So you actually believe that the Americans would ignore the warnings and let their personnel be slaughtered as a reason to enter the war?
Interesting, or are you being obtuse?

They might of course have not believed the implications or the significance of the information. Is that not a possibility?
Some Japanese destroyers against the might of the Pacific Fleet.

Ever since Japan's imperial ambitions in Manchuria had resulted in a blockade of fuel and metals the Americans knew some form of retaliation was likely. In the lead up to the attack there was plenty of intelligence. Indeed, the problem was that there was [itoo much[/i. US codebreakers had cracked the Japanese diplomatic traffic (but, crucially, NOT the naval codes) and an alert warning had been issued to all US Pacific outposts - including Pearl Harbour. Unfortunately, both the Navy and advisors in the government considered an attack on Pearl Harbour unlikely (given the enormous logistical problems the Japanese just barely managed to overcome). Worse still, the local commander thought so too, and tragically chose not to follow the [iexplicit[/i orders stating that every effort must be taken to defend the base from attack. He was court-martialed (along with several other senior naval commanders) for negligence soon after.

So, yes - the Americans knew an attack was likely. But no, they did not pull the trigger on their own people.

9/11 anyone?

Correct!

Human error is the common denominator, nothing more.
Hindsight of course helps the analysis.

Well the 'error' being in a) having intelligence that such an attack was being contemplated but doing nothing; b) cutting back on intelligence work related to al-Qaeda.

A flying school being told by a middle eastern man that he wasn't bothered about being able to 'land' was also a clue

Not 'arf!

IIRC, that was reported to the authorities.

The conspiracy stuff is utterly ridiculous – not least because the mix of incompetence and stupidity alluded to above say it's not required.

Indeed.

The Yanks changed the protocol in June of that year, prior to 9/11, and in doing so made it so that rogue airplanes needed central authorisation before being shot down. In the official report they made a point of that saying that the previous protocol (to intercept the plane) would have led to attempt at bringing the planes down. I believe that both Rumsfield and Cheney (certainly the latter was anyway) were involved in changing that protocol.

I remember attending a facinating talk by Stella Rimington, who backed up what several publications had found within a year or two of 9/11: namely, that in the States at that time you had any number of security agencies (CIA, NSA, FBI, DIA, DHS, state police, local police, amongst others), who BETWEEN THEM probably had the clues to prevent 9/11.

The problem was that intelligence sharing was almost non existent, with some of these agencies and indeed some departments within individual agencies competing against one another and therefore often being less than proactive in sharing intelligence.

If some central intelligence database had existed to put together all the pieces alarm bells would have rung. As it was, no-one had all the info in one place.

As for the conspiracy theorists...don't get me going.

On this day in history.................1988.

Clapham Junction rail crash.
35 fatalities, many injured.

The problem with "stupidity theory" and "incompetence theory", along with "sonambulist theory" (Reagan's favourite), "innocent cultural proclivities theory" and "unintended consequences theory" is not just that they have been tossed to the public with alarming frequency over the last fifty years, but that subsequent investigations have proven such to be either a distortion of the truth or a bare-faced lie.

I find it fascinating watching seemingly rational people contort themselves into knots attempting to convince anyone who'll listen that they don't believe the rich and powerful conspire to further their own interests - despite the fact that even the most biased, one-eyed power-worshipper (or Wigan Fan) could point to numerous contradictory events in recent history alone

The strange thing is this "willingness to believe" is never consistent. You, for instance, have regularly been one of George W. Bush's most enthusiastic critics. Moreover, on several occasions you have accused him of conspiratorial acts which, by any measure, are as morally abject as the most extreme indictments of 9/11 theorists.

Why is it that you don't believe a word that Bush says on Iraq (or Afghanistan for that matter), but you are quite willing to close the book on 9/11? I should point out that the Bush administration fell back on "stupidity theory" and "incompetence theory" after the toothless US media finally woke up (twelve months late) and began asking tough questions. Why is it that you feel entirely comfortable quoting Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine", an excellent and well-researched book that shows Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and company to be neither stupid nor incompetent and undoubtedly guilty of an extraordinary level of conspiracy and yet feel utterly confident in their innocence via a vis 9/11? I will remind you that Klein herself is considered by the right to be a "conspiracy theorist" and she certainly doesn't rule out at least some level of complicity.

Is it because you believe the evidence for and against both is far more compelling? If so I think you are either misinformed or just wrong. In the case of Iraqi WMD, Yellowcake, Bush & Blair's decision to go to war etc. there's no shortage of stupidity and/or incompetence to point at if that's where you believe the emphasis should be placed. OTOH, whilst I think it's safe to rule out some of the more fantastical 9/11 explanations (radio-controlled aeroplanes, controlled demolitions of the twin towers etc.), after reading quite a bit on the events from several sources I honestly cannot exclude the possibilities that Bush, Cheney et al. (a) knew that some attack was imminent, (b) knew the targets and precise dates or even (c) helped plan the attacks.

Conspiracy theorists are often accused of ignoring the ordinary in favour of the extraordinary. I think that's a fair argument. Personally, I'm worn out with the discussion over how the two towers collapsed. Whilst I accept the claim that skyscrapers have rarely (if ever) collapsed purely because of fire damage - it is entirely misleading to argue that a 400mph impact by a fully-laden commercial airliner produces exactly the same results. As for the detection of so-called "nano-thermite" in the building remains - even if true this would only constitute proof of existence (or a false positive), not its use as a demolition tool and certainly no conspiracy.

It is at this point where the "idiocracy theorists" make a fatal error: just because one explanation stretches credulity to breaking point it doesn't automatically follow that ALL are qualitatively equal. If you're listening to the self-serving Alex Jones [i"blowing the lid off Obama's plans for Concentration Camp USA"[/i you deserve every brickbat thrown at you. But not every investigator of 9/11 (or any other suspicious event, for that matter) is as reckless or stupid as Alex Jones. The truth is there are now many, many fine historians, investigative journalists, former members of the secret service etc. writing solid, well-researched material which raises some alarming questions about the roles of Bush, Cheney and company. No one book or article is conclusive. But viewed in context I think the question is nowhere near clear-cut and I'm certainly in two minds.

Of course, most people will choose to ignore such evidence completely, instead putting their faith in someone like Stella Rimmington (guffaw!) - who headed an organisation which specialises in lying, extraordinary rendition (a.k.a., torture), lying, toppling democratically elected leaders in favour of pliable dictators, lying etc. Whilst otherwise happy to attribute all manner of crooked political chicanery to these people they appear to think that beneath it all Bush, Blair, Reagan, Clinton etc. are fundamentally men of "good will", who act out of the right reasons and occasionally achieve the wrong results.

Unfortunately, when it comes to explaining how these men of "Good Will" could be so cold-blooded and/or ruthless as to :

- lie to bring about the Vietnam War in which tens of thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians were needlessly slaughtered
- train and equip Contra death squads in Nicaragua (as well as a host of other central American nations.
- pay for the Nicaraguan operation using "off the books" income raised via drug-trafficking on a colossal scale.
- assassinate civil rights activists such as Fred Hampton in part of the COINTELPRO operation.
- break in to the offices of political opponents and steal sensitive information and then cover it up (Watergate)
- conduct illegal drug trials on the homeless, the vulnerable and mentally damaged (MKULTRA).
- overthrow countless democratically elected governments (El Salvador, Chile, Iran etc.)
- train (including in techniques of torture), finance and support some of the most depraved, psychotic dictators in history (Mobutu, Pinochet etc.)
- sell arms to countries you are currently at war with (Iran)
- wholesale money laundering through a bank described as the [i"most crooked in history"[/i (BCCI).
- etc. etc. etc.

... they are mysteriously silent or fall back on the mind-boggling argument that some or all of the above are matters of fact - not conspiracy.

A Washington staffer at press conference in 1984 once asked Ronald Reagan:

[i"Why are we supplying covert support to the so-called Nicaraguan "Freedom Fighters"?.[/i

His illuminating answer was, [i[u"Because it would be against the law to do it overtly". [/u[/i

When you think about it - this explains everything. It is the reason why lying is the national purpose of all powerful nations. The pretense (shot through even during the days of Greek democracy) that government cares about the people when all it really is concerned with is maintaining its own power.

Great post.

I have to say that i have viewed some of the conspiracy theorist DVDs If anyone wants them FREE just Pm me.

Some of the explanations sound convincing but are too complex technically for me to decide.

I dont know how hot a fire has to get to to buckle steel and make a building collapse bt there are two things which have always confused me which i have never got a satisfactory explanation for.

The first one is the damage to the pentagon which looks more like a rocket than a plane hitting it
and secondly the fact that the TV reported on the same day they had found the passport of one of the hijackerss in the wreckage of the Towers. I cannot believe that one of their passports mysteriously survived the crash, the fire, the collapse, was then picked up by someone on the ground and identified as being a hijacker on 8 hours

Is anyone really saying that conspiracies don't exist and that governments are not populated by scheming, self-serving individuals? I doubt it.

But there can be a mixture of incompetence and conspiracy and 9/11 may have had both. But to think that that conspiracy involved the US government possibly helping to plan attacks on its own people is hard to fathom, given the risks and the probable 'trail' that would result.
They would be particularly wicked and stupid people to do that.
None of which disproves it of course.

Wicked enough to, say, arrange in secret (whilst not even in office) to have 200+ of your own citizens held hostage by a foreign regime for the best part of a year, kept in incarceration for [ilonger than necessary[/i in order to a) embarrass your opponent (who just happens to be the President of the United States) and b) claim credit for their release when you win the election?

There have been a couple of well presented docs on TV scientifically refuting many of the more common 9/11 conspiracy theories including the pentagon plane strike. I think this was one of them: [urlhttp://topdocumentaryfilms.com/911-conspiracies-fact-fiction/[/url

Way more.

Way more.

Look, I'm all for people doing their own research on this issue. But there's time spent positively and time ed into the sewer.

Highly complex and technical questions such as whether the debris field and damage spread are consistent with a missle strike or a commercial airliner, or whether tiny puffs of smoke ejected from the WTC indicate the presence of explosives or pancaking of the internal superstructure weakened by collision and burning aviation fuel are interesting but ultimately best left to the experts. I agree that there are some unanswered questions - but it's going to take something pretty special to cause me to doubt the forensic examinations, which, by and large, were one of the few parts of the investigation which were handled well.

Why people choose to get bogged down with this stuff baffles me because even simple events, viewed retrospectively through the testimonies of more than one witness, can, via a process of fractal-like recursive magnification, generate any number of weird and very often difficult to explain phenomena. Invariably you end up talking probabilities rather than truths.

The endless investigations into the assassination of John F. Kennedy highlights the folly of getting involved in technical debates such as these. For years there has been a running battle between those people who claim Oswald could and did pull the trigger for the fatal shot and those who say it came from the "Grassy Knoll". A couple of years ago the BBC made a big play of "scientific proofs" it had discovered which put the question beyond all doubt. Expensive, cutting edge CGI coalesced with dizzying ballistics, drag co-efficients and so forth to ultimately rule out a frontal shot (and thus any conspiracy). The final scene was of the host and his collection of boffins toasting the wonders of modern science. To the uninitiated this must have seemed all very convincing and I'm sure there are very many today who, on the strength of it, are happy to agree with the Warren Commission's findings.

Unfortunately, the programme (for reasons I'd love to know) forgot to mention the more than insignificant fact that the best part of a dozen doctors, surgeons, coroners etc. (many of whom were experts in the treatment of gunshot wounds - this is Texas after all) at Parkland Hospital were adamant that the tiny hole in Kennedy's forehead was unmistakably an entry wound. Moreover, they later expressed complete amazement when the Warren Commission's own autopsy photos (taken later after the body had been illegally moved to the privacy of Bethesda Naval Hospital in Washington) appeared to show that entry and exit wounds had mysteriously exchanged places.

Returning to 9/11, for me there are far better avenues for investigation - many of which trace to the 9/11 Commission itself (something that Bush had literally to be bullied into), which at times seemed astonishingly unwilling to pursue the facts. Mind you, this isn't surprising when you consider that it was handled by the same cadre that gave Reagan and George H.W. Bush a free ride on the Iran-Contra scandal.

On the general question of conspiracy - my feelings are best summed up by the American political commentator and historian, Walter Karp (who knew a thing or two about power):

[i"When it can be established that a number of political acts work in concert to produce a certain result the presumption is strong that the actors were aiming at the result in question. When it can be shown, in addition, that the actors have an interest in producing these results the presumptions become a fair certainty. No conspiracy theory is required. On the other hand, those who make blanket condemnations of conspiracy theories base their own view on a far fetched theory indeed, namely that whatever those in high office actually do they are essentially men of good will. According to this school of special pleading, the "King can do no wrong" doctrine, suitably updated, it is entirely proper to praise an American President for skillfully engineering some desirable result. But to ascribe to him the same skillful engineering of an indefensible one is to fall victim to political paranoia and conspiratorial fetishm."[/i

On this day in history - 2003 - The capture of Saddam just outsie his home town of Tikrit which led to the ultimate, 'victors justice'.

Tariq Aziz is still being held under threat of execution.
An interesting piece on him from earlier this year.

[urlhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/iraq-tariq-aziz-they-killed-our-country-we-are-all-victims-of-britain-and-america/28619[/url

I was referring to 9/11 and 9/11 alone.

Today in history was also the start of the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_MassacreNanking[/url massacre in China when up to 300,000 Chinese were murdered by Japanese soldiers.

Dec 13-2000.

Texas 7 maximum-security escapees.
A very dangerous bunch.



Saw the Werner Herzog interview with gang leader George Rivas (executed this year) on the C4 series [iDeath Row[/i earlier this year. A facinating story.