Did Rumsfield and Chums want and allow 9/11 to happen? The Poll!

[DrRingDing]

The man admitted in court he knew an attack was imminent but did nothing.

He also stated before 9/11 in a signed pnac statement, iirc, that the US should take advantage of terrorist strikes to push for full spectrum dominace.


So what do yer reckon?

 

[DrRingDing]

Benevolent all american grampa?

​

 

[DrRingDing]

Or nutjob murderous overlord?

 

[editor]

Zzzzzz..... Where's DrJ's boards when you need them?

 

[DrRingDing]

Why is it so hard to believe Mr Rumsfeld and co could be a bunch of wrong'uns?


I find it hard to distinguish who is the worst OBL or old matey

 

[editor]

So your poll invites people to conclude that Rumsfeld (note correct spelling of his name) "quite possibly" allowed 9/11 to happen but asks for no proof, solid evidence or credible media-sourced articles to support such a supposition.

So what's the point of that, then?

(extra option added to the poll)

 

[Citizen66]

So your poll invites people to conclude that Rumsfeld (note correct spelling of his name) "quite possibly" allowed 9/11 to happen but asks for no proof, solid evidence or credible media-sourced articles to support such a supposition.

So what's the point of that, then?

Erm, opinion?

Please point to a credible-media sourced article that suggests otherwise...

 

[Kaka Tim]

Hang on - the proposition is hardly lizzard mongering is it?

I would say that its certiainly plausible that the PNAC gang knew that there was going to be a attack of some sort and did nothing to prevent it as it would quite clearly help further their agenda - especially with regards to Iraq.

Whilst there is no conclusive evidence - there is bits and pieces which lend the argument some credibility.

There were a significent number of semeingly ignored intelligence warnings prior to 11/09 - notably the presidential briefing a few weeks (i think) before the event.
Also at the Genoa G8 summit in june 2001, anti-aircraft batteries were set up to prevent (and the intellignce briefings to journalists were quite specific) Bin Laden attacking the summit by crashing planes into the conference centre. clearly where the chimps life was at stake certain intelligence warnings were taken far more seriously.

I dont believe they knew exaclty what was going to happen or when, but I certainly believe that they were prepared to turn a blind eye in order to further their own interests.

Also remember that the attack was swiftly followed by the anthrax letters, which were clealry designed to inplicate iraq but have subsequently been shown to have originated from an American germ lab. Also note that that particualr investigation, and media interest in the story seems to be stone dead. To me the Anthrax atacks stink of a cynical fear mongering execise conducted by elements within the CIA or pentagon with a clear politcal purpose. And if that is so, it lends more credibility to the earlier 'blind eye to the 11/09 attack' argument.

Point is we dont know anything for sure - all we have is the murky shadows of the actions of very powerful and very ruthless people, a pile of rubble and bones in the middle of new york and Iraqi oil under US control.

 

[DrRingDing]

So your poll invites people to conclude that Rumsfeld (note correct spelling of his name) "quite possibly" allowed 9/11 to happen but asks for no proof, solid evidence or credible media-sourced articles to support such a supposition.

So what's the point of that, then?

It's called peoples opinions


I'm not asking Urbanites to compile a thesis and justify it, just what are their feelings on the matter.


But if your after evidence where's yours that he didn't know and didn't want the upcoming attacks?

 

[Lock&Light]

But if your after evidence where's yours that he didn't know and didn't want the upcoming attacks?

I think it's those who make the claims who have the responsibility for producing the evidence.

 

[editor]

But if your after evidence where's yours that he didn't know and didn't want the upcoming attacks?

Just like you, I have none. But I'm not the one making the claims.

Similarly, I have no proof that he wasn't born on Planet ZwibbleBong and is actually a holographic 12 headed slug.

I'll be surprised if there's anything remotely new discussed in this thread and I'll wager we'll soon be joined by the usual handful of 9/11 enthusiasts who will use this opportunity to trot out the same old conspiracy bonkers shite for the ten zillioneth time.

But hey - just like all the endlessly repeated 9/11 threads before it -I'll give people ample opportunity to have their say.

 

[Citizen66]

Just like you, I have none. But I'm not the one making the claims.

So your stance is that without any evidence available to us therefore he musn't have had the foggiest about an imminent attack?
Or just that it's bonkers to even dare to think that sections of the US administration would let such an atrocity to happen it's civilians to further their cause?

 

[redsquirrel]

The poll options are rubbish.
There's a difference between knowing an attempted terrorist attack of some kind is likely (which tbh you didn't need to be mystic meg to work out it was a possibility) and knowing that there was going to be an attack on the towers.

 

[DrRingDing]

Similarly, I have no proof that he wasn't born on Planet ZwibbleBong

Donald Henry Rumsfeld (born July 9, 1932)Born in Chicago, Illinois

link

 

[redsquirrel]

So your stance is that without any evidence available to us therefore he musn't have had the foggiest about an imminent attack?
Or just that it's bonkers to even dare to think that sections of the US administration would let such an atrocity to happen to it's civilians to further their cause?

But thats a false choice.
He could have some information but not "allow 9/11 to happen".

 

[Citizen66]

The poll options are rubbish.
There's a difference between knowing an attempted terrorist attack of some kind is likely (which tbh you didn't need to be mystic meg to work out it was a possibility) and knowing that there was going to be an attack on the towers.

There had been a previous attack on WTC by Al Quada. So I say that it wouldn't take Mystic Meg to work out that there'd be another attack and possibly from the sky (the other attack was in the car park under the towers).
If you were the Chief of a country Red Squirrel, which buildings would you be most likely to protect the most?

Hospitals?
Farm ranches?
Elemetary schools?

Or the centre of the American financial institution and defence?

A pretty good strike by the spectre-like cave dwellers, I can tell ya.

 

[Citizen66]

But thats a false choice.
He could have some information but not "allow 9/11 to happen".

That's a false choice because 9/11 DID happen. We're not talking what-ifs here Red Squirrel.

 

[DrRingDing]

The poll options are rubbish.
There's a difference between knowing an attempted terrorist attack of some kind is likely (which tbh you didn't need to be mystic meg to work out it was a possibility) and knowing that there was going to be an attack on the towers.

So what are you saying? He knew there was going to be an attack but did nothing?

Or he didn't know there was going to be an attack on the towers so thats ok?


Personally I think he probably didn't know it would necessarily be the towers, just that an attack was going to happen and when and roughly where and probably what with.

 

[Loki]

There had been a previous attack on WTC by Al Quada. So I say that it wouldn't take Mystic Meg to work out that there'd be another attack and possibly from the sky

.

Yes it had been considered. But nobody could have predicted the precise date / time and logistics of the attack. Haven't we been here before?

 

[DrRingDing]

.

Yes it had been considered. But nobody could have predicted the precise date / time and logistics of the attack.

How do you know this?

Because this is what they said in court?



Nobody lies in court especially not the authoriys do they?

 

[Lock&Light]

Personally I think he probably didn't know it would necessarily be the towers, just that an attack was going to happen and when and roughly where and probably what with.

As you are making these claims it would be useful to provide some evidence. Can't, can you?

 

[Citizen66]

.

Yes it had been considered. But nobody could have predicted the precise date / time and logistics of the attack. Haven't we been here before?

Fair enough Loki. But they could be pretty damn sure about the time, date and nature of the attacks pricesly after the first plane hit WTC. So how did another plane manage to hit WTC and then one hit the pentagon? Airliners are pretty controlled you know. They're all not just up there doing as they please. Air traffic control know there whereabouts and where they should be going. They could have ordered all planes to be grounded immediately and for all planes not on their flight path to be shot down.

They didn't. This is where I'm coming from on the 'they allowed it to happen' point and not that they knew all the details perfectly previously. If they knew this kind of attack was a major possibility, why didn't they prevent the second plane from hitting WTC and prevent the one from hitting the Pentagon?

 

[Citizen66]

As you are making these claims it would be useful to provide some evidence. Can't, can you?

That wasn't a claim it was his opinion. Read the posts L&L FFS.

 

[DrRingDing]

As you are making these claims it would be useful to provide some evidence. Can't, can you?

Well he admitted infront of the world, in court, that he knew an attack was imminent. We also know he did nothing.


We also saw the evidence that airplanes would be used, but of course it was not acted upon.


We know Rumsfeld stated with his neocon chums that they would dearly love to take advantage of a potential terrorist strike against the US.


If this was a bog standard murder investigation by the old bill, they would of hauled his backside in for questioning and would of charged him.....for sure.

 

[Loki]

Well he admitted infront of the world, in court, that he knew an attack was imminent. We also know he did nothing.

Well that might be because where / how / when wasn't known.

 

[Citizen66]

If this was a bog standard murder investigation by the old bill, they would of hauled his backside in for questioning and would of charged him.....for sure.

With what? incompetence?

If I know that Buster Jones is gonna croak Eddie Smith... Am I implicated in some way in the murder if it eventually happens?

 

[Citizen66]

Well that might be because where / how / when wasn't known.

But where/how/when WAS known once the first plane hit WTC. Care to debate the points I raised Loki?

 

[redsquirrel]

Fair enough Loki. But they could be pretty damn sure about the time, date and nature of the attacks pricesly after the first plane hit WTC. So how did another plane manage to hit WTC and then one hit the pentagon? Airliners are pretty controlled you know. They're all not just up there doing as they please. Air traffic control know there whereabouts and where they should be going. They could have ordered all planes to be grounded immediately and for all planes not on their flight path to be shot down.

They didn't. This is where I'm coming from on the 'they allowed it to happen' point and not that they knew all the details perfectly previously. If they knew this kind of attack was a major possibility, why didn't they prevent the second plane from hitting WTC and prevent the one from hitting the Pentagon?

What in the 7(?) minutes between the first and second tower being struck.

 

[Loki]

But where/how/when WAS known once the first plane hit WTC.

Yes it was, but not before.

 

[Citizen66]

Yes it was, but not before.

That's debatable.