engineers who've investigate the collapse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our (Tink's and mine) view is backed by firefighter who were at the scene and structural engineers who've investigate the collapse.

And yet when pressed you can't answer the simple questions I put to you.

What happened to those massive steel tri-cores, Len?

How does steel drop in free-fall directly into steel and then just disappear?

Tink?

And has it occurred to you that guys whose living might someday

depend on a government contract may have a vested interest in

keeping quiet?

NIST = WC

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me getting"trounced" on this thread, only I imagine in the eyes of someone already convinced I'm wrong.

There seem to be plenty of those "someones."

It has little to do with who is "right" and who is "wrong" about these things. That wasn't the point of my post. The truth is you routinely discredit others' sources simply by questioning their training or even the size of the university they work at. You should hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold others. The two statements of yours I posted side by side demonstrate that you don't. Offering Josiah Thompson to buttress your opinions of CD makes you guilty of the same thing you accuse others of. Your assessment of his credentials?

As for "Tink" no he's not an engineer but he was hired by one of the interested parties to investigate what happened. I only mentioned him because he is well known and respected by many members here. Our (Tink's and mine) view is backed by firefighter (sic) who were at the scene and structural engineers who've investigate (sic) the collapse. [Just one collapse?]

Yes, Josiah Thompson is respected by many members here. So is Robert Charles-Dunne.

When you started your self-serving thread in the Conspiracy section, challenging your self-described "detractors" with false premises, how many members came forward to support you? Your constant fallback is that your self-declared position of "debunker" puts you at odds with everyone else and that's why their criticisms of your arguments are unwarranted. Go ahead and continue to believe that.

I learned long ago that its pointless to debate you about what constitutes evidence. Mark got it exactly right about you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.lera.com/sep11.htm

September the 11th

As the structural engineers of the World Trade Center, the men and women of LERA have a special bond with the buildings. Our Leslie E. Robertson directed the original design. Further, we have provided professional services for the complex continuously for almost forty years, including the reconstruction from the bombing in 1993.

From our office, we watched as the second plane hit the South Tower. As did you, we suffered through the collapse, knowing that thousands of lives were being lost... and we feared for many of our friends, some of whom died in the attack.

We designed the towers to resist the accidental impact of a Boeing 707, perhaps lost in the fog while seeking to land. The impact of the Boeing 767s, commandeered by the terrorists, even though larger and flying much faster, was still unable to bring down the towers. The fire-resistive systems, however, did not and could not have contemplated the subsequent fire fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

Despite the enormous tragedy and loss, we are thankful that the towers stood as long as they did, allowing so many to evacuate.

My training as a poker dealer enables me to assure everyone this is a bluff.

:ice

Since he never contemplated the impact such a fire would have on his massive

steel structures, this makes him less of an expert than our oil rig specialist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I think Jack was right about these posts being confusing I added names to the replies.

RC-D: And I will follow suit. Just as an explanation, I have encountered some difficulties with the quote function, so was left with two choices, neither of them perfect. The first was to abridge the reply by deleting portions of prior posts. I hate doing that, because it's often done by those who are too dishonest to deal with each point. The second was to use different colours, allowing the reader to at least discern who was saying what.

ROBERT: My current comments are in this lovely shade:
ROBERT: How is it possible that OBL was capable of masterminding or orchestrating the Nine-One-One horrors, but since that time has been unable to so much as blow up a mailbox on US soil? Should that odd unwillingness to continue what was begun not make people wonder who the true author/s of the original event was/were? And should they not likewise wonder what the intent of the original event might have been?

ME (Len): Perhaps that’s because they’ve been unable to. It took them years to pull off 9/11, there first ever attack on the US when they had safe haven and the US had “its pants down” now that they/he is on the run and US security has tightened doing so again would not be easy.

ROBERT: How difficult is it to arrange car bombs in Washington?

ME (Len): I doubt either of us can answer that authoritatively. A car bomb in front of a post office or mall probably would not too difficult assuming they could 1) still put cells together in the US with the know how 2) obtain bomb making materials without being detected but hard targets wouldn’t be so easy.

ROBERT: Insurgents in Iraq and elsewhere have little trouble managing this, in an environment more heavily secured by military than anywhere in the US.

You’re joking right? Iraq is in the middle of virtual civil war the US only has effective control over a small part of Baghdad and few other limited areas where car bomb attacks are very rare. Iraq is a country with 100’s of millions of people with motive to want to attack the US or other Iraqis, military stockpiles were looted after Saddam’s fall etc etc.

RC-D: You mis-read my point, though not for the first time. You may be correct that "the US only has effective control over a small part of Baghdad," and yet the insurgents still manage to detonate car bombs there, and kill just about whomever they please, including the 21 [if memory serves] merchants who chatted with John McCain during his visit there. Given that the US has, as you acknowledge, "effective control" of that turf via security, how is it that AQ are incapable of committing similar acts in the US, where bomb-making materials are freely available for purchase and where security is nowhere near so tight?

Recently, Bush visited Anbar Province to demonstrate how well things are going there, thanks to his having cut a deal with the local Sunni sheik, Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, who is now dead, along with a couple of his bodyguards, less than a fortnight later. As I said from the outset here, it need not be another Nine-One-One, but people should be highly suspicious when the first shot fired is also the last. Herb White outlined a series of possible actions AQ could undertake, were they truly a threat, none of which would be terribly hard to pull off. Yet, thus far, nada, zip, zero, zilch. You may take this as a sign that security is now near-perfect, but it doesn't prevent college or high school students from taking arms to school and wiping out dozens. I think you give far too much credit to DHS, et al, and are failing to consider that the threat level is nowhere near what has been touted.

ROBERT: For an implacable enemy, OBL has shown as little interest in continuing what he started as GWB has shown in hunting OBL down.

As I already pointed out OBL lost his safe haven since 9/11 he also lost at lot of his top people i.e his operational capacity is way below what it was before even then it took years to set up but now the US is paying more attention.

He could believe he accomplished his goals he:

humiliated the US

struck three iconic targets,

destroyed two

did serious damage to the US and especially NYC economies

became a folk hero to millions of Muslims

possibly provoked the US into a blunderous overreaction

etc etc.

You believe that he should have tried to strike the US again but have offered zero evidence to support that claim. You believe he should have been content to set off car bombs in front of soft targets despite that not seeming to be his style (Where has he ever done this outside of the Arab world?).

RC-D: Thank you. You've inadvertently helped to make my point. Previous to Nine-One-One, car bombs, truck bombs and boat bombs were all "he" seemed capable of detonating. Nine-One-One was a quantum leap forward in both style and ability. Yet since that time, "he" cannot manage even a car bomb on US soil. I find that curious, almost as much as your lack of curiosity for why that might be.

You also ignore that he seems to concentrating his energies elsewhere at the moment, Iraq.

As for Bush. One of the great failures of his administration was that he jumped into the war in Iraq before stabilizing Afghanistan? Might they have been able to catch OBL if troos hadn’t been diverted away? He now seems to be in a part of Pakistan not under the control of the central government. The Pakistani military government seems to be to weak to go after Al-Queda there themselves and sending in US troops would probably lead to it’s downfall.

RC-D: It looks as though Musharraf's days are numbered in any case.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../International/

One thing that would certainly earn him credit around the globe, and some at home, is the capture of Public Enemy Number One. Then again, it doesn't seem as though the US is placing any particular pressure upon Musharraf to find Public Enemy Number One, so perhaps OBL's place on that pecking order has been downgraded within the Bush administration. It sure seems that way, since Bush announced more than four years ago that he doesn't even "think" about him much any more. Again, a most curious negligence is taking place. Your willingness to not care any more than Bush does is puzzling.

ROBERT: When people theorize that the absence of secondary attacks on US soil are attributable to improved US security regimes, I can provide just as much evidence that this absence of violence is because I pray very hard to a pet rock in my basement which is all powerful. Which is to say, there is no evidence for either conjecture. At least you prefaced your supposition with "perhaps," an important qualifier to provide in such assertions.

ME (Len): I rarely agree with Tim but such an assertion is silly, is it really your contention that increased: security at airports, boarder crossings and other “hard targets”/critical locations; surveillance of suspects; coordination between the FBI, CIA etc and the other steps taken post 9/11 have as much effect as praying to your rock?

ROBERT: As did Tim, you are purposefully missing the key point - "Which is to say, there is no evidence for either conjecture." Unless one can point to repeated examples of intended AQ strikes on US soil being foiled by DHS, et al, one must surmise there is no evidence upon which to believe AQ exhibits such intent. If you can provide such examples, I'm all ears.

I’m not into getting involved in semantic battles, increased security is a reasonable explanation for later attacks not occurring, someone (especially a Canadian) praying to a rock isn’t. After the US started x-raying carry on baggage and obliging passengers to go through metal detectors hijackings of scheduled passenger virtually came to a halt in the US. In the few incidents that happened afterwards the perpetrators used non-traditional weapons (bombs, flammable liquids, box cutters, knives etc. Can we assume causality or do you think some one prayed to their pet rock? I don’t know of any cases of potential hijackers being caught by airport security. However it is reasonable to assume that people who might have tried before the security measures were put in place but didn’t because it was more difficult.

RC-D: Those without a predisposition might also reasonably assume that no such incidents have taken place because no such attempts were made. Had any such attempts been made, would DHS, et al, not rightly trumpet such apprehensions far and wide as proof that their increased security precautions were paying great dividens in maintaining public safety? That you've seen no such report, I submit, is proof there have been no such attempts. But, again, I've never held that a secondary attack had to be against aircraft. I just find it incredible that no such attack of any kind has been perpetrated.

ROBERT: Let us recall that the original attempt to bring down the WTC would never have transpired without the timely aid provided by an FBI agent provocateur, who was subsequently all but disowned by the very FBI men controlling him.

ME (Len): I’ve heard that claimed but see little supporting evidence. All there is are tapes made by the informant after the fact in which he claimed he had told them about the attack ahead of time and could have switched the explosives but it seems they had basically “disowned” him before the bombing.

ROBERT: From which you draw what inference? That they were correct to do so? If so, the result militates in the opposite direction. That they were incorrect to do so? Then why did they? Because a man whom they had previously thought credible, a man whom they insinuated into the alleged cell and whose actions they had directed, suddenly became unworthy of their continued confidence precisely at the time he allegedly warned them the plot was about to reach fruition? What an odd way to conduct such affairs.

ME (Len): 1. IIRC it is far from certain he had told them only that he claimed after the fact he had. Apperently they lost faith in him he was a paid informer not an agent.

2. Even if they did screw up that does prove conspiracy.

ROBERT: I realize you meant the opposite of what you have typed here, but I prefer what you wrote to what you intended.

OK “Even if they did screw up that does NOT prove conspiracy” happy now?

RC-D: My "happiness" is hardly the issue here, Len.

Peter Lance (as quoted by Michael Hogan) who extensively researched the incident wrote the following in the preface of his book “Triple Cross”:

“So Ronnie Bucca, who was in an army reserve intelligence detachment, got himself assigned to the Defense Intelligence Analysis Center (DIAC) at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington. There, as he began to examine the intel, he learned that the FBI actually had an informant inside the bombing cell months before the blast, BUT AFTER A FALLING-OUT WITH A BUREAU SUPERVISOR, HE'D WITHDRAWN.”

Note - Michael also quoted another passage which indicated “the FBI had…prior warnings that a bomb or bombs would go off in New York City the FBI”

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=117649

RC-D: Sorry, Len, but I cannot fathom the intent behind the final sentence, so will reserve comment for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ROBERT: Is this not akin to the later lapse when one George Bush, et al, managed to ignore a briefing memo headed "OBL determined to attack the US," which included the prediction that such an attack would use hijacked planes to accomplish the deed?

ME(Len): I agree with you that the Bush administration (and to a lesser extent the Clinton administration) was grossly negligent but once again incompetence doesn’t = conspiracy. The memo contained little intelligence that could have been acted on nothing indicated such attacks were imminent.

ROBERT: Precisely how many times must one swallow the "incompetence" line before it demonstably ceases to be incompetence, requiring you to entertain more unsavoury possibilities? Just how credulous would you have your fellow citizens be? Such a blase uncritical credulity is not an attribute when attempting to divine the truth in such matters.

Strawman I didn’t use the incompetence theory regarding the memo and only used it as a secondary possibility forr the 1st WTC attack.

RC-D: Well, of course. Otherwise, you might actually have to confront the recurring pattern of curious negligence, incompetence or [feel free to use your own terminology] to rationalize how prior warnings are ignored, and after the fact, denied ever being made or received. Unfortunately for those doing the denying, those warnings are, after all, demonstrable, as was the case when Condi Rice said it was unthinkable that AQ would use airplanes to attack the US, only to have Richard Ben Veniste produce precisely such a document, provided to the President more than a month before the attacks, which document warned of precisely such an event. That this disconnect doesn't trouble you may not surprise those who read your output here, but some of us are troubled by such disclosures, for it illustrates that criminal negligence, at best, was committed by the man whose central reason for being, by his own proclamation, is keeping the US secure.

ROBERT: The Project for a New American Century, penned by the very same people who would thereafter run the "appointed" government, virtually prescribed what would be necessary in order to sell to the US populace its plans for the Middle East - "a new Pearl Harbour" - and that prescription was filled.

ME (Len): Untrue. I’m no fan of PNAC or their agenda but that’s not what their paper (which you apparently never read) called for. They said: “…the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor". “The process of transformation” it was referring to was not regime change in the Middle East or anything along those lines (which isn’t called for anywhere in the paper) but for “the Department of Defense [to] move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems.”

ROBERT: I see that the formidable Ron Ecker has already dispatched that particular canard, so I'll not dwell upon it.

ME (Len): All due respect to Ron aside he misquoted the paper so maybe you’d like to address it or admit error.

ROBERT: Sorry, but no dice. I read the documentation in precisely the way Ron does, and I notice he's added some further comments, with which I also concur. You are free to disagree. However, irrespective of the goal in mind - territorial hegemony or development of new weapons or whatever else is inferred - the fact remains that precisely the scenario that they identified as speeding the achievement of their goals is what transpired. Precisely how many times must one swallow the "happy coincidence" line before it demonstably ceases to be coincidence, requiring you to entertain more unsavoury possibilities?

The “new Pearl Harbor” was only tied to one goal, introducing new weapons systems namely “Global missile defenses”, “Control of space and cyberspace” and “Pursuing a two-stage strategy for of transforming conventional forces” (i.e. more modern conventional weapons) (pg. 63). Unless you cite credible evidence that after 9/11 such new weapons were introduced at a faster rate than could have been expected if the attacks hadn’t occurred, you’ve lost your case. Keep in mind that we would have expected defense spending to go up during a neo-con Republican administration anyway and many of the PNAC people were in positions to implement their goals under the puppet like Bush.

See also if you can dig up any references in that paper to invading or overthrowing the governments of any governments especially in that region.

The "happy coincidence" exists only in the minds of truthers because there is no evidence the attacks help implement any of the goals stated in the paper especially those in the “new Pearl Harbor chapter”

RC-D: I take it that "truther" is a new pejorative term, much like "conspiracy buff," employed by those who cannot refute the message and are thus reduced to mocking the messenger?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ROBERT: What "inability" to catch OBL? Had there been such an interest, would the Buxxxxes really have allowed chartered flights to spirit all the Bin Ladens in the USA out of the country immediately after the event?

ME (Len): A bit of a myth http://911myths.com/html/family_flights.html

ROBERT: I see you subscribe to a contra-myth, which is precisely what is contained in the above link. A far more accurate, albeit convoluted, chronogy of events is provided by Daniel Hopsicker at:

http://www.madcowprod.com/06282007a.html

It should disturb you as much as it does me that we have known since October 5, 2001, when it was reported by the Tampa Tribune, that at least one such flight did take place in US airspace at a time when no other flights were authorized - despite repeated denials by Bush, the FBI, the FAA, et al that such had ever occurred - only to later be grudgingly acknowledged. When agencies of one's own government repeatedly lie, and come clean only when there is no other option, what does it say about one's government, or the credulity of people who continue to embrace such myths only because they wish them to be true?

ME (Len): Did you actually look at my link? It didn’t dispute that Saudis, even bin-Ladens, were flown out of the US only the contention that they weren’t interviewed first.

The site you referenced stipulates several things that remain less than certain, which is only naturally since their source material comes from the 9/11 Commission whose credility is less than stellar, as we'll soon see, and a few that are demonstrably untrue. To wit:

"Many sites are a little coy about when this flight occurred, but we'll tell you; it was September the 20th. Not such a rush, really, and no, US airspace was not closed."

Technically, this is true, so far as it goes, but its placatory tone is a false one. What it fails to address, which is why I directed your attention to Hopsicker's site, is that such a flight containing Saudis did take place while there was an FAA embargo on air travel, albeit in this instance a domestic one. And, as was initially the case with the Bin Laden flights departing the US, it was originally denied by FBI, FAA and the White House, none of whom seemed capable of discovering what they did not seek. Reading Hopsicker's piece illustrates as much.

911myths. com also contends: "The family members weren't simply allowed to leave, either. The 9/11 commission pointed out:

"Twenty-two of the 26 people on the Bin Ladin flight were interviewed by the FBI. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity... The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft".

How does one square this with FBI's initial, wholly contradictory claims that no such flights had ever taken place? How does one interview passengers who never flew? Either FBI's initial denials were wrong, or the Commission's Report is, for those two opposing "facts" cannot both be true. I understand your failure to acknowledge the disconnect; so long as you accept the most recent statement - the 9/11 Commission's - as true, you are untroubled by whatever preceded it, no matter how contrary.

Wow what a convoluted paragraph! The flights the 9/11 C and 911myths were referring to were the ones that took the bin Laden’s out of the US not the one that took Saudi VIPs from Florida to Kentucky.

RC-D: One cannot help but note that you've excised the pertinent portions from Hopsicker's site that illustrate precisely the point I was making. So, at the risk of boring everyone gormless, allow me to resurrect them:

When the FBI was insisting the Saudi boys in Tampa never flew to Lexington, KY, on Sept 13, the FBI documents state that if there was a phantom flight:

"Such a flight would have been in violation of the FAA's flight ban."

Also, that:

"FAA reports that full flight restrictions were in effect on 9/13/2001."

But when the 9/11 Commission Report admits the flight actually did happen, there's a catch:

"The flight definitely took place, and there is nothing improper about it" because "both the national airspace and Tampa Airport were open."

And:

"At the time this charter flight took off, both the national airspace and Tampa Airport were open."

You place great faith in the 9/11 Report, enough to cite its findings as contained on 911.myths.com. I posted the Hopsicker material to demstrate that while US airspace was closed, Saudis - less important to Bush than the Bin Ladens - received preferential treatment, attributed [by some of those involved in the flight] to the White House. FAA denied it, FBI denied it, the White House denied it, yet the Commission accepted it as a fact, and then called it benign.

So, when allegations were first raised about Bin Ladens leaving the country were first raised, the FAA denied it, the FBI denied it, the White House denied it, only to later grudgingly ackowledge that the flights did take place, just not while US airspace was closed, and not without most of them being interviewed by FBI. The internal inconsistencies of each individual event, as reflected by government actions and documents, were stunning in their sweep. If one cannot know the truth about one such instance [FBI vs. 911 Commission vs. the Hopsicker material], how much credence is one prepared to give any of the interested parties on another matter, virtually identical in all respects save one: the Bin Laden flights would be considered even more unseemly, creating an even greater benefit from ensuring the issue is not plumbed.

Bear in mind when you assess all of the things rationalized by the interested parties that several other matters, of a similar nature, remain unsatisfactorily unrationalized, unresolved, unsolved. If the Commission gives a blithe assurance that "At the time this charter flight took off, both the national airspace and Tampa Airport were open," which we know to be false, what other blithe assurances on other similar issues are equally false? These are questions you dismiss as though unworthy of your attention. I would have thought any concerned patriot would be asking the hard questions, not accepting the easy answers.

ROBERT: Your site also asserts: "Had they driven across the border to Canada instead, they could have flown home from there with no questions at all."

This is wholly untrue. It presupposes that Canadian air travel security protocols were so lax that persons could come and go as they pleased, with "no questions at all." Only somebody who's never flown in or out of my country would say so silly a thing. Our system may be less draconian than some others, but we do have a system, and thus far it's worked with reasonable efficiency.

If you read with more care you would have realized he meant “no questions at all” from the FBI.

RC-D: It that's what he "meant," can we not assume that's what would have been written?

I haven’t flown out of Canada since I was a teenager decades ago but when flying out of the US even post 9/11 there is no ID by security officials. Names and ID’s only checked by airline employees at check-in and boarding for someone with an e-ticket and no checked bags not even the former. Are you saying that the Canadians would not have instructed the airlines to not allow anyone named bin-Laden fly overseas?

RC-D: Unsure about the double negative, but... Given the ID of OBL by the US by that time, it is entirely possible. Certainly, we've detained a half dozen 'suspects' via the use of "security certificates," some for years in solitary confinement, without charge, without trail, without conviction. We have collaborated with the US in the forced and illegal deportation of Canadian citizens to Middle Eastern countries where they were held, tortured and spurned by the Canadian consular officials responsible for their wellbeing in those countries. I realize when people think of Canada, it is hard to conjure the image of an overly zealous and efficient security apparatus, but we do have one. And ours isn't always perfect, but it usually errs on the side of proactive, unConstitutional behaviour, more often than not.

ME (Len): Hopsicker doesn’t document what you claim according to the Tampa Tribune article:

"On Sept 13, 2001, a private Lear jet flew three young Saudi men—a Saudi Arabian prince, the son of the Saudi Arabian defense minister, and the some of a top Saudi army commander—from the Raytheon Terminal at Tampa International Airport to Lexington, Kentucky."

So it was a domestic flight and there was no mention of members of the Bin-Laden family being on it. Try again.

ROBERT: A simple reference to what I wrote illustrates that this isn't quite so: "It should disturb you as much as it does me that we have known since October 5, 2001, when it was reported by the Tampa Tribune, that at least one such flight did take place in US airspace at a time when no other flights were authorized - despite repeated denials by Bush, the FBI, the FAA, et al that such had ever occurred - only to later be grudgingly acknowledged."

I said nothing about a foreign flight, or the Bin Ladens in referencing the Hopsicker site. "...in US airspace at a time when no other flights were authorized..." If this was a mere oversight, or benign, why did the White House, FAA and FBI all feel compelled to lie about it? This is a fact that Hopsicker makes clear:

You seemed to be citing Hopsicker in support of your claim that “the Buxxxxes…allowed chartered flights to spirit all the Bin Ladens in the USA out of the country immediately after the event” as evidence by your ‘convoluted’ paragraph above. Do you have any evidence in support of this claim? Richard Clarke a fierce critic of the Bush regime says it’s not true.

RC-D: I was, but not in the way you infer. See above for parallel.

ROBERT: Had there been such an interest on Bush's part, would US forces at Tora Bora have really been ordered to not fire upon the positions where they were certain OBL was residing?

ME (Len): Can you provide a citation for this claim?

ROBERT: Sure. You may recall that John Kerry repeatedly made this claim, presumably with some basis in fact, while running in the '04 election. It would be a simple matter to cynically denounce such claims as political posturing by a Presidential candidate at the expense of the incumbent. Were it not for the subsequently published book "Jawbreaker" [Dec. '05], written by the CIA point man in charge of seeking out OBL at Tora Bora. CIA initially stalled vetting his book, which had to be submitted to the Agency prior to publication as is common in all such cases, then ensured that some of the book's most damning allegations were excised. Those interested in the meat of the matter might benefit from reading what can be found at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/

A transcript of a January '06 Paula Zahn interview on CNN with the book's CIA-operative author, Gary Bernstein, can be found midway down the page at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/06/pzn.01.html

Much that corroborates Bernstein's version of events can be found in "First In: An Insider's Account of How the CIA Spearheaded the War on Terror in Afghanistan" by Gary Schroen, also a Jawbreaker veteran, and Robert Baer has been no wallflower in recounting his own bitter experiences trying motivate a serious hunt for Bin Laden.

ME (Len): Once again none of your linked sources back your claim. Did you read them? Bernstein was interviewed by David Ensor not Paula Zahn.

ROBERT: You are correct. I referenced Paula Zahn because it was her show, but it was Ensor who filed the report.

ME (Len): You said “US forces at Tora Bora [had] been ordered to not fire upon the positions where they were certain OBL was residing.”

1) The US DID fire on the al-Queda positions, from the CNN transcript you cited:

DAVID ENSOR, NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (VOICE OVER): In late November of 2001, the CIA sent a four-man CIA military team to hunt Osama bin Laden in eastern Afghanistan.

With donkeys and ten Afghans for security, the team scaled a 14,000 foot peak overlooking al Qaeda's mountain retreat at Tora Bora. From there the men used lasers to call in massive firepower from the air.

GARY BERNSTEIN, AUTHOR, "JAWBREAKER": And they rained down death and destruction on al Qaeda up in those mountains. The first 56 hours alone.

2) Bernstein didn’t complain about the lack of bombing but, like Kerry, the failure to use US as opposed to Afghan ground troops,

ROBERT: You are right, Bernstein didn't "complain about a lack of bombing." I never said he did. What he did complain about was that he knew where OBL was, requested the necessary troops to fire upon and clean out those positions, and his request was overridden [admittedly, I could have phrased my point more cogently]:

To be quite frank it sounds to me like you are retroactively changing your claim which was that “US forces at Tora Bora [were] ordered to not fire upon the positions where they were certain OBL was residing?” Firing upon (which they did do) and attacking themselves (which they didn’t) are very different things. Actually what Berstein says he wanted was for US troops to block escape routes, presumably even he wanted Afghans to do in and “do the dirty work”.

RC-D: Bernstein was the man on the ground spearheading the get-OBL effort. He was chosen for a reason. When he called for air power, he got it. When he had sufficient reason to believe that OBL had been located, based on information that he - the guy in charge - found credible, he called for the US military to provide the ground troops necessary to be certain that OBL was killed or captured. Suddenly, according to you, the military began to question the judgement of the man selected to spearhead the get-OBL asset. You seem to think that this can be rationally explained. I see only irrational, contradictory alibis provided for why the US failed to go after its quarry during its single- best [known] opportunity.

It also sounds to me like you conflated Tora Bora with a fictional incident during the Clinton administration from the “the Path to 9/11” in which “National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, is portrayed as unwilling to approve a plan to take out a surrounded Osama bin Laden.” [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9...used_by_Clinton ]. Even a conservative Clinton administration critic said this was inacurate “the idea that someone had bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there’s zero factual basis for that.” [ http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/miniter-911 ]

RC-D: Since I've never watched the show in question, and know the allegations about Berger to be spurious, I can assure that no such conflation has occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...