How do Truthers explain the cooperation/coordination needed within the US govt...

[Oystein]

*deleted after spotting mod box*

 

[Oystein]

*deleted after spotting mod box*

 

[bknight]

For the past 6 days this thread has been nothing but a philosophical argument about the nature of argument, from.approximately post #60, so only the first 20% of it or so was on topic. I am interested in why you are only calling this out now.

Which only leads to the extension of discussion, one of the many tricks that CTs "produce" to continue the debate, not to find a conclusion but in hopes of winning out by attrition.

 

[beachnut]

... doesn't bode too well for your intellectual honesty.

Back to the topic...

caveman1917 - Rather something like 50% mainstream, 45% MIHOP, 5% everything else.

What is everything else?

You claim it is 45% the government made it happen, is that based on {}?

Explain your claim of 50/45/5? It would be interesting.

Explain the 5%. What is it?

Explain what is the 45% MIHOP.

 

[Robin]

Back to the topic...



What is everything else?



You claim it is 45% the government made it happen, is that based on {}?



Explain your claim of 50/45/5? It would be interesting.



Explain the 5%. What is it?



Explain what is the 45% MIHOP.

Hold on, you are not back on topic, you are still doing the philosophical discussion of the nature of argument.

 

[Allen773]

One thing that bothers me is the phrase "the government" as if it's some monolith. It's highly fractured, which is one of the reasons that 9/11 actually happened. Info was not shared. Robust firewalls and strong agency tradition prevented sharing.

Just look at the response to Covid-19. It's disjointed. This is not a bug, but a feature. Which is the problem the OP is trying to address. Even if someone in the CIA wanted the USAF to not scramble fighters, it's going to take some co-ordination at very high levels. Also, it would lead to a different inquiry. Why didn't they react? A smaller conspiracy doesn't solve problems. It creates them.

Exactly.

 

[Robin]

Again, does the OP "gratuitously choose the nuttiest CT out there" in order to get a trivial refutation?

I can cite a peer-reviewed paper by a senior academic in a top 20 British university who claims that 85% of "truth researchers" would agree on just the kinds of propositions that the OP focuses on.

Again, who are the individuals and groups who are claiming that 9/11 was caused by some government agency or group infiltrating the Islamic extremist network and convincing some of them to carry out the hijack.

I am genuinely interested in reading these claims in the claimants' own words.

 

[Axxman300]

The CIA was a stunted place in 2001.

The Aldridge Aims scandal had left deep scars in all of the directorates. Worse, the FBI had been charged with the mole hunt instead of their own internal affairs, and this lead to the open hostility between the two agencies which became the important backdrop to the intelligence failures of 911.

Nobody was initiating black ops which entailed any risk. Officers were under orders not to co-opt sources who didn't have a squeaky clean criminal or human rights record. The Clinton Administration's NSC had moved the CIA and NSA's focus to industrial espionage. Airbus complained that Boeing had access to their emails detailing strategy back in the late 1990's, and now they think they have enough proof to go to court:

https://www.computerworld.com/artic...of-german-intelligence--documents-allege.html

Sure, some companies make money off of war, but more companies benefit from their government turning their massive surveillance machine toward economic skulduggery.

The CIA that could pull off a 911 attack and hide it exists only in Gerard Butler and Liam Neeson movies.

 

[Allen773]

The CIA was a stunted place in 2001.

The Aldridge Aims scandal had left deep scars in all of the directorates. Worse, the FBI had been charged with the mole hunt instead of their own internal affairs, and this lead to the open hostility between the two agencies which became the important backdrop to the intelligence failures of 911.

Whereas the FBI, of course, was dealing with such fun stuff like Ruby Ridge, Waco — and Robert Hanssen, who was eventually caught. In early 2001.

The entire US national security structure (and hell, much of the federal government as a whole ) had been set up to explicitly counter the USSR. After 1991, practically every department and agency’s very mission was in limbo.

Meanwhile, everybody in the post-Cold War era was screwing up and having major PR crises, from the scandal-prone Clinton administration to the US military itself in humanitarian/peacekeeping operations gone awry. This was the era after the End of History, where globalization and free trade capitalism would solve all problems and Democrats and Republicans could compromise on ending the Era of Big Government and Peace Dividends even as politics became an increasingly partisan bloodsport between Gingrich Republicans and Clinton Democrats.

The general public — and many in government — were more worried about drug dealers, school shooters (Columbine), and illegal immigrants from Mexico than they were about suicide bombing Islamist terrorists, which most people assumed was a problem for Israel, not America. (Obviously, we’re still worried about illegal immigrants — look at who the President is now — and the rest of the aforementioned, but since 9/11 we’ve added Radical Islamic Terrorism to the list of things to be scared about).

To the extent terrorism was a problem, or seen as a problem within the US, it was the Unabomber and Oklahoma City and Eric Rudolph. A lot of people assumed that the 1993 WTC bombing was a one-off, rather than the beginning of sustained operations that led to 9/11. And besides, the FBI got all or most of the guys who did that, right?

Bottom line: Americans were more worried about Y2K and more interested in the lurid details of Bill Clinton’s sex life than they were about the threat posed by al-Qaeda. And the US government declared victory after the fall of the USSR, and deliberately cut budgets across the board. The free market won, Communism lost, and the New World Order was upon us, and liberal democracy would eventually spread everywhere organically and naturally, because why wouldn’t everyone in the world want to emulate the US? That was the general attitude from 1991-9/11/2001.

 

[Robin]

It is hard to believe that there were many in the US government who longed for a pretext to become involved in a long, expensive, futile engagement with Afghanistan - a country with no resources or strategic importance - which could not lead to anything except a humiliating surrender to the Taliban many years down the track.

 

[caveman1917]

It is hard to believe that there were many in the US government who longed for a pretext to become involved in a long, expensive, futile engagement with Afghanistan

You misspelled profitable, which also incidentally answers your question why people in the US government - or at least their corporate backers in the military industry - may want to become involved in such engagements.

 

[bknight]

You misspelled profitable, which also incidentally answers your question why people in the US government - or at least their corporate backers in the military industry - may want to become involved in such engagements.

I see what you did and there was no misspelled word.
Additionally you used a word that is not very strong in the CTs language so we will pass on the last bit of the sentence. No conclusive proof or anyone stated that he/she/any government agency were involved in any plot concerning the 9/11 attack.

You loose again.

 

[Robin]

My Dad was an international arms dealer. I could never work out why we weren't rich. I mean we weren't poor none, but just an ordinary house in the suburbs and a Holden Kingswood. Not even a swimming pool.

I guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to start wars and suchlike.

Come to think of it, the company made a loss while the Vietnam war was still going and became profitable afterwards.

 

[caveman1917]

My Dad was an international arms dealer. I could never work out why we weren't rich. I mean we weren't poor none, but just an ordinary house in the suburbs and a Holden Kingswood. Not even a swimming pool.

I guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to start wars and suchlike.

Come to think of it, the company made a loss while the Vietnam war was still going and became profitable afterwards.

Person A: "The US government overthrew the Iranian government to protect the profits of the oil industry."

Person B: "Well my dad owned a little gas station once and we weren't rich. Guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to overthrow governments."

Person A: "The US government propped up dictatorships in South America to protect the profits of the sugar & banana industries."

Person B: "Well my dad once sold bananas at a market stall and we weren't rich. Guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to prop up South American dictatorships."

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Person A: "The US government overthrew the Iranian government to protect the profits of the oil industry."

Person B: "Well my dad owned a little gas station once and we weren't rich. Guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to overthrow governments."

Person A: "The US government propped up dictatorships in South America to protect the profits of the sugar & banana industries."

Person B: "Well my dad once sold bananas at a market stall and we weren't rich. Guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to prop up South American dictatorships."

I assume, Captain Logic, that you have based those examples on research, rather than assumptions. For this, you must of course know which company Robin's father worked for, and what his role in it was. This would be the only way to ensure that 'selling bananas at a market stall' was a valid comparison point.
Perhaps you'd like to share your working here? You can omit the actual names if you want. Just the general picture will be fine. Thanks.

 

[Dave Rogers]

This is what happens when you allow people making vague claims to reverse the burden of proof. It matters not one jot, for the purpose of discussion of the events of 9/11, whether the war in Afghanistan benefited particular people or institutions when the preponderance of evidence suggests no connection between those people and institutions and the planning or execution of the 9/11 attacks. There is as much evidence to connect the US government to the planning of 9/11 as there is the Belgian government, and until that changes there is nothing more than a claim offered without evidence.

Dave

 

[bknight]

Person A: "The US government overthrew the Iranian government to protect the profits of the oil industry."

Person B: "Well my dad owned a little gas station once and we weren't rich. Guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to overthrow governments."

Person A: "The US government propped up dictatorships in South America to protect the profits of the sugar & banana industries."

Person B: "Well my dad once sold bananas at a market stall and we weren't rich. Guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to prop up South American dictatorships."

You are not very adept at the history of revolutions when it comes to natural resources in this case oil. One of the first actions that new governments take when a revolution changes the governments is to invalidate all contracts/agreements concerning oil sales (namely nationalizing the whole industry). Now if you don't know what that means, then I'll explain the new government takes control of 100% of all the ownership/sales of oil, not whatever the previous % was. In most if not all cases the oil company has <50%. So the ownership goes from say 49% to 0% for the oil companies. How is that protecting the profits of oil companies? You really should do your homework before spouting such nonsense.

 

[caveman1917]

I assume, Captain Logic, that you have based those examples on research, rather than assumptions. For this, you must of course know which company Robin's father worked for, and what his role in it was. This would be the only way to ensure that 'selling bananas at a market stall' was a valid comparison point.
Perhaps you'd like to share your working here? You can omit the actual names if you want. Just the general picture will be fine. Thanks.

Given that major arms manufacturers have yearly profits in the millions and even billions of dollars it is obvious that Robin's dad wasn't a major arms manufacturer if he couldn't even afford a swimming pool for his house.

 

[Robin]

Person A: "The US government overthrew the Iranian government to protect the profits of the oil industry."

Person B: "Well my dad owned a little gas station once and we weren't rich. Guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to overthrow governments."

Person A: "The US government propped up dictatorships in South America to protect the profits of the sugar & banana industries."

Person B: "Well my dad once sold bananas at a market stall and we weren't rich. Guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to prop up South American dictatorships."

Was in fact quite a significant figure in the design provision of war ships to governments around the world at the time, even after their parent company was nationalised.

The point is, wars are not necessarily good for providers of military hardware.

I notice that Boeing didn't have any kind of stellar performance in the years following 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan.

Why don't you go ahead and name the companies you have in mind that made huge profits during that time and we will see if it is plausible that they could have thought that murdering thousands of Americans was a good business plan to get those profits.

I eagerly await your list.

 

[Robin]

Given that major arms manufacturers have yearly profits in the millions and even billions of dollars it is obvious that Robin's dad wasn't a major arms manufacturer if he couldn't even afford a swimming pool for his house.

It was the admiralty research division of one of the biggest ship builders in the world at the time.

He was managing director of the Australian branch which had been making a loss for the years preceding the time he took over.

He took the branch to profitability and made back all the losses of the previous years, so I am pretty confident in his assessment of the market.

In order to achieve the cost cuttings he made all of the staff redundant except for himself and engaged contractors when needed. When you have just sacked all of your friends on the basis of keeping the branch afloat, you don't award yourself a massive salary increase.