Did Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld gang "do" 9/11?

[Andrew Johnson]

I think the most telling evidense from the JFK fiasco was the fact that even a riflery pro couldnt aim and fire that weapon 3 times and hit a small target in a car from that distance......One shot..difficult but not for a pro....

3 shots...impossible.

And dude wasnt a ranked rifleman.


And if something huge like that can be covered up, so can other situations....

I'm afraid you're wrong. This has been tested multiple times, by people not even trained by the military.

I saw a documentary about the Kennedy assassination on the Discovery Channel (or the History Channel, can't remember), and it showed that every aspect of the Oswald theory is entirely plausible. In no way does it fall apart on a scientific level.

I don't think there's any conspiracy here. There's no way that guy made those shots. There's no way anyone that's ever shouldered a rifle believes he did it either. For one guy to pull off all those shots, he'd have to have one hell of a resume'. Oswald was a stooge.

Did I express my "cognitive disonance" disorder in this post?

[Andrew Johnson]

...And further more your use of the term cognitive disonance is a fallacious twist of the definition.

I checked. Hey, it's in print at Wikipedia must be true.

Cognitive dissonance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Cognitive dissonance is a condition first proposed by the psychologist Leon Festinger in 1956, relating to his hypothesis of cognitive consistency.

Cognitive dissonance is a state of opposition between cognitions. Cognitive dissonance is a perceived inconsistency between two congnitions in which the person believes one thing but then acts in a different way from what they believed. For the purpose of cognitive dissonance theory, cognitions are defined as being an any element of knowlege attitude, emotion, belief or value, as well as a goal, plan, or an interest. In brief, the theory of cognitive dissonance holds that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the human mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to minimize the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions.

The main criticism of the cognitive consistency hypothesis is that it is impossible to verify or falsify by experiment. Even so, experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Opponents of this hypothesis cite the apparent ability of many human beings to reconcile mutually exclusive or contradictory beliefs with no apparent stress, though the original theory would suggest that such beliefs were not psychologically important.

In economics this term is also called buyer's remorse. This post-purchase behavior is more likely to happen when the purchase is a more expensive one. The consumer may experience some regrets or questioning as to whether the purchase was a good one. This is the fifth step in the decision making process. Marketers can help eliminate this by properly selling the product and doing a follow-up to help reinforce the buyer's "good" decision.

[Andrew Johnson]

...And further more your use of the term cognitive disonance is a fallacious twist of the definition.

Look at me, I'm so smart I can't even spell it.

[chefmike]

...And further more your use of the term cognitive disonance is a fallacious twist of the definition.

I checked. Hey, it's in print at Wikipedia must be true.

Cognitive dissonance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Cognitive dissonance is a condition first proposed by the psychologist Leon Festinger in 1956, relating to his hypothesis of cognitive consistency.

Cognitive dissonance is a state of opposition between cognitions. Cognitive dissonance is a perceived inconsistency between two congnitions in which the person believes one thing but then acts in a different way from what they believed. For the purpose of cognitive dissonance theory, cognitions are defined as being an any element of knowlege attitude, emotion, belief or value, as well as a goal, plan, or an interest. In brief, the theory of cognitive dissonance holds that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the human mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to minimize the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions.

The main criticism of the cognitive consistency hypothesis is that it is impossible to verify or falsify by experiment. Even so, experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Opponents of this hypothesis cite the apparent ability of many human beings to reconcile mutually exclusive or contradictory beliefs with no apparent stress, though the original theory would suggest that such beliefs were not psychologically important.

In economics this term is also called buyer's remorse. This post-purchase behavior is more likely to happen when the purchase is a more expensive one. The consumer may experience some regrets or questioning as to whether the purchase was a good one. This is the fifth step in the decision making process. Marketers can help eliminate this by properly selling the product and doing a follow-up to help reinforce the buyer's "good" decision.

Interesting. It would appear that Karl Rove aka Bush's brain is familiar with that, judging by shrubya's recent attempts at credibility.

[KD]

I've been wating to respond to this thread since I read it. There's alot too it. Let's go down the list. 9/11 is way too big to break down in just one post, but i'll try to answer questions, give y'all a better lead on things.

First, Yes I agree, most of the 9/11 websites are garbage. But, the 9/11 timeline is not garbage and its backed by every media source. It gives us a history of events.

Now, lets start at the beginning. Planning 9/11. This is the biggest problem of 9/11. Did some Arabs crazy muther fuckers do it? Or our own people?

I personally think Osama Bin Laden was involved, I think he OK'd it. On 9/11, I was home at 5 am PST watching CNN, I was getting up for my 7 am job. The first thought that came to my mind was Osama Bin Laden. Then again, I've read about the Middle East for years, so this attack was no suprise to me. In fact, I thought it was long over due. The US has fucked with so many people and countries, this was bound to happen.

Question #1 Did the US plan these attacks or was it Osama Bin Laden?

The Evidence for a US citizen planning these attacks is small, but possible. Some of you don't think a country will attack it's own citizens. Think Again. It has happened before, I'll give a couple examples.

First there was Nero. Though he cant be directly blamed for buring his own city. (it happened 2000 years ago, 64 AD) what was written about it relates to Bush today. I'll Quote Tactius, a roman historian at the time.

"And so, to get rid of this rumor, Nero set up [i.e., falsely accused] as the culprits and punished with the utmost refinement of cruelty a class hated for their abominations, who are commonly called Christians. Nero’s scapegoats (the Christians) were the perfect choice because it temporarily relieved pressure of the various rumors going around Rome. Christus (Jesus), from whom their name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. Checked for a moment, this pernicious superstition again broke out, not only in Iudaea, the source of the evil, but even in Rome... Accordingly, arrest was first made of those who confessed; then, on their evidence, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much on the charge of arson as because of [their] hatred for the human race. Besides being put to death they were made to serve as objects of amusement; they were clothed in the hides of beasts and torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others set on fire to serve to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open his grounds for the display, and was putting on a show in the circus, where he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or drove about in his chariot. All this gave rise to a feeling of pity, even towards men whose guilt merited the most exemplary punishment; for it was felt that they were being destroyed not for the public good but to gratify the cruelty of an individual."

Now, noone knew who set fire to Rome in 64 AD, but Nero was very quick to blame Christians. Sound familiar?

Example #2 Your Favorite guy and mine, Adolph Hitler. From Wikipedia, you can get your own source if you wish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolph_hitler

And I'll Quote.

After the Reichstag was set on fire (for which the communists were blamed), the Reichstag Fire Decree (28 February) suspended basic rights including habeas corpus and in the resulting legal confusion the entire Communist Party and some quarter of the SPD were un-constitutionally arrested, put to flight or murdered under this general cover.

Despite evident questions concerning the perpetration of the Reichstag Fire, and resulting calls for cancellation of the elections, Hitler successfully utilised the full novel force of State broadcasting and aviation in a massive modern general election campaign. This period was characterised by extremely strong anti-Semitic and anti-Communist propaganda. On 6 March 1933, after elections marred by paramilitary violence the Communists vote decreased by 4 per cent, and the Social Democrats by 2 per cent, with thus their representation in the Reichstag little changed. The Nazis received an increase to 43.9% of the vote. This brought the coalition between them and the DNVP into a slim but absolute majority.

Hitler's extant parliamentary majority was however to be much exacerbated through the un-constitutional preventative detention of the Communist deputies, carried over from before the elections. The manner in which Hitler excluded them and their mandates from parliament revolved on an Interior Minister settlement with the Reichstag Elders . This amounted to a change of procedure categorising them as voluntarily absent and achieved thereby the necessary long-term Hitler aim of legal appearance for NSDAP policy of subverting democracy from within .


Hindenburg greets Chancellor Hitler at Reichstag opening ceremonyAt an impressive opening ceremony of the Reichstag, held in the replacement parliament building on 21 March, both Hindenburg and the world press were impressed by Hitler's apparent acceptance of constitutional government.

Hmmm, Sound Like the patriot Act? Well, it was called the Enabling Act. Same, thing, Hitler attacked his own people to garner support.

Do you think the US would actually think about attacking its own people? YES. It has. Let me show you operation Northwoods. Granted, the US didn't implement this plan. But, it was written down and documented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwood

and I quote.

Operation Northwoods or Northwoods was a 1962 plan to generate U.S. public support for military action against Cuba. The plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real domestic terror attacks (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. soil. The plan was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the highest ranking member of the US military, the Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff,

The proposal was presented in a document entitled "Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba," a draft memorandum pdf) written by the Department of Defense (DoD) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) representative to the Caribbean Survey Group. The draft memo was presented by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13 with one paragraph approved, as a preliminary submission for planning purposes. However, McNamara rejected the proposal.

Notice how the Operation Northwood plan calls for Hijacking planes. And thy didnt think people would fly planes into buildings? Well, lets see. So hijacking planes was not thought of eh?

How about this? Operation Bojinka

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bojinka

Oplan Bojinka (also known as Operation Bojinka, Project Bojinka, Bojinka Plot, Bojinga, possibly from Arabic: بجنكة – slang in many dialects for explosion and pronounced Bo-JIN-ka, except in Egyptian where it is Bo-GIN-ka) was a planned large-scale attack on airliners in 1995, and was a precursor to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Several media outlets, including TIME Asia [1], claim that the word Bojinka means "loud bang" or "explosion" in Serbo-Croatian. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed fought with Muslim fighters in Bosnia and supported this effort financially [2]. Endnote 7 of Chapter 5 of the 9/11 Commission Report states that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed claims that "bojinka" is "a nonsense word he adopted after hearing it on the front lines in Afghanistan." In English, the acronym "BOHICA" for 'Bend Over Here It Comes Again' is common military slang which refers to an incoming enemy attack, often bombs and is also used in online chat, e-mail, or newsgroup postings.

Not all media or text that refer to Oplan Bojinka will call it by that name.

Everything I;ve posted is available from the Freedom of Information Act.

Now, lets get past this , OMG, the US cant attack its own citizens stance to, OMG, what the fuck happened on 9/11.

and Republicans, Fuck you too.

Now, WTC Building 7, is a whole new topic and I'd be glad to discuss it.

KD

[Quinn]

EdelweissFan,

I’ve read through a number of the articles listed on 911Timeline website. The assertions put forth on this site are supported by an interesting array of articles. While some of these articles involve really good reporting, some of the others are questionable at best.

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t.../11=randyGlass

The above linked group of articles makes the assertion that the administration was forewarned of the attacks on 9/11 by a con artist and international arms dealer named Randy Glass. From my perspective, the basis of these articles – that Randy Glass was an arms dealer who had the appropriate connections to come by such information and acted accordingly – is suspect at best. Beneath the August 17, 1999, article, there is a picture of the aforementioned Mr. Glass standing there with a supposed Singer Missile. There are, however, two major problems with that picture:

1) That’s not a Stinger Missile or, more appropriately, a Stinger Missile Launcher. It’s a common AT4, which is designed for use against armor, not planes.
2) This supposed international arms dealer doesn’t even know how to hold an AT4 because he is pointing it the wrong way (backwards). Given that anyone who has completed basic training in the U.S. Army knows how to properly hold and fire an AT4, this is a stunning oversight for a supposed arms dealer.

This is only one of a number of serious inaccuracies contained in these articles, and, no, I am not going to go through the trouble of individually listing all of them.

Look, I am not saying that our government is not routinely involved in covert dealings that would disgust the average person if they knew about them; what I am saying is that our government isn’t capable of successfully pulling off an operation on the scale of 9/11 and then keeping it a secret. Once again, if the NSA can’t keep secret something as mundane as spying on the communications of US citizens, how are we to believe that multiple agencies – across multiple governments – can keep a supposed 9/11 conspiracy under wraps? IMO, it isn’t possible. Still, there are some very interesting bits of info being presented that are worthy of consideration; I just don’t see enough accurate information to convince me that 9/11 was a government conspiracy.

-Quinn

[EdelweissFan]

Quinn, Thanks for having an open mind. Since you responded seriously rather than dismissively, let me be a bit more frank about what I'm getting at. At first, all I wanted to ask in the post was what people thought -- kind of a poll. But since you raise questions about whether such a big "conspiracy" could be pulled off, let me answer it this way.

First of all, I should mention an experience I had. Many years ago, I lived in a third world country that was undergoing a revolution. It was a strange experience. There were security police and underground revolutionaries and foreigners all with their fingers in the pot. The weird part though, was that none of the lines between these forces was nearly as clear as you would expect. Underground "comrades" were routinely warned of raids by trusted police sources; and some comrades were suspected of being informers. At first, you try to draw lines and figure out who is who, who is lying. But after a long talk with a woman who was both working for the government and working for the "movement" I realized that there were no lines to be drawn. It's every man for himself; everyone is playing a double game. Even the players don't know what side they're on; they're just trying to make sure that whoever wins, they'll have some someone to get their back.

That's what I've come to conclude about bin Laden et al. Yes, they hate America and want to kill Americans. They planned and carried out terrorist events including 9/11. But they also were funded by the Americans through Pakistan for decades. Pakistan ISI leverages its money from the west for operations in Afghanistan, by engaging in widespread drug trafficking (Afghanistan produces most of the world's opium), creating networks of partially governmental, partially free-lance drug trafficking, money-laundering and arms dealing.

OBL knows that as much as the Pentagon might cut loose a cruise missile and grease him instantly at any time, there are members of the intelligence-drugs-money laundering-oil -arms dealing networks he's worked in (including his brother, partner with Poppy Bush in the Carlyle Group) with deep reach back at the DOD and CIA that might warn him because he could be useful in the future for other purposes. When French news outlets reported that CIA agents visited OBL in Dubai in July 2001, I don't assume that those agents were "part of the conspiracy"; they themselves probably didn't know whether to arrest the guy or give him a black bag of cash, given how contradictory the commands coming down the chain from headquarters are: OBL is the most wanted criminal on earth; but the White House says back off OBL, the Taliban and al Qaeda, because we're on the brink of a pipeline deal from the Causasus to Pakistan by way of Afghanistan.

Ultimately all the information flows up to the White House and commands flow down. In the summer of 2001, George Tenet at CIA, and Richard Clarke, counter-terrorism czar were screaming every day that OBL was going to attack the US using hijacked air planes, and their superiors, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld seemed not to care. This was not a big conspiracy. As Colin Powell has leaked, the entire foreign policy was hijacked by what he called a neo-con cabal -- he also called them "crazies" and "black shirts" -- consisting of a very few people. These are the same people who wrote just one year earlier that they hoped for a "Pearl Harbor" event, that would justify a vast increase in defense spending, the seizure of Iraq's oil, the domination of Black Sea oil that used to be Russia's oil, the conquest of Afghanistan for an oil pipeline to get that out.

We know from the summer 2001 PDB that Bush was specifically warned of these attacks, but did nothing to operationalize the CIA or DOD to stop the plot. The Israeli Mossad, as well as German, Russian, Jordanian, and Eqyptian intelligence agencies are all providing urgent, desperate warning to the CIA that the attacks are coming, and when that doesn't work some try to go straight to the top, but the Bush administration, bizarrely does nothing. US intelligence agencies were probably listening to every word Mohammed Atta said on his cell phone, even after "Able Danger" supposedly stopped listening, but information flows up and out of the NSA (which is not an operational organization) to the White House, where the dimwitted Bush believes he is taking direct instructions from Jesus, but Cheney and Rumsfeld are intent on carrying out the PNAC planning document they wrote. Cheney's energy task force has already divided up Iraq's oil fields, and plotted out the pipeline routes through Afghanistan (according to mainstream news reports), and Rumsfeld's DOD already has a plan of invasion for both countries. In the days before 9/11, US military leaders, Atty Gen Ashcroft, SF Mayor Willie Brown, Israeli PM Sharon, and many others stop flying commercial airlines because of the threat that everyone knows about; tens of millions of dollars of money flow into put options, shorting the major airlines because a lot of people know what is about to happen. As reported in local papers, even a Brooklyn school boy, part of the Atlantic Avenue Arab-American community, absent mindedly points out the window to the world trade towers, visible from his classroom and tells his teacher that in a couple of days those towers will be destroyed.

This scenario is called by researchers, LIHOP or "let it happen on purpose." That's evil enough -- enough for a treason conviction.

But I can easily imagine a few additional acts just among this small group to make it what other researchers call MIHOP or "make it happen on purpose." Someone or some network kept the money flowing from Pakistan's ISI and Saudi "charities" to Mohammed Atta, even though official intelligence sources know this; someone or something planned the confusing military exercises for 9/11; someone scheduled FEMA to be in NYC on 9/10/01, carrying out a vast counter-terrorism exercise as a "coincidence".

BTW, you make the point that it is unlikely that this conspiracy could be kept secret. Why is there no whistle blower? But there is: her name is Sibel Edmonds. She was a translator for the FBI, rushed into service after 9/11 to translate all those FBI and NSA recordings. She says that the things she heard painted a picture of a whole different world of links between terrorism, arms dealing, drug trafficking and money laundering and tried to tell her story to the media, and even appeared on 60 Minutes. But she is the most judicially gagged person in American history slapped with restraining orders and threatened with jail. She says that if she is allowed to tell her story you will understand what really happened on 9/11, but most of the political leadership of the country would go to jail. She is still waiting to tell her story.

[jt money]

Now all you have to do is prove it and when you do, no, I will love him no more. Good luck!

Your admission of love for our current president is very telling. I don't know of ANY politician that I LOVE. At best, I might think they are doing a good or decent job, but never enough where I absolutely love them.

Love is blind. When you have that much blind love for a politician, it's impossible for you to see any of their faults or admit when they have done something wrong.

Therefore, meaningful debate is useless.

That's unfair of you. He was responding to someone who said "would you still love [bush]" if he was responsible. jt was just responding using their terms.

Not at all. He could have told that person that he did not have love for the President. He could have used his own words.

If he disagreed with that term, he could have easily said so. By going along with it, it shows he agreed.

Wow, truly insightful! I'm flattered you take so much interest in what I say and hey, maybe you are onto something here. Well, no, not so much.

As previously posted, the original question was: "To the republicans here, if it was proven to you that bush was involved would you STILL love him so much?"

Try not to get yourself so worked up over a little humor.

[TrueBeauty TS]

Now all you have to do is prove it and when you do, no, I will love him no more. Good luck!

Your admission of love for our current president is very telling. I don't know of ANY politician that I LOVE. At best, I might think they are doing a good or decent job, but never enough where I absolutely love them.

Love is blind. When you have that much blind love for a politician, it's impossible for you to see any of their faults or admit when they have done something wrong.

Therefore, meaningful debate is useless.

That's unfair of you. He was responding to someone who said "would you still love [bush]" if he was responsible. jt was just responding using their terms.

Not at all. He could have told that person that he did not have love for the President. He could have used his own words.

If he disagreed with that term, he could have easily said so. By going along with it, it shows he agreed.

Wow, truly insightful! I'm flattered you take so much interest in what I say and hey, maybe you are onto something here. Well, no, not so much.

As previously posted, the original question was: "To the republicans here, if it was proven to you that bush was involved would you STILL love him so much?"

Try not to get yourself so worked up over a little humor.

Eh.... nice try. You can say whatever you want, but how you say things are just as important as what you say. I don't believe you were joking or being in a light hearted mood at all. There was no indicator such as LOL, , etc. Now you are just trying to save face. Or... maybe you are just not very good at communicating. LOL

Anyway, thanks for thinking of my welfare, but don't worry, I'm not really worked up over you. But thanks for caring about me!!!!

[DJ_Asia]

Edelweiss,

Nice post.

BTW did a Google on Sibel Edmonds...some interesting reading.Thanks for the info.

DJ Asia