2/3 of Americans Believe in Conspiracy Theories

[_sabotage_]

Ok, so what could the warnings have told him had he bothered to take note or follow up on them?

From CNN

President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday.

NYTimes

The White House said tonight that President Bush had been warned by American intelligence agencies in early August that Osama bin Laden was seeking to hijack aircraft but that the warnings did not contemplate the possibility that the hijackers would turn the planes into guided missiles for a terrorist attack.

As reported in the respected German daily Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung (FAZ) on Sept. 14, 2001 the German intelligence service, the BND, warned both the CIA and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture.

In August 2000 French intelligence sources confirmed a man recently arrested in Boston by the FBI was an Islamic militant and a key member of Osama bin Laden s Al Qaeda network. The FBI knew the man had been taking flying lessons at the time of his arrest and was in possession of technical information on Boeing aircraft and flight manuals, as reported by Reuters on Sept. 13.

According to a story in Izveztia on Sept. 12, Russian intelligence warned the USG that as many as 25 suicide pilots were training for missions involving the crashing of airliners into important targets.

In an MSNBC interview on Sept. 15, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that he had ordered Russian intelligence to warn the USG in the strongest possible terms of imminent assaults on airports and government buildings before the attacks on Sept. 11.

CBS News, May 16, 2002:

“President Bush was told in the months before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might hijack U.S. passenger planes - information which prompted the administration to issue an alert to federal agencies - but not the American public.”

“On July 5, 2001, according to a recent Washington Post article, the White House called together officials from a dozen federal agencies to give them a warning.

“‘Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon,’ the officials were told by the government's top counterterrorism official, Richard Clarke.

“Clarke considered the threat sufficiently important to direct every counterintelligence office to cancel vacations and get ready for immediate action, the Post reported.”

So it seems clear he knew that:

1. An attack was coming,
2. It involved planes.
3. It was soon.

[_sabotage_]

You haven't provided a single piece of evidence validating your official story theory,

If I say trees can ride bicycles it's my job to prove it, not your job to find a source that says they can't.

There were over 80 cameras focused on the Pentagon. The videos were immediately rounded up by the FBI. 4 have been released. None show a plane. A CIA agent claims to have examined all videos, and signed an affidavit saying none show a plane.

Proof, there was no plane.

If there was no plane, it couldn't have been Flight 77, since Flight 77 was indeed a plane. If it wasn't a plane, what was it? It went boom, it stunk of cordite, it evaded the missile defence system of the Pentagon.

It was a missile that registered friendly with the Pentagon. It was a Pentagon missile.

An inside job. You are welcome.

[rdsrds2120]

You haven't provided a single piece of evidence validating your official story theory,

If I say trees can ride bicycles it's my job to prove it, not your job to find a source that says they can't.

There were over 80 cameras focused on the Pentagon. The videos were immediately rounded up by the FBI. 4 have been released. None show a plane. A CIA agent claims to have examined all videos, and signed an affidavit saying none show a plane.

Proof, there was no plane.

If there was no plane, it couldn't have been Flight 77, since Flight 77 was indeed a plane. If it wasn't a plane, what was it? It went boom, it stunk of cordite, it evaded the missile defence system of the Pentagon.

It was a missile that registered friendly with the Pentagon. It was a Pentagon missile.

An inside job. You are welcome.

BMO

[BigBallinStalin]

Ok, so what could the warnings have told him had he bothered to take note or follow up on them?

From CNN

President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday.

NYTimes

The White House said tonight that President Bush had been warned by American intelligence agencies in early August that Osama bin Laden was seeking to hijack aircraft but that the warnings did not contemplate the possibility that the hijackers would turn the planes into guided missiles for a terrorist attack.

As reported in the respected German daily Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung (FAZ) on Sept. 14, 2001 the German intelligence service, the BND, warned both the CIA and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture.

In August 2000 French intelligence sources confirmed a man recently arrested in Boston by the FBI was an Islamic militant and a key member of Osama bin Laden s Al Qaeda network. The FBI knew the man had been taking flying lessons at the time of his arrest and was in possession of technical information on Boeing aircraft and flight manuals, as reported by Reuters on Sept. 13.

According to a story in Izveztia on Sept. 12, Russian intelligence warned the USG that as many as 25 suicide pilots were training for missions involving the crashing of airliners into important targets.

In an MSNBC interview on Sept. 15, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that he had ordered Russian intelligence to warn the USG in the strongest possible terms of imminent assaults on airports and government buildings before the attacks on Sept. 11.

CBS News, May 16, 2002:

“President Bush was told in the months before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might hijack U.S. passenger planes - information which prompted the administration to issue an alert to federal agencies - but not the American public.”

“On July 5, 2001, according to a recent Washington Post article, the White House called together officials from a dozen federal agencies to give them a warning.

“‘Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon,’ the officials were told by the government's top counterterrorism official, Richard Clarke.

“Clarke considered the threat sufficiently important to direct every counterintelligence office to cancel vacations and get ready for immediate action, the Post reported.”

So it seems clear he knew that:

1. An attack was coming,
2. It involved planes.
3. It was soon.

Correction:

0. There were many intelligence reports from US and non-US agencies making a large variety of claims about a pending attack in the US and beyond; however, I cherry picked a few intelligence reports (without citing them) in order to provide my crafted vision of a fine line of intelligence reports that conform to my strongly held beliefs.
Therefore,
1. An attack was coming,
2. It involved planes.
3. It was soon.


But this what was happening from the decision-makers' viewpoint:
1. An attack may be coming.
2. It may involve planes.
3. It was likely to be soon--whenever that would be.
4. So, presumably* resources were prioritized to deal this possible attack by having the relevant agencies handle it (NSA, CIA, FBI)---which unfortunately bungled it, thus contributing to the occurrence of 9-11, as The Looming Tower carefully explains.

*"Presumably" because I assume the executive ordered this to happen. Had he said, "Don't worry about it, all you employees of the state," then where's the smoking gun? Where are the CIA agents saying, "Gee, we could've stopped 9-11, but Bush told us not to"? (Because that never happened--unless we believe that all the individuals involved in government and in close enough proximity to this event could magically remain silent, and that no profit-seeking freelancer could penetrate this surreal cloud of secrecy).

Intelligence is not a crystal ball--no matter how hard you try to pound it into one.

You're viewing a scenario with the benefit of hindsight, and inappropriately applying that hindsight into the past by creating a phoney stream of select reports which confirm your viewpoint. That's not a good argument.

[_sabotage_]

67 planes were intercepted in 2001 prior to 9/11.

None on 9/11.

The Pentagon was hit 59 minutes after the initial hijacking. Two airforce bases within a couple minutes away.

You are viewing the scenario in a void, acting as if each aspect is isolated.

Why was plane interception protocol changed during this period? This period of warning of planes being used in imminent terrorist attacks?

Why can we not see a plane when 80 + cameras faced the scene of the Pentagon?

Why was this justification to invade Iraq?

Why was Bin Laden never charged for 9/11?

If you can answer those questions in consideration of the fact that Bush was poopooing the warnings, I will be happy to listen.

[saxitoxin]

The original statement was: President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened.

_sabotage_'s burden of evidence is to prove that Bush had been informed, prior to September 11, 2001:

1. multiple planes would be hijacked
2. these planes would be intentionally crashed
3. the location of the crashes would be the World Trade Center in New York and The Pentagon
4. items 1-3 would occur on the morning of September 11, 2001

All of these elements have to be proved for the statement to be true. I am willing to grant he's proved #1. Everything else I've seen so far (cameras at the Pentagon were deactivated, Bin Laden wasn't indicted, every 17th letter in Revelations put together spells the phrase 'Bush Did It', etc.) doesn't address points 2-4.

[BigBallinStalin]

67 planes were intercepted in 2001 prior to 9/11.

None on 9/11.

The Pentagon was hit 59 minutes after the initial hijacking. Two airforce bases within a couple minutes away.

You are viewing the scenario in a void, acting as if each aspect is isolated.

Why was plane interception protocol changed during this period? This period of warning of planes being used in imminent terrorist attacks?

Why can we not see a plane when 80 + cameras faced the scene of the Pentagon?

Why was this justification to invade Iraq?

Why was Bin Laden never charged for 9/11?

If you can answer those questions in consideration of the fact that Bush was poopooing the warnings, I will be happy to listen.

Nice smoke screen, but you've provided insufficient evidence for the underlined. You're still not providing a good argument.

[_sabotage_]

You're right, Bush et al are angels, may you ever flourish under the magnificent wings.

[BigBallinStalin]

You're right, Bush et al are angels, may you ever flourish under the magnificent wings.

Sorry, sir, but your post belongs in the Accidental Strawmen thread.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Sabotage:
Bush knew that bin Laden's organization was going to hijack a plane.
Destruction wasn't caused by planes, no planes present.

?

-TG

[_sabotage_]

Planes were present, just not at the Pentagon.

Qaeda was a database of CIA assets used to carry out covert warfare against the Soviet Union during the eighties, we now use them in Libya, Syria and other Arab states that we want to carry out regime change in.

The Bush family can be tied to the CIA since it's inception, with Bush Sr quite clearly in charge of the terrorist wing which came out in the Iran contra affair. When Bush was receiving the warnings, it was like one brother tattling on the other to daddy. The anti-terrorist wing was saying that the Qaeda wing was about to cause a ruckus. Bush knew this already, and so just ignored the warnings.

They had two problems to overcome, intercepting planes and the missile defences of the Pentagon. They did the first by revising protocol so the New York bound planes weren't intercepted. They did the second by using a missile on the Pentagon.

I haven't bothered including any evidence since it is just ignored.

[AndyDufresne]

#1. Planes were present, just not at the Pentagon.

#2. Qaeda was a database of CIA assets used to carry out covert warfare against the Soviet Union during the eighties, we now use them in Libya, Syria and other Arab states that we want to carry out regime change in.

#3. The Bush family can be tied to the CIA since it's inception, with Bush Sr quite clearly in charge of the terrorist wing which came out in the Iran contra affair. When Bush was receiving the warnings, it was like one brother tattling on the other to daddy. The anti-terrorist wing was saying that the Qaeda wing was about to cause a ruckus. Bush knew this already, and so just ignored the warnings.

#4. They had two problems to overcome, intercepting planes and the missile defences of the Pentagon. They did the first by revising protocol so the New York bound planes weren't intercepted. They did the second by using a missile on the Pentagon.

#5. I haven't bothered including any evidence since it is just ignored.

I've tried to make sense of this, so I used the Bad Translator (works best in Chrome I think), and translated it 27 times in succession:

#1.The car is the Department of Defense, as well.

#2.The CIA, Syria, Libya and Arab Governments war 6/20. Changes in the fight against the Soviet Union.

#3. President George w. Bush participates in a battle of the primary air to raise children, we know that the Bush CIA eshtemo Iran. If the parent assumes that the Bush brothers Tattling. The wizard of Oz, said that the terrorist attacks. Bush ignored tisman and veterinarian.

#4. In the United States, working at the airport and at the ceremony, New York including links to protect the beach as the first phase of the Institute. P and n determines the other missiles in the world.

#5. Don't worry, we can ignore the evidence for each component.

I think the last bit finally hit a breakthrough.


--Andy

[jonesthecurl]

You haven't provided a single piece of evidence validating your official story theory,

If I say trees can ride bicycles it's my job to prove it, not your job to find a source that says they can't.

[_sabotage_]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... eader.html

A man who spent six years in Guantanamo is now a senior figure in the Libyan rebels’ fight against Colonel Gadaffi.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/world ... .html?_r=0

Libyan, Once a Detainee, Is Now a U.S. Ally of Sorts

ABC News article:
"In the 1980s, bin Laden left his comfortable
Saudi home for Afghanistan to participate in the
Afghan jihad, or holy war, against the invading
forces of the Soviet Union - a cause that,
ironically, the United States funded, pouring
$3 billion into the Afghan resistance via the CIA."

They still work for us, they were created by us.

Now if you were intent on hitting up the three largest economic resources in the world, and you happened to have a bunch of trained killers in your pocket, and the only way you could get access to those markets were by having a catalyzing event, and the event was apparently done by your group of trained killers, I would suspect you.

I would also look intently at how bad you got fucked up in the event.

[GeneralRisk]

Who had the most to gain from 9=11??????????????

show: Israelis

More on Israelhttp://www.pakalertpress.com/2010/07/28/israel-did-911-all-the-proof-in-the-world/

[saxitoxin]

Qaeda was a database of CIA assets used to carry out covert warfare against the Soviet Union during the eighties

I agree with this because there's a preponderance of evidence and it's been widely and directly documented.

we now use them in Libya, Syria and other Arab states that we want to carry out regime change in.

I agree with this inasmuch as "al Qaeda" represents more of an idea than a unified, hierarchically stable, top-down organization.

They still work for us, they were created by us.

This is where the first gigantic leap occurs. An arsonist (U.S.) lit my house (Libya) on fire (Al Qaeda). It doesn't follow that the arsonist "controls fire" and that all fire everywhere, forever, will obey the arsonists orders.

[_sabotage_]

We provided them the weapons, or at least NATO did, quite directly in Libya, less directly in Syria, and covertly in Chechnya, Afghan and others.

If they are using our weapons, and they are cashing our cheques after succeeding in our training programs, and we continue to provide them with cheques, I would suggest they work for us.

[saxitoxin]

We provided them the weapons, or at least NATO did, quite directly in Libya, less directly in Syria, and covertly in Chechnya, Afghan and others.

If they are using our weapons, and they are cashing our cheques after succeeding in our training programs, and we continue to provide them with cheques, I would suggest they work for us.

Clearly the Saudis, Qataris, NATO and the Zionists support Al Qaeda. You think that support involves a complex program of nurturing a puppy to adulthood, training it to sic on command. I contend their support is much more simpleton and is just a crude, morally obtuse policy of unchaining a rabid dog and letting it attack anything that moves, in the hope it will bite their enemies a few more times than it will bite themselves.

The evidence for George Bush's advance knowledge of 9/11 comes down to a string of assumptions based on a worldview that perceives patterns in nature as always being the result of sinister forces if no other explanation is available. It's a 21st century version of a witchcraft panic.

[_sabotage_]

Excellent, so we agree, Bin Laden was a part of Al Qaeda, or a database, as he was a person who would be on it, someone who was trained and had received weapons at one time from the CIA. He was not the leader of it, just had his own little hub that had once been active against the Russians.

So if he isn't the leader of a massive international terrorist network as presented, who was he, who were his followers, who were the people used in 9/11 and how was he able to succeed?

He is a son of Bush family friends and business associates in Saudi Arabia with a failing kidney losing his small fight in Afghanistan.

Who were his followers? A small group of Islamic fundamentalist who thought they could start revolutions.

From what can be seen of the proposed 19 hijackers, they showed no sign of Islamist fundamentalism. They had few skills. They were open and obvious. Some of them had ties to our military, but that is hardly surprising or damning.

Did they all come from the same place? No they came from a wide area. Were they devout? No, they drank, gambled, went to strip clubs.

He was able to succeed because we had no defense that day.

Are we able to agree on these points and move forward?

[saxitoxin]

Excellent, so we agree, Bin Laden was a part of Al Qaeda, or a database, as he was a person who would be on it, someone who was trained and had received weapons at one time from the CIA. He was not the leader of it, just had his own little hub that had once been active against the Russians.

So if he isn't the leader of a massive international terrorist network as presented, who was he, who were his followers, who were the people used in 9/11 and how was he able to succeed?

He is a son of Bush family friends and business associates in Saudi Arabia with a failing kidney losing his small fight in Afghanistan.

Who were his followers? A small group of Islamic fundamentalist who thought they could start revolutions.

From what can be seen of the proposed 19 hijackers, they showed no sign of Islamist fundamentalism. They had few skills. They were open and obvious. Some of them had ties to our military, but that is hardly surprising or damning.

Did they all come from the same place? No they came from a wide area. Were they devout? No, they drank, gambled, went to strip clubs.

He was able to succeed because we had no defense that day.

Are we able to agree on these points and move forward?

Everything highlighted in red, whether true or not, is unrelated to the question as to whether George Bush was warned in advance a plane would crash into the WTC during the 8:00 hour September 11, 2001.

Again, you're taking disjointed pieces of information and self-arranging them into patterns you contend can only be explained through the action of sinister, unseen forces. The goal is to create a sense of mystery. It's the same reason Alex Jones plays spooky synthesizer music beneath his YouTube videos or Jesse Ventura shoots his TV show in a room with all the lights turned off or Luke Rudkowski dresses like he's on his way to a gay porn shoot.

Evidence is mutually supporting documentation and witness testimony. Evidence is not unexplained coincidences (except in the Salem Witch Trials).

Everything highlighted in green is sophistry needed to contribute to the sense of mystery. For the last ten years, MSM and the USG have fallen over themselves claiming Al Qaeda is a decentralized, cell-based organization. I can't recall a single instance in which OBL was presented as "the [functional] leader of a massive international terrorist network."

[_sabotage_]

Wow, now you are back to organization, when you had just admitted it was a database.

Which is it? Are the Libyan Al Qaeda that we gave weapons to to overthrow Qaddafi and who are currently using them to wage war in Mali, in an organization with Bin Laden or in a database with him?

[saxitoxin]

Wow, now you are back to organization, when you had just admitted it was a database.

I just did a CTRL+F search on the last two pages and I haven't used the word "database" nor am I even sure what it means.

Again, similar to your "the leader of a massive international terrorist network as presented", this is how the conspiracy theory is built. It's a series of verifiable facts seamlessly linked except for a few gaps. The gaps are filled by things that sound like they could be true, even if there's no evidence for them, or - in fact - contra-evidence.

I believe that 2+2=4. You believe that 2+2=4 but equations that are just one or two numbers off - like 1+2, or 3+0 - could, potentially, also equal 4.

[_sabotage_]

Ok, thank you for whatever that was, back to my question, Are the Libyan Al Qaeda that we gave weapons to to overthrow Qaddafi and who are currently using them to wage war in Mali, in an organization with Bin Laden or in a database with him?

[john9blue]

can i ask why lots of people in this thread react with such hostility to conspiracy theories? what threat do they pose to you? are you afraid that someone might know something that you don't? are you afraid that what you think you know might be wrong? are you afraid of alternative lines of inquiry into an event? do you only have the balls to insult people for being wrong when you severely outnumber them?

i mean you people just accept the official story and then spew your usual bullshit about how the "burden of proof isn't on you" when someone makes an alternative hypothesis. learn to defend your own opinions, you fucking sheep. i don't necessarily agree with most of what sabotage is posting... but most of the people in this thread are utterly retarded.

[BigBallinStalin]

J9B, we thank you for your criticism. Surely, you agree that conspiracy theories must be rigorously tested, and the assumptions of each argument should be stated clearly, which has been my goal ITT.

I admit that some conspiracy theories have merit, but sometimes particular claims require further inquiry, so that we can prevent our imaginations from masking speculation under the guise of certainty.