[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Ah, but I can – particularly in relation to the top secret national security programs regarding wireless communications that were leaked to the press, the fight between the state and defense departments over Iraq, which was leaked all over the press, or seemingly anything else the Bush administration has tried to keep secret. And don’t forget, this would require secrecy across party lines, across agencies, departments, levels of government, etc.
Inner Hulk wrote:
You’re still thinking of such an attack with across the board involvement. That’s ridiculous. Not only would multiple agencies, departments, or levels of government not be needed, but it’d be ridiculously stupid to include so many people.
Are you telling me that any covert operation the US government carries out requires secrecy across party lines, agencies, departments, levels of govt, etc? No, of course not.[/quote]
So then, how did they coordinate the response - including the first responders, holding down the military - and control all of the post 9/11 inquiry - Congressional, 9/11 committee, agency internal?
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Let me try to explain this more clearly for you. The competence to carry out the hijacking and attack in the manner claimed by the government would be infinitesimally less than the competence required to pull off not only the hijacking and attack, but also to coordinate and rig all of the responses, and then to keep it secret during the attack, the response, and afterward. And each person required to pull off the attack and any part of the response would not only have to completely buy in, but then not have an attack of conscience or even a drunk bender and confession afterward. Not to mention all the friends and relatives of the various claimed conspiracy participants – U.S. citizens all – that couldn’t find out or would have to agree to keep the secret. You think Bush couldn’t get cooperation from the Dems to pass social security reform but could get buy off on an attack against the U.S.? You think Rumsfeld could earn the emnity of all those career officers on the Joint Chiefs by trying to ram home his preferred reforms prior to 9/11 but get a bunch of them to sign off on an attack on U.S. soil to achieve some of those goals?
Inner Hulk wrote:
Again, you’re running on the assumption that such an operation would require thousands of people. That is stupid. It wouldn’t require that many people, the story you buy into proves that quite nicely.[/quote]
See above.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
And don’t forget the foreign intelligence angle. We know that our allies spy on us, as well as our not-so-friendlies. Did they buy off on the whole thing too – or did we magically manage to fool all of them as well? Of was it JTF’s cabal of world-controlling Jews ordering all the other governments to keep the truth bottled up?
Inner Hulk wrote:
World controlling Jews? What? LoL. Look just because I don’t buy the bullshit the US government is spewing doesn’t mean I buy into every conspiracy presented. You can try to throw that all at me but it can’t stick, next you’ll claim I wear a tin hat and believe we didn’t land on the moon. [/quote]
I don’t think it would surprise anyone following this exchange if that were the case. Nor would anyone be surprised if you got your history on the Kennedy assassination from Oliver Stone.
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
I will say though, that’s a good way to attempt to make someone seem less credible is to insert an unrelated theory into an argument which has no relevance here. Fuck off.[/quote]
Which of your arguments have been relevant?
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Nixon couldn’t even get a proper burglary pulled off. The Bay of Pigs operation under Kennedy was a complete farce. And the Bush administration is supposed to be able to have coordinated something like this, in cooperation with the non-administration military, the CIA and FBI, the Congressional select committees who have examined this?
Inner Hulk wrote:
Yes, let’s compare failed operations from 30 to 40 years ago. There have been no technological advances during that time period. None at all that would help operations become more efficient, more effective, and much more secure. I wonder for the number of failed covert ops you can name how many successes there were in comparison. I’m guessing a lot.[/quote]
All the technology in the world doesn’t help the incompetence problem – Katrina was so long ago. And they sure managed to keep a lid on those telecom surveillance programs. And such a superb job coordinating the Plame issues at the highest levels. How many leaks came out of the CIA in the last few years?
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Go read some more Robert Ludlum and keep those fantasy wheels a turnin’.
Inner Hulk wrote:
You think that 19 arabs with one inch blades were able to get the drop on the most advanced national air and defense system in the world. Keep those fantasy wheels a turnin’.[/quote]
The best defenses in the world only need to have one weakness to be exploited - and I would hope you wouldn’t argue with the premise that we have a few more than one.
Not only could they do that - because the box cutters weren’t illegal at the time, and because the FAA refused to mandate steel doors for the cockpits - but even now, with all the supposed improvements, they routinely demonstrate that guns and weapons can get through the screening stations in airports.
The problem was that pre 9/11, the mindset was not turned toward people using the aircraft as weapons. Even with the failed Bojinka Plot, no one had actually done it – hijackers took over planes demanded stuff, and then landed or parachuted out.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
The questions that need to be answered most immediately are why the U.S. intelligence and counter-intelligence services are still incompetent to address terrorist threats at home.
Inner Hulk wrote:
Because funds are being funneled into the military industrial complex which was the goal all along? Haven’t you ever read anything by Wolfowitz or PNAC?[/quote]
Yeah, more money would cure all the incompetence problems… And the FBIs bureaucratic structure is of major interest to Boeing. What are you smoking?
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
The problem with those of you who rush off into la-la land is that you don’t want to deal with the reality that government is inept. It’s a huge collection of individuals, who each have individual agendas and motivations and need to be organized logistically to achieve any big goal. It’s much more comforting to you to latch on to a ridiculous [u][i]“THEORY”[/u][/i] like a baby’s binky - one with an extremely low probability at that - than to contemplate that there is no monolith omnipotent “government” actor, nor, to JTF’s chagrin, some powerful cabal of Jewish bankers secretly pulling all the strings.
Inner Hulk wrote:
The government is inept?!? Shocker!!! At the same time, it’s extremely comforting to you to latch on to ridiculous theories that the Muslims are coming than to even entertain the idea that perhaps there is a domestic enemy. I don’t understand why you’re so opposed to even the slightest possibility of foul play in regards to 9/11. Why is that? Is it that you completely and utterly refuse to believe that Cheney and Co are above killing americans? Have they not sent thousands of American soldiers to death in Iraq? And for what? Profits, oil, foothold in the middle east. And yet they could never be accused of attacking US soil in attempt to frame a figure head in the ME? Really??? That’s so wildly ridiculous??? [/quote]
It’s a wildly improbable thesis with not a shred of hard evidence to back it up, fueled by the emotion of the “Bush is evil” crowd – what would make anyone believe that?
My disgust with the whole thing arises from the fact I met people who died on that flight that hit the Pentagon, and it disgusts me that anyone would try to politicize this tragedy. It truly disgusts me that many people don’t have the baseline intellect to recognize these theories for the putrid crap they are. No one with any understanding of how the government - or any big company or any large group of interests - works could ever believe this idiocy.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
…
1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.
Inner Hulk wrote:
Ah, the 93 bombing that the FBI had an informant in? That one? Strange how that attack was still carried out though, huh? [/quote]
Are you ##&$@! kiddin’ me? So the conspiracy threaded back through the Clinton presidency as well, eh? That Cheney sure was pulling some strings…
Take Dean Wormer’s advice from Animal House: “Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son.”
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:1995
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.
1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.
2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.
Inner Hulk wrote:
I won’t argue there haven’t been attacks carried out by terrorists. What I’m saying is that there are numerous indicators that something is terribly wrong with the official 9.11 story and foul play should be suspected.
I simply can’t understand conservative douche bags who tout to love America but didn’t demand that every stone be turned in the investigation of 9/11 or are willing to let certain aspects just drift away with time. You dishonor america and the families of 9/11. [/quote]
Nice - no comment on the Bojinka Plot eh? Bojinka plot - Wikipedia
What’s wrong - don’t like the idea that al Queda planned very similar attacks earlier?
Nothing is drifting away with time save the opportunity to actually address the real deficiencies that led to 9/11. Idiots such as yourself continue to distract from the real issues that need to be redressed.
But keep trying to find the non-existent conspiracy. I’m sure nothing would help the 9/11 families more than squandering time, effort, resources and opportunity on chasing non-existent bogeymen while ignoring the chance to address the issues that might actually help prevent such tragedies from recurring.
