It’s not ‘ignoring the evidence’, it’s dropping the line of enquiry. Do I have to acknowledge every refutation to my claims, so that you can all mark it down in your score sheets, or something? I must have missed that bit in the forum rules!
Anyway, now you know; if I don’t come back at you on something, it’s either because I concede the point, or I haven’t got the technical knowledge to question your response yet.
Since you’ve appeared to bring back up points which were dropped in other threads, an acknowledgment that you’ve conceded a point would go a long way.
No, you should acknowledge it so we can show you your own acknowledgement when you bring it up again like you’re known to do over and over.
Edit: Sorry, Telemark. I opened this page in a background tab awhile ago and didn’t see your post before I responded.
Well, if you think a plane hit the Pentagon, why do you question the lamp posts?
After I got off my butt in the Annex parking lot, I ran down to the Pentagon. As I ran across Washington BLVD, I noticed a taxi cab, and one or two of the lamp posts. So they were clearly down within seconds.
This 757 weighted 250,000 pounds was flying approximately 550 MPH. I judge the distance from Washington Blvd to the Pentagon at about 100 meters. At 246 meters per second, what to you think would happen to the 125 ton 757 in that .39 seconds after it hit the hollow aluminum lamp posts? Do you think it will crash ten meters later? Or will it continue on and hit the Pentagon?
Everyone knows Pentagon lampposts are made of alien adamantite. They would have sliced the plane into little bits, if they hadn’t been swapped out for flimsy fakes the night before to clear the way for the remote-controlled fake plane.
We’ll see then how this line of inquiry is dropped… 
First, one has to notice the “politician’s” answer that **ivan **is giving here, of course a plane hit the Pentagon, but he is not admitting that it was a passenger plane, CTs are fond of proposing also that a different plane crashed into the Pentagon.
However, I have to reply because what happened to the light poles was my favorite bit of investigation from the other thread, I did not post what I found then because I expected that “sharp mind” Griffin would figure this also on his own someday.
First, an excellent recreation based on the forensic evidence:
(There seems to be a bug in the video so you should skip (drag the position spot) to 0:29 and begin playing from there.)
The important thing to notice here is that the location of the poles shows that a missile or a small fighter jet could not hit all those poles on the way to the Pentagon.
But lets follow a little bit forward to Exhibit C at 3:40, the damage shows that the plane crashed into the ground level of the building.
This is important because you do not want to know how many CTs still want to pass this as the whole original damage:
http://visibility911.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/pentagon-hole.jpg
To save you time, the CTs usually only show us images with the holes within the white frame area. But this is showing only the damage caused to the second and third levels of the Pentagon.
However, when the firefighters stopped pumping water for a moment we got a better picture of the total damage:
To this day CTs continue to make videos, books and sites that have the plane crashing into the second level because that allows them to point later at the small apparent damage and claim that the result was impossible, so then a fighter jet or a missile is proposed as the explanation.
One has to come and say the obvious: People that attempt to deceive others with this trash, after it was debunked years ago, do not deserve the respect of others.
Explosive bolts! DUH! 
(Okay, maybe I’ve hanging around them too much. Still can’t wrap my brain around the no-planes-AT-ALL types. WAY too crazy.)
There is a guy I know who, no shit, believes the government shipped in plane parts to the Pentagon to hide the fact that it was REALLY a cruise missile. And the sad thing is…he is totally serious. To me, it reminds me of the crazy religious people who thought God had put the dinosaur bones in the ground in order to test our faith…
-XT
Feh! It is NOTHING! 
Some of these nuts claim that planes striking the TOWERS were Photoshopped onto the LIVE video feeds. The latest nut claims that a plane, disguised as a 757 by our latest active camouflage technology, PULLED AWAY AT THE LAST SECOND, WHILE TRAVELING AT 500MPH (imagine the G forces), then shifted to stealth mode while the nanothermite charges took down the building.
No-planers, when asked where the passengers of the four aircraft are, ignore the question. They go beyond crazy and enter the realm of unspeakably cruel.
In all fairness, the “mainstream” troothers claim that “no-planers” and such are government plants, used to make them look ridiculous. As if they need help looking ridiculous.
That’s on par with saying the Flat Earthers who claim all satellites are hoaxes are plants to make the lunar landing folks ‘look bad’. 
-XT
It’s on par with all kinds of lunacy, which is exactly what’s to be expected from the trooth movement.
Whew, I’m getting way behind. I feel like I’d be accused of dodging if I don’t answer Tomndebb next. I think I can rope in answers to a lot of the Afghanistan questions here.
You are correct. It is ‘only’ two wars. But they’re whoppers, no? It looks like both will outlast the duration of WWII. Nobody seems to dispute that the Iraq war was motivated by something other than the stated reasons- and I don’t want to start another thread to argue that one. The Afghan war has a lot of support and public opinion concerning its justification- me, I’m still not convinced. Two unjustified wars (if that’s the case) categorizes a guy as something special, no?
Tomndebb:
Well… regionally they aren’t wimpy. But their opponents weren’t major armies either- ‘warlord’ by definition implies something less than a genuine modern army, no? They are the most successful of a number of competing warlord groups. The ‘wimpy’ statement comes from my study of the conflict, in which I never saw a figure higher than 3000 Taliban fighters in one place at one time. Yes, higher numbers are certainly implied, but we’re talking about a force that is almost certainly within an order of magnitude of 3000. And, their forces as far as I could tell weren’t particularly mechanized, nor did they have much of an air force. Yes, some of that, probably some field guns, rockets, lots of small arms.
Compare to what the Soviets sent in, from here:
This is the Red Army when they’re Not fighting an existential threat- whew! Still, it was only enough to capture the more developed areas and not much else, the other 80% ‘escaped control’. At this point I’ve changed the subject from the Taliban to the Muhajedeen, but I think it is a fair enough analogy. When it comes to defensive guerrilla warfare in the Hindu Kush and etc, I have to agree. With or without major outside aid, these guys aren’t wimpy on defense.
And really, ‘wimpy’ was unkind of me. Consider these quotes from the same source:
It is no wonder they weren’t recognized as a country- even though they avoided total conquest, they were so squished by the Soviets their people hardly had anything in common anymore. Not to mention subsisting under just about the worst conditions in the world.
I saw some more current figures, but I’ll be darned if I can find the cite now. By the time of the US invasion, Afghanistan was still ranked pretty much last place in the world in terms of infant mortality, life expectancy, and other metrics. In light of that it is significant that anything could be achieved at all. I’d like to take back ‘wimpy’. Is it fair to say they aren’t close to being a military monster?
Tomndebb:
The only argument I can think of in response to this point is that the Taliban were not who US interests were rooting for to come out on top. Way too militantly Islamic… but what could anyone expect? Maybe you’re right.
Well! A ‘shadow of plausibility’ is more than most score in a discussion like this, so I’ll take that as a compliment.
I’m not completely sure what you are getting at here though. It could be an idea like the following, from here:
Or is it more along this line, again from the Soviet Invasion link:
But that is getting more at the ‘war for oil’ idea, which I address below.
Tomndebb:
I completely agree. No Way we would go to war with the Saudis. This comment was in reference to the decision to excise from the 911 Commission Report information that might reveal a Saudi funding connection to AQ. The picture I get is that Bin Laden may be acting as the agent of some well-funded 3rd party. (debunk?) He shows up somewhere, raps about Islam, and then produces his sponsor’s cash to fund his latest nefarious deed. What gets dubbed ‘Al Qaeda’ is just the latest group of mercenary militants he hires or attracts. If this is the case, revealing the connection would strain relations with Saudi Arabia, and that isn’t in our interest. Even if they have some wealthy loose cannons who support terrorists.
Talk about Saudi funding was cut from the 911 Commission Report, so I think it is fair to infer that Saudi funding plays a role somewhere in the 911 attacks.
Tomndebb:
Ah yes, but there was a pipeline project proposed!
Here is that article again.
If you don’t mind my using this example to answer some other thread questions… let’s do a little data analysis on this article. What are the ‘players’ indicated?
Players:
-pipeline project
-Senior delegation from the Taleban movement
-International energy company: Unocal. Also, Bridas
-Sugarland, Taxas
-Turkmenistan
-Pakistan
-Afghanistan
-United States
-Argentina
-Kabul
-$2 billion
-Taleban-controlled radio in Kabul
-BBC regional correspondent
-rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea
-various Afghan factions
Amir Khan Muttaqi. Taleban Minister of Information*
ATG ALERT! We have the name of an Actual Taliban Guy!!! ATG!
-Mullah Omar-ATG presumably the leader of the Taliban, by inference
-University of Nebraska
-140 ATG’s enrolled in Khandahar to learn to build pipes
-ATGs (Actual Taliban Girls) trained by Unocal for administrative tasks associated with pipeline project
-Taleban authorities
-peace
Without going into detail, we have at least 200 ATGs linked in a very clear way to an international pipeline project, including significant US support.
Compare this with the kind of evidence xtisme gave for a link between AQ and the Taliban. Look closely at the passages where the subject moves from the Taliban to AQ. It seems to me they are employing a technique I will call here ‘talking about them in the same breath.’ There isn’t a solid link identified. They simply suggest it is there.
Why do I continue to be suspicious on this point? Take a look at this map. In the bottom-right it carries the imprimatur of the Library Of Congress, 1985. It is tough to interpret, but it too describes a set of players, and allocates them all their locations. Notice neither AQ nor the Taliban are present in 1985.
Considering the effects of the Soviet Invasion, and also the actions of the various mujahideen factions and their various regional supporters, it is reasonable to assume that the Taliban’s position in 2001 must have been complex, to say the least. Did all these groups simply dissolve into a Taliban bloc, or did the Taliban faction gain a certain centrality and live in a cease-fire with a number of groups as a better alternative to civil war? Enter Bin Laden, a guy who seems to have earned the right to inhabit Afghanistan as much as anyone, considering his work there. He has a reputation for attempting to destroy the Sudanese government CIA-style, only minus the results. Various mujahideen groups are probably friendly to OBL, right or wrong. And remember, OBL is credited with being a terrorist mastermind pulling the strings on a shadowy group that could only be compared to some kind of anti-Illuminati organization.
Considering that Mullah Omar and his Taliban are already engaged in a civil war, how likely is it that he can snap his fingers and summon this arch-terrorist into custody? OBL’s last project was to destroy the government of Sudan. Omar doesn’t need that pressure, and he doesn’t need to open another front in his civil war either. In fact, after 8 years of pursuit by the world’s most advanced modern military, OBL is still on the run, producing hit singles every few months.
You gotta convince me that the Taliban could take this guy, even if it was their deepest desire.
Or, you gotta depict a clear link between the Taliban and AQ.
What kind of evidence will I accept? That question has come up several times, and I think it is a good one.
Here’s what I want!
-Draw a link from Omar to Osama bin Laden.
-The link has to consist entirely of named of ATGs and AQG (Al Qaeda guys)
-There has to be the kind of transaction involved that implies Taliban support of AQ, beyond merely not being at war with them.
Yes. One catch is that it is necessary to include all the relevant data.
Another catch, in a question of war and peace, involves the form argumentum ad baculum, which I’ve brought up before. It confounds Occam’s Razor.
How? it takes a little wriggling, but:
Ask the question: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: They refused to turn over Bin Laden, so they had it coming.
If x accepts P as true, then Q.
Q is a punishment on x.
Therefore, P is not true.
So in the presence of an argumentum ad baculum, the simplest explanation isn’t necessarily the best. Do you see what I mean?
EDIT: some weird editing error wiped out most of my links. I recovered the best ones. If you really need the rest, I can get 'em.
The line ‘Are you suggesting a sort of War Against Islam?’ should have been outside the quotes. That was me addressing Tomndebb.
Not to be blunt, but you’re throwing shit against the wall and hoping that some of it will stick. 3/4 of the items posted above are complete non-sequitors, the rest have no context. Lots of things get proposed, there’s lots of reasons to study the technology involved in pipelines and administrative tasks, but the fact remains that the project you keep harping on as the motivation for invasion was never taken seriously, and doesn’t support your premise even if it was.
It’s time to move on from this one.
That’s not much of an answer, Telemark. Which is a non-sequitur?
The premise is: There are other motivations for the US to invade Afghanistan. Also: It is dubious that the Taliban could turn over Bin Laden. And: The link between the Taliban and AQ is not demonstrated.
The point of the list of pipeline ‘players’ list isn’t to prove the petrochemical hypothesis, but to demonstrate a clear link between the Taliban and… well, something. I’d like to see a link this clear spelled out between the Taliban and AQ. If it exists that is.
Sure, the pipeline never happened. The place erupted in war. But clearly the pipeline project was well beyond the point of a ‘proposal’. Their agricultural output declined too, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t trying.
Are you saying the Mujahideen are out of context 
How could that be- they are the context. Can you be more specific?
You haven’t presented another viable motivation.
You haven’t discredited the most obvious one - we wanted to attack AQ and they were in Afghanistan, which was controlled by the Taliban.
The Taliban most certainly could have at minimum aided our efforts, or simply turned over OBL. Instead they opposed us.
The fact that they could or couldn’t turn over OBL is irrelevant. You should really drop this point because it doesn’t help you.
To nearly all observers, the link between the Taliban and AQ is clearly demonstrated. Simply repeating that it isn’t doesn’t make your case.
IMO, the link had been clearly and unequivocally spelled out. I’m not sure why you aren’t willing to accept it, pretty much everyone else in the world has examined the evidence and think it’s solid. But this ridiculous pipeline hypothesis doesn’t prove anything. Sure, there were projects under various levels of development, but none of them would have brought oil to the US or given any US interests control over oil in the region. They are just construction projects. If you want to propose a connection you’d have to show that these construction projects somehow influenced US policy. Otherwise, yes, you’re just throwing shit against the wall and hoping that something sticks.
And besides, the link between the Taliban and AQ doesn’t really matter since we were going in one way or the other to get AQ. Even if there was no connection between them (which there most certainly was) it wouldn’t have changed the situation. The Taliban could have helped us or they were going to be taken out.
Show me how any of the things you listed had an impact on US policy or impacted the decision to invade Afghanistan. How does the fact that women were trained on administrative tasks show anything about the US invasion of Afghanistan? Be specific and show your work.
Interestingly, the U.S. showed absolutely no interest in Afghanistan between January 20, 2001 and September 11, 2001. None. It even declined to get involved, (either supporting or opposing), the actions of other nations regarding Afghanistan during that period. This argues strongly that it required an external event to bring U.S. attention to Afghanistan. (Had the U.S. wanted to play with a pipeline, it would have made more sense to actively interfere in Afghan politics, thus making the WTC/Pentagon attacks look like “Afghan” revenge, making a clearer case that we should invade Afghanistan. Had Omar and his buddies handed over bin Laden when we asked, we would ave had no rationale to invade.)
I am not sure why you would claim that it was dubious that Omar could hand over bin Laden when a big point earlier in the thread was that Omar claimed he was willing to do so, (just not to the U.S.). How could Omar make such a claim if he had no power to do so, since failing to hand over bin Laden would have brought on an invasion regardless of his abilities?
bin Laden was a key player in the mujahadeen from which the Taliban drew their troops and support during the Soviet occupation. When bin Laden was thrown out of Sudan, he moved back to Afghanistan to set up his training bases. Omar (and the Taliban) and bin Laden share an adherence to the same militaristic sect of Islam–a sect that is not, actually, all that large.
Other links:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,988976,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,15625,00.html
Note, also, that the only “connection” that is alleged regarding bin Laden and the Taliban is that the Taliban allowed him to set up shop in Afghanistan and left him alone. There is no claim by people holding to the, (much despised by troothers “official story”), that bin Laden and the Taliban worked together on any terrorist project.
It does if catching bin Laden would raise more questions than it answered, and they don’t really want him alive.
[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
It does if catching bin Laden would raise more questions than it answered, and they don’t really want him alive.
[/QUOTE]
Ok…what deep, dark things do you feel he would reveal that ‘they’ don’t want us all to hear? Let’s say they catched him like a wabbit…what do you suppose he’d say and to whom would he say it if they brought him back?
And, what do you base this on?
-XT
