Yes, I defend the so called OCT

[LARED]

Comments, questions.

[OnTheOtherHand]

1. wanna review what it is you're defending?

For instance, is it the tenet that the 9/11 Commission Report is infallible in the original manuscript? ;)

[LARED]

2. Well no, I don't subscribe to

plenary inspiration of the 9/11 Commission Report.

I believe it is largely factual, but was written in a way to protect the Bush administration and our feckless Representatives. In short the commission blamed everyone so no one could be held accountable for the lousy job performance in protecting America.

[OnTheOtherHand]

3. OK...

So, is the OCT that you're 'defending' something like this?

"Organized by Osama bin Laden, 19 men hijacked four planes and flew three of them into buildings, causing damage and fires that led to the collapse of the Twin Towers. The Bush administration neither orchestrated the attacks nor deliberately allowed them, but did not do all it should have to prevent them."

Something like that?

[LARED]

5. Yes, the only thing would add

is that Congress was not doing its job either. They have oversight of the agencies that are to protect America.

[crankmob]

112. so what

[Ghost in the Machine]

44. Wait.... I thought that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind...

"Inside a 9/11 Mastermind’s Interrogation
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: June 22, 2008

WASHINGTON — In a makeshift prison in the north of Poland, Al Qaeda’s engineer of mass murder faced off against his Central Intelligence Agency interrogator. It was 18 months after the 9/11 attacks, and the invasion of Iraq was giving Muslim extremists new motives for havoc. If anyone knew about the next plot, it was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/22ksm.html


:shrug:

[OnTheOtherHand]

45. yawn

I played with some other language, but gave up because I was trying to think about what LARED would write. Maybe "funded" would have sufficed.

In my interpretation of the OCT, it doesn't really matter whether KSM was the "mastermind" or not, but it matters more whether the attacks were ultimately at bin Laden's behest. As far as I'm concerned, it's really your theory, so I guess you are entitled to interpret it however you like.

[CJCRANE]

61. Bin Laden didn't fund 9/11.

That's officially accepted.

Why don't you look into who did?

[OnTheOtherHand]

64. meh

What's accepted (AFAIK) is that he didn't fund it from his personal fortune. I figured that referring to him might be less ambiguous than referring to "al Qaeda," but I guess not.

[CJCRANE]

65. But some of the financiers weren't in "al-Qaeda". You should look it up. nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

68. I never said they were

As you yourself acknowledge -- nay, insist -- it's no part of the OCT (by any definition I know) that the 9/11 attacks were self-financed.

[CJCRANE]

69. "I figured that referring to him might

be less ambiguous than referring to "al Qaeda," but I guess not" is what you wrote.

The 9/11 report doesn't mention the financing AFAIK, it says it's "unimportant". But we do know from other official sources who the financiers were.

I always thought that in law the guy who pays the hitman is just as culpable.

[OnTheOtherHand]

71. nu?

I could try to guess how and/or why you are misreading my posts, but it really doesn't interest me very much. Is there a point you intend to make?

[CJCRANE]

72. You're getting all Rovian now. I've made my points quite clearly. Thankyou nt.

[OnTheOtherHand]

74. Rovian, eh?

Yeah, I guess you're making your "points" just fine.

[eomer]

58. Are you sure about this part?

Are you sure about this part: "the Bush administration neither orchestrated the attacks nor deliberately allowed them"?

In order to defend that, Lared must demonstrate that not a single person in the Bush administration was in any way involved in orchestrating the attacks and didn't do or fail to do any slightest thing that was intended to allow them.

I believe that amounts to proving a negative. How exactly is Lared going to defend that?

[LARED]

59. Is this a lesson in illogic 101?

If someone in the Bush administration was involved in some way that does not mean the Bush administration orchestrated the attacks. What you are saying in akin to blaming the CEO of a corporation you work for because you stole money from the business.

Since your premise is ridiculous, your conclusion that I must prove a negative is ridiculous. Also you seem to think because I can't prove a negative I have a dilemma. It doesn't work that way.

[eomer]

60. No problem.

In that case, the version of the OCT you're willing to defend does not preclude a CIA employee being the mastermind? It might have been OBL, it might have been KSM, it might have been some CIA agent, or it might have been all three of those, working together?

Do I have it right?

[LARED]

62. OK, just about anything is possible

That is a remote possibility. Of course we are talking about the hypothetical, as there is no evidence that I'm aware off that indicates this is true. The evidence clearly is the OBL and KSM were responsible and have claimed responsibility without implicating anyone inside the US government.

Also assuming this is true it also mean that the Bush administration may not have been aware of plot.

Do I have it right?

[eomer]

63. True, just about anything is possible.

Which is why it's not wise to volunteer to prove a negative.

How about this scenario:

Cheney has a personal relationship with a leavebehind who has been in close contact with OBL, KSM, and the rest of the al Qaeda gang going back to the Afghanistan/Soviet war. Cheney is the mastermind. He has a series of meetings with his leavebehind in which he first lays out the basic plan and then, over time, fills in the details and coordinates the whole thing.

That scenario is also completely consistent with all the known facts, is it not?

And Cheney is more obviously part of the "Bush administration" than the CIA agent of my first example.

With regard to your argument that "there is no evidence that I'm aware off that indicates this is true", that's the crux of the problem. We can be fairly certain that there were other actors involved who have not been named in the OCT. In some cases we even know of leads pointing to actors outside of al Qaeda that were not followed, willfully. So to say there is no evidence is not saying much. Clearly they were being very careful not to find any such evidence.

[LARED]

66. Nobody volunteered to prove a negative.

You were doing so well until you started your post with that bit of silliness. I guess you can't help it.

That scenario is also completely consistent with all the known facts, is it not?


No, anyone with a good imagination can plug in a scenario that on the surface looks like it resembles the facts. People make lots of money writing for Hollywood creating scenarios on the surface "make sense" but in the end is just a fantasy.

[eomer]

67. In that case you are not defending the version that OTOH laid out.

Original version:

"Organized by Osama bin Laden, 19 men hijacked four planes and flew three of them into buildings, causing damage and fires that led to the collapse of the Twin Towers. The Bush administration neither orchestrated the attacks nor deliberately allowed them, but did not do all it should have to prevent them."

Version that you're apparently willing to defend:

"Organized by person or persons unknown, who may or may not have been members of the Bush administration as high as the Vice President, 19 men hijacked four planes and flew three of them into buildings, causing damage and fires that led to the collapse of the Twin Towers. The Bush administration may have orchestrated the attacks or deliberately allowed them, and certainly did not do all it should have to prevent them."

[LARED]

82. That does not represent my views

You know that, why do you continue to incorrectly express my views?

[OnTheOtherHand]

95. PMJI

I won't speak for eomer, but I don't think it's that he is incorrectly expressing your "views." It's more that he is suggesting that you should limit what you are prepared to "defend" to weaker claims for which you have stronger warrant.

Of all the folks I've encountered on DU, eomer is my favorite person to argue with. It took a little while for us to get used to each other, and now I'm out of practice.

[eomer]

101. If I understand correctly, then, you do want to defend the statement:

"The Bush administration neither orchestrated the attacks nor deliberately allowed them."

So defend away. That's an affirmative statement. It states something that you purportedly know. What is you basis for that knowledge?

ETA: or maybe that's not what you want to defend either. Can you tell me clearly what, if anything, the OCT says (the version of the OCT that you mean to defend) about the involvement in the 9/11 plot of one or more persons in the US government or connected to the government? A good first step in your defense would be to state clearly what you are defending.

[LARED]

105. What is you basis for that knowledge?

The preponderance of evidence.

[eomer]

75. Further thoughts while waiting for Lared...

I assume you're busy (no snark intended), so while I wait for you to continue your defense (or for OTOH or someone else to pick it up in your absence), a couple of thoughts...

Regarding your argument that the Bush administration demonstrably wasn't involved in the plot based on the fact that OBL's admissions didn't mention them being involved, there are several problems:

1. OBL's admissions didn't mention the Pakistani ISI connection; does that mean that the Pakistani ISI connection is disproved?
   
2. OBL's admissions didn't mention the Saudi royal family connections; does that mean that the Saudi royal family connections are disproved?
   
3. OBL reputedly denied being involved in 911 on more than one occasion and then later reputedly claimed responsibility; are all these statements actually by OBL and, if so, is OBL a reliable source of truth about 911? If they are not all by OBL then which ones are, which ones aren't, and how do we know?
   
4. Organizations sometimes make false claims of responsibility for recruiting reasons; especially given the initial denials isn't it possible that OBL wasn't actually the one in charge of the 911 plot, given that the FBI says there is no evidence that he was?
   
5. With no evidence that OBL was involved and no evidence that Cheney, for example, was involved, your conclusion that OBL was and Cheney wasn't are based on nothing more than the word of OBL (if it's even him speaking) and the word of Cheney; since in both cases the claims are self serving, is it really safe to believe them on nothing more than faith?
   

Off on a different tangent: the only plausible argument, hypothetically, for including such a claim ("the Bush administration neither orchestrated the attacks nor deliberately allowed them") in a defensible theory of the case would be if we could show that an exhaustive investigation had been performed and failed to turn up any evidence. But an exhaustive investigation wasn't performed, so such a claim is not justified. It is especially not justified since the parties you want to vindicate by that lack of evidence are the same ones who worked to avoid a thorough investigation.

I suggest again that this claim ("the Bush administration neither orchestrated the attacks nor deliberately allowed them") has no basis, is not defensible, and should be revised or removed from your theory.

[OnTheOtherHand]

76. this is why I'm not interested in "defending the OCT"

Discussing the scientific status of the proposition that "the Bush administration neither orchestrated the attacks nor deliberately allowed them" just doesn't interest me. But it's not a proposition that I have a stake in "defending."

I think there is more reason to believe that OBL was involved than to believe that Cheney was.

[eomer]

77. Understood.

I think the opposite. Looking at who had the strongest motive, who stood to benefit the most, I say that is Cheney by far. The actual evidence gives us little to go on, since they made sure not to gather any.

I believe that those who claim the OCT, whether they are willing to defend it or not, are mostly just trying to convince others that it should have presumptive status and the burden is on anyone who doesn't believe it. In my mind the US government, and especially this monstrous neocon hijacking of it, has by now earned the opposite presumption -- that if atrocities occur in their general vicinity, most likely they are the perpetrators.

But let me not go on too much, respectful of your disinterest, which I find no complaint against. Have a last say at it if you want and then I'll let you off the hook.

[OnTheOtherHand]

78. I'm perfectly happy to hear your views

I have no idea how I would communicate the basis of my disagreement, but I'm interested in the fact that we disagree. The 'meta' part about whether some people are trying to convince others that their theory should have presumptive status -- and which people those are -- that's the part that seems most hopeless.

[eomer]

79. I think the problem of presumptive status would diminish

if participants in this discourse were more interested in an exchange of ideas, and less interested in smashing each other to smithereens. But, oh well, maybe someday.

[BeFree]

87. Yes indeed, eomer

You said: ""..the US government, and especially this monstrous neocon hijacking of it, has by now earned the opposite presumption -- that if atrocities occur in their general vicinity, most likely they are the perpetrators.""

Along with that their obstruction of fact finding and their actions surrounding the 9/11 commission are not unlike what any criminal outfit would attempt were it trying to keep from being uncovered.

Had they been open and forthcoming throughout any of the subsequent handling of the situation I may be one to cut them some slack and presume they had nothing to do with it. As it is, they cut a wholly criminal path right to their door.

[LARED]

83. That is not my argument

Regarding your argument that the Bush administration demonstrably wasn't involved in the plot based on the fact that OBL's admissions didn't mention them being involved

Just because I stated that OBL and KSM admitted to 9/11 without implicating the US government does not mean I am making the argument that the Bush administration wasn't involved based on that. You seem to have deep trouble understanding the problems of proving a negative.

Your claim seems to be that without a new exhaustive investigation Bush should be presumed guilty based on an nearly endless supply of speculative theorizing. Also my claim ("the Bush administration neither orchestrated the attacks nor deliberately allowed them")is based on a presumption of innocences. An innocence based on a complete lack of evidence pointing to his guilt.

[BeFree]

88. Presumption of innocence

Normally that is what should happen, a presumption of innocence. But clearly, the case the OCT makes is not based on that: it is instead a case made on badly acquired evidence that has never been fully vetted in any court or in any independent investigation. Instead the official investigation was very biased and lopsided. It is a mere presumption of guilt.

On the other hand, the history of the purveyors of the OCT evidence shows evidence of a lack of justice or fairness. In that case then we can presume that the one side - the Bushco side - is guilty of denying justice and not coming clean, and is known to be hiding from us the true facts.

Surely you can't argue against that historical background? That Bushco has not come clean with its side of the story.

[eomer]

96. Sort of, but normally the presumption of innocence is suspended in an important sense.

The presumption of innocence is suspended, obviously, during the process of an investigative team trying to come up with possible theories of the case. It would be ridiculous for them not to pursue a particular theory due to the presumption of innocence because, duh, such an approach would rule out all possible theories, making it impossible for them to do their job.

In the case of 911, the job of figuring out the various possible theories of the case has been left to the citizens of the country and of the world since the US government entities who should have been responsible for it flat out refused to do their duty.

Clearly, applying a presumption of innocence makes no sense whatsoever in a discussion about who committed a crime. Otherwise the discussion would be a very short one: no one did -- they're all equally presumed innocent.

[LARED]

98. You ignored this part of my statement

presumed guilty based on an nearly endless supply of speculative theorizing

Therein lies you problem. Your presumption of guilt is not based on any materials evidence. It's all speculation. When investigating a crime you must of course speculate how it happened. The good investigator goes forth and builds a case on a theory or the evidence and often it is the case that they find out they were chasing a bad idea when no fruit is brought forth.

For eight years CT'er have been "investigating" wild ideas that on simple inspection are just dumb. Namely all the no-planers, controlled demo, DEW, Thermitetians, etc, etc.

There is also only wild speculation about more technically probable, but unprovable scenarios where there is a CT that theorizes the CIA, PNAC, etc planned 9/11 for some reason. Again after eight year CT'er are left with nothing but speculation. No motive to kill 3000 American citizens, No motive to destroy billions of dollars in assets.

Basically CT'er are arguing for the wildest theory possible if the motive was to start a war, for whatever reason.

[eomer]

100. No motive?

You must be kidding.

[LARED]

104. To clarify

I don't see a motive, but if the motive was to start a war, 9/11 was the most complicated risky plan anyone could have envisioned.

Also if the 9/11 was created to provide an excuse to invade Iraq, how come the perps were sufficiently creative to plan 9/11, but failed to plant WMD in Iraq to frame Saddam?

[eomer]

108. Thanks, here's my clarification.

I don't see the motive necessarily as being to start the Iraq War. I see it as being to rev up the Global War on Terror^tm.

And the reason they were sufficiently resourceful to carry out 9/11 but failed to plant WMD in Iraq is because they were not all-powerful, didn't marshal the full power and resources of the entire government. Rather, they were a small number of people who did what they had the connections to do and failed to do what they had no means of. So, if we want to investigate and search for the perps, we should probably look for someone who had connections with the Pakistani ISI, the Saudi royal family, and al Qaeda but did not have any connections or assets in Iraq. That description seems to fit some of the neocon inner circle of the Bush administration, as a clue for where to start.

[eomer]

99. No, I don't claim Bush should be presumed guilty.

First off, it was Cheney about whom I was talking as a suspected mastermind. "Bush was the mastermind" is an oxymoron.

Second, this is a discussion about who may be likely suspects. A presumption at this point makes no sense. Later on, when someone is being prosecuted in a court of law then that person, Cheney or whoever, will be afforded, within the limited context of that court proceeding, a presumption of innocence. Even then, we the general public have no equivalent obligation. We are always free to speculate whether OJ did it. We are free to speculate whether OJ did it even after the court proceeding turned his presumption of innocence into a not guilty verdict. We are free to do that because the presumption of innocence and the not guilty verdict put no constraint on us; we are free to discuss what we think really happened quite apart from the formal mechanisms of the court. In other words, this presumption of innocence stuff is complete nonsense within the context of this discussion -- it has no place whatsoever.

Third, to be even more clear about it, if any of us accepted your nonsensical application of a presumption of innocence (in the context of this discussion) then you would be hoist on your own petard: the OCT that you offered in the OP to defend would then have to be presumed false.

My claim is this: we are the public at large and we are always free to speculate about the real truth. In fact, it is our duty. When we are speculating about what really happened we are free to consider any and all suspects, not just the ones the government told us to consider. We are not bound to respect any presumption of innocence, not even if a trial transforms that presumption into a verdict.

I see plenty of reasons to suspect that one or more persons in the US government have been involved in 911. These reasons are easily as compelling as the reasons used many times by the government to issue a statement such as "we believe that al Qaeda was responsible for the bombing attack because the magnitude and style of the attack fit their MO". Well, I believe the characteristics of this attack, together with the actions of the government after the attack, fit perfectly with the pattern that our deep state follows when perpetrating a false flag attack.

[LARED]

106. You are free to

"consider any and all suspects, not just the ones the government told us to consider."

Knock your socks off.

The problem with the CT'ers is to date there is not a single rational, coherent theory of how the Bush administration either MIHOP or LIHOP. When one can be devised that is based on evidence, the CT community will garner my respect and wholehearted support.

BTW, I also agree there are "plenty of reasons to suspect that one or more persons in the US government have been involved in 911." If that was true I would not be surprised in the least. That possibility is very different than the US government having knowledge and sanctioning or colluding to realize a 9/11 attack. I assume you mean a "person in the US government" is meant to mean a person operating with the knowledge of the Bush administration.

[eomer]

107. What we apparently agree on, and the part we're not sure about.

It seems we agree about this:

BTW, I also agree there are "plenty of reasons to suspect that one or more persons in the US government have been involved in 9/11."

The part we're not sure about is because we're neither one of us sure what the other one means:

That possibility is very different than the US government having knowledge and sanctioning or colluding to realize a 9/11 attack. I assume you mean a "person in the US government" is meant to mean a person operating with the knowledge of the Bush administration.

To explain what I mean, I need to clarify the terms US government and Bush administration. Because, yes, I do mean that there was knowledge, sanction, and collusion. But I don't mean knowledge, sanction, and collusion by the entire Bush administration. And I don't mean that such knowledge, sanction, and collusion was necessarily all-inclusive.

Also, to finish what I don't mean, I don't mean that there was a plan that was managed just the same way any other plan of the administration would be managed, with briefings that included all the respective players, who then relayed orders through the typical channels and executed the plan with broad participation and knowledge throughout the US government or throughout the Bush administration.

What I do mean with regard to the knowledge, sanction, and collusion by the US government/Bush administration is that there was someone, somewhere in the government who knew, sanctioned, and colluded. That person or persons may have been someone on the Cheney team (possibly Cheney himself). Or that person or persons may have been someone somewhere in the deep state, by which I mean either a person in the CIA or a person indirectly connected to the government like a member of the American Turkish Council, perhaps someone who used to be in the government but is currently on the other side of the revolving door. Or it may have been a combination of people in the official government with people in the unofficial deep state. I don't believe it was a large number of people.

And, to finish what I do mean, I do mean that the knowledge, sanction, and collusion may have been only partial. It could have been as little as a wink-wink, nod-nod, "wouldn't it be interesting if", "you know what I mean" kind of conversation. Or it could have been a couple of brief meetings, very closely held, where an actual plan was explained. Or it could have been a series of meetings, very closely held, where the plan was explained, then detailed, then managed.

Conversations here on this topic seem to always leap from zero involvement to thousands of people throughout the government carrying out the attack like a traditional military campaign, which is a false dichotomy. The middle ground is what I believe is likely: the involvement of from one person to a small group carrying out the attack like a covert operation with few people involved and knowledge on a closely-held, need-to-know basis. I believe that this smaller scale involvement is still an inside job and is probably what a lot of people are thinking when they indicate a belief in an inside job.

That's what I mean. I'd be interested in knowing how much of that you could agree with.

[LARED]

109. Humm

What I do mean with regard to the knowledge, sanction, and collusion by the US government/Bush administration is that there was someone, somewhere in the government who knew, sanctioned, and colluded.


Someone said this and I think it is appropriate to rejoin in a similar manner.

"That's an affirmative statement. It states something that you purportedly know. What is you basis for that knowledge?"



Regarding your statements about the number of people you feel were potentially involved. If you are referring to planning the 9/11 attacks where four planes were used and the towers collapsed due to plane crashes and the following fires, I would agree that a large number of insiders is not necessary. If you are on the CD, no-plane, plug in your personal favorite science fiction story for 9/11, then the numbers required expand greatly.

[eomer]

110. I agree, let's apply the criteria consistently.

"The Bush administration neither orchestrated the attacks nor deliberately allowed them."

What I do mean with regard to the knowledge, sanction, and collusion by the US government/Bush administration is that there was someone, somewhere in the government who knew, sanctioned, and colluded.

These are two theories of the case that both fit all the known facts. Let's not grant either one of them presumptive status.

I admit that I will likely remain for the rest of my life suspicious about covert actions of our government and its collaborators. I believe that not only am I justified, I am also obligated.

[LARED]

115. Well then the criteria for presumption should be applied consistently as well

To grant an equal presumptive status the basis of the presumptive arguments should bear some equivalence. These are not even close

For instance;

The so called OCT is based on mountains of evidence. Much of it independently verified by investigative reporting manifested through books, journals, newspapers, congressional committees, etc.

The CT is a incoherent and often irrational amalgamation of speculation, hearsay, outright lies, ignorance, etc. There is a nearly endless supply of stories crafted to make the speculations, and baseless assertions line up with the facts, but they are alway full of holes. Just because CT'ers like to ignore the holes does not make it "fit all the know facts"

What you are basically saying is the so called 9/11 OCT should not be granted presumptive status because there is an equivalence with the 9/11 CT's that clearly do not deserve a presumptive status. The truth is if one can find a way to measure presumption, the 9/11 so called OCT weighs about a ton, and the 9/11 CT is light as a feather.

This is a bit like gravity. A ton of feathers weighs the same as a ton of bricks because both are under the laws of nature. That does not mean they are the same thing. Would you grant them an equal or worse yet, no presumptive status if I was going to drop each of them on your head?

[eomer]

117. I think our problem is a different idea of the context of the discussion.

My original comment was that this statement implies a level of certainty that is not justified:

"The Bush administration neither orchestrated the attacks nor deliberately allowed them."

I think that the way you and I are out of sync on this has to do with context. Or, in other words, I think that there is a right time and place for speculating about what we don't know.

I worry that the goal of the excerpted statement is to foreclose discussions about something we don't know, and to do so by making it seem that we do know something that we don't.

So, if by defend the OCT you mean you will argue that we know for a fact that there was no inside job aspect of 9/11 and therefore no one should even discuss such a possibility, even when they make it clear that their discussion is speculative, then we disagree. But I get the feeling that we don't disagree. Rather, I think that we are applying two different understandings of the context of the discussion. You're discussing what we know, while I'm trying to have a discussion about what we don't. An impedance mismatch, if you will.

[CJCRANE]

70. You're getting close to what I call "OCT Plus"...

that is that there are people in "al-Qaeda" who hate America and plotted against it...but they were helped by people friendly to the Bush administration (and moles within it) in order to further the aims of the neocons and their allies.

[spooked911]

4. Are you interested in buying a bridge?

:)

[vincent_vega_lives]

6. No, and I doubt you have one to sell (n/t)

[LARED]

23. Sure, what do you have?

Perhaps you have a CGI bridge for sale from the same place you found the CGI planes?

[SDuderstadt]

28. I have a question...

can I drive over a CGI bridge in a CGI car?

[LARED]

30. Sure you can

It's no problem at all. Anything is possible is the land of CGI.

[SDuderstadt]

31. Well, then....

maybe we'll see a CGI NowHearThis then. I kinda miss the little feller.

[William Seger]

26. Are you the broker for Simon Shack's "moving bridge"?

No sale.

[vincent_vega_lives]

7. I believe

19 determined men were able to take advantage of years of intelligence neglect, failed immigration procedures, lax airline security, long standing hijacking protocols, and turn a portion of our transportation infrastructure into weapons.

I believe the passengers of flight 93 decided to take action and tried to take back their flight from the hijackers, resulting in the early crash in PA.

I believe neither the crash of the aircraft nor the fires brought down the WTC towers. It was BOTH the damage from the crash and the subsequent fires that brought down the buildings.

I believe the WTC-7 was brought down by a perfect storm of minor factors that resulted in a single point of failure.

I believe a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon and the photographic evidence available on the internet clearly supports this.

[BeachBaby]

8. So, even though Dick Cheney and Rex Tomb both claim....

that's there not enough evidence to charge Bin Laden, you're still going to believe the official story?

[vincent_vega_lives]

11. Yes

What court admissible evidence exists that proves Bin Laden had anything to do with it?

[wildbilln864]

22. How about confessions on video?

If of course we accept their authenticity!

[SDuderstadt]

15. I'd love to see some proof of this claim...

do you have any?

[BeachBaby]

16. The FBI website.

[SDuderstadt]

17. Umm, I was asking for a reference to something either...

Cheney or Tomb said, not a generic reference to the FBI website,

You DO know that bin Laden has been on their Ten Most Wanted list since well before 9/11, right?

[BeachBaby]

18. Of course I do; but he's not wanted for 9/11.

And the reason why he's not wanted for 9/11 is explained in the FBI website.

[SDuderstadt]

19. Bullshit...it says nothing of the sort....

if you cannot directly back up your claim, you might want to think about withdrawing it.

[BeachBaby]

20. Oh, really?

You're asking me to do your homework for you. You realize this, right?

I'm not going to do it. You want to know, you do the research - just as I have done.

But if you want to make it easier on yourself, why don't you ask yourself THIS question:

The Most Wanted posters are revised in January of every year. Why do you suppose that 9/11 is not mentioned on Bin Laden's poster?

[SDuderstadt]

27. It's YOUR fucking claim!

In logic, what you're trying to do is called "shifting the burden of proof". If you assert a claim as true and you want it to be accepted as such, then you should expect to provide some documetation of it. More importantly, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You want ME to research it? It's NOT my claim. But, I'll play your game. I've researched it and can't find ANYTHING like what you're claiming on the FBI website. What is your point, anyway? That the FBI doesn't believe that bin Laden did it? This is silly,

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

47. maybe you haven't read enough of his posts

Anyway, spend a moment in my shoes and experience the lameness of claiming to have evidence that OBL isn't behind the 9/11 attacks, yet refusing to post it.

[SDuderstadt]

50. Of course, here's what the 9/11 CT's and the Muckraker Report don't bother to tell you...

I seriously contend that critical thinking and civics classes would pre-empt most of the bullshit from the so-called "Truth Movement". Do you guys even know how someone gets on the Ten Most Wanted list? Hint: they have to be indicted. Does the FBI indict people? Hint: NO! That's the DOJ. Since the US is pursuing bin Laden militarily, does it make sense to claim that "bin Laden isn't even wanted for 9/11"? If you notice the FBI section on the most wanted terrorists, it says clearly that those listed on the page are wanted for crimes they have been indicted for and that they may be indicted in the future for others.

Are you guys really trying to claim bin Laden is innocent of the 9/11 attacks because of the fact that it doesn't specifically say that on his FBI listing? I mean, seriously, if the reason that isn't listed is because no one has indicted him yet, why the fuck would you ask the FBI about it? If you had a question about whether Mountain Dew presents some sort of health hazard to the public, would you ask the FDA or the local district manager for Circle K?

Again, this is the main problem with the 9/11 "truth movement". If you would do sufficient fucking research and learn how our government actually works, you'd save yourself a lot of embarrassment. And, oh, by the way, the post also claimed that both Rex Tomb and Dick Cheney made the claim that no hard evidence about bin Laden. Notice the word "and"? That means for the statement to be true, both parts of it need to be true. I have yet to see anyone provide any evidence that Cheney said anything remotely like this.

BTW, here's a much more complete account of what Tomb said and meant:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html

[able1]

51. The fact remains that as of now, DOJ doesn't have sufficient

evidence to indict Mr. bin Laden for 9/11. At some point, don't you think they'll put him in their "cold case file?" Or do you think
that won't happen, due to the political implications it might have on whatever administration is in office at the time?

[SDuderstadt]

52. Dude....who says they don't have sufficient evidence to indict him?

The question is whether they even need to. I mean, do you think he's just going to show up in the US and surrender? As I said before, bin Laden is being pursued militarily which kinda obviates the need to indict him. But, if you think the current US Attorney for NY couldn't get a Grand Jury to indict him tomorrow, you need to think again.

As to your last question, you might want to ask the Obama administration. I have no doubt that Obama holds bin Laden responsible for 9/11.

[able1]

53. DOJ. EOM

[SDuderstadt]

54. Wtf?

What is "DOJ" a response to?

[Ghost in the Machine]

56. There's so much stupid in that reply that I don't even know where to begin...

.. but obviously "DOJ" was an answer to the question you asked: "Dude....who says they don't have sufficient evidence to indict him?"

What's wrong, SDud? You can't comprehend what DOJ stands for?

[wildbilln864]

80. he has that problem a lot evidently.

Lots of posts where he claims he can't comprehend what's said and complains about them being incoherent. Everyone else seems to understand them just fine. :shrug:

[Ghost in the Machine]

84. Have you seen this one?

"you don't seem to able to distinguish between legitimate questions about the preparedness of the Bush administration (they were asleep at the wheel, in my opinion), as well as their gross overreaction (as evidenced by invading Iraq) and wild-eyed, goofy CT claims that aren't supported by either facts or logic. I don't know it for a fact, but I'm pretty sure the Jersey Girls don't believe that no planes were hijacked or crashed on 9/11."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=248009&mesg_id=248264

Yeah, I know... :spray: :rofl: , right? Can you *believe* that someone actually thinks that Bushco "overreacted" to 9-11 and invaded Iraq? The Iraq Invasion was an "overreaction"??? WTF!?!?!?!?!?!

[Ghost in the Machine]

55. Oh jeez, more of your goofy fucking claims...

"BTW, here's a much more complete account of what Tomb said and meant:"

Yeah, *this*:

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

.. is much more detailed than this:

"When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”


Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id267.html

Here's another goofy fucking claim you made: "Do you guys even know how someone gets on the Ten Most Wanted list? Hint: they have to be indicted. Does the FBI indict people? Hint: NO! That's the DOJ."

If you can find it in yourself to try to read for comprehension, go back and read Tombs' words from The Muckraker Report again. Here's the relevant part, just in case you can't find it: “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. {snip} He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

In case you still can't comprehend it, SDud, the FBI gathers evidence and turns it over to the DOJ. The DOJ hasn't indicted bin Laden for 9-11 because:

the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

Judging by the content of your posts, I'll tell you again, SDud... you're in NO position to mention critical thinking, logic or comprehension to anyone as you are clearly lacking those skills yourself. Try again when you actually have something intelligent to add, dude.....

[wildbilln864]

81. but wouldn't a video taped confession be hard evidence?

UBL's alleged confession on video? :shrug:

[Ghost in the Machine]

85. Would they indict Fat Osama or Skinny Osama?

:shrug:


They knew that Osama died in December 2001, but they couldn't kill off their boogeyman. Someone put out the doctored/fake tapes, but they still knew an indictment was moot because they could never bring him in.


:hi:

Hope you and yours are doing well, wildbill..


Peace,

Ghost

[wildbilln864]

94. Thanks Ghost. Hope you & yours are too!

Hell I say indict em both eh. :hi:

[Ghost in the Machine]

57. oh, I read all his posts.. they're good for comedic value...

He gets pretty wound up at times...



:evilgrin:

[Old and In the Way]

42. Pretty straightforward.

<http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm>

Last revised November 2001. No mention of his participation in 9/11. But his face served a purpose on 9/12. He was the designated "evildoer"...at least until the marketing of war on Iraq got underway. They had the old bait and switch running, then. Saddam was becoming the new OBL.

Maybe it's me, but I find this "poster" to be insulting. It's like an inside joke that the FBI is taunting the American people with. They couldn't possibly be more vague in their details/description of him. When Bush said it didn't matter if we caught OBL or not in March of '02...I take him at his word. It didn't matter because he was dead. But still was a useful boogie man (along with the color-coded terror alerts) to keep on the ice for future election use.

[able1]

33. Maybe that explains why Pres. Bush said he (obl) isn't very

important anymore - or something like that.

[SDuderstadt]

35. As much as I despise W...

what he said was taken out of context. Add that to the fact that he's such an ineffective communicator and that's how things like this get started.

http://www.911myths.com/html/ignored.html

[Ghost in the Machine]

43. Rex Tomb interviewed by The Muckraker Report

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, [phone], to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”


Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id267.html

Usama bin Laden's "Most Wanted" page:

MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH

USAMA BIN LADEN




Aliases: Usama Bin Muhammad Bin Ladin, Shaykh Usama Bin Ladin, The Prince, The Emir, Abu Abdallah, Mujahid Shaykh, Hajj, The Director


DESCRIPTION

Date of Birth Used: 1957
Hair: Brown
Place of Birth: Saudi Arabia
Eyes: Brown
Height: 6'4" to 6'6"
Sex: Male
Weight: Approximately 160 pounds
Complexion: Olive
Build: Thin
Citizenship: Saudi Arabian
Language: Arabic (probably Pashtu)
Scars and Marks: None known
Remarks: Bin Laden is left-handed and walks with a cane.


CAUTION

Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.


REWARD

The Rewards For Justice Program, United States Department of State, is offering a reward of up to $25 million for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden. An additional $2 million is being offered through a program developed and funded by the Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association.


SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ARMED AND DANGEROUS

IF YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS PERSON, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR LOCAL FBI OFFICE OR THE NEAREST AMERICAN EMBASSY OR CONSULATE.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

Dick Cheney:

On March 29, 2006, on The Tony Snow Show, Vice President Dick Cheney stated: "We've never made the case, or argued the case, that somehow Osama Bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming." http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0608-CheneyOBLnot.mov | http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0608-BinLaden.html

George W Bush:

During the October 13 presidential debate, President George W. Bush denied he'd ever said he wasn't worried about Osama bin Laden, as Senator John Kerry stated. In fact, Bush did say it, as a March 13, 2002, http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios/notconcerned.wmv">video clip, which was played repeatedly by cables and networks after the debate, demonstrates. But even with a video clip that starkly contradicted Bush's assertion, several pundits and reporters rushed in the hours after the debate to claim, falsely, that Bush's 2002 comments about bin Laden were being taken out of context.

From the October 13 debate:

KERRY: Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."

<...>

BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.

But Bush wasn't telling the truth. From a March 13, 2002, press conference:

Q: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

BUSH: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200410140007

There are plenty of online sources for these assertions duder.. take the time to look them up...

[SDuderstadt]

29. Please link us to anywhere Dick Cheney or Rex Tomb ever said...

anything like what you're claiming. I'll bet you can't.

[Ghost in the Machine]

49. Read post #43... and wipe that egg off your face (again) n/t

[AZCat]

9. I don't think any of us is defending the "OCT".

We're mainly defending logic and reason, and it just so happens that the OCT occasionally reflects the logical, reasonable conclusions one should draw from the evidence.

[vincent_vega_lives]

12. Correct

Not so much as defending any particular story as arguing against some of the asinine excuses for scientific analysis that has been presented as fact.

[BeFree]

38. Not defending?

Just arguing against? Just here to entertain yourself, eh?

What about the asinine stuff from Bushco like they "never imagined"?

The FBI dropping the ball when field agents made alerts on the perps?

The OCT is full of asinine stuff, no wonder you don't defend it. You're not stupid. Just looking for some entertainment?

[vincent_vega_lives]

48. Partly

Also irritated by idiotic notions of mininukes, holographic planes, and nano-thermate demolition charges in the WTC towers.

What about the asinine stuff from Bushco like they "never imagined"?

The FBI dropping the ball when field agents made alerts on the perps?

I have no argument with any of that.

[LARED]

24. Let your freak flag fly

Come'on, don't be intimated just because the CT'ers will think you are defending Bush. They think that anyway. The bottom line is you do advocate for most of the OCT because it is logical, and reasonable no matter who was President when it happened.

What can happen, an CT'er will call you a shill?

[OnTheOtherHand]

32. a basic conceptual disconnect

As far as I can tell, the decriers of "the OCT" interpret it as a belief system or a set of doctrines. To me, what you're defending is 'just' a group of hypotheses that seem to fit the available evidence much better than the alternative hypotheses I've seen. Well worth defending, but using their language to describe it not only accepts their "frame" but risks reinforcing their confusion.

But you probably would rejoin that they are so firmly committed to confusion on this point that it doesn't really matter what you call it. Point taken.

[LARED]

34. Point taken, the bottom line is that

no matter what attempts are made to frame the discussion within the confines of reality, they are throughly committed to willful ignorance about the evidence supporting any rational hypothesis. So it make no matter what language is incorporated. Sort of like trying to nail Jello to the wall, it just won't work no matter how you try.

[OnTheOtherHand]

46. I guess I try to write for the lurkers

There are tens of millions of Americans who aren't committed to willful ignorance, but just don't know very much; if they hear mostly from someone like David Ray Griffin, it might sound pretty reasonable. On any given day, it's possible that a few of them might read this board. That isn't reason enough to post here, but it's reason enough for me to try to make sense to them. And anyway, it's pretty hard to write without having trying to make sense to someone.

Just comparing notes here. (Or maybe we scripted this exchange just to pretend that "the so-called OCT-abots can't even agree about what 'OCT' means." Bwahahahaha.)

[AZCat]

36. Certainly, elements of the "OCT" are worth defending.

But I defend them because they are logical and reasonable, and not because they are part of the "OCT".

[whatchamacallit]

10. My condolences

for the loss of your bullshit detector.

[vincent_vega_lives]

13. A BS detector isn't much good

if it's calibrated to label only what you don't want to hear as BS.

[William Seger]

14. Tell ya what

Tell me how your bullshit detector works and I'll tell you how mine works.

[BeFree]

37. Mine is proven

Whenever Bushco stands behind, er, tries to wiggle away from, er, obstructs the discovery of and says "Don't look there", my bullshit meter spins away.

What's Bushco do to yours?

[William Seger]

41. Yeah, I know what yours is

The Single Synapse 2000.

[LARED]

25. Hardly needed; this forum calibrates

the meter on a daily basis. Everything is working just fine.

[wildbilln864]

21. yes!

"We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty." G.W Bush

[BeFree]

39. Stupendous!!

What an exclamation!! And what a lukewarm defense!! Gawd, spare me...

[Octafish]

73. Why did Bush and his cronies try to tie 9-11 to Saddam Hussein and Iraq?

Bush and his cronies in government and the media did all they could to blame Iraq for 9-11.
At one time, almost two-thirds of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11.
Even though Iraq had no role in 9-11, why did Bush and Co. lie about the responsible party behind 9-11 and then attack, invade and occupy an innocent nation?

[LARED]

86. I think that falls under the concept

of never pass up a good crisis.

[BeFree]

90. Pass up?

Can't you see that they invented what you call a 'crisis'?

It seems as if you are giving them a pass on that criminal act, what with all the lies that lead up to it and the ensuing deaths caused by their actions. Surely, it only seems that you are giving them a pass, surely you don't mean to do so, eh?

[LARED]

97. Nope I don't see it.

Perhaps one day a kindly CT'er will provide a coherent rational hypothesis with actual evidence to back up the claim that Bush etal MIHOP or LIHOP. Until then the so called OCT makes the most sense.

[Realityhack]

113. Proof?????

"Can't you see that they invented what you call a 'crisis'?"

You have no evidence much less proof that Bush caused 9-11. The rest of the argument is post-hoc ergo propter-hoc.

Terrorists attacked, Bush et. al took advantage of the situation for their own purposes. In the process the committed war crimes and trampled on international treaties and the constitution. None of which changes the lack of evidence that they caused the events of September 11th.

[Bolo Boffin]

89. Why didn't they do a better job of it?

If this was an inside job, why didn't they bake Iraq into the plan from the get-go?

[BeFree]

91. They did bake Iraq into it.

Bolo asks: "If this was an inside job, why didn't they bake Iraq into the plan from the get-go?"
***************

They were after Iraq from the beginning. Where were you? Everybody else knows it, Bush was quoted in a book as saying so back in early 2001.

Are you thinking they just made it up as they went along? That they looked around and said: "Hey, what about Saddam?" Are you forgetting Gulf War 1?

Gawd, you have to be frigging joking, right?

[Bolo Boffin]

92. Please go play your games somewhere else.

If Bushco planned to use 9/11 for invading Iraq all along, why didn't they make sure they could blame Iraq for it with actual evidence?

You know, like Iraqis hijacking the planes, or a money trail back to Saddam?

Iraq was NOT baked into the 9/11 plot.

[BeFree]

102. Why?

They didn't need to and they couldn't at first. They did succeed by lying about WMD, and coupled with the public scared from 9/11, got just enough backing finally to invade.

I'm finding your position rather odd, Bolo. Everyone with any sense knows Bushco had their sights set on invading Iraq right from the start. It seems as if you are one of the few to realize this. Surely you aren't protecting Bushco, are you?

To give you some credit I have to think that maybe you've just shut it out of your mind? You do have a propensity to do so when it comes to all things concerning 9/11.

[Bolo Boffin]

103. Is it possible for you to miss this point so completely?

Do you not understand that the information you are presenting only strengthens my argument? Can you truly not see that?

[Realityhack]

114. The beauty of you disproving your own hypothisis

"and they couldn't at first."
Your words.
The only way they could not bake in Iraq is if they did not have control over where the evidence lead. Which precludes the possibility that they planned the whole thing.

[CJCRANE]

111. They didn't do that because it wasn't possible.

"You go to war with the army you have, not the army you'd like to have" or to paraphrase Rumsfeld's statement to fit this situation: "you use the operatives you have, not the operatives you'd like to have".

On edit: it was also common knowledge that an attack on the WTC could be blamed on any tinpot ME dictator (as per the "Lone Gunmen" pilot episode pre-9/11).

[PufPuf23]

93. Magical thinker = Zero skeptic. What does LARED Doubt?

My stance is that I am willing to accept a cultural narrative / mythology for the continued viability of our Noble Experiment with the flawed trajectory (in hindsight example slavery) of our Founding Fathers that also provided the latitude to make adjustments.

The question is how deep to expose the rot to cleanse and accept responsibility and forge ahead as an intelligent sector of human ecology.

There is a group of posters in the dungeon that are non-skeptics and do not question "official" explanations of 9-11. They stiffle discussion and insult. 9-11 influenced subsequent and continuing responses and events. We now know many were excuses for aggressive war were "ginned up" in one manner or another. IMO it is not partisan but rather social class colliding with ecological limits given Earth and workable technology. Not much different than known human history or even bacteria in petri dishes. One difference is that there is not ready new frontier and the technology has the potential for mass destruction.

I can accept cultural myth because this is part of the human condition and brings us together as societies that self re-enforce. Often Christianity and other religions have been this social glue, some ways I am suggesting the common symbol is more important than fact. Maybe it is best to clean up the war criminals and put aside 9-11. That is my compromise with the realization that 90-95% of citizens do not even go there in their thoughts.

The events preceding, on, and post 9-11 are far from explained. "New Pearl Harbor" event for social motivation is often cited from the PNAC's Sept 2000 Redefining America's Defenses for the 21st Century. Go back and read the dull and cold document in its entirety. We are still on track with more setbacks than expected (most recent the Manas AFB situation)and new aggressions (formation of a separate AFRICOM in 11/2008 and expansion of military in the Horn of Africa). The Neocons set a course and waved it in the face of the community of Nations and there is much nuanced blowback and times are precarious. POTUS Obama is our best hope and he has my support but I am disappointed more often than expected and worry that he does not have full control nor info regarding the MIC and intelligence communities.

If one still accepts the "OCT" as a complete, truthful, and useful narrative, LARED is a magical thinker, moron, and/or "True Believer" in the ends justify the means. I say clean the rot to the degree necessary and form a consensous cultural myth that we and the World can move foreward. I am older and expect conditions to get worse alas. I am offering an opinion I do not care to debate.

[LARED]

116. I have no doubt that all

the BS you just posted is the result of a lot more magical thinking than I can ever muster.

Calling me a moron is really in bad taste, and against the rules. I would be a shame to think that all the effort you made to post your amusing thoughts could go to waste.

[Twist_U_Up]

119. you got owned....again. live with it.

[LARED]

120. Somehow I'll stuggle on LOL nt

[Prometheus Bound]

121. He did indeed.

[CJCRANE]

118. Interesting points, food for thought nt