Some good history interviews here:
.
www.mdrtalk.org

Is this supposed to be new info slarty?
This stuff is 8/9 yrs old and been in the public forum for practically the whole of that time. Al Qaeda had carried out several attacks on the US before 9/11:

Bombings of US troops in Yemen and Aden.
Shooting down of US helicopters in Somalia and killing of US personnel
Bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
Very likely to have controlled the attack on the USS Cole which, notably, was in Oct 2000 - not long before the stuff you mention.

Quel surprise! USA rather unhappy and keen to get at Al Qaueda bases and threatening action against them. It doesn't even remotely mean they had anything to do with planning and carrying out mass-murder of their own civilians. A much more likely inference, in my opinion, is that Al Qaeda knew what was coming and hit first.

However - yet again, (and we've now had 50 pages of posts without a single piece of it), no evidence. It's a belief structure based on rumour, innuendo and something approaching paranoia. To say that some of the  sites to you've pointed may be a little lacking in objectivity is an understatement. Now for me and the vast majority on here, that's not a problem. I'm level headed. I can make distinctions between facts, theories and waffle. However, before posting any more, spare a thought for Gene and were you are leading him.

Not were.

(2 cheap ones for Ori)

it's a great thread tbf

U.S. government medical researchers intentionally infected hundreds of people in Guatemala, including institutionalized mental patients, with gonorrhea and syphilis without their knowledge or permission more than 60 years ago.
Many of those infected were encouraged to pass the infection onto others as part of the study.
About one third of those who were infected never got adequate treatment.
On Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius offered extensive apologies for actions taken by the U.S. Public Health Service.

.
http://www.bntva.com/

This is something else we can lay at Blair's door then - leaving aside that he hadn't been born when they started.

I didn't claim that this information was new, Pandorica. I am suggesting that there may already have been a desire for a war against the Taleban prior to 911 and that that tragedy may have provided the necessary catalysing event to sway public and political opinion.

Note also, Pandorica, that the USA were planning to attack the Taleban, not just AQ, despite the fact that the Taleban had committed no terrorist acts. Perhaps you have conflated the two.

In fact the Taleban regime had taken steps to restrict OBL's activties over several years.
.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LB13Df01.html

The below piece reports that the US planned the attack at least partly because of the Taleban's refusal to hand over OBL in connection with pre-911 terrorist acts.
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/24/september11.usa2

Yet after 911 the Bush regime refused the Taleban's offer to hand OBL to an international tribunal, favouring a war and long-term occupation. Blair even claimed tht the Taleban had refused to hand OBL over whereas the truth was that the USA never provided the evidence that the Taleban requested and that Powell had promised. This evidence, if it ever existed, has never been made public.

A man/woman of Pandoricas intellect understands the origins of war and how wars are linked with the financial elite, but like a scientist will only oppose how the dots have been joined up with evidence from govermental sources. How we can get the governments to hold an inquirey into its own official reports, well its going to take rogue politicians to step to the plate or International leaders who oppose the NWO to demand an independent investigation.

The evidence isn't from "governmental sources".
It's from countless eyewitnesses, engineers, demolition experts, firemen, police officers, cctv, film, photographs, survivors, the deceased, relatives of the deceased, and even the perpitrators themselves whose very aim is to damage US Government interests - in fact every single source of evidence points precisely one way - an inadequate set of w@nkers with knives, intent on killing people they've never met were responsible for 9/11.

It's boring by repetition but there is NO evidence of conspiracy. There is no evidence of a cover up of a conspiracy; or evidence of a cover up of the cover up. None. Not an atom. After 9 years of goons making up stories, writing books, asking silly questions and making up even sillier answers of their own - no evidence.

Now I'm quite liberal. If someoene wants to live their life under the umbrella of suspicion and rumour, that's up to them but when they try to persuade others that they are right when they are quite plainly, under any evidential, moral, ethical or legal code in the civilised world, totally wrong - well, then I think it's fair enough to stand up and tell them they are collectively off their frickin' trolleys.

Not for the same set of reasons imo and all totally irrelevent to the OP's question.
In short:
Afghanistan because post 9-11 the US were in a position in which anything other than direct action would be seen as a weakness. Rightly or wrongly Bin Laden pitching up at The Hague was not going to satisfy American public opinion, nor would it the "hawks" in the Whitehouse who had wanted to go after Al Qaeda for a considerable time pre 9-11 in response to bombings and other attacks on US interests. There may have been a genuine fear at the time that any such apparent weakness would invite still more attacks from still more loony groups.
Iraq - way more complicated: Israel, oil, fear, potential WMD in the mix and as it's time to go to work I'll pass on that one for the moment.

Regardless, the actions of the US administration post 9-11 are not an indication of involvement in 9-11. The only satisfactory indication of that is evidence - not possible stories and potential motives before or after that September - but evidence.
None exists - I think we even have tacit agreement from AG on that one.

As for the position that Mr Hackman takes up:

Imagine you're in a hall with 49 other people. At the side of the hall is a little room. In the little room is a coloured light which you know to be blue or red. All of the other 49 people go into the room. You're not allowed to.
You are then asked what colour you think the light is.
Not unreasonably, you go and ask all the other 49 people. Without exception they say the light is red.
In your reply to the question, you say, "Blue. Because eyewitnesses can be made to say anything."

Is that rational? Is that any kind of way to view the world and how it works? Or is it a sign of something much deeper and more personal?

Make the room the Pentagon, and the lights missiles or planes - that's exactly what exists here.

Something is amiss.

Pandorica     03 Oct 10 18:54 
Good to see you keeping abreast of the news there tangy.
So to sum up, the 2010 government apologises for the actions of the 1940's government and this reflects somehow on the actions of the 2001 government?
Is that right? I only ask because it's impossible to keep up with all the dross that gets thrown in when people start discussing a conspiracy theory.

am simply compiling a list of crimes, so we are all informed when the revolution comes, and Robspierre can dish out suitable retribution on the defenders of the establishment.

Alst night in 5 hours on the footie thread we got just under half the comment on here on a wwe thread so shows what people like to talk about imo

Why, if it's not proof?

If you cannot prove anything with evidence, then seeking evidence must be futile in the pursuit of a truth, whatever it might be.

History may indeed be littered with incidents similar to the ones, to which you allude. However, since the lie didn't hold up to scrutiny, because evidence pointed to another conclusion, you can now point to it and say, "We now know the truth." Without that contradictory evidence the official line may well have stood and we'd all still be in the dark.
The crucial thing there, and I'm sorry to be a bore on this subject, is that there is no evidence to support an alternative to the 9/11 commission report. Not a scrap. Not a doodle.

It's odd how simply defending the status quo as regards the 9/11 report has somehow got me painted as a kind of right wing apologist for Bush, blind to the misdemeanours of people in positions of power - and nothing could be further from the truth. The "establishment" has a lot to answer for re 9/11 - but none of it relates to actually carrying out the bleedin' thing.

As you say, there are some incidents which turned out not to be as the official view would have had us believe but history is absolutley chocablock full of incidents where things are just as they seem.
9/11 is one of those.

And I think that means just 8 to go before you step in and bring it to an end at 2000 Ori.

Do you have a job, Tangsoodo?

Marvellous

I know what you mean!

This thread is like the gopher game, where they pop their head up and you whack 'em with a hammer; basically pointless, but addictive in a vaguely troubling way

I must confess however, on some level I am fascinated by these conspiracies and their advocates - it says something profound about the human psyche ... I'm just not sure what!

2tg

Let's get cracking on 3000 now. I'm just beginning to get into this. Wish I had more time.