Osama bin Laden's Views on the Assassination

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

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.

All but the most obdurate or illiterate will have noted the inconsistency in Len's approach, as illustrated by Michael Hogan. Some might dare to consider it hypocrisy.

Len insists that his opponents should provide expert opinions from those who are sufficiently credentialled, but doesn't hesitate to profer the opinions of those who are not. [With all due respect to Tink Thompson, a pioneer of the JFK mystery, his qualifications to pass judgement on Nine-One-One are no greater than most of those here, making it particularly odd that Len - who insists repeatedly upon credentials - should cite him. Tink may have spent years at the Ground Zero site, but since all physical evidence has long since been made to disappear or exported elsewhere, this doesn't appear to be a particular advantage to either Tink or Len.]

But, those of us who have been doggedly pursuing the JFK mystery are well familiar with the techniques employed by the likes of Len, for we have seen them many times before.

When opponents do provide expert opinions from those who bear the requisite credentials, those credentials are questioned or dismissed as inadequate. [Dr. Gary Aguilar is unqualified to render and opinion about head wounds because his medical specialty is different; Dr. John Lattimer, a urologist, was uniquely qualified to discuss head wounds.] Len is the sole arbiter of who does and doesn't pass this test.

When the credentials are above such questioning, the experts are nevertheless dismissed because if they are incorrect about one supposition or conclusion, then all of their conclusions must be dismissed. [Len feels no self-consciousness in embracing conclusions by the 911 Commission, despite its shoddy track record in being demonstrably wrong about - or deliberately ignoring - many things; somehow this doesn't impeach their ability to be correct about other things.] Len is the sole arbiter of who does and doesn't pass this test.

When all else fails in impugning the expert opinions of those who are sufficiently credentialled, then there is always some kind of "moral turpitude" invoked to disqualify those expert opinions. Len is the sole arbiter of who does and doesn't pass this test.

It's an old routine. And it's grown no more convincing by repetition alone.

Those interested in the opinions of skeptics with credentials might start by visiting:

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

[Cliff Varnell]

1) Willie Rodriguez who I think I've shown to be a xxxx

This is where our discussion ends.

If you are so partial to the man perhaps you'd like to refute the paper I posted here

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;hl=rodriguez

Not a problem.

RODRIGUEZ (9/11/01): "I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the

maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a

rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another

rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his

body. All of the skin.”

RODRIGUEZ (6/25/06): “As I was talking to a supervisor at 8:46 like chitchatting and

all of a sudden we hear PAAH very strong BOOM!!! An explosion so hard that it pushed

us UPWARDS, UPWARDS!!…The explosion was so hard that all the walls cracked the

false ceiling fell on top of us, the sprinkler system got activated and when I was going

to verbalize it was a generator we hear BOOM! All the way at the top..."

There is no contradiction in these statements. "Not like an impact...Moving furniture

in a massive way" was a succinct description of what he later described in more detail.

Lots of people heard explosions in the basement.

The claim that jet fuel ran all the way down to the basement -- sight unseen

by any of the fireman working in the elevator shafts -- and then exploded (?!)

is absurd.

That you have to bend over backwards to mischaracterize the witness statements

speaks volumes about the intellectual bankruptcy of your Official Faith.

I despise witness bashing, Len, whether its the JFK assassination or 9/11.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

The posts of the back and forth between Robert and I have gotten very long and cumbersome and I imagine dificuly for other to follow. I edited out most of the previous replies those wish for full context should look at the referenced posts.

I have done the same, with my current comments appearing in this lovely shade.

From post 164

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.

No I got your point, you have been avoiding several of mine

- We don’t know if AQ is able to set up cells (directly controlled by OBL) in the US

It has yet to be demonstrated that this was ever the case, let alone now.

- In Iraq on the other hand there are 10’s of millions of people with motive to attack US or rival Iraqi targets. [Presumably the Iraqi attacks were all carried out by locals or with their participation. It is very difficult to prevent a group of determined locals from carrying out attacks even with draconian security the ability of Palestians from the occupied territories to attack Israel and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising are cases in point. Also it is a lot easier for AQ operatives and sympathizers from the region to get into Iraq.]

This is opinion and supposition. There may be merit to the argument, but it fails to explain why AQ has yet to attempt a second attack on US soil.

- They seem to have shifted their focus to Iraq

"Seem to have" are the operative words. Any suggestions why, after launching so specatcular a first attack on US soil, there has been no second attack? Lost interest, did they?

- Even if he were able to carry out small scale attacks against soft target he prefers iconic ones like military bases, warships, embassies, the WTC and Pentagon

- Such iconic hard targets are heavily secured in the US.

A preference for "iconic" targets is, again, pure supposition by our esteemed Brazilian correspondent. As is the contention that US hard targets are too well secured. There is no shortage of examples demonstrating security at US ports, nuclear power plants, etc., is well short of perfect. Yet, there seems to be no second attempt. Did the remarkable success of the first attack somehow dissuade OBL from mounting a second one?

Also I’ve seen no evidence that the attacks in Iraq are being coordinated by OBL rather than by local commanders also not all the attacks are being carried out by AQ there are many groups in Iraq. Even in the areas under “effective control” there are allies of dubious loyalty and many resident who may well hostile to the US.

Whereas some of us have yet to see any evidence that Nine-One-One was "coordinated by OBL rather than by" others. The repetition of a mantra doesn't make it so.

IMHO –further debate over this topic is futile.

Occasionally, common sense prevails.

LEN: 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.

The genius of 9/11 was mostly in its conception; once it had been planned it would not have that difficult to carry out. Four months after 9/11 a Florida teenager with minimal flight training was able to steal a Cessna fly it over an air force base and crash it into a building in Tampa. Planes have previously been hijacked by crazy people soaked in flammable liquid or with fake bombs, the “muscle hijackers” were trained in hand to hand combat. Getting a car bomb close enough to an iconic target to do serious damage wouldn’t be so easy as you imagine.

It seems that by raising the Florida teenager story, you are undermining your own contention that security in the US is now perfect, and hence the rationale for no additional AQ attacks on US soil.

LEN: 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.

My last sentence came out convoluted but you should have been able to make out my point. It should have read: “However it is reasonable to assume that people who might have tried before the new security measures were put in place didn’t because it became more difficult”. I.e. increased security has a deterrent effect. I don’t think anyone can point out a hijacking that was prevented by metal detectors and x-ray machines at airports but the steep decline of such incidents after they were put into use is strongly suggestive they prevented such attacks.

That may or may not explain an absence of attacks using airplanes; it provides no basis to believe that security is now so fool-proof as to make all attacks against any targets impossible. Your fallback position seems to be that AQ is only interested in the targets that you would have them prefer. A most peculiar method of prosecuting a war against the Great Satan, don't you think?

From post 165

LEN: 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.

I don’t know if incompetence is the correct charge, of course with hindsight it’s easy to say what should have been done. The Bush administration did show a distinct disinterest in terrorism probably because they had other priories [iraq and the rest of the axis of evil, raping the economy etc] some of the errors took place during the Clinton administration if it was a conspiracy it was a very complex one.

Just as the US military showed a "distinct disinterest" in intercepting hijacked planes even after it was apparent they had been hijacked and would be used as weapons. Just as the Bush administration showed a "distinct disinterest" in launching an investigation into what transpired on that day, and a year later relented only because a failure to do so was inexplicable to even Bush's staunchest supporters. Just as those who wish to embrace the easiest answers of that Commission's Report still display a "distinct disinterest" in tackling the multiple failures, errors and omissions contained in that Report. "Distinct disinterest" seems rather pervasive among some when dealing with this topic. One wonders why that might be. Surely it cannot be that those in a position of power have reason to fear a comprehensive official investigation and the revelations that might ensue? Of course not; that's just more groundless "conspiracy theory," isn't it?

For a shockingly revealing overview of just how poorly this event was investigated, one might benefit from reading an interview with Lee Hamilton, conducted by a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation talking head:

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html

- In the 30’s the French failed to learn the lesson of the previous war and placed fortification only along their boarder with Germany but in 1940 just as the had done in WWI the Germans attacked through the low countries.

- If I’m not mistaken Chamberlain really seemed to believe Hitler would keep his word.

- Stalin refused to believe intelligence report Germany was going to attack in 1941

- Hitler refuse to believe the allies were going to land at Normandy (rather than other landing points)

- In 1973 the Israelis missed signs of an impending Arab attack

Were the above “inside jobs”

I have never suggested that imcompetence doesn't exist, or that it cannot explain some things. I have never suggested that nobody in world history has ever been wrong and lived to regret it. But if you are arguing that imcompetence and error are the only explanations that can rationalize what transpired in regard to Nine-One-One, I can only point out that your wilful refusal to consider other alternatives is matched only by your credulity in accepting what you've been told by a Commander In Chief who has been wrong about just about everything he's ever said. You may find his explanations credible, which is your right, but surely you can understand why not everyone is quite so sanguine about these things as you seem to be?

One should also point out that in none of the above-cited cases is it demonstrable that Chamberlain, Stalin, Hitler or Israel, or their courtiers, gained any personal, political or corporate profit as a result of their errors. To the contrary, these errors came at a grave cost to those who made them. The same cannot be said for Bush and his courtiers.

LEN: 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?

No “truther” is the preferred term for most people who are part of the “truth movement” to describe themselves. Is taking mock offense an excuse for not addressing my points? I mocked no one and replied to your point.

As already stated elsewhere in this thread, I read the document in precisely the way Ron Ecker has already interpreted. You are free to disagree, but it is not as though this point hasn't already been addressed.

Post 166

LEN: 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:

I edited for brevity the posts were getting too long and confusing as it is. I asked for a reference for your claim that members of the bin Laden family were flown out of the US without being questioned by the FBI days after 9/11. You have so far fail to produce one, no amount of smoke will hide that.

Since I've never stated otherwise, I am unsure what you expect to be provided. I suggested that Bush's solicitude toward the Bin Ladens was inexplicable, irrespective of when they were allowed to leave [assuming the 911 Commission is correct on this point, which is an unsafe assumption.] Had the extended family of Hirohito been residing in the US at the time of the attack upon Pearl Harbor, would Roosevelt have granted them safe passage back to Japan? One cannot know with certainty, but it surely seems rather odd. Particularly given the long-standing business and political ties between the Bushes and Bin Ladens. Had Roosevelt enjoyed a convivial and profitable relationship with the Hirohito family before and after Pearl Harbor, and allowed them egress from the US soon after Pearl Harbor, would this not have raised questions about Roosevelt's true allegiances? It should have done, just as these more recent events are not just fair game for questioning, but a requirement incumbent upon anyone truly interested in what transpired.

RC-D: 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.

That still isn’t evidence in support of your original claim

1) You provided the Commission's assurance that there was nothing unusual about allowing the Bin Ladens to leave the country, despite the fact that all interested parties - White House, FBI, FAA, et al - had repeatedly lied about that event. 2) In order to demonstrate just how invalid the Commission's conclusions could be, I provided chapter and verse on a virtually identical event in which all interested parties - the White House, FBI, FAA, et al - likewise lied, only to have the Commission compound the lie by declaring it benign, which we know to be false. 3) You have apparently decided that the two are in no way similar and hence dismissed it as irrelevant.

I trust that the parallels between the two events, which I have demonstrated, are not likewise lost upon others here.

LEN: 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 well being 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.

You seem to have taken offense at a sentence on the 911myths page based on your misreading. I doubt the US would have had any legal basis for preventing the bin Ladens from leaving the US once airspace was open unless they had evidence against them. Canada would have had even less basis for holding them. Being detained for simply being a relative of someone suspected of committed a crime is something I doubt even the neo-cons would dream of seriously proposing.

I can assure you that the Canadian goverment would have been particularly proactive in this regard. Do recall that US authorities initially announced that some of the 911 hijackers had snuck into the US from Canada [completely false], and intimated that such would have never happened were Canadian authorities not so lax [also false, for it is the responsiblility of US Customs to prevent the entry of such persons, not the responsibility of Canada Customs to prevent the exit of same.] Do you really think that after having been falsely branded as lax on terrorism [a recurring false charge against Canada, for those who care], Canadian authorities would have allowed the escape of anyone named Bin Laden, after OBL had been identified as the 911 culprit, with "no questions asked?" If so, I can assure you otherwise, and have already illustrated the wholly illegal lengths to which Canada has already gone in that regard. Those who think Canada is 'soft' on terrorism invoke little more than the South Park hypothesis: "Blame Canada."

LEN: 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 judgment 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.

He had always gotten what he wanted from Frank? Does that include ground troops in difficult terrain? Can you back that up? Bombing is an entirely different matter, the risk of casualties is much reduced. Do you have any evidence the decision went any higher than Franks who was the US’s military commander in Afghanistan? US ground troops were only sparingly used there almost all the fighting was done by Afghans.

Again, I find it troubling that the single greatest opportunity, in the extant record, to kill or capture OBL was foregone. You do not, as is your right. Forum members can discern for themselves which they find more persuasive.

LEN: Wow you sound like a true neo-con ‘chicken hawk’ armchair warrior! I imagine that you, like I, have no military experience. From the comfort of your bedroom (or where ever your computer is) far from any front in Canada as an academic exercise it easy to talk tough like that. I imagine humanitarian concerns aside needlessly putting troops in the line of fire is bad for morale [did the Canadians ever forgive Mountbatten (sp?)?]. I imagine Franks had to consider the following 1) the reliability of the information, don’t forget he didn’t know the linguist 2) the increase in the likelihood of capturing OBL (if indeed he was there) by sending in US troops 3) the potential casualties from sending US troops.

Did he make the wrong decision? Was he unfit for command? I don’t think so but I’m not sure because I don’t have enough information and I’m not qualified to make such a judgment, the same I imagine could be said about you.

RC-D: Imagine whatever you wish. You have informed us that you have no time in military service. You are on less safe ground to make unsupportable assumptions about the military background of others here.

Shall I take you failure to state otherwise as an indication that I was right about your similar lack of experience? I don’t know of any members here who commanded troops during combat, in any case no one else has commented on this issue.

Again, this insistence upon credentials is both inconsistent and spurious, because it certainly doesn't preclude you from offering your opinion on the topic, irrespective of your stated lack of experience. Were I to demonstrate my military background, you would say serving in the Canadian forces is not comparable to service in the US military. Were I to say that I had served in UN peacekeeping duties and was responsible for tracking enemy combatants in Bosnia, you would say that the terrain there was not comparable to that of Afghanistan, etc., etc. This is a red herring on your part, designed merely to deny others a right to state their opinion, while allowing you to state yours. [by the way, although my avatar photo is small and hard to discern, it does depict me in Canadian military uniform, from which you are free to draw whatever inferences you choose. It is as irrelevant as insisting that only professional assassins should be allowed to post their thoughts on the Kennedy assassination.]

As for being a 'true neo-con chicken hawk,' it has always been my feeling that when troops are placed in harm's way, it should be for a legitimate purpose, the achievement of which might make the loss of those lives worthwhile. It has always been my feeling that they are to be used solely as a last resort, and that when they are sent in, they are given all the tools and latitude to complete their task, with the least risk to them that is humanly possible to achieve.

I agree

What I see here is a group of men dropped into enemy terrain, and when they located their target, their judgement was suddenly found worthy of questioning.

When they found the needle in the haystack, there was suddenly diminished interest in capturing the needle. Most odd

You say this was sudden but haven’t produce evidence of what happened earlier. You think it “odd” but you don’t have any expertise on the subject, Franks certainly did. Unless you can find someone with a comparable level of expertise to question his decision you don’t have much of a case. Once you have done that you need to produce evidence the “sudden change” was due to an order from higher up the chain of command.

Your insistence upon having expertise in order to justify an opinion clearly doesn't preclude you from having and stating an opinion, despite your own lack of same. See above.

LEN: I never denied that Bush is a corrupt, lying, crazy A-hole but like Palast I can believe that but still think there was no evidence he had foreknowledge of the attacks and think “inside job” theories nonsensical.

RC-D: An "inside job" didn't and doesn't require Bush's knowledge. Any "inside job," of whatever description, needs only people powerful enough to orchestrate and manipulate their underlings, the semi-justifiable use of secrecy laws, a sufficient motive, and the audacity to think they could execute it without getting caught. When it comes to evidence of foreknowledge, if such exists in a demonstrable way, those who never seek it are unlikely to find it.

Would you include Palast as one of “those who never seek” “evidence of foreknowledge” was he being misleading when he indicated he had? Especially in light of his later comments that he thinks 9/11 conspiracy theories are bogus I would assume that when he said they didn’t find any evidence of Bush having foreknowledge he meant the USG do you think if he had found evidence that for example people in the CIA knew he wouldn’t have said so?

Without knowing the lengths to which Palast probed the issue, how can one tell what he has or hasn't sought? This is precisely why it is imperative that such matters be thoroughly and comprehensively probed by an impartial, independent investigative body. That has not been done. Those who think otherwise are welcome to read about the impediments placed in the way of the 911 Commission by those responsible for testifying before it and the various errors and omissions its Report contained. It may be instructive to note that the Commission itself discussed laying criminal charges against some of those who did testify, an example of which can be found at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6080101300.html

For just one example of the multiple mysteries never plumbed by the 911 Commission, I recommend reading:

http://www.gameshout.com/news/what_about_t...article9499.htm

[Herb White]

RCD,

In a reply to one of your earlier posts two or three pages back I referenced the issue of the "dancing Israeli" and the Israeli "art students". Are you familiar with the research regarding the activities of the above mentioned groups? IMO it is some of the most convincing evedence for prior knowledge of the 911 plots. At the risk of bheing leabled anti-semitic there is little doubt that the folks responsible for PNAC share the aura of who benfitted the most from the attacks with reactionary forces in Israel.

Herb,

The issue of the fake Israeli art students was discussed a while back on this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0&start=0

It remains a suspicious incident, imo, and drawing attention to the fact that 9/11 played right into the hands of the neocons in both the US and Israel does not make you anti-semitic.

Mark,

Thanks for letting me know about the previous discussion. I missed it, but will review.

Herb

[Herb White]

The posts of the back and forth between Robert and I have gotten very long and cumbersome and I imagine dificuly for other to follow. I edited out most of the previous replies those wish for full context should look at the referenced posts.

I have done the same, with my current comments appearing in this lovely shade.

From post 164

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.

No I got your point, you have been avoiding several of mine

- We don’t know if AQ is able to set up cells (directly controlled by OBL) in the US

It has yet to be demonstrated that this was ever the case, let alone now.

- In Iraq on the other hand there are 10’s of millions of people with motive to attack US or rival Iraqi targets. [Presumably the Iraqi attacks were all carried out by locals or with their participation. It is very difficult to prevent a group of determined locals from carrying out attacks even with draconian security the ability of Palestians from the occupied territories to attack Israel and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising are cases in point. Also it is a lot easier for AQ operatives and sympathizers from the region to get into Iraq.]

This is opinion and supposition. There may be merit to the argument, but it fails to explain why AQ has yet to attempt a second attack on US soil.

- They seem to have shifted their focus to Iraq

"Seem to have" are the operative words. Any suggestions why, after launching so specatcular a first attack on US soil, there has been no second attack? Lost interest, did they?

- Even if he were able to carry out small scale attacks against soft target he prefers iconic ones like military bases, warships, embassies, the WTC and Pentagon

- Such iconic hard targets are heavily secured in the US.

A preference for "iconic" targets is, again, pure supposition by our esteemed Brazilian correspondent. As is the contention that US hard targets are too well secured. There is no shortage of examples demonstrating security at US ports, nuclear power plants, etc., is well short of perfect. Yet, there seems to be no second attempt. Did the remarkable success of the first attack somehow dissuade OBL from mounting a second one?

Also I’ve seen no evidence that the attacks in Iraq are being coordinated by OBL rather than by local commanders also not all the attacks are being carried out by AQ there are many groups in Iraq. Even in the areas under “effective control” there are allies of dubious loyalty and many resident who may well hostile to the US.

Whereas some of us have yet to see any evidence that Nine-One-One was "coordinated by OBL rather than by" others. The repetition of a mantra doesn't make it so.

IMHO –further debate over this topic is futile.

Occasionally, common sense prevails.

LEN: 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.

The genius of 9/11 was mostly in its conception; once it had been planned it would not have that difficult to carry out. Four months after 9/11 a Florida teenager with minimal flight training was able to steal a Cessna fly it over an air force base and crash it into a building in Tampa. Planes have previously been hijacked by crazy people soaked in flammable liquid or with fake bombs, the “muscle hijackers” were trained in hand to hand combat. Getting a car bomb close enough to an iconic target to do serious damage wouldn’t be so easy as you imagine.

It seems that by raising the Florida teenager story, you are undermining your own contention that security in the US is now perfect, and hence the rationale for no additional AQ attacks on US soil.

LEN: 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.

My last sentence came out convoluted but you should have been able to make out my point. It should have read: “However it is reasonable to assume that people who might have tried before the new security measures were put in place didn’t because it became more difficult”. I.e. increased security has a deterrent effect. I don’t think anyone can point out a hijacking that was prevented by metal detectors and x-ray machines at airports but the steep decline of such incidents after they were put into use is strongly suggestive they prevented such attacks.

That may or may not explain an absence of attacks using airplanes; it provides no basis to believe that security is now so fool-proof as to make all attacks against any targets impossible. Your fallback position seems to be that AQ is only interested in the targets that you would have them prefer. A most peculiar method of prosecuting a war against the Great Satan, don't you think?

From post 165

LEN: 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.

I don’t know if incompetence is the correct charge, of course with hindsight it’s easy to say what should have been done. The Bush administration did show a distinct disinterest in terrorism probably because they had other priories [iraq and the rest of the axis of evil, raping the economy etc] some of the errors took place during the Clinton administration if it was a conspiracy it was a very complex one.

Just as the US military showed a "distinct disinterest" in intercepting hijacked planes even after it was apparent they had been hijacked and would be used as weapons. Just as the Bush administration showed a "distinct disinterest" in launching an investigation into what transpired on that day, and a year later relented only because a failure to do so was inexplicable to even Bush's staunchest supporters. Just as those who wish to embrace the easiest answers of that Commission's Report still display a "distinct disinterest" in tackling the multiple failures, errors and omissions contained in that Report. "Distinct disinterest" seems rather pervasive among some when dealing with this topic. One wonders why that might be. Surely it cannot be that those in a position of power have reason to fear a comprehensive official investigation and the revelations that might ensue? Of course not; that's just more groundless "conspiracy theory," isn't it?

For a shockingly revealing overview of just how poorly this event was investigated, one might benefit from reading an interview with Lee Hamilton, conducted by a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation talking head:

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html

- In the 30’s the French failed to learn the lesson of the previous war and placed fortification only along their boarder with Germany but in 1940 just as the had done in WWI the Germans attacked through the low countries.

- If I’m not mistaken Chamberlain really seemed to believe Hitler would keep his word.

- Stalin refused to believe intelligence report Germany was going to attack in 1941

- Hitler refuse to believe the allies were going to land at Normandy (rather than other landing points)

- In 1973 the Israelis missed signs of an impending Arab attack

Were the above “inside jobs”

I have never suggested that imcompetence doesn't exist, or that it cannot explain some things. I have never suggested that nobody in world history has ever been wrong and lived to regret it. But if you are arguing that imcompetence and error are the only explanations that can rationalize what transpired in regard to Nine-One-One, I can only point out that your wilful refusal to consider other alternatives is matched only by your credulity in accepting what you've been told by a Commander In Chief who has been wrong about just about everything he's ever said. You may find his explanations credible, which is your right, but surely you can understand why not everyone is quite so sanguine about these things as you seem to be?

One should also point out that in none of the above-cited cases is it demonstrable that Chamberlain, Stalin, Hitler or Israel, or their courtiers, gained any personal, political or corporate profit as a result of their errors. To the contrary, these errors came at a grave cost to those who made them. The same cannot be said for Bush and his courtiers.

LEN: 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?

No “truther” is the preferred term for most people who are part of the “truth movement” to describe themselves. Is taking mock offense an excuse for not addressing my points? I mocked no one and replied to your point.

As already stated elsewhere in this thread, I read the document in precisely the way Ron Ecker has already interpreted. You are free to disagree, but it is not as though this point hasn't already been addressed.

Post 166

LEN: 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:

I edited for brevity the posts were getting too long and confusing as it is. I asked for a reference for your claim that members of the bin Laden family were flown out of the US without being questioned by the FBI days after 9/11. You have so far fail to produce one, no amount of smoke will hide that.

Since I've never stated otherwise, I am unsure what you expect to be provided. I suggested that Bush's solicitude toward the Bin Ladens was inexplicable, irrespective of when they were allowed to leave [assuming the 911 Commission is correct on this point, which is an unsafe assumption.] Had the extended family of Hirohito been residing in the US at the time of the attack upon Pearl Harbor, would Roosevelt have granted them safe passage back to Japan? One cannot know with certainty, but it surely seems rather odd. Particularly given the long-standing business and political ties between the Bushes and Bin Ladens. Had Roosevelt enjoyed a convivial and profitable relationship with the Hirohito family before and after Pearl Harbor, and allowed them egress from the US soon after Pearl Harbor, would this not have raised questions about Roosevelt's true allegiances? It should have done, just as these more recent events are not just fair game for questioning, but a requirement incumbent upon anyone truly interested in what transpired.

RC-D: 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.

That still isn’t evidence in support of your original claim

1) You provided the Commission's assurance that there was nothing unusual about allowing the Bin Ladens to leave the country, despite the fact that all interested parties - White House, FBI, FAA, et al - had repeatedly lied about that event. 2) In order to demonstrate just how invalid the Commission's conclusions could be, I provided chapter and verse on a virtually identical event in which all interested parties - the White House, FBI, FAA, et al - likewise lied, only to have the Commission compound the lie by declaring it benign, which we know to be false. 3) You have apparently decided that the two are in no way similar and hence dismissed it as irrelevant.

I trust that the parallels between the two events, which I have demonstrated, are not likewise lost upon others here.

LEN: 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 well being 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.

You seem to have taken offense at a sentence on the 911myths page based on your misreading. I doubt the US would have had any legal basis for preventing the bin Ladens from leaving the US once airspace was open unless they had evidence against them. Canada would have had even less basis for holding them. Being detained for simply being a relative of someone suspected of committed a crime is something I doubt even the neo-cons would dream of seriously proposing.

I can assure you that the Canadian goverment would have been particularly proactive in this regard. Do recall that US authorities initially announced that some of the 911 hijackers had snuck into the US from Canada [completely false], and intimated that such would have never happened were Canadian authorities not so lax [also false, for it is the responsiblility of US Customs to prevent the entry of such persons, not the responsibility of Canada Customs to prevent the exit of same.] Do you really think that after having been falsely branded as lax on terrorism [a recurring false charge against Canada, for those who care], Canadian authorities would have allowed the escape of anyone named Bin Laden, after OBL had been identified as the 911 culprit, with "no questions asked?" If so, I can assure you otherwise, and have already illustrated the wholly illegal lengths to which Canada has already gone in that regard. Those who think Canada is 'soft' on terrorism invoke little more than the South Park hypothesis: "Blame Canada."

LEN: 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 judgment 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.

He had always gotten what he wanted from Frank? Does that include ground troops in difficult terrain? Can you back that up? Bombing is an entirely different matter, the risk of casualties is much reduced. Do you have any evidence the decision went any higher than Franks who was the US’s military commander in Afghanistan? US ground troops were only sparingly used there almost all the fighting was done by Afghans.

Again, I find it troubling that the single greatest opportunity, in the extant record, to kill or capture OBL was foregone. You do not, as is your right. Forum members can discern for themselves which they find more persuasive.

LEN: Wow you sound like a true neo-con ‘chicken hawk’ armchair warrior! I imagine that you, like I, have no military experience. From the comfort of your bedroom (or where ever your computer is) far from any front in Canada as an academic exercise it easy to talk tough like that. I imagine humanitarian concerns aside needlessly putting troops in the line of fire is bad for morale [did the Canadians ever forgive Mountbatten (sp?)?]. I imagine Franks had to consider the following 1) the reliability of the information, don’t forget he didn’t know the linguist 2) the increase in the likelihood of capturing OBL (if indeed he was there) by sending in US troops 3) the potential casualties from sending US troops.

Did he make the wrong decision? Was he unfit for command? I don’t think so but I’m not sure because I don’t have enough information and I’m not qualified to make such a judgment, the same I imagine could be said about you.

RC-D: Imagine whatever you wish. You have informed us that you have no time in military service. You are on less safe ground to make unsupportable assumptions about the military background of others here.

Shall I take you failure to state otherwise as an indication that I was right about your similar lack of experience? I don’t know of any members here who commanded troops during combat, in any case no one else has commented on this issue.

Again, this insistence upon credentials is both inconsistent and spurious, because it certainly doesn't preclude you from offering your opinion on the topic, irrespective of your stated lack of experience. Were I to demonstrate my military background, you would say serving in the Canadian forces is not comparable to service in the US military. Were I to say that I had served in UN peacekeeping duties and was responsible for tracking enemy combatants in Bosnia, you would say that the terrain there was not comparable to that of Afghanistan, etc., etc. This is a red herring on your part, designed merely to deny others a right to state their opinion, while allowing you to state yours. [by the way, although my avatar photo is small and hard to discern, it does depict me in Canadian military uniform, from which you are free to draw whatever inferences you choose. It is as irrelevant as insisting that only professional assassins should be allowed to post their thoughts on the Kennedy assassination.]

As for being a 'true neo-con chicken hawk,' it has always been my feeling that when troops are placed in harm's way, it should be for a legitimate purpose, the achievement of which might make the loss of those lives worthwhile. It has always been my feeling that they are to be used solely as a last resort, and that when they are sent in, they are given all the tools and latitude to complete their task, with the least risk to them that is humanly possible to achieve.

I agree

What I see here is a group of men dropped into enemy terrain, and when they located their target, their judgement was suddenly found worthy of questioning.

When they found the needle in the haystack, there was suddenly diminished interest in capturing the needle. Most odd

You say this was sudden but haven’t produce evidence of what happened earlier. You think it “odd” but you don’t have any expertise on the subject, Franks certainly did. Unless you can find someone with a comparable level of expertise to question his decision you don’t have much of a case. Once you have done that you need to produce evidence the “sudden change” was due to an order from higher up the chain of command.

Your insistence upon having expertise in order to justify an opinion clearly doesn't preclude you from having and stating an opinion, despite your own lack of same. See above.

LEN: I never denied that Bush is a corrupt, lying, crazy A-hole but like Palast I can believe that but still think there was no evidence he had foreknowledge of the attacks and think “inside job” theories nonsensical.

RC-D: An "inside job" didn't and doesn't require Bush's knowledge. Any "inside job," of whatever description, needs only people powerful enough to orchestrate and manipulate their underlings, the semi-justifiable use of secrecy laws, a sufficient motive, and the audacity to think they could execute it without getting caught. When it comes to evidence of foreknowledge, if such exists in a demonstrable way, those who never seek it are unlikely to find it.

Would you include Palast as one of “those who never seek” “evidence of foreknowledge” was he being misleading when he indicated he had? Especially in light of his later comments that he thinks 9/11 conspiracy theories are bogus I would assume that when he said they didn’t find any evidence of Bush having foreknowledge he meant the USG do you think if he had found evidence that for example people in the CIA knew he wouldn’t have said so?

Without knowing the lengths to which Palast probed the issue, how can one tell what he has or hasn't sought? This is precisely why it is imperative that such matters be thoroughly and comprehensively probed by an impartial, independent investigative body. That has not been done. Those who think otherwise are welcome to read about the impediments placed in the way of the 911 Commission by those responsible for testifying before it and the various errors and omissions its Report contained. It may be instructive to note that the Commission itself discussed laying criminal charges against some of those who did testify, an example of which can be found at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6080101300.html

For just one example of the multiple mysteries never plumbed by the 911 Commission, I recommend reading:

http://www.gameshout.com/news/what_about_t...article9499.htm

RCD<

I saw something in print very recently regarding the mystery plane. "Official sources" said it was high tech communications center which was sent aloft after the attacks. The article didn't go into a lot of detail, but seemed reasonable.

IMO the debate about tower collapse is somewhat a waste of time, even if the scenario of the hijackings of the planes is just as we were led to believe that leaves the distinct possibility of government foreknowledge and possibly assistance.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Herb White

[Cliff Varnell]

1) Willie Rodriguez who I think I've shown to be a xxxx

This is where our discussion ends.

If you are so partial to the man perhaps you'd like to refute the paper I posted here

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;hl=rodriguez

Not a problem.

RODRIGUEZ (9/11/01): "I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the

maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a

rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another

rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his

body. All of the skin."

RODRIGUEZ (6/25/06): "As I was talking to a supervisor at 8:46 like chitchatting and

all of a sudden we hear PAAH very strong BOOM!!! An explosion so hard that it pushed

us UPWARDS, UPWARDS!!…The explosion was so hard that all the walls cracked the

false ceiling fell on top of us, the sprinkler system got activated and when I was going

to verbalize it was a generator we hear BOOM! All the way at the top..."

There is no contradiction in these statements. "Not like an impact...Moving furniture

in a massive way" was a succinct description of what he later described in more detail.

Lots of people heard explosions in the basement.

The claim that jet fuel ran all the way down to the basement -- sight unseen

by any of the fireman working in the elevator shafts -- and then exploded (?!)

is absurd.

That you have to bend over backwards to mischaracterize the witness statements

speaks volumes about the intellectual bankruptcy of your Official Faith.

I despise witness bashing, whether its the JFK assassination or 9/11.

I'd only add that he had been in the building during the first bombing so knew exactly what a bomb in the building felt like. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Also, anyone watching or listening to him without an 'agenda' can tell the man is honest, decent and not to be taken lightly. Villanize him at your own risk. I think it says a whole lot more about your character, than his.

Thank you, Peter.

I wonder what part of the word -- "massive" -- does Len Colby not get?

[Guest David Guyatt]

All but the most obdurate or illiterate will have noted the inconsistency in Len's approach, as illustrated by Michael Hogan. Some might dare to consider it hypocrisy.

Len insists that his opponents should provide expert opinions from those who are sufficiently credentialled, but doesn't hesitate to profer the opinions of those who are not. [With all due respect to Tink Thompson, a pioneer of the JFK mystery, his qualifications to pass judgement on Nine-One-One are no greater than most of those here, making it particularly odd that Len - who insists repeatedly upon credentials - should cite him. Tink may have spent years at the Ground Zero site, but since all physical evidence has long since been made to disappear or exported elsewhere, this doesn't appear to be a particular advantage to either Tink or Len.]

But, those of us who have been doggedly pursuing the JFK mystery are well familiar with the techniques employed by the likes of Len, for we have seen them many times before.

When opponents do provide expert opinions from those who bear the requisite credentials, those credentials are questioned or dismissed as inadequate. [Dr. Gary Aguilar is unqualified to render and opinion about head wounds because his medical specialty is different; Dr. John Lattimer, a urologist, was uniquely qualified to discuss head wounds.] Len is the sole arbiter of who does and doesn't pass this test.

When the credentials are above such questioning, the experts are nevertheless dismissed because if they are incorrect about one supposition or conclusion, then all of their conclusions must be dismissed. [Len feels no self-consciousness in embracing conclusions by the 911 Commission, despite its shoddy track record in being demonstrably wrong about - or deliberately ignoring - many things; somehow this doesn't impeach their ability to be correct about other things.] Len is the sole arbiter of who does and doesn't pass this test.

When all else fails in impugning the expert opinions of those who are sufficiently credentialled, then there is always some kind of "moral turpitude" invoked to disqualify those expert opinions. Len is the sole arbiter of who does and doesn't pass this test.

It's an old routine. And it's grown no more convincing by repetition alone.

Robert,

I would add a further point by asking what credentials Len Colby has? If any.

Being a sad fool I've Googled his name and apart from a 1999 write up about a Brazilian black & white film - and a few other movies (all posted on a Brazilian board by a Len Colby aka Lenbraz from Olinda), and I have no idea if this is the same indivudual we are so fortunate to have amongst us here --- I can find nothing that shows he's written articles, books or exhibited any extensive knowledge of these subjects anywhere. Zip in fact.

What about it Len? Care to come clean with the scoop about your credentials?

What's your specialist subject in these conspiracy fields? Outside of this board, can you direct us to anything you have written/authored/broadcast --- articles, books, tv doco's? Comics?

David

[Jack White]

All but the most obdurate or illiterate will have noted the inconsistency in Len's approach, as illustrated by Michael Hogan. Some might dare to consider it hypocrisy.

Len insists that his opponents should provide expert opinions from those who are sufficiently credentialled, but doesn't hesitate to profer the opinions of those who are not. [With all due respect to Tink Thompson, a pioneer of the JFK mystery, his qualifications to pass judgement on Nine-One-One are no greater than most of those here, making it particularly odd that Len - who insists repeatedly upon credentials - should cite him. Tink may have spent years at the Ground Zero site, but since all physical evidence has long since been made to disappear or exported elsewhere, this doesn't appear to be a particular advantage to either Tink or Len.]

But, those of us who have been doggedly pursuing the JFK mystery are well familiar with the techniques employed by the likes of Len, for we have seen them many times before.

When opponents do provide expert opinions from those who bear the requisite credentials, those credentials are questioned or dismissed as inadequate. [Dr. Gary Aguilar is unqualified to render and opinion about head wounds because his medical specialty is different; Dr. John Lattimer, a urologist, was uniquely qualified to discuss head wounds.] Len is the sole arbiter of who does and doesn't pass this test.

When the credentials are above such questioning, the experts are nevertheless dismissed because if they are incorrect about one supposition or conclusion, then all of their conclusions must be dismissed. [Len feels no self-consciousness in embracing conclusions by the 911 Commission, despite its shoddy track record in being demonstrably wrong about - or deliberately ignoring - many things; somehow this doesn't impeach their ability to be correct about other things.] Len is the sole arbiter of who does and doesn't pass this test.

When all else fails in impugning the expert opinions of those who are sufficiently credentialled, then there is always some kind of "moral turpitude" invoked to disqualify those expert opinions. Len is the sole arbiter of who does and doesn't pass this test.

It's an old routine. And it's grown no more convincing by repetition alone.

Robert,

I would add a further point by asking what credentials Len Colby has? If any.

Being a sad fool I've Googled his name and apart from a 1999 write up about a Brazilian black & white film - and a few other movies (all posted on a Brazilian board by a Len Colby aka Lenbraz from Olinda), and I have no idea if this is the same indivudual we are so fortunate to have amongst us here --- I can find nothing that shows he's written articles, books or exhibited any extensive knowledge of these subjects anywhere. Zip in fact.

What about it Len? Care to come clean with the scoop about your credentials?

What's your specialist subject in these conspiracy fields? Outside of this board, can you direct us to anything you have written/authored/broadcast --- articles, books, tv doco's? Comics?

David

David...I have studied covert operations since 1963 and have had many

personal contacts with agents provocateur. They exist. Their souls are

for sale.

Jack

[Guest David Guyatt]

David...I have studied covert operations since 1963 and have had many

personal contacts with agents provocateur. They exist. Their souls are

for sale.

Jack

Jack,

Len has nothing to fear from any of us here.... we're all cuddly types who respect those who are knowledgeable about their chosen subjects, those with intelligent perspectives, those with well argued constructive comments and those who engage in hard sleuthing to unearth fragments of information that question the integrity of official truths.

If Len can fulfill any of these "credentials" then he'll be cuddly too.

If...

David

[Michael Hogan]

I would add a further point by asking what credentials Len Colby has? If any....

What about it Len? Care to come clean with the scoop about your credentials?

I think Len Colby's credentials or lack thereof are pretty much demonstrated in the history and content of his posts.

David...I have studied covert operations since 1963 and have had many

personal contacts with agents provocateur. They exist. Their souls are

for sale.

While respecting Jack's experiences, I have a difficult time imagining Len as any type of paid provocateur. If he is, then someone is not getting their money's worth.

Like all of us, Len is entitled to his opinions. I do believe that intimating his soul could be for sale is unfair.

I choose to look at Len as a friend of conspiracy theories. This thread is a perfect example. If someone that was neutral, but kept an open mind looked at Len's assertions coupled with all the responses his style provokes, I believe they would become more open to conspiratorial possibilities, not less

Edited September 18, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[Guest David Guyatt]

While respecting Jack's experiences, I have a difficult time imagining Len as any type of paid provocateur. If he is, then someone is not getting their money's worth.

Like all of us, Len is entitled to his opinions. I do believe that intimating his soul could be for sale is unfair.

I choose to look at Len as a friend of conspiracy theories. This thread is a perfect example. If someone that was neutral, but kept an open mind looked at Len's assertions coupled with all the responses his style provokes, I believe they would become more open to conspiratorial possibilities, not less

I am very inclined to agree with you Michael, that Len is not a professional provocateur.

While Len does indeed have a right, under the terms of the board, to post as he does, I also have the right to ask for his biography. Most of us here post under our own names and have biographical backgrounds readily available. Len is one of those who make use of these as and when required.

So, unless Len has something to hide, I expect him to respond positively to my request. I fully understand he doesn’t have to, but he will gain respect if he does. I also understand that he will become increasingly sidelined if he doesn’t.

David

[Jack White]

I repeat. I have had many contacts with agents provocateur. I am not referring

to any specific person. But their modus operandi is always identical. They have

no conscience. They prefer to support OFFICIAL STORIES which are provably

untrue. The employment specialists at PROVOCATEUR CENTRAL agency do a

very poor job recruiting CREDIBLE PROVOCATEURS. It is a waste of taxpayer

money to hire OBNOXIOUS ANUSES; how much more persuasive they would

be in selling official stories if they were CHARMING and LOGICAL. The rub is that

intelligent, logical and charming persons are usually above selling their souls.

So scumbags get the jobs. People with no ethics, no conscience, no sense of

right and wrong. Names not mentioned to protect the guilty. Please do not infer

that I am discussing any particular person.

Jack

Edited September 18, 2007 by Jack White

[Michael Hogan]

Please do not infer that I am discussing any particular person.

Okay Jack, I won't. But in the context you posted it, it sure seemed to me like you were. My mistake.

[Len Colby]

My reply to Robert Charles-Dunne’s (RC-D) post 183

RC-D: All but the most obdurate or illiterate will have noted the inconsistency in Len's approach, as illustrated by Michael Hogan. Some might dare to consider it hypocrisy.

Weren’t you the person who initiated our exchange complaining about personal attacks? Didn’t you say they “reflect more poorly upon the author than his intended victims.” What might one “dare to consider” your attitude?

RC-D: Len insists that his opponents should provide expert opinions from those who are sufficiently credentialled, but doesn't hesitate to profer the opinions of those who are not. [With all due respect to Tink Thompson, a pioneer of the JFK mystery, his qualifications to pass judgement on Nine-One-One are no greater than most of those here, making it particularly odd that Len - who insists repeatedly upon credentials - should cite him. Tink may have spent years at the Ground Zero site,

You choose to ignore the fact that just before citing “Tink” I cited a group of highly qualified engineers (i.e. the group compiled by NIST to study the collapse of 7 WTC). You make think “his qualifications to pass judgment on Nine-One-One are no greater than most of those here” but I only cited him in relation to WTC7. Con Edison (who had a substation within 7 WTC) obviously thinks otherwise (unless they offered the job to others here before hiring him). In terms of technical training perhaps he is no better qualified than others here, he is not an engineer of any sort but he has been a professional investigator for the last several decades, previously professionally investigated another terrorist incident involving a building collapse (OKC) and long ago received demolition training (a stretch I know). What does make his opinions more valid is that he’s been in NYC the last 18 month investigating what happened and has spoken to firefighters and FD commanders and other people who were there and presumably engineers as well and had access to information from Con Ed.

RC-D: but since all physical evidence has long since been made to disappear or exported elsewhere, this doesn't appear to be a particular advantage to either Tink or Len.]

Yes most of the steel was long gone before Tink got there but not before it was examined by various engineers. This has been debated on “political conspiracies” forum and I don’t feel like going over it again here, if you do perform a search and continue discussion of this point on the appropriate thread(s)

RC-D: But, those of us who have been doggedly pursuing the JFK mystery are well familiar with the techniques employed by the likes of Len, for we have seen them many times before.

When opponents do provide expert opinions from those who bear the requisite credentials, those credentials are questioned or dismissed as inadequate. [Dr. Gary Aguilar is unqualified to render and opinion about head wounds because his medical specialty is different; Dr. John Lattimer, a urologist, was uniquely qualified to discuss head wounds.] Len is the sole arbiter of who does and doesn't pass this test.

The only time I advanced an argument along those lines was regards to Charles Pegelow, the oilrig engineer. Even if we accept him as an expert his views are at odds with those of numerous of his colleagues who actually have experience with steel framed BUILDINGS and who extensively studied the evidence. The same goes for the two structural engineers who are members of AE911T but have yet to make any statements. If indeed they believe the towers fell due to CD they are at odds with the opinion of numerous structural engineers who unlike them have expertise related to steel framed buildings more than 1 – 3 stories tall.

Since I can cite structural engineers with the experience I demand (i.e. related to steel frame buildings) your Aguilar/Lattimer analogy fails because it is based on a false premise.

Do you think it’s a coincidence that none of the three structural engineers in that group have such experience? A coincidence that structural engineers are less likely than architects or other types of engineers to join the group? A coincidence that such a small fraction of a percentage point of structural engineers in America and the world joined? If the collapses were such obvious demolition jobs one would expect the opposite.

RC-D: When the credentials are above such questioning, the experts are nevertheless dismissed because if they are incorrect about one supposition or conclusion, then all of their conclusions must be dismissed.

I don’t remember advancing such an argument. If you are referring to my comments regard the NIST engineer his comment indicated he totally misunderstood the cause of the collapse as determined by his colleagues. This was not “one supposition or conclusion” it was the whole point of their investigation. It’s as if a doctor claimed that he’d carefully read an autopsy report and said it was inadequate because there is no way the patient could have suffered a stroke, when in fact the coroner said he died due to a heart attack. In any case he made it clear he doesn’t believe the towers were CDed.

RC-D: Len is the sole arbiter of who does and doesn't pass this test.

I, just like everybody else, have the right to express my opinion. If you disagree with my assessment of the various “experts” who you think back your views you are free to say so and explain why.

RC-D: Those interested in the opinions of skeptics with credentials might start by visiting:

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

The lists are very padded and include people who never said that they question the “official theory” but rather made comments the complier(s) incorrectly understood as contradicting it. For example they cite numerous people who said they heard explosions in the Twin Towers but NIST, the 9/11C and IIRC ASCE/FEMA all documented post impact explosions. They also list people who question things like how well the intelligence failures were investigated without suggesting they subscribe to the MIHOP or LIHOP theories. They even cite someone who died in the South (or was it North?) Tower collapse.

I have a challenge for you go through the engineers’ page and see how many structural engineers on it say they think the WTC towers collapsed due to CD.

Edited September 28, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

I broke my reply to Robert’s post 185 up by topic

LACK OF FOLLOW UP ATTACKS

LEN: No I got your point, you have been avoiding several of mine

- We don’t know if AQ is able to set up cells (directly controlled by OBL) in the US

RC-D: It has yet to be demonstrated that this was ever the case, let alone now.

If you are going to maintain that the “official story” is contradictory you have to show that well…it contradicts itself. The 9/11 C. documented the movements of the hijackers in the US, even Hopsicker and most of the “inside job” researchers acknowledge they were in the US for several years before the attacks, people who knew them spoke to the press etc. Do you have any evidence OBL didn’t have cells in the US?

LEN: - In Iraq on the other hand there are 10’s of millions of people with motive to attack US or rival Iraqi targets. [Presumably the Iraqi attacks were all carried out by locals or with their participation. It is very difficult to prevent a group of determined locals from carrying out attacks even with draconian security the ability of Palestians from the occupied territories to attack Israel and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising are cases in point. Also it is a lot easier for AQ operatives and sympathizers from the region to get into Iraq.]

RC-D: This is opinion and supposition. There may be merit to the argument, but it fails to explain why AQ has yet to attempt a second attack on US soil.

Your belief that AQ should have tried to carry out follow up attacks is opinion and supposition.

LEN: - They seem to have shifted their focus to Iraq

RC-D: "Seem to have" are the operative words. Any suggestions why, after launching so specatcular a first attack on US soil, there has been no second attack? Lost interest, did they?

They obviously are carrying out major operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. As for why no 2nd attack I’ve already given several possible reasons.

LEN: The genius of 9/11 was mostly in its conception; once it had been planned it would not have that difficult to carry out. Four months after 9/11 a Florida teenager with minimal flight training was able to steal a Cessna fly it over an air force base and crash it into a building in Tampa. Planes have previously been hijacked by crazy people soaked in flammable liquid or with fake bombs, the “muscle hijackers” were trained in hand to hand combat. Getting a car bomb close enough to an iconic target to do serious damage wouldn’t be so easy as you imagine.

RC-D: It seems that by raising the Florida teenager story, you are undermining your own contention that security in the US is now perfect, and hence the rationale for no additional AQ attacks on US soil.

No, I never said that security is perfect only that

1) it’s tighter now than it was before and

2) this along with other factors could explain the lack of subsequent attacks on the US.

Security for scheduled passenger traffic was beefed up but the Florida case involved a plane stolen from a flight school. The pilot was an American born white kid who grew up in the area, had previous lessons at the flight school and whose grandmother was waiting in the office. I imagine some guy from Pakistan or Egypt would face greater scrutiny.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060614072905/...GA5Q0M4HAD.html [The whole archive seems to be down now if the link doesn’t work try again later]

Note also how little damage the crash caused, an attack like that or a car bombing of a McDonald’s would be anti-climatic after 9/11. I could see OBL wanting to do a series of bombings against soft targets in the US but haven’t seen any evidence they could pull it off.

LEN: My last sentence came out convoluted but you should have been able to make out my point. It should have read: “However it is reasonable to assume that people who might have tried before the new security measures were put in place didn’t because it became more difficult”. I.e. increased security has a deterrent effect. I don’t think anyone can point out a hijacking that was prevented by metal detectors and x-ray machines at airports but the steep decline of such incidents after they were put into use is strongly suggestive they prevented such attacks.

RC-D: That may or may not explain an absence of attacks using airplanes; it provides no basis to believe that security is now so fool-proof as to make

all

attacks against

any

targets impossible.

I gave that as an example of how passed security increases apparently decreased the incidence of terrorist incidents (hijackings) even though there were few if any cases of would be terrorists being caught by them. By extension it is reasonable to assume post 9/11 security measures might have been a factor in dissuading subsequent attacks.

RC-D: Your fallback position seems to be that AQ is only interested in the targets that

you

would have them prefer.

The attacks against US targets attributed to OBL (outside Iraq and Afghanistan) are military bases, warships, embassies, the WTC and Pentagon not schools, malls or fast food joints.

RC-D: A most peculiar method of prosecuting a war against the Great Satan, don't you think?

I wouldn’t presume to fully understand the logic of someone who is considered a fanatic even in his own culture, which is very different from mine. A fanatic who thinks that targeting civilians is God’s will. In any case I don’t think he’d want to ‘trade down’ in terms of target selection.

Riddle me this, if the Bush administration or PNAC or the MIBH or whomever you think pulled off 9/11 were capable of faking such an attack why didn’t THEY carryout any follow up attacks? They could have been conveniently timed to boost the GOP in the 2004 and 2006 elections or to help pass legislation Bush wanted. Why didn’t they fake an attack implicating Iraq or Iran?

LEN: IMHO –further debate over this topic is futile.

RC-D: Occasionally, common sense prevails.

Shall we call it a night then? Unless you say something I can’t resist replying to I’ll let you have the last word on this topic, we are basically repeating ourselves.

Edited September 28, 2007 by Len Colby