What was the Purpose of 911 ?

create a world wide Islam o-fascist empire ?

an excuse for endless war and war profit ?

pretext for a total POLICE state in the good ol USA ?

pretext for a world wide Christan Fundy crusade against Muslims ?

other ? ........

why didn't "they" make the hijackers Iraqi? Since "they" have the means to arrange for a massive cover up, or mini-nukes, or hologram airplanes, or wiring up two enormous buildings with thermite or explosives that don't act like actual thermite or explosives, or secreting four airliners away to Area 51, or any number of other bullshit scenarios that get brought up around here, why not invent hijackers that were actually Iraqi's or Afghanistani's? Why not plant actual WMD's in Iraq?

all Arab peoples in order for us to go along with invading all those ME countries that are on the PNAC wishlist. That's why they tried to tie 911 to Iraq. Next maybe is Iran.
The rest of your post shows your ignorance of the 911 movements purpose IMHO. :eyes:
Welcome to the dungeon!

"all those ME countries that are on the PNAC wishlist"?

This is his (rather long) fatwa:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

A reading of his fatwa shows that he was very pissed that infidel Americans had been invited onto Saudi soil.

Tim Osman........

And he issued the fatwa when? 1996?

You do know that time moves forward and not backward, right?

Sid

One can't ignore history. Particularly in this case.

by removing most of the American troops form Saudi soil.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/weiner6.html

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." PNAC

Did you ever completely read the document in question?

Do you think there is any possibility that it is a blueprint for American military and economic dominance through the 21 st century?

I gag everytime someone cites this as a proof that neo-cons planned 9/11. It demonstrates a lack of reading comprehension and a lack of understanding of position papers. The operative phrase is 'absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event'. This is not the same thing as saying 'we are going to *create* some catastrophic and catylizing event'.

I said it answers the question asked by the OP. That's all.

Have fun arguing with your strawmen.

such as the Aug 6, 2001 PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack"...

The administration had advanced warnings, but ignored them and allowed the attacks to happen so that they could have their 'catastrophic and catylizing event'. How much comprehension does it take to figure *that* out?

BTW... how's that whole 'military and economic dominance through the 21st century' thingie working out for them? They've wrecked the military AND the economy, haven't they?

:shrug:

Forgive me, I'm slow... whose hubris?

I meant the hubris of the Bush Administration.

:hi:

than if it is brought to light latter (SEE THE PENTAGON PAPERS)

Taken in the contect of the complete document, you sincerely believe that the authors of the PNAC document were announcing plans to attack America? Can you explain why on earth anyone would be so foolish as to do this?

I know, I know.

in pops ole boosh on the back of the supreme court and viola...wishes do come true, and it could happen to you if your evil at heart!

Do you believe they were announcing their intentions to *cause* such an event?

what actually happened on 9/11 the largest EVAH!!! attack on amercian soil and we get less than we got when Kennedy was assasinated..what is wrong with THAT PICTURE?

Both Bush and Bin Laden can act out their roles and play to the prejudices of their respective bases safe in the knowledge that the financiers will profit as long as there are "cannon fodder units" on both sides to feed into the war machine.

and the overthrow of american democracy

Lat I heard there were primaries being held and we're on schedule for an election this coming November.

Now, if you're referring to the failure of the Congress to act properly to stop Bush's wars and overturn his executive overreach, that is a failure of our elected representatives, not our democracy.

We do live in a republic, after all. There is no clause in our constitution that compels our leaders to do what we want. You just have to throw the fuckers out regularly.

software to win a race. if done in one election then one should hold suspect all elections that this can be done too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEzY2tnwExs

proven in a court of law.

Has anyone been charged in the Ohio vote of '04? Have any DAs brought charges against any corporations, lobbyists or politicians?

would the democrats allow it since proving that one part of the electoral system is fraudulent would bring the whole system into serious doubt. how do you know that charges weren't attempted to be filed only to be squashed by political leaders who would be hurt by the fraud and other problems being exposed.

our elections are rigged and that some cabal is preventing any remedy. You then, I believe, asked me to show that they are not. That's not the way it usually works - the person making the allegations should provide supporting data.

I did read up some on the Clint Curtis affair, and it seems that no one can prove anything - more of a he-said-she-said deal.

FWIW - I believe our election systems are flawed in that in any close contest it will always be absolutely impossible to determine with absolute certainty voter intent in every case. It is the nature of a system with so many input variables (voters) to have a large amount of statistical deadband in the output (count). In that regard, the election system will always be in doubt.

I also never quite got on board the whole exit poll thing. It seems to me that it would be possible for the pollsters to oversample one demographic, either accidently or deliberately, skewing the outcome. Voters could also mis-report their vote for any number of reasons. I can't prove any of this, any more than one can prove election fraud.

The whole system is fraught with some built-in uncertainty.

ETA - wasn't the NH Dem primary outcome very different from the exit polls? I know that before the sun had set people were charging that the election had been 'stolen'. As usual, no one can prove anything.

ETA - I completely agree that there are people who would love to alter election results, and that the technology to do so probably exists. I also believe that this phenomenon is not new and has in fact been going on for many decades. The 1960 Presidential election had a certain stench to it, especially in the Illinois vote. No one could prove anything and Nixon was wise to gracefully accept the outcome.

in that neither contention can be proven. so in the end I will figure that the elections are fraudulent and you will figure that the exit polls and other election fraud detection systems are flawed.

I gather you aren't very familiar with racetracks and off-track betting systems.

http://www.unitedtote.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=uHiShvjVgDQ%3D&tabid=81&mid=516

Once again, United Tote Company’s wagering terminals and back office totalisator system supported wagering increases for the 2004 Kentucky Derby. This year, United Tote’s system processed a record $137,581,444 in wagers for all 12 races hosted by Churchill Downs on Saturday May 1, 2004 — a 4% increase over the wagering record set in 2003, and a new North American record for betting on a single event and race day.


A relative of mine in the tote industry says that if they ran race totes with the expectations of voting systems, they'd all be fired.

Each race at each track is an election that is processed with perfect accuracy among usually around 7 or so candidates, and a number of combination "votes" for various bets other than the win, place, and show pools. The results are calculated and reported in near real time right up to post. The track pools are augmented by the OTB system which allows simulcast viewers to bet in the same pari-mutuel pool worldwide.

Any horseplayer knows that accurate large elections are not only possible, but they are run hundreds of times every day.

However, it does seem to me that there are a few problems with this analogy...

1. There is no disputing who wins a horse race. The race is called by high-speed cameras and is not determined by the gamblers (voters).

2. There is no geographic mish-mash of data entry methods that require interpreting the gambler's (voter's) intent. I assume all the input is done on a touch-screen type terminal and recorded electronically. If the gambler makes the wrong choice, it does not affect the outcome of the race. The outcome depends only on the horses, not the gamblers.

The problem with close elections is that half the people who participate hate the outcome. Of late, the loser is very quick to cry 'fraud' and then the exit polls are used as 'evidence' of such fraud.

Now, if you are claiming that it is possible to design an input terminal that accurately reflects and stores all the inputs made, I would say "Sure". But how can you ever prove, in the case of an election, that every single terminal in the election has not been compromised in some way? All one has to do is show that it is technically possible, and then the entire outcome is in doubt. If even one voter's intent can be questioned, then the election is tainted.

The only way that I can see to avoid contested elections is to have a sufficient margin of victory to make fraud highly unlikely.

Ummm... spend some time at the track.

It's not about who wins the horse race - it is about the accurate computation of pool totals and odds in real time.



There are multiple data entry methods actually. Some wagers are made by optical scan card. Some wagers are made by touch tone. Some wagers are made by cryptic verbal instructions, "Aqueduct 4th, 5 dollar exacta box 2, 4, 5"; "Santa Anita 3rd, 10 to win on 4". Some wagers are made on touch screens. Some wagers are made on specialized terminals with a grid of buttons (those awful AmTote machines at Pimlico, for example). Every track is tied into a network that transmits all of the wagers from all over the world to that track's tote system. At any track or OTB (or even at home), one can wager on any race anywhere. The system is an absolute marvel.

I think you'd really enjoy horse racing. The "outcome" if you think of it as a contest to see which horse runs the fastest over a given length depends on the horses.

But that is not the game of playing horses. The actual game is one of playing a market. The animals running around a track are secondary to that game. What you are trying to do is to determine whether your perception of the likely outcome of a race differs significantly from the market, finding inefficiencies in the market, and trying to identify opportunities. The game is not about the horses at all - it's massive group game played among the people betting on the race.

On the tote board, one can watch the totals in each of several betting pools (win, place, show, and exotics) which is updated as betting proceeds. In the win pool, for example, you are watching a vote in progress, and the tally of votes. For each horse, you know how many "votes" are cast for that horse (and this determines the payout if that horse wins, since the payout is computed on the basis of the track and the state taking 20% from the pool, and the rest is divided among those who bet on the winning horse).

But before getting too carried away (guess my hobby)... the point is that the entire system is a massive voting network that is (a) anonymous as to any bettor, and (b) thoroughly auditable. It works hundreds of times every day, and handles millions and millions of votes. Systematic tampering would be detected immediately.

And, please - do not confuse the fine art of handicapping with that of "gambling".

vote-tallying system that works across geography and input methods.

Why can't the government do the same?

Is the software in the race industry open-source? Are challenges to the tally common? How are they resolved?

That's what a relative of mine who is a programmer for the leading tote company keeps wondering.

The software is not open source, but it is audited by the tracks and the state racing commissions.

Who will illegally win the next election?

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/02/content_7901086.htm


Pentagon's Weapon Spending Surges To $1.6 Trillion In 2007


WASHINGTON, April 1 (Xinhua) -- The U.S. Defense Department's spending on weapon systems has surged to 1.6 trillion dollars in 2007, doubling from 790 billion dollars in 2000, said a congressional report released on Tuesday.

According to the report by the Government Accountability Office(GAO), the acquisition costs were 26 percent higher than the original estimates in 2007, and the spending on research and development were 40 percent over the budget.

Despite the higher-than-budget cost, about 72 programs were still falling behind schedule by averagely 21 months, including fighter jets, combat ships and satellites, the sixth annual report on the Pentagon's weapon programs.

However, the Defense Department, whose personnel and budgets have been strained by the Iraq war and Afghanistan war, still plans to invest about 900 million dollars over the next five years in weapon systems' development and procurement, it added.

Gene Dodaro, the GAO's acting comptroller general, accused the defense budgets "spent inefficiently in developing and procuring weapon systems" of compromising "many other internal and external budget priorities."




or maybe this?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3094318


or this?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3094578

The MIC set things up a real winner of a day. For them anyhow.

How many more trillions will they make from their manufactured program of manipulating fear and mis-information?

How can it be so difficult for some people to believe that this is the case?

How many more pieces of the picture are needed to see that we are being duped?

Basically it was a real estate scam. The buildings were worth more dead than alive. The rest, including insurance fraud, murder, and political payoff, was gravy.

What in your estimation was worth risking mass murder? And by what set of morals do you view individuals this way?

I have to wonder about the ability to prescribe evil motives to most EVERYONE else by truthers, but yet they seem to be the epitome of moral purity. I find this world view facinating.

If none exists, one must be created




The US "government" is an extortion racket

While your statement is at least paritally true, I think there is ample proof that bin Laden not only exists, but is also responsible for the 9/11 attacks in his capacity as titular head of the al Qaeda organization.

I would agree with you that his presense has served as a rallying point for a lot of rather ridiculous jingoism. The man should have been quietly hunted down and killed by our Special Forces long ago, put down like a rabid dog.

Now, if you count yourself among those who believe that the whole bin Laden personna is a complete CIA fakery, then there is nothing I could say that would ever make any sense to you, and you would probably think me deranged or at the very least brainwashed.

At any rate, I would invite you to read Lawrence Wright's 'The Looming Tower', which chronicals the rise of Islamic fundamentalism from the 1920s to September 11, 2001.

so does Islamic fundamentalism


"al Qaeda" though, is undeniably a CIA creation and more of a brand name than an organization. "Terrorism" is whatever the ruling class decides it needs to be today to frame the domestic propaganda surrounding its immediate political needs. The murky nexus of radical Islam, Middle Eastern politics, big oil, neoconservative fascism . . . all that is much less straightforward than any of the the official propaganda would have us believe. Bin Laden is *much* more Emmanuel Goldstein than he is Adolf Hitler.

speak of him as though he isn't real.

the FBI and Dick Cheney have admitted that there isn't enough evidence to name OBL as being suspect?

The ONLY reason that OBL and his cohorts have been assumed as being the culprits, is because of Bush, Cheney, the FBI and the MSM. Being that Bush doesn't care about Bin Laden, while Cheney and the FBI have no evidence of it being Bin Laden, then we're basically starting from scratch, yes?

I don't do research on how the towers fell; or the airplane fuel temps, thermite, etc. I look at the subject from the "who benefited" and "who had the motive" and "who had the power" aspects.

None of us have access to evidence. We can only look at the big picture, and huge amounts of circumstantial evidence - DAMNING circumstantial evidence. We can look at the behavior of the key players of our govt before 9/11 - going back decades. We can look at their behavior AFTER 9/11, and their absolutely astounding, blatant lies; violating the Constitution over and over again; violating the Geneva Convention; raping their own citizens of their homes, their health, their welfare; planning yet ANOTHER war (in keeping with the PNAC mission statement); refusing subpoenas; the list is endless.

I am truly, truly amazed that so many people don't see this. If it were any other country but their own, Americans, across the board, would be looking at that other country and saying "What the fuck is wrong with those people? Why can't they see what's so obvious to us?" The reason I believe that, is because that is what's happening right now - the rest of the world is questioning the official story; because it's so obviously a lie.

Really? Could you explain to us exactly how that is? Are you claiming that hundreds of thousands of career civil servants suddenly became participants in an "extortion racket" upon the changing of hands of the administration from Clinton to Bush? Or, is this just the typical hyperbole?

of dozens of government agencies were subverted by their new neocon masters after the coup of 2000



but what's much worse is that the mission of dozens of government agencies (those constituting the government elements of the military industrial security apparatus) have *always* been in the business of extorting larger and larger and larger "defense" budgets out of the taxpayers.

career civil servants just went along with it? Get real.

tens of thousands have jobs not relevant to the discussion

tens of thousands did, in fact.

it should be quite easy for you to prove it. You can try to square this circle if you want, or you could just quit while you're behind. The amazing thing about CT's is, no matter how absurd your claim is, you're willing to make even more absurd claims when challenged.

BTW, we're not talking about normal attrition here. You need to show evidence that "tens of thousands" quit for the reasons you're claiming here.

That was Justice, the CIA, FAA and Dep't of State alone

I'd love to see the numbers, and it would be nice to see a comparison to the beginning of the Clinton Administration. If thousands quit then, there isn't quite as much meaning to your claim.

Again, do you have any evidence at all that "thousands" of career civil servants quit, other than as normal attrition? If I was a career civil servant at the time an idiot like W "became" president, I would try to wait him out, but that's just me. Please prove your claim...if you can. Somehow I think you'll just keep spinning until you get so dizzy you fall down.

Really? Could you explain to us exactly how that is? Are you claiming that hundreds of thousands of career civil servants suddenly became participants in an "extortion racket" upon the changing of hands of the administration from Clinton to Bush? Or, is this just the typical hyperbole?

Mort Sahl's explanation of why JFK was killed could be the catch-all phrase applied to false flag terrorism:

certain people had to take life in order to control ours...

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_archive.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=209x6350
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x169852

;) :smoke:

Mort Sahl, a unsung heroe of the Sixties

See the posts on "Lee Hamilton denies Michael Mukasey's claim about 9/11", it explains everything in great detail.

...the idea was to provide a pretext for diminishing our defense capability and bankrupting our treasury.

It's just that average US soldier, tax payer and citizen who are getting killed on this deal.