Dirty fact2!! Debate!!

goru · November 15th, 2006, 03:59 PM

	Quote:			Originally Posted by bidrohee
	Goru read it all and ur ans is der u read as Goru and ans as lawman till ur ans da full subj dont strt & u no it all

sorry fr being offtopic, ami in topic a pore post korbo.

aita ki holo bujlam na bidrohee vai, ami to ai thread a kono post e kori nai , apni amare nia porlen kan,ami ki korechi ???!!!!!!

er lawman4all vaire ami chinio na janio na

**Bubla** · November 15th, 2006, 04:01 PM

The official account

In the years immediately following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the US government explained that the attacks were carried out by members of the terrorist organisation al-Qaeda, headed by Osama Bin Laden. On the morning of September 11, nineteen terrorists hijacked four commercial airplanes by using knives, box cutters, pepper spray and fake explosives. They piloted the planes themselves and crashed these into the World Trade Center and The Pentagon. According to the scientific account, the World Trade Center towers later collapsed due to the impact damage, removal of the fire protection and the intense fires. Due to the collapse of World Trade Center One and Two, all the surrounding World Trade Center buildings were heavily damaged as well, leading in turn to their complete or partial collapse. United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania later that day after passengers hearing of the previous attacks in air phone and cell phone conversations and brought the plane down. The U.S. government claimed it had no advance knowledge of the attacks.
Organizations representing the victims' families such as the Jersey Girls demanded further investigation and, after initial reluctance, the administration acceded to their request. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission was formed tasked with “not placing individual blame” but providing an explanation as to what happened and making recommendations to prevent a recurrence. In 2004 the commission released its report. It revealed that there were prior warnings of varying detail that the United States would be attacked by al-Qaeda. These were ignored due to a lack of communication between various law enforcement personnel. The report cited bureaucratic inertia and laws passed in the 1970s designed to prevent abuses that resulted in major scandals during that era for the lack of interagency communication. The report also faulted both the Clinton and the Bush administration with “failure of imagination”. The explanation laid out in the report has been endorsed by most members of both major political parties and news media, and is what conspiracy theorists refer to as "the official account" of the September, 2001 attacks.
Main approaches

9/11 conspiracy theories generally start with dissatisfaction with the official explanation of 9/11.[13] But criticism of the official account does not in and of itself constitute a conspiracy theory. 9/11 conspiracy theories constitute a strong version of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
The weak version, which does not directly imply a conspiracy, merely suspects that government agencies, including the military and intelligence communities, dealt incompetently with the 9/11 attacks. It may go as far as suggesting that the 9/11 Commission covered up these alleged incompetencies and even that part of the incompetence involved inappropriate reactions to advanced warnings.[14] While 9/11 conspiracy theories often include such claims, they go further to suggest intentional activities that either facilitated or directly caused the attacks. There are two main categories of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Key individuals within the government and defense establishment "let it happen on purpose" (LIHOP). That is, they knew the attacks were coming (though there is a range of opinion about how specific their knowledge was) and undertook to weaken America's defenses sufficiently to ensure a successful major terrorist attack on home soil.
Key individuals within the government and defense establishment "made it happen on purpose" (MIHOP). That is, they planned the attacks (and here there is a range of opinion about what the plan was) and ultimately carried it into action.

Some theories go on to identify the people who had the power to either make it or let it happen purposefully. This list of suspects also varies considerably across theories.[15]
The case for the theories is generally built on publicly available sources following a "connect the dots" approach. These sources include news reports of government actions, terrorist activities, and physical events, and a substantial amount of video footage. Part of the argument is a critique of the mainstream media for reporting individual facts without making an adequate effort to understand the connections between them. Conspiracy theories emerge from making such connections in the interpretative room left open by "unanswered questions". In some cases, conspiracy theorists will insist on the accuracy of early news reports that have since been retracted, refuted, or forgotten.
Arguments are offered to suggest both the physical possibility and circumstancial plausibility of a given conspiracy theory and, correspondingly, to demonstrate the physical impossibility and circumstancial implausibility of the official account. Since most conspiracy theorists argue for further indepedent investigations of the attacks, the basic assertion is normally only that the alternative conspiracy theory is more likely than "the official conspiracy theory". The remainder of this article provides a survey of the arguments, which are generally combined by individual theorists in overlapping and sometimes incompatible ways.
Basic argument

Unlike the official account, which suggests that the perpetrators (the terrorists) got much more than they bargained for, conspiracy theorists assume that the 9/11 attacks achieved more-or-less exactly their intended result. They therefore draw conclusions about the motives for 9/11 by looking at its consequences. Among these they emphasize the powerful military presence of the US in the Middle East (implying, they say, increased control over oil and natural gas reserves), the significant increase in funding for the American military and the intelligence community, the restrictions on civil liberties (often presented as an attack on the US constitution), and a general will to rule the world through brute military force. 9/11, the argument goes, was a convenient opportunity for certain elements of the American establishment, and the Bush administration in particular, to achieve key foreign and domestic policy goals that had been determined in advance of the attacks.[16]
Many point to the writings of neoconservative strategists to suggest that 9/11 was, at best, on their 'wish list' and, at worst, on their list of 'things to do'. The standard reference in presenting this idea has become a document titled Rebuilding America's Defenses, which was written by the Project for the New American Century. This document outlines a global strategy that conspiracy theorists say is very similar in its details to the military strategy of the War on Terror. The document includes the line "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."[17] On this basis, David Ray Griffin and others have presented an argument that draws a parallel to a particular interpretation of the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, according to which Roosevelt both provoked the attack and allowed it to happen in order to have a pretext for American entry into the second world war. Conspiracy theorists believe that 9/11 constitutes a "new Pearl Harbor" in at least this sense (LIHOP), many also adding the element of "false flag terrorism", i.e., that the attacks were organized by at least some of its supposed beneficiaries (MIHOP).
Pattern of behavior

To establish that the United States government (which some allege to have carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks) would be willing to use a staged incident to generate support for an armed conflict (which some conspiracy theorists claim was the purpose behind the attacks) conspiracy theorists have often pointed to Operation Northwoods. This plan[18], which was proposed by U.S. Department of Defense leaders in 1962 during the Kennedy administration, was meant to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. The plan suggested various false flag actions, including simulated or real state sponsored acts on U.S. and Cuban soil.The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. The plan, however, was rejected by the Kennedy administration.[19]
Government foreknowledge

One theory is that individuals within the United States government and private sector knew of the impending attacks and purposefully did not act on that knowledge. Former British Environment Minister Michael Meacher suggested this possibility.[20] The theory does not necessarily suggest that individuals within the US Government actually conducted the operation, but rather that they had enough information to have prevented the attack.

**Bubla** · November 15th, 2006, 04:01 PM

Intelligence issues

Shortly after the attacks, David Schippers, the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, stated that the government had been warned in 1995 about a future attack on a government building and that later he was contacted by three FBI agents who mentioned uncovering a possible terrorist attack planned for lower Manhattan.[21]

According to the story, as the agents informed their superiors they were briefed not to pursue the issue and threatened with prosecution. David Schippers declared, "Five weeks before the September 11 tragedy, I did my best to get a hold of Attorney General John Ashcroft with my concerns." According to Mr. Schippers, Ashcroft responded that they do not start investigations at the top.
Mr. Schippers has said the information dated back to a 1995 warning that indicated a possible terrorist attack planned for lower Manhattan using a nuclear device.[22]
Author William Norman Grigg furthered the Schippers story in his article "Did We Know What Was Coming?" According to the article, three unnamed veteran federal law enforcement agents confirmed "the information provided to Schippers was widely known within the Bureau before September 11."[23]

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) has asserted that over a year before the 9/11 attacks, a classified US intelligence unit known as "Able Danger" identified Mohammed Atta and three other future 9/11 hijackers as likely members of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the US. (Able Danger was a SOCOM exercise.)

The team recommended that the information be shared with the FBI, but the military's Special Operations Command rejected the recommendation. (New York Times, “Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00”, 8/9/2005)
Acting Pentagon Inspector General Thomas Gimble in a 71-page report given to Defense Department officials in September 2006 dismissed claims that an Army intelligence unit code-named Able Danger uncovered data that could have thwarted the September 11 attacks, saying the allegations could not be substantiated. "Able Danger team members did not identify Mohamed Atta or any other 9/11 hijacker," "In fact, Able Danger produced no actionable intelligence information"[24]
Reacting to the Pentagon report Rep. Weldon said "The report trashes the reputations of military officers who had the courage to step forward and ... describe important work they were doing to track al-Qaida prior to 9/11". 9/11 commission co-chairmen Thomas Kean said he hoped the report would put an end to discussion about Able Danger. "After this I don't know where it can go"[25]
Pentagon officials said they have found three more individuals who recall an intelligence chart identifying Mohamed Atta as a terrorist one year prior to the attacks.[26]

FBI agent and Al-Qaeda expert John P. O'Neill warned of an Al-Qaeda threat to the United States in the year preceding the attacks. He retired from his position in mid 2001 after an undisclosed source leaked information to the New York Times about an investigation into an incident that had occurred 13 months earlier. He was then recruited to be chief of security at the World Trade Center. His body was found in a staircase inside the south tower rubble.[27]

Possible early warning

On September 12, 2001, The San Francisco Chronicle reported that San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown may have received an early warning of the attack, because Brown had said a phone call from his airport security eight hours before the attacks advised him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel. He did not cancel his flight plans until he became aware of the attacks.[28]
Of the call, Brown said it "didn't come in any alarming fashion, which is why I'm hesitant to make an alarming statement. It was not an abnormal call. I'm always concerned if my flight is going to be on time, and they always alert me when I ought to be careful."[29]

U.S. attack against Afghanistan for October 2001 planned before 9/11

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani diplomat, told the BBC that senior U.S. officials told him in mid-July 2001 that U.S. military action against Afghanistan would be commenced by the middle of October 2001, unless Bin Laden was handed over. Naik told the BBC he "was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks," and that he doubted the plan would be halted even if bin Laden were handed over. (BBC News, 18 September 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm last visited Nov. 5, 2006).

**Bubla** · November 15th, 2006, 04:04 PM

World Trade Center collapse as controlled demolition

Main article: Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center
See also: Collapse of the World Trade Center
The collapse of the World Trade Center was a surprise to the engineering community. While no skyscraper had ever before completely collapsed due to fire or other local damage, three skyscrapers collapsed on September 11, 2001. The challenge for engineers was then to explain how the local damage caused by the airplanes (or, in the case of WTC 7, falling debris) was able to occasion a global progressive collapse. After an intensive three-year investigation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published an account that has been largely accepted in the engineering community. The official collapse mechanism refers only to the aircraft impacts and the subsequent fires, which are taken to have caused sufficient structural damage to occasion the collapses. Conspiracy theorists emphasize that the only precedents for global collapse before 9/11 are controlled demolitions, and demand a more thorough investigation of this possibility.[37][38]
The controlled demolition hypothesis plays a central, albeit not essential, role in the 9/11 conspiracy theories.[39] Jeff King and Jim Hoffman were early defenders of the controlled demolition hypothesis and published their observations online.[40] David Ray Griffin included the theory in his book The New Pearl Harbor. It received its most notable proponent to date in early 2006, when Steven E. Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University, argued that a "gravity driven collapse" without demolition charges would defy the laws of physics.[41] There is a range of opinion about the most likely sort and amount of explosives, the way they were distributed, and how they were successfully brought into the building. Proponents of the hypothesis sometimes cite reports of what they believe are unusual power outages, maintenance work and emergency drills in the weeks leading up to September 11, 2001. Some conspiracy theorists propose a regular controlled demolition, in which the role of the demolition charges would have been to remove the main structural supports in order to let gravity and the weight of the building do the rest. Steven Jones believes that thermite (thermate), perhaps in combination with other devices, was likely involved.
NIST has explicitly rejected this hypothesis. Among the several reasons was that "..."a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition."[38]
There is widespread agreement, however, about the significance of the controlled demolition hypothesis, even among those who don't endorse it specifically or conspiracy theories in general. The necessary devices could only have been planted well in advance of the September 11 attacks and would have required extraordinary access to three highly secured buildings.
Building Seven

Conspiracy theorists frequently emphasise the collapse of Seven World Trade Center in discussing the controlled demolition theory. They cite several reasons for this. First, they believe the collapse displayed especially clear features of a controlled demolition. Second, they claim that since no plane hit the building, its collapse is even more difficult to explain than that of the two towers. Flaming debris did fall onto the building as a result of the collapse of the twin towers, but World Trade Center buildings 4, 5 and 6 remained standing despite also being damaged. [42] Third, in a PBS documentary on the collapse, Larry Silverstein, the owner of the building, explained the fire department had decided to "pull it".[43] Although his spokesperson explained that Silverstein meant that firefighters had decided to withdraw from the building and the surrounding area for their own safety[44], many conspiracy theorists insist that "pull it" is technical slang in the demolition industry for demolish a building. (Whether or not this is what the phrase means has become a point of dispute.)[45] The official investigation into the collapse is still ongoing (a draft of the NIST report will be released in early 2007). NIST explains that they had to prioritize their investigation, and chose to investigate the collapse of WTC buildings 1 and 2 first, and then building 7.[38] The fact that the building housed the offices of government agencies like the CIA [46], the