9/11fags

Also knows as "truthers," "twoofers," "truthfags," and 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Discuss.

nope.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

“It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,” says Suskind. “On oil in Iraq.”

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

“The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said ‘X’ during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing ‘Y,’” says Suskind. “Not just saying ‘Y,’ but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election.”

March 15, 2001: Jane's Intelligence Review reports that the US is working with India, Iran and Russia "in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime." India is supplying the Northern Alliance with military equipment, advisers and helicopter technicians and both India and Russia are using bases in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan for their operations (see December 19, 2000, June 26, 2001 and July 21, 2001).

Spring 2001: The Sydney Morning Herald later reports, "The months preceding September 11 [see] a shifting of the US military's focus ... Over several months beginning in April [2001] a series of military and governmental policy documents [are] released that [seek] to legitimize the use of US military force in the pursuit of oil and gas." Michael Klare, an international security expert and author of Resource Wars, says the military has increasingly come to "define resource security as their primary mission." An article in the Army War College's journal by Jeffrey Record, a former staff member of the Senate armed services committee, argues for the legitimacy of "shooting in the Persian Gulf on behalf of lower gas prices." He also "advocate[s] the acceptability of presidential subterfuge in the promotion of a conflict" and "explicitly urge[s] painting over the US's actual reasons for warfare with a nobly high-minded veneer, seeing such as a necessity for mobilizing public support for a conflict." In April, Tommy Franks, the commander of US forces in the Persian Gulf/South Asia area, testifies to Congress in April that his command's key mission is "access to [the region's] energy resources." The next month US Central Command begins planning for war with Afghanistan, plans that are later used in the real war (see May 2001 (F)). [Sydney Morning Herald, 12/26/02] Other little noticed but influential documents reflect similar thinking (see September 2000 and April 2001 (D)).

April 2001 (D): A report commission by former US Secretary of State James Baker entitled "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century" is submitted to Vice President Cheney this month. "The report is linked to a veritable who's who of US hawks, oilmen and corporate bigwigs." The report says the "central dilemma" for the US administration is that "the American people continue to demand plentiful and cheap energy without sacrifice or inconvenience." It argues that "the United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma," and that one of the "consequences" of this is a "need for military intervention" to secure its oil supply. It argues that Iraq needs to be overthrown so the US can control its oil. [Sunday Herald, 10/5/02] In what may be a reference to a pipeline through Afghanistan, the report suggests the US should "Investigate whether any changes to US policy would quickly facilitate higher exports of oil from the Caspian Basin region... the exports from some oil discoveries in the Caspian Basin could be hastened if a secure, economical export route could be identified swiftly." [Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century, 4/01] Could the Bush administration have let 9/11 happen to get access to Central Asian oil, and gain support for a war with Iraq, amongst other reasons?

May 2001 (F): General William Kernan, commander in chief of the Joint Forces Command, later mentions: "The details of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan which fought the Taliban and al-Qaeda after the September 11 attacks, were largely taken from a scenario examined by Central Command in May 2001." [AFP, 7/23/02]

May 16, 2001: US General Tommy Franks, later to head the US occupation of Afghanistan, visits the capital of Tajikistan. He says the Bush administration considers Tajikistan "a strategically significant country" and offers military aid. This follows a visit by a Department of Defense official earlier in the year and an earlier regional visit by Franks (see September 2000 (D)). The Guardian later asserts that by this time, "US Rangers were also training special troops in Kyrgyzstan. There were unconfirmed reports that Tajik and Uzbek special troops were training in Alaska and Montana." [Guardian, 9/26/01] FTW

June 2001 (D): China, Russia, and four Central Asian countries create the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Its explicit purpose is to oppose US dominance, especially in Central Asia. [Guardian, 10/23/01] Russian defense minister Igor Sergeyev writes, "The actions of Islamic extremists in Central Asia give Russia the chance to strengthen its position in the region." [Guardian, 1/16/02] In March 2003, the Guardian will note that the new ring of US military bases built in the Afghan war (see January 2002 (D)) "has, in effect, destroyed the Shanghai Cooperation Organization which Russia and China had established in an attempt to develop a regional alternative to US power." [Guardian, 3/11/03]

June 26, 2001: An Indian magazine reports more details of the cooperative efforts of the US, India, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and Iran against the Taliban regime: "India and Iran will 'facilitate' US and Russian plans for ‘limited military action' against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime." Earlier in the month, Russian President Putin told a meeting of the Confederation of Independent States that military action against the Taliban may happen, possibly with Russian involvement using bases and forces from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan as well (see also December 19, 2000, March 15, 2001 and July 21, 2001). [IndiaReacts, 6/26/01] FTW
happen?

July 21, 2001: Three American officials, Tom Simons (former US Ambassador to Pakistan), Karl Inderfurth (former Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs) and Lee Coldren (former State Department expert on South Asia) meet with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in a Berlin hotel. [Salon, 8/16/02] It is the third of a series of back-channel conferences called "brainstorming on Afghanistan." Taliban representatives sat in on previous meetings, but boycotted this one due to worsening tensions. However, the Pakistani ISI relays information from the meeting to the Taliban. [Guardian, 9/22/01] At the meeting, former US State Department official Lee Coldren passes on a message from Bush officials. He later says, "I think there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action." [Guardian, 9/26/01] Accounts vary, but former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik later says he is told by senior American officials at the meeting that military action to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan is planned to "take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest." The goal is to kill or capture both bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar, topple the Taliban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place. Uzbekistan and Russia would also participate (see also December 19, 2000, March 15, 2001 and June 26, 2001). Naik also says "it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban." [BBC, 9/18/01] One specific threat made at this meeting is that the Taliban can choose between "carpets of bombs" - an invasion - or "carpets of gold" - the pipeline. [Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth, Guillaume Dasquié and Jean-Charles Brisard, released 11/11/01 (the link is an excerpt containing Chapter 1)] Niaz Naik says Tom Simons made the "carpets" statement. Simons claims: "It's possible that a mischievous American participant, after several drinks, may have thought it smart to evoke gold carpets and carpet bombs. Even Americans can't resist the temptation to be mischievous." Naik and the American participants deny that the pipeline was an issue at the meeting. [Salon, 8/16/02] So then what was the "carpets of gold" phrase referring to? FTW

Late summer 2001 (C): The Guardian later reports, "Reliable western military sources say a US contingency plan existed on paper by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north." [Guardian, 9/26/01]

August 6, 2001 (B): Richard Perle, head of the Defense Policy Board and foreign policy advisor to Bush, is asked about new challenges now that the Cold War is over. He cites three: "We're concerned about Saddam Hussein, we're concerned about the North Koreans, about some future Iranian government that may have the weapon they're now trying so hard to acquire..." [Australian Broadcasting Corp., 8/6/01] Note that these three nations are the same three named in Bush's famous January 2002 "axis of evil" speech (see January 29, 2002). [CNN, 1/29/02] High US officials are later talking about attacking all three, even though there are almost no connections between any of them and al-Qaeda. [Newsweek, 8/11/02] Meanwhile, bin Laden and most top leaders of al-Qaeda and the Taliban remain at large. Was the 9/11 attack an excuse for the US to go after its enemies?

Mid-August 2001 (B): Abdul Haq, a famous Afghan leader of the mujaheddin, returns to Peshawar, Pakistan, from the US. Having failed to gain US support (see February 2001 (C)), except for that of some private individuals such as former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, Haq begins organizing subversive operations in Afghanistan. [Los Angeles Times, 10/28/01 (B), Wall Street Journal, 11/2/01] He is later killed entering Afghanistan in October 2001, after his position is betrayed to the Taliban by the ISI (see October 25, 2001).

August 21, 2001 (B): Thomas Donnelly, Deputy Executive Director of the Project for the New American Century, an influential neoconservative think tank, explains to the Washington Post that the US should embrace its role as imperialist hegemons over the world. He says many important politicians privately agree with him. "There's not all that many people who will talk about it openly," he says. "It's discomforting to a lot of Americans. So they use code phrases like 'America is the sole superpower.'" He also says, "I think Americans have become used to running the world and would be very reluctant to give it up, if they realized there were a serious challenge to it." [Washington Post, 8/21/01] These types of policies are denounced in Bush's 2000 election, and it is frequently claimed that the Bush Administration only changes its mind toward a more aggressive policy after 9/11. But in this summer of 2001, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's office "sponsored a study of ancient empires - Macedonia, Rome, the Mongols - to figure out how they maintained dominance." [New York Times, 3/5/03]

September 4, 2001 (C): Bush's Cabinet-rank advisers have their second ever meeting on terrorism (see June 3, 2001). [Washington Post, 5/17/02] Back in January, terrorism "czar" Richard Clarke had proposed an ambitious plan to "roll back" al-Qaeda's operations around the world. The plan was strengthened and finally approved at this meeting. It no longer plans a "roll back" of al-Qaeda but aims to "eliminate" it altogether. The plan calls for significant support to the Northern Alliance, the last remaining resistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan. At the same time, the US military would launch air strikes on training camps and special-operations missions in Afghanistan. In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the proposals amounted to "everything we've done since 9/11." The plan was awaiting Bush's signature on 9/11. Clinton's limited missile attack in 1998 faced a lot of controversy - this new ambitious plan would have faced much more opposition had it not been for 9/11. [Time, 8/4/02] A senior Bush administration official dismisses the allegations: "This idea that there was somehow a kind of -- some sort of full-blown plan for going after al-Qaeda is just incorrect." [CNN, 8/5/02]

September 9, 2001 (F): A formal National Security Presidential Directive describing a "game plan to remove al-Qaeda from the face of the Earth" is placed on Bush's desk for his signature. The plan deals with all aspects of a war against al-Qaeda, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan. According to NBC News reporter Jim Miklaszewski, the "directive outlines essentially the same war plan ...  put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans 'off the shelf.'" The plan includes an effort to persuade the Taliban to turn over bin Laden and a military invasion if it refuses. It was prepared through a process of consultation over many months, involving the Pentagon, CIA, State Department and other security and intelligence agencies. Bush was expected to sign the directive, but hadn't finished reviewing it by 9/11. [MSNBC, 5/16/02, Los Angeles Times, 5/18/02] FTW Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor, has stated, "You show me one reporter, one commentator, one member of Congress who thought we should invade Afghanistan before September 11 and I'll buy you dinner in the best restaurant in New York City." [The Cell, John Miller, Michael Stone and Chris Mitchell, 8/02, p. 219] In July 2002, British Prime Minister Tony Blair will state: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11." [London Times, 7/17/02] How did Bush expect to get public support for his plan to invade and conquer Afghanistan if 9/11 didn't happen?

In the context of misleading statements from White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice about the degree of US foreknowledge of the 9/11 events, MSNBC.com/news has revealed that detailed plans for the US retaliation against al-Qaeda and the Taliban reached the White House for Bush's signature on September 9, two days before the attacks.

In the words of MSNBC

`President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News.

`The document, a formal National Security Presidential Directive, amounted to a "game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the Earth," one of the sources told NBC News' Jim Miklaszewski.

`The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity.' In many respects, the directive, as described to NBC News, outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans "off the shelf," Miklaszewski said.'

This is corroborated by Bob Woodward's Bush at War, pp. 35-36. He confirms that National Security Presidential Directive #9, after being vetted by NSC Advisor Condoleezza Rice in the White House, was "ready to go to the president on September 10." This was a plan to "eliminate" al Qaeda by going "on the offensive" against the Taliban. On September 4 the deputy secretaries of defense and state "approved and recommended a plan [to this effect] that would give the CIA $125 million to $200 million a year to arm the [Northern] Alliance."

Woodward is silent about MSNBC's claim that the National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) ranged upwards to include "military operations in Afghanistan." Indeed, on page 32 he writes that "the [US] military had no plan" for Afghanistan at all. But this latter claim is incredible: the Pentagon has plans "on the shelf" for invading any country in the world, including (it has been said) Canada.

On May 8, 2001, President Bush appointed Dick Cheney to head the new Office of National
Preparedness, with responsibility to coordinate all federal programs to respond to an attack on the
homeland. Cheney was given power over “[A]ll federal programs dealing with weapons of mass
destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services,
Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies…” This covered
“training and planning” which had to be “seamlessly integrated, harmonious and comprehensive” in order
to “maximize effectiveness.” This position would afford Cheney the total legal authority to manage a
9/11-type situation as it unfolded.

Less than one month later, another aspect of the chain of command was altered relevant to later events on
9/11. Donald Rumsfeld issued an order clarifying the military response protocols for hijacked airlines,
reinforcing and consolidating power in the Pentagon’s national military command.

A number of strange facts fall under the heading of WTC security anomalies. Among them:
• George W. Bush’s brother was a Director and his cousin was the CEO of the security firm
responsible for the design of the electronic security network of the World Trade Center prior to
and during 9/11;
• Numerous phone threats of bombs placed WTC on high alert in weeks prior to 9/11;
• Employees of WTC reported rare “power-down” alerts in days leading up to 9/11 in which power
was shut down to various floors for maintenance work, rendering security controls and video
cameras inoperative; many workers were seen entering and leaving the buildings;
• At least one security guard at WTC reported the abrupt removal of explosive-sniffing dogs five
days prior to 9/11;
• John O’Neill quit his job as FBI counterterrorism expert in part because of obstruction of his
investigations of al Qaeda and became head of WTC security, starting in late August 2001; he
was killed three weeks later in the attacks.

A plan for the invasion of Afghanistan had been in preparation for months and reached the White House
for President Bush’s signature during the week before 9/11. This conforms to the activities of U.S.
officials in the region, who in meetings during the summer of 2001 made it known to the Taliban
government that it must choose whether to receive a “carpet of bombs” or a “carpet of gold” during
negotiations over the construction of a pipeline through the country. Former Pakistani Foreign Secretary
Niaz Naik later says he was told by American officials – again, prior to 9/11 – that military action to
overthrow the Taliban was planned to “take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the
middle of October at the latest."

Since a tape released publicly in December, 2001 by the U.S., in which
bin Laden seems to confirm his role in 9/11, a number of strange facts about this video
soon emerged. For example, all previous videos had been made with the consent of bin Laden, and
usually released to the Arabic television channel Al Jazeera. This video was supposedly recorded without
his knowledge, found in a house in Afghanistan, and then passed to the CIA by an unknown person or
group. Experts pointed out that it would be possible to fake such a video. So many people doubted the
video’s authenticity that Bush soon made a statement, saying it was “preposterous for anybody to think
this tape was doctored. Those who contend it’s a farce or a fake are hoping for the best about an evil
man.” The German television show “Monitor” conducted an independent translation that questioned the
translation given by the US military. According to Professor Gernot Rotter, scholar of Islamic and Arabic
Studies at the University of Hamburg, “This tape is of such poor quality that many passages are
unintelligible. And those that are intelligible have often been taken out of context, so that you can’t use
that as evidence. The American translators who listened to the tape and transcribed it obviously added
things that they wanted to hear in many places.”

In  prior national crises, such as the attack on Pearl Harbor and the assassination of John F. Kennedy,
investigations were empanelled within a matter of days. In the case of 9/11 the nation would have to wait
a half year for House-Senate hearings, more than a year for a formal investigation to commence, and
nearly three years for a final report. The Commission closed on August 21, 2004.
President Bush and Vice President Cheney fought these hearings and investigations at every possible turn.
As but one of many examples, former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle reported on a personal phone
call from Cheney in January 2002: “The vice president expressed the concern that a review of what
happened on September 11 would take resources and personnel away from the effort in the war on
terrorism.”
It was only after a rising uproar from families that a government-appointed “independent” commission
would be established. And then, its rules were such that very few of its own members would have access
to the most sensitive matters. One member, Sen. Max Cleland, resigned from the commission with the
words, “Bush is scamming America.”
Cleland attacked his own commission after the other members cut a deal to accept highly limited access
to CIA reports to the White House that may indicate advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the
Bush administration. “This is a scam,” Cleland said. “It's disgusting. America is being cheated.”

no

Under extreme pressure and threats of subpoena, the administration finally gave in to demands that top
officials testify before the 9/11 Commission. Bush and Cheney decided to permit Condoleezza Rice to
testify under oath in public, but refused to do so themselves. They agreed only to have a private
conversation with members of the Commission... and not separately, only together.

A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qaida's plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes happened.

She said the claim by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that there was no such information was "an outrageous lie".

Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege".

She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily."

She added: "There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used but not specifically about how they would be used and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities with skyscrapers."

She said it was clear there was sufficient information during the spring and summer of 2001 to indicate terrorists were planning an attack. "Most of what I told the commission 90 per cent of it related to the investigations that I was involved in or just from working in the department. Two hundred translators side by side, you get to see and hear a lot of other things as well."

"President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September," she said. There was, however, general information about the use of airplanes and that an attack was just months away.

To try to refute Mr Clarke's accusations, Ms Rice said the administration did take steps to counter al-Qaida. But in an opinion piece in The Washington Post on 22 March, Ms Rice wrote: "Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack planes to try and free US-held terrorists."

Mrs Edmonds said that by using the word "we", Ms Rice told an "outrageous lie". She said: "Rice says 'we' not 'I'. That would include all people from the FBI, the CIA and DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency]. I am saying that is impossible."

Mrs Edmonds, 33, says she gave her evidence to the commission in a specially constructed "secure" room at its offices in Washington on 11 February. She was hired as a translator for the FBI's Washington field office on 13 September 2001, just two days after the al-Qaida attacks. Her job was to translate documents and recordings from FBI wire-taps.

From from September 2000 to June 2001, 67 planes steered off course. All 67 times our air defense systems worked as they should, and interceptors were launched. You may remember this happening when Payne Stewart and his crew died in flight. On September 11th, 2001, when Dick Cheney was running his war games, 4 jet airliners were supposedly hijacked, and all our systems that have worked flawlessly 67 times that year, failed.

Dick Cheney and the Secret Service: Dick Cheney was running a completely separate chain of Command & Control via the Secret Service, assuring the paralysis of Air Force response on 9/11. The Secret Service has the technology to see the same radar screens the FAA sees in real time. They also have the legal authority and technological capability to take supreme command in cases of national emergency. Dick Cheney was the acting Commander in Chief on 9/11.

Samefag trying to defend 9/11 conspiracyfaggotry:

...Just stop trying.

Stop trying to succeed.

At anything in life.

Ever.

Solid facts here.  Nothing outrageous so far.

Anyone with a brain knows that it doesn't matter if 911 was an inside job or not!
The gov't knows what's best for us.
Once Obama gets in, the gov't will have much more control over us, and lets face it, that's a GOOD THING.

>>16

Why? If he's such a failure, you should have no problem disproving anything he says. Right now all Anon hear is: BAWWWWWWWWW!!

>>19

Nothing he's said so far has proven anything, though. He's just said that the Bush Administration benefited indirectly from the attacks. Everyone knows that already. Lots of people indirectly benefited from 9/11. That doesn't mean they were in on it.

Obama did 9/11.

I did 9/11

Vote Democrat in '06.

"We'll lower prices at the pump."
"We'll end the Patriot Act."
"We'll get us out of Iraq."

Yeah, right.
At least the Republicans don't lie directly to your face about such things.

Anyone that thinks they can post text in any forum thinking they can PROVE something only proves the extent of their stupidity, you need but read the words posted here including mine to see that evidence. PFF, children...they never learn, they just know a lot of stuff about stuff. :P

9/11 Twoof!

Troofers are the most anti-social loners I've seen. If they really cared about unveiling a conspiracy you'd think they'd hire a method actor or something and remain in their basements. Obviously  they'd just doing it for the attention they think their parents never gave them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LecYbWM5Oao&feature=related

Needs more ad hominem