They're not psychological terms! They're socialogical terms. :roll:
Maybe we're splitting hairs here. Maybe we're talking about two separate things. I don't know.
I'm specifically talking about the psychology of conspiracy theorists. According to some psychologists, they cling to their theories for many of the same reasons other people cling to their cults.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I wonder if those responsible for uncovering the Iran-Contra scandal were also conspiracy theorists?
Here's a common fallacy of conspiracy theorists right here. Just because conspiracies have existed before in the course of human history, it must mean that other things are also a conspiracy.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
They're not psychological terms! They're socialogical terms. :roll:
Maybe we're splitting hairs here. Maybe we're talking about two separate things. I don't know.
I'm specifically talking about the psychology of conspiracy theorists. According to some psychologists, they cling to their theories for many of the same reasons other people cling to their cults.
And what's the psychology pf people who believe everything they're told by authority figures, even in the face of a mass of evidence to the contrary?
I wonder if all the yahoo's on this message board throwing around the term 'Conspiracy theorists' would have been criticizing Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in 1972 and calling them conspiracy theorists for daring to claim that the President was behind the Watergate break-in?
Probably.
Until they produced facts. Or something other than crackpot conjecture and unprovables.
Back then the journalists actually had integrity and and weren't told what they can and what they can't report. Back then, journalists were the ones actually digging up the dirt in Washington. Now that the gov't controls the media, anyone who disagrees are simply considered "conspiracy theorists", huh.
I wonder if all the yahoo's on this message board throwing around the term 'Conspiracy theorists' would have been criticizing Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in 1972 and calling them conspiracy theorists for daring to claim that the President was behind the Watergate break-in?
And that might not even be true. Some think it was actually the people under Nixon who set him up to look bad...people like Poppy Bush. Who knows if that is true or not but I got it from this book:
They're not psychological terms! They're socialogical terms. :roll:
Maybe we're splitting hairs here. Maybe we're talking about two separate things. I don't know.
I'm specifically talking about the psychology of conspiracy theorists. According to some psychologists, they cling to their theories for many of the same reasons other people cling to their cults.
And what's the psychology pf people who believe everything their told by authority figures, even in the face of a mass of evidence to the contrary?
Again, conjecture and unprovables do not constitute evidence.
One thing 9.11 conspiricists have never been able to answer to my satisfaction: If it was all George W. Bush's fault, why did Osama bin Laden take credit for it?
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
They're not psychological terms! They're socialogical terms. :roll:
Maybe we're splitting hairs here. Maybe we're talking about two separate things. I don't know.
I'm specifically talking about the psychology of conspiracy theorists. According to some psychologists, they cling to their theories for many of the same reasons other people cling to their cults.
Seriously dude. You can't connect cult members to the other. "Brainwashing" does not equal "choosing not to conform".
I wonder if those responsible for uncovering the Iran-Contra scandal were also conspiracy theorists?
Here's a common fallacy of conspiracy theorists right here. Just because conspiracies have existed before in the course of human history, it must mean that other things are also a conspiracy.
Strange leap of logic you make there. Are you suggesting that as humans we should never question anything, even when the facts presented to us are so full of holes that they resemble Swiss cheese?
They're not psychological terms! They're socialogical terms. :roll:
Maybe we're splitting hairs here. Maybe we're talking about two separate things. I don't know.
I'm specifically talking about the psychology of conspiracy theorists. According to some psychologists, they cling to their theories for many of the same reasons other people cling to their cults.
And what's the psychology pf people who believe everything their told by authority figures, even in the face of a mass of evidence to the contrary?
They're not psychological terms! They're socialogical terms. :roll:
Maybe we're splitting hairs here. Maybe we're talking about two separate things. I don't know.
I'm specifically talking about the psychology of conspiracy theorists. According to some psychologists, they cling to their theories for many of the same reasons other people cling to their cults.
Seriously dude. You can't connect cult members to the other. "Brainwashing" does not equal "choosing not to conform".
Take it up with science. Not with me.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I wonder if those responsible for uncovering the Iran-Contra scandal were also conspiracy theorists?
Here's a common fallacy of conspiracy theorists right here. Just because conspiracies have existed before in the course of human history, it must mean that other things are also a conspiracy.
Strange leap of logic you make there. Are you suggesting that as humans we should never question anything, even when the facts presented to us are so full of holes that they resemble Swiss cheese?
Feel free to question. By all means. It must be a strange and scary world you live in.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
And what's the psychology pf people who believe everything their told by authority figures, even in the face of a mass of evidence to the contrary?
Again, conjecture and unprovables do not constitute evidence.
One thing 9.11 conspiricists have never been able to answer to my satisfaction: If it was all George W. Bush's fault, why did Osama bin Laden take credit for it?
um...scapegoat? hello? Do you really think that the "most powerful country in the world" would not be able to find the actual perpetrator to 9/11? What a freaking joke. Laughable. I bet he was paid to never be seen or heard from again.
One thing 9.11 conspiricists have never been able to answer to my satisfaction: If it was all George W. Bush's fault, why did Osama bin Laden take credit for it?
Who said it was all George W Bush's fault?
That giddy little frat boy couldn't even manage to tie his own shoe laces. I doubt that anyone thinks he was capable of the level of subterfuge and deception necessary to allow a terrorist attack to take place on U.S soil in order to [in the words of PNAC)] bring about a 'revolutionary change'.
And what's the psychology pf people who believe everything their told by authority figures, even in the face of a mass of evidence to the contrary?
Again, conjecture and unprovables do not constitute evidence.
One thing 9.11 conspiricists have never been able to answer to my satisfaction: If it was all George W. Bush's fault, why did Osama bin Laden take credit for it?
um...scapegoat? hello? Do you really think that the "most powerful country in the world" would not be able to find the actual perpetrator to 9/11? What a freaking joke. Laughable. I bet he was paid to never be seen or heard from again.
You've cracked it. Bin Laden did it for money! I mean, sure he's a fucking oil tycoon with more money than half the nations on Earth, but he was running low on cash and didn't want to hit the ATM. He must have a terrible stripper and cocaine habit.
As for why he hasn't been apprehended, much of it has to do with our unwillingness to go into Pakistan, and Pakistan's unwillingness to help us out. That said, it's far more likely that bin Laden is dead, and has been for some time. The dude was living in caves on dialysis, after all. I'm sure he wasn't getting the best medical care.
Post edited by slightofjeff on
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
One thing 9.11 conspiricists have never been able to answer to my satisfaction: If it was all George W. Bush's fault, why did Osama bin Laden take credit for it?
Who said it was all George W Bush's fault?
That giddy little frat boy couldn't even manage to tie his own shoe laces. I doubt that anyone thinks he was capable of the level of subterfuge and deception necessary to allow a terrorist attack to take place on U.S soil in order to [in the words of PNAC)] bring about a 'revolutionary change'.
OK, let me re-phrase. If it was ANYONE ELSE ON EARTH'S fault, why would bin Laden step up and take the bullet?
What did he have to gain?
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
OK, let me re-phrase. If it was ANYONE ELSE ON EARTH'S fault, why would bin Laden step up and take the bullet?
What did he have to gain?
Funny that, but I remember him denying that Al-Queda was responsible during the immediate aftermath of the attacks.
What did he have to gain? After the U.S attacked Afghanistan he had plenty to gain by claiming responsibility for 9/11. He gained the support of radical elements all over the world.
OK, let me re-phrase. If it was ANYONE ELSE ON EARTH'S fault, why would bin Laden step up and take the bullet?
What did he have to gain?
yes Jeff, please address and debunk all 115 bullet points raised in the holy bible of conspiracy theories in the first post of this thread.. because if you dont't you're just some asshole with your head in the sand, but keep in mind, once you answer all 115, I have 47 more that you'll need to cover. take your time.
What you guys are clinging to in this 9/11 conspiracy are not facts, they are far from it. Stop citing them as facts.
Great. Please address all of the 115 lies and omissions contained in the 9/11 commission report and enlighten us to the facts then.
Edit: Or, just try addressing any of the points in the OP, instead of posting 20 times that 'conspiracy theorists' have the psychology of cult members.
OK, let me re-phrase. If it was ANYONE ELSE ON EARTH'S fault, why would bin Laden step up and take the bullet?
What did he have to gain?
Funny that, but I remember him denying that Al-Queda was responsible during the immediate aftermath of the attacks.
You remember incorrectly.
What did he have to gain? After the U.S attacked Afghanistan he had plenty to gain by claiming responsibility for 9/11. He gained the support of radical elements all over the world.
So if the Taliban was all a big pawn in this game, why didn't they just turn bin Laden over to the Americans when they had a chance, and avoid total annihilation? Or were they in on the plot, too?
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
So if the Taliban was all a big pawn in this game, why didn't they just turn bin Laden over to the Americans when they had a chance, and avoid total annihilation? Or were they in on the plot, too?
They offered to hand him over to the Americans and the Americans refused.
Anyway, is that what we're discussing here? I thought we were discussing the 115 lies and omissions contained in the 9/11 commission report?
So if the Taliban was all a big pawn in this game, why didn't they just turn bin Laden over to the Americans when they had a chance, and avoid total annihilation? Or were they in on the plot, too?
'...Mohabbat says the Taliban were flown to Quetta in two C-130s. There they agreed to the three demands sought by the US team: 1. Immediate handover of bin Laden; 2. Extradition of foreigners in Al Qaeda who were wanted in their home countries; 3. shut-down of bin Laden's bases and training camps. Mohabbat says the Taliban agreed to all three demands.
This meeting in Quetta was reported in carefully vague terms by Pizzey on September 25, where Mohabbat was mentioned by name. He tells us that the Bush administration was far more exercised by this story than by any other event in the whole delayed and ultimately abandoned schedule of killing Osama.
On October 18, Mohabbat tells us, he was invited to the US embassy in Islamabad and told that "there was light at the end of the tunnel for him", which translated into an invitation to occupy the role later assigned to Karzai. Mohabbat declined, saying he had no desire for the role of puppet and probable fall guy.
A few days later the Pizzey story was aired and Mohabbat drew the ire of the Bush administration where he already had an enemy in the form of Zalmay Khalilzad, appointed on September 22 as the US special envoy to Afghanistan. After giving him a dressing down, US officials told Mohabbat the game had changed, and he should tell the Taliban the new terms: surrender or be killed. Mohabbat declined to be the bearer of this news and went off the US government payroll.
Towards the end of that same month of October, 2001 Mohabbat was successfully negotiating with the Taliban for the release of Heather Mercer (acting in a private capacity at the request of her father) when the Taliban once again said they would hand over Osama Bin Laden unconditionally. Mohabbat tells us he relayed the offer to David Donahue, the US consulate general in Islamabad. He was told, in his words,that "the train had moved". Shortly thereafter the US bombing of Afghanistan began.
In December Mohabbat was in Pakistan following with wry amusement the assault on Osama bin Laden's supposed mountain redoubt in Tora Bora, in the mountains bordering Pakistan. At the time he said, he informed US embassy officials the attack was a waste of time. Taliban leaders had told him that Bin Laden was nowhere near Tora Bora but in Waziristan. Knowing that the US was monitoring his cell phone traffic, Osama had sent a decoy to Tora Bora.
From the documents he's supplied us and from his detailed account we regard Kabir Mohabbat's story as credible and are glad to make public his story of the truly incredible failure of the Bush administration to accept the Taliban's offer to eliminate Bin Laden. As a consequence of this failure more than 3,000 Americans and thousands of Afghans died. Mohabbat himself narrowly escaped death on two occasions when Al Qaeda, apprised of his role, tried to kill him. In Kabul in February, 2001, a bomb was detonated in his hotel in Kabul. Later that year, in July, a hand grenade thrown in his room in a hotel in Kandahar failed to explode.
He told his story to the 9/11 Commission (whose main concern, he tells us, was that he not divulge his testimony to anyone else), also to the 9/11 Families who were pursuing a lawsuit based on the assumption of US intelligence blunders by the FBI and CIA. He says his statements were not much use to the families since his judgment was, and still remains, that it was not intelligence failures that allowed the 9/11 attacks, but criminal negligence by the Bush administration.'
What you guys are clinging to in this 9/11 conspiracy are not facts, they are far from it. Stop citing them as facts.
Great. Please address all of the 115 lies and omissions contained in the 9/11 commission report and enlighten us to the facts then.
Edit: Or, just try addressing any of the points in the OP, instead of posting 20 times that 'conspiracy theorists' have the psychology of cult members.
no problem. I'll take this one..
5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
it was omitted because fire didn't cause the steel frame towers to collapse. it was only one of many factors that assisted in the collapse. the fact that fire never brought down a steel frame building is totally irrelevant.
Fact #1.
WTC was one of the largest, heaviest buildings on earth.
Fact #2
A big ass plane full of thousands of gallons of jet juel, flew directly into the building, destorying some of the core columns.
Fact #3
Fire burned for several hours directly onto exposed steel of the core columns. the intense heat of the fire (key word here) weakened the steel. causing it to buckle and collapse under the pressure of millions of pounds of steel and concrete above.
and I did all that without any cutting and pasting and fun red coloring..
They offered to hand him over to the Americans and the Americans refused.
OK. Gotcha. I see how it works. Do you have proof of this, too? Or are we writing a screenplay here?
Anyway, is that what we're discussing here? I thought we were discussing the 115 lies and omissions contained in the 9/11 commission report?
Yes. This is what we're discussing. It's called The Big Picture. The existence of Bin Laden is a pretty big, bearded monkeywrench in the middle of any 9.11 conspiracy theory.
The motherfucker tried to blow up the WTC once, failed, vowed for years to do it again ... then did it again ... AND PEOPLE STILL DON'T BELIEVE HIM.
Hell, I kind of feel sorry for the guy.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
OK. Gotcha. I see how it works. Do you have proof of this, too? Or are we writing a screenplay here?
I gave you the proof above. It was widely reported at the time that the Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over. It probably wasn't reported in the U.S media though which is why you seem to be clueless about it.
OK. Gotcha. I see how it works. Do you have proof of this, too? Or are we writing a screenplay here?
I gave you the proof above. It was widely reported at the time that the Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over. It probably wasn't reported in the U.S media though which is why you seem to be clueless about it.
No. 1 -- Your proof above details the Taliban's willingness to give up bin Laden BEFORE 9.11. I have no doubt that we had our shot at bin Laden before 9.11, going back to the Clinton admin. Incompetence doesn't neccesarily equal conspiracy.
That said, No. 2 -- That entire report was based on an interview with some 48-year-old dude from Houston nobody's ever heard of. You make fun of "normals" like me and jlew, saying we'll "believe what anyone tells us." A random 48-year-old businessman from Houston is about as "anyone" as it gets.
What it boils down to is, you'll believe anyone who says something that fits your proconceived notion of what is true. Which is just as intellectually dishonest as someone who will believe anything the government or anybody else tells them.
Which brings us to No. 3 -- The Taliban went on television mere hours after the towers fell. I watched it, live. If they really HAD tried to offer up bin Laden, why no mention of it then? Seems like that would have been a good point to make to a worldwide audience. Maybe they just forgot. It was a pretty hectic day, after all.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
No. 1 -- Your proof above details the Taliban's willingness to give up bin Laden BEFORE 9.11. I have no doubt that we had our shot at bin Laden before 9.11, going back to the Clinton admin. Incompetence doesn't neccesarily equal conspiracy.
You've just shown us that you haven't read the article. I'd read it again if I were you. The part of the article I posted discusses what occurred post 9/11.
Comments
Maybe we're splitting hairs here. Maybe we're talking about two separate things. I don't know.
I'm specifically talking about the psychology of conspiracy theorists. According to some psychologists, they cling to their theories for many of the same reasons other people cling to their cults.
for the least they could possibly do
Here's a common fallacy of conspiracy theorists right here. Just because conspiracies have existed before in the course of human history, it must mean that other things are also a conspiracy.
for the least they could possibly do
And what's the psychology pf people who believe everything they're told by authority figures, even in the face of a mass of evidence to the contrary?
And that might not even be true. Some think it was actually the people under Nixon who set him up to look bad...people like Poppy Bush. Who knows if that is true or not but I got it from this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Family-Secrets-Dy ... 850&sr=8-1
You might be interested in reading it sometime because it does go into the Kennedy assassination a bit too.
Again, conjecture and unprovables do not constitute evidence.
One thing 9.11 conspiricists have never been able to answer to my satisfaction: If it was all George W. Bush's fault, why did Osama bin Laden take credit for it?
for the least they could possibly do
Strange leap of logic you make there. Are you suggesting that as humans we should never question anything, even when the facts presented to us are so full of holes that they resemble Swiss cheese?
Take it up with science. Not with me.
for the least they could possibly do
Feel free to question. By all means. It must be a strange and scary world you live in.
for the least they could possibly do
Good one.
As I mentioned earlier, there is plenty of research out there on the psycology of conspiracy theory. It's fascinating stuff.
for the least they could possibly do
Who said it was all George W Bush's fault?
That giddy little frat boy couldn't even manage to tie his own shoe laces. I doubt that anyone thinks he was capable of the level of subterfuge and deception necessary to allow a terrorist attack to take place on U.S soil in order to [in the words of PNAC)] bring about a 'revolutionary change'.
You've cracked it. Bin Laden did it for money! I mean, sure he's a fucking oil tycoon with more money than half the nations on Earth, but he was running low on cash and didn't want to hit the ATM. He must have a terrible stripper and cocaine habit.
As for why he hasn't been apprehended, much of it has to do with our unwillingness to go into Pakistan, and Pakistan's unwillingness to help us out. That said, it's far more likely that bin Laden is dead, and has been for some time. The dude was living in caves on dialysis, after all. I'm sure he wasn't getting the best medical care.
for the least they could possibly do
OK, let me re-phrase. If it was ANYONE ELSE ON EARTH'S fault, why would bin Laden step up and take the bullet?
What did he have to gain?
for the least they could possibly do
Sure, you can keep whistling this tune all day long. But It does nothing to address any of the 115 points raised in the original post.
Funny that, but I remember him denying that Al-Queda was responsible during the immediate aftermath of the attacks.
What did he have to gain? After the U.S attacked Afghanistan he had plenty to gain by claiming responsibility for 9/11. He gained the support of radical elements all over the world.
yes Jeff, please address and debunk all 115 bullet points raised in the holy bible of conspiracy theories in the first post of this thread.. because if you dont't you're just some asshole with your head in the sand, but keep in mind, once you answer all 115, I have 47 more that you'll need to cover. take your time.
Great. Please address all of the 115 lies and omissions contained in the 9/11 commission report and enlighten us to the facts then.
Edit: Or, just try addressing any of the points in the OP, instead of posting 20 times that 'conspiracy theorists' have the psychology of cult members.
So if the Taliban was all a big pawn in this game, why didn't they just turn bin Laden over to the Americans when they had a chance, and avoid total annihilation? Or were they in on the plot, too?
for the least they could possibly do
They offered to hand him over to the Americans and the Americans refused.
Anyway, is that what we're discussing here? I thought we were discussing the 115 lies and omissions contained in the 9/11 commission report?
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html
How Bush Was Offered Bin Laden and Blew It
'...Mohabbat says the Taliban were flown to Quetta in two C-130s. There they agreed to the three demands sought by the US team: 1. Immediate handover of bin Laden; 2. Extradition of foreigners in Al Qaeda who were wanted in their home countries; 3. shut-down of bin Laden's bases and training camps. Mohabbat says the Taliban agreed to all three demands.
This meeting in Quetta was reported in carefully vague terms by Pizzey on September 25, where Mohabbat was mentioned by name. He tells us that the Bush administration was far more exercised by this story than by any other event in the whole delayed and ultimately abandoned schedule of killing Osama.
On October 18, Mohabbat tells us, he was invited to the US embassy in Islamabad and told that "there was light at the end of the tunnel for him", which translated into an invitation to occupy the role later assigned to Karzai. Mohabbat declined, saying he had no desire for the role of puppet and probable fall guy.
A few days later the Pizzey story was aired and Mohabbat drew the ire of the Bush administration where he already had an enemy in the form of Zalmay Khalilzad, appointed on September 22 as the US special envoy to Afghanistan. After giving him a dressing down, US officials told Mohabbat the game had changed, and he should tell the Taliban the new terms: surrender or be killed. Mohabbat declined to be the bearer of this news and went off the US government payroll.
Towards the end of that same month of October, 2001 Mohabbat was successfully negotiating with the Taliban for the release of Heather Mercer (acting in a private capacity at the request of her father) when the Taliban once again said they would hand over Osama Bin Laden unconditionally. Mohabbat tells us he relayed the offer to David Donahue, the US consulate general in Islamabad. He was told, in his words,that "the train had moved". Shortly thereafter the US bombing of Afghanistan began.
In December Mohabbat was in Pakistan following with wry amusement the assault on Osama bin Laden's supposed mountain redoubt in Tora Bora, in the mountains bordering Pakistan. At the time he said, he informed US embassy officials the attack was a waste of time. Taliban leaders had told him that Bin Laden was nowhere near Tora Bora but in Waziristan. Knowing that the US was monitoring his cell phone traffic, Osama had sent a decoy to Tora Bora.
From the documents he's supplied us and from his detailed account we regard Kabir Mohabbat's story as credible and are glad to make public his story of the truly incredible failure of the Bush administration to accept the Taliban's offer to eliminate Bin Laden. As a consequence of this failure more than 3,000 Americans and thousands of Afghans died. Mohabbat himself narrowly escaped death on two occasions when Al Qaeda, apprised of his role, tried to kill him. In Kabul in February, 2001, a bomb was detonated in his hotel in Kabul. Later that year, in July, a hand grenade thrown in his room in a hotel in Kandahar failed to explode.
He told his story to the 9/11 Commission (whose main concern, he tells us, was that he not divulge his testimony to anyone else), also to the 9/11 Families who were pursuing a lawsuit based on the assumption of US intelligence blunders by the FBI and CIA. He says his statements were not much use to the families since his judgment was, and still remains, that it was not intelligence failures that allowed the 9/11 attacks, but criminal negligence by the Bush administration.'
no problem. I'll take this one..
5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
it was omitted because fire didn't cause the steel frame towers to collapse. it was only one of many factors that assisted in the collapse. the fact that fire never brought down a steel frame building is totally irrelevant.
Fact #1.
WTC was one of the largest, heaviest buildings on earth.
Fact #2
A big ass plane full of thousands of gallons of jet juel, flew directly into the building, destorying some of the core columns.
Fact #3
Fire burned for several hours directly onto exposed steel of the core columns. the intense heat of the fire (key word here) weakened the steel. causing it to buckle and collapse under the pressure of millions of pounds of steel and concrete above.
and I did all that without any cutting and pasting and fun red coloring..
OK. Gotcha. I see how it works. Do you have proof of this, too? Or are we writing a screenplay here?
Yes. This is what we're discussing. It's called The Big Picture. The existence of Bin Laden is a pretty big, bearded monkeywrench in the middle of any 9.11 conspiracy theory.
The motherfucker tried to blow up the WTC once, failed, vowed for years to do it again ... then did it again ... AND PEOPLE STILL DON'T BELIEVE HIM.
Hell, I kind of feel sorry for the guy.
for the least they could possibly do
I gave you the proof above. It was widely reported at the time that the Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over. It probably wasn't reported in the U.S media though which is why you seem to be clueless about it.
No. 1 -- Your proof above details the Taliban's willingness to give up bin Laden BEFORE 9.11. I have no doubt that we had our shot at bin Laden before 9.11, going back to the Clinton admin. Incompetence doesn't neccesarily equal conspiracy.
That said, No. 2 -- That entire report was based on an interview with some 48-year-old dude from Houston nobody's ever heard of. You make fun of "normals" like me and jlew, saying we'll "believe what anyone tells us." A random 48-year-old businessman from Houston is about as "anyone" as it gets.
What it boils down to is, you'll believe anyone who says something that fits your proconceived notion of what is true. Which is just as intellectually dishonest as someone who will believe anything the government or anybody else tells them.
Which brings us to No. 3 -- The Taliban went on television mere hours after the towers fell. I watched it, live. If they really HAD tried to offer up bin Laden, why no mention of it then? Seems like that would have been a good point to make to a worldwide audience. Maybe they just forgot. It was a pretty hectic day, after all.
for the least they could possibly do
You've just shown us that you haven't read the article. I'd read it again if I were you. The part of the article I posted discusses what occurred post 9/11.