You ask for a logical debate from me, and you get the pizza with the works.

quote:
Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death:
The problem is that the Shrub Administration has too much to gain. In order to believe they had nothing to do with it, you have to ignore a lot of evidence.

You have to ignore the report by Le Figaro that the CIA met with Bin Laden in the hospital in ... what was it, June? A few months before 911, anyway.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html

A French intelligence source, un-named, denied by the hospital and the US government. For reasons I want to go into in respect of France in the Deep Thoughts board, there are still eough French about who want to throw dirt on the US to regard that story as hard to swallow. Corroborate it with another independent source, and we can debate it further.
quote:

Then you have to ignore the way standard protocols for dealing with hijackings weren't followed. The normal procedure would've been to scramble jets in case the planes had to be shot out of the sky. For that to not happen, somebody had to give an order to keep it from happening.
Jets were scrambled. My source:

http://newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-wtc-jets0919.story

They were only minutes away when the planes hit.

Your source, please.

quote:
You also have to ignore the reports by CNN and other "established" news sources that these very criminals were under surveillance right up until 911 -- this is further demonstrated by the fact that they seemed to know who had done what on the very day that it happened.
What's your source for that? Then we can debate it further.
quote:
And yeah, they're saying that somebody in the FBI or the CIA or both prohibited investigation that would've halted 911 ... all they're leaving out is why. You have to ignore that, too.
OK, I will. I think you're mistaking monumental stupidity, a lack of resoucres, poor morale and inter-jurisdictional turf wars with a conspiracy.

From a few days before the attacks:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/010904-fbi.htm

The FBI were crying themselves to sleep because everyone thought they were a bunch of fuck-ups. Correctly, as it turns out.

quote:


The puzzle pieces are all quite thoroughly in place, even on just the mainstream news. They aren't going to put it together for you, though ... think about it. You're the guy in charge of CNN (I forget who actually is these days). It becomes patently obvious that something screwy is going on. How do you report that?
You don't report uncorroborated conspiracy theories irrespective of whether you're a blatantly pro-American CNN of a more open minded Guardian.

quote:

There's never going to be any big newsflash: "BUSH DID IT!!!" It'll never happen. You're going to have to figure it out on your own.
There are two standards of proof - for crime, its "beyond reasonable doubt", and for civil matters, its "on the balance of probabilities". Even on the lower standard, you've not given us anything which substantiates what you've said. Innuendo, logical leaps and slippery slopes do not a rational argument make.

Still, having said all that, I admire your willingness to look beyond the party line. Too bad you are willing to take a position which isn't cogent.

[ 06-11-2002, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Rob Kamphausen ]