Calling all 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts

Without looking at raw data, this line graph means nothing. Typical line graphs are done in the following manner. A point is marked on the graph to represent spending at a certain time (end of fiscal year perhaps). Another point is marked on graph for spending at another point in time (next fiscal year end perhaps). A line is then drawn between the two points.

In your graph, the lines are too straight, indicating that the points used to create your lines are not based on monthly figures, but more likely yearly figures. Thus, it could well be that nearly all the increase in spending came after 9/11 with no actual increase happening beforehand or it could all have occurred prior to 9/11, thus proving whatever point you think you are trying to prove. For the graph to show what you wish it to show, points would have to be plotted showing monthly expenditures, and you would get a more uneven line (even crooked perhaps)

In short, your data is useless in proving your point. Par for the course.

Quote:

The farthest you will get with the type of conspiracy to which you refer would be to claim that a handful of people had special knowledge and did nothing.

Except, it is a fact that they did have 'special knowledge.' We know that the Prez et al were warned about the possibility of an AQ attack using airplanes. There was no more need for special knowldege than this, because they can say 'we're working on it' while not actually doing anything about it, because the two-three people on top (Cheney, Rummy, Bush, maybe a few others) had no intention of doing anything about it, because they knew an opportunity when they saw one.

Not much of a 'conspiracy'; just a decision amongst those who sat at the top of the decision pyramid to quietly ignore a problem, which, if it struck, would turn out to be a great opportunity for them; and if it didn't, then they wouldn't have wasted any time on it. It was a win-win for the Bush WH, no matter what happened.

Cycloptichorn

CoastalRat wrote:

Without looking at raw data, this line graph means nothing. Typical line graphs are done in the following manner. A point is marked on the graph to represent spending at a certain time (end of fiscal year perhaps). Another point is marked on graph for spending at another point in time (next fiscal year end perhaps). A line is then drawn between the two points.

In your graph, the lines are too straight, indicating that the points used to create your lines are not based on monthly figures, but more likely yearly figures. Thus, it could well be that nearly all the increase in spending came after 9/11 with no actual increase happening beforehand or it could all have occurred prior to 9/11, thus proving whatever point you think you are trying to prove. For the graph to show what you wish it to show, points would have to be plotted showing monthly expenditures, and you would get a more uneven line (even crooked perhaps)

In short, your data is useless in proving your point. Par for the course.

Reading a graph is so simple, even a retard can do it. You're ultra retarded.

Left column = spending in Billions.
Top column = time of year.

Barring evidence that the intent to use planes as missles was passed along, we can only go with what we know - that Bush et al were specifically warned of OBL's intent to do so in an August PDB.

Cycloptichorn

The question is, did the gov't blow it on purpose.

Why wouldn't they have? It accomplished every goal they could have possibly dreamed of.

Cycloptichorn

Without compelling evidence, of which you provide none, there simply is no good reason to believe it.

"Thousands of FBI agents have rounded up more than 1,300 suspects across America since September 11, but they have failed to find a single Al-Qaeda cell operating in the United States...Tom Ridge, Director of Homeland Security could not explain why none had been caught."

Curiously though, according to FOX news, throughout late 2000 and 2001, a total of 200 Israeli spies were arrested. It was the largest spy ring to be uncovered in the history of the US. The Washington Post also reported that some of these Israelis were arrested in connection with the 9-11 investigation. Carl Cameron of FOX News Channel did an excellent four part, nationally televised, series of investigations into this blockbuster scandal. But FOX pulled the investigative series after Zionist groups complained to FOX executives. FOX even went so far as to remove the written transcripts of the series from its website.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAoe26MaTew

There is no reason to suppose that the Shrub's crew ought to have paid especial attention to the vague allegation of an attempt to use planes as missiles. You can bet your bottom dollar that that information was no better vetted than any other rumors and hints with which Central Intelligence commonly works, and it would have been one of a host of matters with which the administration would have had to deal. It is twenty-twenty hindsight to say they ought to have paid more attention to that alleged threat than to any other alleged threat which was under consideration at the time.

For all of them to sit and do nothing while allowing the tragedy to take place is a near impossibility.

quite a different thing if they had specific information saying that AQ was going to hijack planes, on sept 11, targeting long range flights leaving Boston and New York and fly them into the Pentagon, white house and WTC.

The greatest cover-up is the 9/11 Commission itself which, "the Bush administration initially opposed the creation of" in the first place (CNN). It was established more than a year after 9/11 and given an original budget of only $3 million to investigate the greatest single tragedy on American soil in our history. They were allotted only 18 months and the timing was adjusted because they didn't want the final reporting to occur during election season. Eventually they were funded a total of $15 million dollars. The very same government spent over $40 million to investigate Bill Clinton's improprieties. After the 9/11 Commission Report was finally released they actually did a road show promoting it like celebrities. They have marketed it and pushed it like a dime store novel. In September of 2006 it is even being turned into a "comic" book (NY Post).

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/bigpic.html

What do you propose he should have done?

Immediately shut down air travel? Started profiling Muslims at the airport? Take pre-9/11 security to the levels of post 9/11 security even before there was a post-9/11?

Even after 9/11, people are yelling and screaming about the ability of the FBI to check your library cards... something about your rights being violated. I can only imagine what you'd be saying if Bush took the pre-9/11 world to post-9/11 security levels without 9/11 ever have taken place.

Has it occurred to anyone else that when we build our glorious memorial to the victims of 9/11, that terrorists troughout the Muslim world will treat it--indeed hail it--as a memorial to the 9/11 success of Al Queda?

No, i'm not saying he couldn't/shouldn't have done nothing.

I'm just skeptical as to if 9/11 could actually have been prevented. Like I said before, if they had specifics as to how, when, and where the events were going to take place, then it would be realistic to think that steps could have been taken to stop those events from happpening. A report like that would also stand out as a more serious threat due to the specifics detailed in it.

A general report about planes flying into buildings with less specifics, would not only be less noticable among any number of other reports stating various other threats, but it would also be more difficult to stop even taking drastic measures like those we took after the fact.

So for me... I guess it comes down to how much was known, by whom and when.