"No Planes Hit The Twin Towers" claims ex-CIA agent

[buctootim]

From what little I read a couple of days ago it appears that any calculations about aircraft impact did not take into account the effect of the fires caused by the fuel. In these buildings the fuel had an almost unimpeded path over several floors, partly due to the open design of the office spaces which were a characteristic of the building design.

 

Exactly. Although the fires weren't hot enough to melt the steel they were hot enough for it to lose much of its load bearing strength. good article here.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

[pap]

I'm travelling for a bit, so in my absence, thought I'd link "Let's Roll".

 

http://letsrollforums.com/index.php

 

Good 9/11 resource, nicely categorised, covering almost every angle.

 

Shouldn't have to say this but none of the content on that site is mine.

[Verbal]

Shouldn't have to say this but none of the content on that site is mine.

 

You really don't have to say it - just as none of it on here is your 'content' either.

 

Weekend back at planet Narcissus?

[badgerx16]

.......

 

http://letsrollforums.com/index.php

 

Good 9/11 resource, ..........

 

 

That's debatable.

 

Pap, one serious question - do you honestly believe that parts of the US Governmment are directly responsible for the deaths of several thousand people on 9/11, including permitting Firemen and Police officers to enter buildings that they, ( whoever this shadowy committee are ), knew were about to be demolished ?

Edited 23 May, 2014 by badgerx16

[TheCholulaKid]

That's debatable.

 

Pap, one serious question - do you honestly believe that parts of the US Governmment are directly responsible for the deaths of several thousand people on 9/11, including permitting Firemen and Police officers to enter buildings that they, ( whoever this shadowy committee are ), knew were about to be demolished ?

 

He's either trolling (quite successfully, I might add) or delusional/mentally ill. I think possibly the latter - which is kinda scary.

[pap]

That's debatable.

 

Pap, one serious question - do you honestly believe that parts of the US Governmment are directly responsible for the deaths of several thousand people on 9/11, including permitting Firemen and Police officers to enter buildings that they, ( whoever this shadowy committee are ), knew were about to be demolished ?

 

Of course it's debatable. Kind of why I submitted it.

 

"Believe" is too strong a word , but not by much. I have many reasons to believe elements of the US govt were involved in both planning and coverup, but suspect a combined operation with Mossad/Israel.

 

Put it this way. I take that potential culpability seriously, especially given events preceding (PNAC's policy statement, stolen election, pre existing Iraq invasion plans), during (hijacking drills, impossible feats of pilotry relative to reported pilot skill, suspension of laws of universe) and after (fake bin Ladens, bellicose foreign policy, illegal wars in resource rich & strategically placed Middle Eastern countries, torture, the complete lack of investigation, the 9/11 Commission's failure to address basic errors - 19 hijackers, its complete disinterest in following the money trail, wholesale attacks on our civil liberties, David Kelly, the consequent realignment of the BBC, Arab Spring, calls for military action in Syria with no evidence, Israel's constant calls for military action in Iran, NSA & GCHQ spying on everyone).

 

I don't think Dubya was involved in any of the planning.

 

I came to the subject matter with the same sneering I frequently see when discussing the subject myself. I get it, but when investigating, each attempt to disprove it led to more problems. It's common, apparently.

 

It's not that there are one or two problems with the official narrative. Almost every element of the day is suspect, and to upgrade aintforever's colourful claim from earlier, men and women with more relevant qualifications than us have driven double deckers through 'em.

 

The cumulative problems are difficult to reconcile with the immutable narrative. Irrespective of whodunnit, 9/11 enabled the thinly-veiled imperialism that occurred thereafter. Every call the West has made since has been the wrong one, IMO. We've created new breeding grounds for extremists. The world is not a safer place for the West's efforts.

 

Coupla things before I sign off :-

 

1) I address this every time, but this continual notion that everyone is somehow clued in on every aspect of the plan is bloody ridiculous. Stopping people from doing their jobs can be enough, which happened before, during and after the event. They wouldn't knowingly be part of anything; same goes for people just implementing innocuous orders.

2) I don't think for one minute that the perpetrators expected everyone to believe it. They expected most to fall for it, and to be able to deal with the others. The media and our own impression of ourselves does most of the work. Disinfo and in rare cases death, does the remainder.

Edited 24 May, 2014 by pap

[pap]

He's either trolling (quite successfully, I might add) or delusional/mentally ill. I think possibly the latter - which is kinda scary.

 

Mentally ill, eh? 2012 wants its insult back.

[pap]

Weekend back at planet Narcissus?

 

Come now, you must know that Planet Narcissus revolves around me and that your question is redundant.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

We could I suppose have a long philosophical discussion on the nature of reality, a discourse somewhat akin to that old chestnut of wondering whether a tree falling in the forest makes any sound if there is nobody there to hear it. However I suspect the appetite for debating that type of (rather esoteric) subject matter on here is rather limited - and to be frank about it I can quite understand why.

 

It seems to me the evidence that terrorists hijacked two commercial airliners and then crashed them into the twin towers of the WTC on 9-11 is so overwhelming that no reasonable person could possibly doubt it. The mechanism of how the resultant fires caused both towers to subsequently collapse also seems well understood. The Pentagon and 'Flight 93' incidents are less well documented of course, but here too the theory that a secret US conspiracy organised all these terrible incidents in order to further some sinister agenda of their own remains deeply unconvincing to my way of thinking. For me this theory reads more like the work of fiction it almost certainly is.

 

Those of what we might call the 'conspiratorial mindset' will of course not accept any of this because their take on reality does not allow for that kind of explanation. From a historical perspective there is a surprisingly long tradition of this paranoia-like behaviour in American society, is it not true that if you seek conspiracy/evil everywhere then sooner or later you'll probably find it? Anyone familiar with McCarthyism or 17th Century Salem and its notorious 'Witch Trials' might well be forgiven for thinking so.

 

Perhaps only in a society as fundamentally free and open as the USofA is today would conspiracy theorists find the freedom to express these views in the first place ... this fact being yet another of life's little ironies.

Edited 24 May, 2014 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[CB Fry]

Of course it's debatable. Kind of why I submitted it.

 

"Believe" is too strong a word , but not by much. I have many reasons to believe elements of the US govt were involved in both planning and coverup, but suspect a combined operation with Mossad/Israel.

 

Put it this way. I take that potential culpability seriously, especially given events preceding (PNAC's policy statement, stolen election, pre existing Iraq invasion plans), during (hijacking drills, impossible feats of pilotry relative to reported pilot skill, suspension of laws of universe) and after (fake bin Ladens, bellicose foreign policy, illegal wars in resource rich & strategically placed Middle Eastern countries, torture, the complete lack of investigation, the 9/11 Commission's failure to address basic errors - 19 hijackers, its complete disinterest in following the money trail, wholesale attacks on our civil liberties, David Kelly, the consequent realignment of the BBC, Arab Spring, calls for military action in Syria with no evidence, Israel's constant calls for military action in Iran, NSA & GCHQ spying on everyone).

 

I don't think Dubya was involved in any of the planning.

 

I came to the subject matter with the same sneering I frequently see when discussing the subject myself. I get it, but when investigating, each attempt to disprove it led to more problems. It's common, apparently.

 

It's not that there are one or two problems with the official narrative. Almost every element of the day is suspect, and to upgrade aintforever's colourful claim from earlier, men and women with more relevant qualifications than us have driven double deckers through 'em.

 

The cumulative problems are difficult to reconcile with the immutable narrative. Irrespective of whodunnit, 9/11 enabled the thinly-veiled imperialism that occurred thereafter. Every call the West has made since has been the wrong one, IMO. We've created new breeding grounds for extremists. The world is not a safer place for the West's efforts.

 

Coupla things before I sign off :-

 

1) I address this every time, but this continual notion that everyone is somehow clued in on every aspect of the plan is bloody ridiculous. Stopping people from doing their jobs can be enough, which happened before, during and after the event. They wouldn't knowingly be part of anything; same goes for people just implementing innocuous orders.

2) I don't think for one minute that the perpetrators expected everyone to believe it. They expected most to fall for it, and to be able to deal with the others. The media and our own impression of ourselves does most of the work. Disinfo and in rare cases death, does the remainder.

 

Well, no one can drive a double-decker through that, can they.

 

That's all seems pretty watertight to me.

 

Isreal/Mossad and "elements of the US Government" sat down in a room together, and while discussing ways to increase US defence spending, and increase US influence in the middle east, and increase homeland security controls, collectively settled and agreed on the very best idea to achieve that - the brutal and spectacular mass murder of hundreds of innocent New York Civilians. Any other tools - just a bit of propaganda, a bit of diplomatic spin, maybe an atrocity not murdering hundreds of Americans in America - that just wouldn't do. Planes into Twin Towers: that's our one!

 

It's weird no one in that room suggested that the US government has never needed to murder hundreds of its own people ahead of its other military interventions. But they all agreed because it was key to the strategy. But the president didn't know about it. Someone important must have known, because if no one of important knew then the "strategic" motive kinda collapses, don't it? So who was the most senior person that did sign it off?

 

And at this point they decided on the plane/explosives double bubble instead of one or the other? Was it Mossad or "elements of the US Government" that insisted that the towers absolutely had to come down? Why was that bit so important?

 

And I love Pap ' s coup-de-grace. Of course, the conspiracy worked because (get this) no one knew they were in a conspiracy. Not the guy to the contracted to lay explosives all over the world trade centre, or the people who worked for that guy. They just laid them explosives, unseen, at night, no questions asked. And when 9/11 happened, and the commission report and, you know, there was some publicity around the event - it definitely made the news here - none of those guys then reflected on what they did and spoke up, even mentioned it to anyone. Probably forgot all about it. Not one of them said during a family meal "you know, it's scary. It was only a few months ago I had a little job secretly laying explosives all over the world trade centre, and now it's gone. But really, just one of them 'innocuous orders' that happens when you work for Acme Secret Explosive Laying, Inc. More yam, anyone?"

 

Yep. Organising flying two aircraft, and using explosives to secretly blow up one of NYC's most iconic buildings, and a mass murder of hundreds of civilians in the most famous terrorist atrocity in the history of humanity is nothing more than a collection of people blindly following a set of "innocuous orders". And not a single one of those people in the last 13 years has ever, ever, ever come forward. Not one.

 

Well no one can drive a double-decker through that logic, that's for sure.

Edited 24 May, 2014 by CB Fry

[OldNick]

Well, no one can drive a double-decker through that, can they.

 

That's all seems pretty watertight to me.

 

Isreal/Mossad and "elements of the US Government" sat down in a room together, and while discussing ways to increase US defence spending, and increase US influence in the middle east, and increase homeland security controls, collectively settled and agreed on the very best idea to achieve that - the brutal and spectacular mass murder of hundreds of innocent New York Civilians. Any other tools - just a bit of propaganda, a bit of diplomatic spin, maybe an atrocity not murdering hundreds of Americans in America - that just wouldn't do. Planes into Twin Towers: that's our one!

 

It's weird no one in that room suggested that the US government has never needed to murder hundreds of its own people ahead of its other military interventions. But they all agreed because it was key to the strategy. But the president didn't know about it. Someone important must have known, because if no one of important knew then the "strategic" motive kinda collapses, don't it? So who was the most senior person that did sign it off?

 

And at this point they decided on the plane/explosives double bubble instead of one or the other? Was it Mossad or "elements of the US Government" that insisted that the towers absolutely had to come down? Why was that bit so important?

 

And I love Pap ' s coup-de-grace. Of course, the conspiracy worked because (get this) no one knew they were in a conspiracy. Not the guy to the contracted to lay explosives all over the world trade centre, or the people who worked for that guy. They just laid them explosives, unseen, at night, no questions asked. And when 9/11 happened, and the commission report and, you know, there was some publicity around the event - it definitely made the news here - none of those guys then reflected on what they did and spoke up, even mentioned it to anyone. Probably forgot all about it. Not one of them said during a family meal "you know, it's scary. It was only a few months ago I had a little job secretly laying explosives all over the world trade centre, and now it's gone. But really, just one of them 'innocuous orders' that happens when you work for Acme Secret Explosive Laying, Inc. More yam, anyone?"

 

Yep. Organising flying two aircraft, and using explosives to secretly blow up one of NYC's most iconic buildings, and a mass murder of hundreds of civilians in the most famous terrorist atrocity in the history of humanity is nothing more than a collection of people blindly following a set of "innocuous orders". And not a single one of those people in the last 13 years has ever, ever, ever come forward. Not one.

 

Well no one can drive a double-decker through that logic, that's for sure.

I expect they were all actors aka the Boston Bombing. The other thing about choosings the towers is that if it went wrong you had citizens of most of the countries in the world as fatalities. Now that would not be good for the US at all

[whelk]

Mentally ill, eh? 2012 wants its insult back.

 

Have to agree something is not functioning right to believe such guff. Akin to the Moonies recruiting graduates which always baffled me as to how people can take leave of their senses and believe fairy tales.

[CB Fry]

I expect they were all actors aka the Boston Bombing. The other thing about choosings the towers is that if it went wrong you had citizens of most of the countries in the world as fatalities. Now that would not be good for the US at all

 

There's a thread on Pap ' s excellent 9/11 "resource" Let's Roll forum that is exactly that. People linking video of bystanders and firefighters and calling the liars and actors with assorted derisory comments mocking how terrible their performance is.

 

But, as Pap says it is an excellent resource covering all the angles. So obviously it's brilliant.

[pap]

Well, no one can drive a double-decker through that, can they.

 

That's all seems pretty watertight to me.

 

Isreal/Mossad and "elements of the US Government" sat down in a room together, and while discussing ways to increase US defence spending, and increase US influence in the middle east, and increase homeland security controls, collectively settled and agreed on the very best idea to achieve that - the brutal and spectacular mass murder of hundreds of innocent New York Civilians. Any other tools - just a bit of propaganda, a bit of diplomatic spin, maybe an atrocity not murdering hundreds of Americans in America - that just wouldn't do. Planes into Twin Towers: that's our one!

 

It's weird no one in that room suggested that the US government has never needed to murder hundreds of its own people ahead of its other military interventions. But they all agreed because it was key to the strategy. But the president didn't know about it. Someone important must have known, because if no one of important knew then the "strategic" motive kinda collapses, don't it? So who was the most senior person that did sign it off?

 

And at this point they decided on the plane/explosives double bubble instead of one or the other? Was it Mossad or "elements of the US Government" that insisted that the towers absolutely had to come down? Why was that bit so important?

 

And I love Pap ' s coup-de-grace. Of course, the conspiracy worked because (get this) no one knew they were in a conspiracy. Not the guy to the contracted to lay explosives all over the world trade centre, or the people who worked for that guy. They just laid them explosives, unseen, at night, no questions asked. And when 9/11 happened, and the commission report and, you know, there was some publicity around the event - it definitely made the news here - none of those guys then reflected on what they did and spoke up, even mentioned it to anyone. Probably forgot all about it. Not one of them said during a family meal "you know, it's scary. It was only a few months ago I had a little job secretly laying explosives all over the world trade centre, and now it's gone. But really, just one of them 'innocuous orders' that happens when you work for Acme Secret Explosive Laying, Inc. More yam, anyone?"

 

 

Yep. Organising flying two aircraft, and using explosives to secretly blow up one of NYC's most iconic buildings, and a mass murder of hundreds of civilians in the most famous terrorist atrocity in the history of humanity is nothing more than a collection of people blindly following a set of "innocuous orders". And not a single one of those people in the last 13 years has ever, ever, ever come forward. Not one.

 

I'm on limited hardware. Can't do the usual quoting and scoring, but much respect for having the barefaced cheek to delight us with your utterly hypocritical strawman claims all over the site. It is something to behold, especially when measured against this post.

 

The latter part of your post is either ignorance or outright mendacity. If it's the former, check out the link with emergency workers, government officials speaking out. If it's the latter, sir is to be congratulated on the boldness, but let down on the facts.

 

You definitely hit a new category with your letsroll post. " How dare you?". Good stuff.

[igsey]

I'm on limited hardware. Can't do the usual quoting and scoring, but much respect for having the barefaced cheek to delight us with your utterly hypocritical strawman claims all over the site. It is something to behold, especially when measured against this post.

 

The latter part of your post is either ignorance or outright mendacity. If it's the former, check out the link with emergency workers, government officials speaking out. If it's the latter, sir is to be congratulated on the boldness, but let down on the facts.

 

You definitely hit a new category with your letsroll post. " How dare you?". Good stuff.

 

See, Pap, I thought you'd turned a corner with your last post - you'd actually come out of your hidey-hole, put forward some actually debatable material, and responded in a mature fashion to a question. "Bravo Pap!" I cried. "He's managed to surpass the debating skills of an eleven-year-old! Rejoice! Maybe we can actually get somewhere now."

 

But now somebody comes along with equally valid points and better questions, you revert to type, avoid answering the points put forward, and start shouting "Strawman! Strawman! That's not fair, I'm not playing any more!" Some might argue that those are the techniques of somebody that knows they don't have a leg to stand on, or worse, a politician.

[pap]

See, Pap, I thought you'd turned a corner with your last post - you'd actually come out of your hidey-hole, put forward some actually debatable material, and responded in a mature fashion to a question. "Bravo Pap!" I cried. "He's managed to surpass the debating skills of an eleven-year-old! Rejoice! Maybe we can actually get somewhere now."

 

But now somebody comes along with equally valid points and better questions, you revert to type, avoid answering the points put forward, and start shouting "Strawman! Strawman! That's not fair, I'm not playing any more!" Some might argue that those are the techniques of somebody that knows they don't have a leg to stand on, or worse, a politician.

 

It's entirely fair.

 

I'm glad that you enjoyed my previous post, and I realised that when compiling a list events, any one of them could be extrapolated into a straw man fantasy by CB Fry, a platform to "demand complete solutions", leaving me in the uncomfortable position where I have to solve his unsubstantiated inventions.

 

The blanket and inaccurate claim that no-one has come forward also needed to be addressed.

 

I've endeavoured to give fair answers to fair questions, but I'm not going to indulge overtly hostile posters with anything more than calling their crap when I see it.

[pap]

Forgot to post this earlier, but posted on another thread for VW.

 

[video=youtube_share;kjOH1XMAwZA]

 

Dead In The Water. The sinking of the USS Liberty.

 

Covers CB Fry's other big non-strawman claim; that US would not sacrifice own people to start wars.

 

This BBC doc makes a strong case that in cahoots with Israel, they did.

Edited 24 May, 2014 by pap

[Fowllyd]

See, Pap, I thought you'd turned a corner with your last post - you'd actually come out of your hidey-hole, put forward some actually debatable material, and responded in a mature fashion to a question. "Bravo Pap!" I cried. "He's managed to surpass the debating skills of an eleven-year-old! Rejoice! Maybe we can actually get somewhere now."

 

But now somebody comes along with equally valid points and better questions, you revert to type, avoid answering the points put forward, and start shouting "Strawman! Strawman! That's not fair, I'm not playing any more!" Some might argue that those are the techniques of somebody that knows they don't have a leg to stand on, or worse, a politician.

 

Can't help but agree with this. CB's tone may be highly antagonistic (let's face it, it's what he does best), but he makes very valid points - not least of which is that in order to see the whole WTC attack as having been organised by elements of the US and Israeli states necessarily means accepting that people in very senior positions sat down, discussed the best way to bring about the things they desired, and came up with the airliner attacks. Pap has made no attempt to answer that point, preferring instead to accuse CB of foul play.

 

For Pap, or anyone else for that matter, to find that "I get it, but when investigating, each attempt to disprove it led to more problems. It's common, apparently" can hardly come as a surprise. It's always difficult to disprove anything, and even more so when the thing one is trying to disprove is nebulous and not fixed. Could I, or anyone else, prove that Mossad and the CIA weren't involved in the WTC attacks? Of course not. Lack of proof that something didn't happen cannot be taken as proof that it did happen, yet in the world of the conspiracy theorist it is.

 

In some other areas I'd agree with Pap, particularly on the geopolitical after-effects of 9/11 and that the response of the west, and the US in particular, has almost certainly made the world a less safe place and has encouraged rather than discouraged radical Islam and associated terrorism. But to take that as an indication, let alone proof, of US/Israeli state involvement in the original attacks is a flight of fancy, not of logic.

[Fowllyd]

It's entirely fair.

 

I'm glad that you enjoyed my previous post, and I realised that when compiling a list events, any one of them could be extrapolated into a straw man fantasy by CB Fry, a platform to "demand complete solutions", leaving me in the uncomfortable position where I have to solve his unsubstantiated inventions.

 

The blanket and inaccurate claim that no-one has come forward also needed to be addressed.

 

I've endeavoured to give fair answers to fair questions, but I'm not going to indulge overtly hostile posters with anything more than calling their crap when I see it.

 

But he's not demanding complete solutions; he's making the point (among others) that conspiracy theories may appear to work when you're looking back over events, but not when you try to picture them unfolding before those events. In that quest, he has questioned whether (among other things) you can really picture a collection of high-level US and Israeli apparatchiks sitting down together and hatching this plot. Can you?

 

Also, why shouldn't someone demand complete solutions, or at least something a little more complete than anything you've offered? It's the apparent absence of such complete solutions in the official versions which you and others decry, after all.

[pap]

But he's not demanding complete solutions; he's making the point (among others) that conspiracy theories may appear to work when you're looking back over events, but not when you try to picture them unfolding before those events. In that quest, he has questioned whether (among other things) you can really picture a collection of high-level US and Israeli apparatchiks sitting down together and hatching this plot. Can you?

 

Also, why shouldn't someone demand complete solutions, or at least something a little more complete than anything you've offered? It's the apparent absence of such complete solutions in the official versions which you and others decry, after all.

 

Like I said, I'm trying to be fair. I've been candid, but I don't fancy contributing this embryonic prequel season of 24 you're riffing on, impressive though it is.

[aintforever]

It's entirely fair.

 

I'm glad that you enjoyed my previous post, and I realised that when compiling a list events, any one of them could be extrapolated into a straw man fantasy by CB Fry, a platform to "demand complete solutions", leaving me in the uncomfortable position where I have to solve his unsubstantiated inventions.

 

The blanket and inaccurate claim that no-one has come forward also needed to be addressed.

 

I've endeavoured to give fair answers to fair questions, but I'm not going to indulge overtly hostile posters with anything more than calling their crap when I see it.

 

Nobody is demanding "complete solutions", just one possible scenario to make sense of what you claim. Just one.

 

You can't just say "it didn't look like an airliner so the US government did it" without putting it into a context and giving reason as to how it could be done and what it means. You might as well say aliens did it.

 

You analyse the official account in microscopic detail, jumping to wild conclusions over the slightest thing, if you want to be objective it is only fair that any alternative theory is given the same scrutiny.

 

Just one plausible series of events that could possibly have happened...

Edited 24 May, 2014 by aintforever

[badgerx16]

You might as well say aliens did it.....

 

Ah, that's it; our secret alien reptile overlords, who are in alliance with the Illuminati, ordered Mossad to explode a low yield nuclear bomb under the WTC towers to trigger the secretly installed demolition charges and collapse the towers. The reason nobody has ever admitted to placing these charges is that the men who did this work were under telepathic mind control.

On the day of the attack, a cloaked alien mothership took remote control of the 'hijacked' airliners just after take off and flew them under remote control towards the crash sites. However, about 2 miles from impact, these planes were beamed abord the mothership and replaced with holographic images that created the illusion of planes impacting the WTC. The lack of viable plane images from the Pentagon impact is due to a secret high frequency signalling installation within the main building causing interference with the holographic transmission.

 

Now, try to disprove these 'facts'.

Edited 24 May, 2014 by badgerx16

[pap]

Nobody is demanding "complete solutions", just one possible scenario to make sense of what you claim. Just one.

 

You can't just say "it didn't look like an airliner so the US government did it" without putting it into a context and giving reason as to how it could be done and what it means. You might as well say aliens did it.

 

You analyse the official account in microscopic detail, jumping to wild conclusions over the slightest thing, if you want to be objective it is only fair that any alternative theory is given the same scrutiny.

 

Just one plausible series of events that could possibly have happened...

 

CB Fry demands them all the time, and worse, often for things he has invented himself.

 

As for your second point, I'm not saying that.

 

In my reply to badgerx16, I did exactly what you ask; providing a before, during and after context centred on the event. As Fowllyd rightly points out, and I've already conceded, many of the events just happened to be things that 9/11 enabled and do nothing to prove a conspiracy on the day or even raise suspicion in isolation. However, you have most of the context you need. Most of it is laid out in the PNAC policy document. The authors wanted the century to be about securing American dominance as the sole superpower, and that peace wasn't the means to achieve it.

 

I doubt many have considered what retaining the "sole superpower" status would actually entail. High level, it simply involves preventing other superpowers from emerging or returning - stopping Russia and China, in other words. Practically, people in democracies don't like to go to war or hike defence spending unless there is a really good reason. "Keeping Russia and China" down isn't a good enough reason, even if it happens to be the plan all along.

 

So we've a problem. The neo-cons really needed a war, but apart from "American dominance, yo!" (difficult to sell in domestic or foreign markets) - they had no justifiable reason for the aggressive foreign policy they wished to pursue. 9/11 provided the reason, the consequent "war on terror" provided the justification for all the corporatism that followed.

[CB Fry]

I'm not demanding any "complete solutions" about anything Pappy, whatever your odd little self - help manual for conspiro-lunatics tells you.

 

On this very thread you say you think 9/11 was planned and carried out by "Mossad and elements of the US Government" yet when I harmlessly suggest that to make this happen those self same "Mossad and elements of the US Government" would have actually had to have spoken to each other (it's kinda what needs to happen when things get "planned" ) you decide that is nothing more than a script for an episode of 24 and deride it. Even at the most basic, simple level you walk away from your own theory. Your theory. Not mine.

 

No wonder you only ever want to pontificate around piddling details about how a skyscraper "should" fall down.

[CB Fry]

I'm on limited hardware. Can't do the usual quoting and scoring, but much respect for having the barefaced cheek to delight us with your utterly hypocritical strawman claims all over the site. It is something to behold, especially when measured against this post.

 

The latter part of your post is either ignorance or outright mendacity. If it's the former, check out the link with emergency workers, government officials speaking out. If it's the latter, sir is to be congratulated on the boldness, but let down on the facts.

 

You definitely hit a new category with your letsroll post. " How dare you?". Good stuff.

 

My comments about Let's Roll are about as far from "how dare you" as you can get. It's people on a web forum mocking 9/11 eyewitnesses for being actors. It's hilarious. That you fawn over the site as a "good resource" is even funnier.

 

I'll assume "How Dare You" is another sub section from your conspiro-idiots self help book? Keep em coming. I can see that list is a great comfort to you.

 

 

 

Come on then, "boldness" and "facts" time. Who has come forward and is "speaking out" to back up your conspiracy then? One of the guys laying the explosives? Someone who saw the minutes of the first Mossad/Government hook up? Link me up, I'd love to read it.

 

But, most of all, please keep calling me a strawman. You think Boston Bomb Victims were actors and the American Government mass murdered hundreds of civilians in order to start a war by using not only planes but also explosives on one of their nations iconic buildings.

 

Yes. You keep calling me a strawman.

Edited 24 May, 2014 by CB Fry

[Verbal]

Some of the families aren't as insulted as you think.

 

http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

 

You should get your story straight with your "Let's Roll" mates whom you've also quoted. According to them, the 9/11 survivors and families are all crisis actors:

 

There has not been one yet to come here and present any evidence, or face the scrutiny of the simplest questions. Where are these survivors?

 

The answer is simple. They do not exist, never did. All we will ever see are the same actors/liars telling these ridiculous stories. The challenge would be to find one survivor story that does add up.

 

Yes, the stories are absurd, because they are Hollywood fantasy.

 

As I say, these comments are from your quoted source.

 

So what do you believe? Are 9/11 victims, survivors and families all crisis actors? Are the Boston victims, survivors and families all crisis actors?

 

And if not, will you FINALLY apologise, a year late, for your deeply offensive accusation that Lee Rigby and his family are crisis actors? (Heaven knows why Gemmel bought your mealy-mouthed nonsense about the 'timing' of your accusation).

[aintforever]

CB Fry demands them all the time, and worse, often for things he has invented himself.

 

As for your second point, I'm not saying that.

 

In my reply to badgerx16, I did exactly what you ask; providing a before, during and after context centred on the event. As Fowllyd rightly points out, and I've already conceded, many of the events just happened to be things that 9/11 enabled and do nothing to prove a conspiracy on the day or even raise suspicion in isolation. However, you have most of the context you need. Most of it is laid out in the PNAC policy document. The authors wanted the century to be about securing American dominance as the sole superpower, and that peace wasn't the means to achieve it.

 

I doubt many have considered what retaining the "sole superpower" status would actually entail. High level, it simply involves preventing other superpowers from emerging or returning - stopping Russia and China, in other words. Practically, people in democracies don't like to go to war or hike defence spending unless there is a really good reason. "Keeping Russia and China" down isn't a good enough reason, even if it happens to be the plan all along.

 

So we've a problem. The neo-cons really needed a war, but apart from "American dominance, yo!" (difficult to sell in domestic or foreign markets) - they had no justifiable reason for the aggressive foreign policy they wished to pursue. 9/11 provided the reason, the consequent "war on terror" provided the justification for all the corporatism that followed.

 

I agree about what you say about the neo-cons and America's desire to be the sole superpower. The potential motive is obvious, as is the fact that the US would happily kill innocents to achieve their aim. But if you are looking for conspiracies involving robots flying planes, or building rigged with silent explosives you are looking on the wrong place. The US or Israeli secret services would never be able to carry out such an elaborate, complicated and risky operation. No government would ever consider taking such risks. They are far too clever for that.

 

The reason for all these conspiracies is that Bush used 9/11 as a reason to carry out what he wanted to do in the middle east, he just took advantage of the situation, just like the way the UK the government took advantage of the terrorism fear to implement new laws. To some it looks like they were in on it all along but they were not, they were doing what politicians always do use the situation to their advantage.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Us or Israeli secret services new about the 9/11 plans all along. They may have even played a role in encouraging them, they probably played Bin Laden and his men like a fiddle. I wouldn't even be surprised if the US got Israel to stoke things up in the Palestinian conflict to provoke the attack. Bin Laden fell for it hook line and sinker because the moment those planes hit the tower America knew they would have control of Iraq's oil and Israel knew they could do what the **** they wanted with Palestine for generations.

[pap]

My comments about Let's Roll are about as far from "how dare you" as you can get. It's people on a web forum mocking 9/11 eyewitnesses for being actors. It's hilarious. That you fawn over the site as a "good resource" is even funnier.

 

I'll assume "How Dare You" is another sub section from your conspiro-idiots self help book? Keep em coming. I can see that list is a great comfort to you.

 

 

 

Come on then, "boldness" and "facts" time. Who has come forward and is "speaking out" to back up your conspiracy then? One of the guys laying the explosives? Someone who saw the minutes of the first Mossad/Government hook up? Link me up, I'd love to read it.

 

But, most of all, please keep calling me a strawman. You think Boston Bomb Victims were actors and the American Government mass murdered hundreds of civilians in order to start a war by using not only planes but also explosives on one of their nations iconic buildings.

 

Yes. You keep calling me a strawman.

 

"How dare you" was a bit of a stretch. I was hoping that it'd stick and we could add something else to your repetoire. I'm not deaf to constructive criticism. I'm more than happy to rescind that from the record.

 

The recurring theme of strawman combined with a demand for a complete solution is repeated here. The strawman part is the insistence that any bi-lateral operation between the US and Israel mandates a sit-down meeting of some kind. There are apparently no other ways for information to be conveyed or plans to be made. The demand for complete information on this "must have happened" meeting is a provocatively redundant touch.

 

 

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

 

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

 

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

 

 

Edited 25 May, 2014 by pap

[CB Fry]

"How dare you" was a bit of a stretch. I was hoping that it'd stick and we could add something else to your repetoire. I'm not deaf to constructive criticism. I'm more than happy to rescind that from the record.

 

The recurring theme of strawman combined with a demand for a complete solution is repeated here. The strawman part is the insistence that any bi-lateral operation between the US and Israel mandates a sit-down meeting of some kind. There are apparently no other ways for information to be conveyed or plans to be made. The demand for complete information on this "must have happened" meeting is a provocatively redundant touch.

 

 

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

 

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

 

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

 

 

 

More chapters from the self help book, I'm honoured.

 

Hilarious that you still pretend it's me after "complete" solutions when every utterance from you is loaded with unshakeable assumptions. 9/11 is a conspiracy, that to you is a given, a "complete solution" if you will.

 

Which gets us to your very sweet dismissal that "Mossad and elements of the US Government" planned, executed and covered up the planes and explosives on the WTC with no one from either party meeting each other. Not once?

 

You really sure about this, because it feels a little, you know, thin to me. Almost, I don't know, strawman like, you know? The greatest conspiracy the world has ever known, organised how? Telepathy? Semaphore?

 

And I love the self help list. I love the fact that a man who thinks Boston Bomb Victims are crisis actors is trying to deride me for "Ignoring proof presented". You and your chums on the Let's Roll "resource" love a bit of "proof presented", don't you? It's such a great resource of "proof", ain't it?

 

Anyway, any news on your "proof" of someone who laid explosives at the WTC who has come forward and spoken out? You were suggesting you had it before but have now changed the subject.

 

Show me and I promise I won't "ignore proof presented". Because that's what right dinlows do, isn't it?

Edited 25 May, 2014 by CB Fry

[John Smith]

For me it's simple, a boeing 767 never hit the pentagon. It is the us government and other such groups that have said all those plane attacks were by the same people. So, if a boeing 767 never hit the pentagon, what did and who did it? We can't answer those questions because people can't even get passed the facts that the us government is lying. Secondly, not only the fact that wtc 7 was never hit by a plane, never had a steel melting fire burning, but office furniture, it collapsed all on its own in a very bizzare fashion. Especially when the owner of the building in an interview, tells them to pull it, and then it was pullef? Suspicious, strange or normal? Lastly, the fact that the american government got rid of all evidence illegally from the twin towers, which prevented any examination into why steel turned to dust, fact, the american government is at least culpable, if not negligent, in their avtions. Responsible for the attacks? We will never know ALL evidence of thst day was destroyed quickly, efficiently and illegally.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I agree about what you say about the neo-cons and America's desire to be the sole superpower. The potential motive is obvious, as is the fact that the US would happily kill innocents to achieve their aim. But if you are looking for conspiracies involving robots flying planes, or building rigged with silent explosives you are looking on the wrong place. The US or Israeli secret services would never be able to carry out such an elaborate, complicated and risky operation. No government would ever consider taking such risks. They are far too clever for that.

 

The reason for all these conspiracies is that Bush used 9/11 as a reason to carry out what he wanted to do in the middle east, he just took advantage of the situation, just like the way the UK the government took advantage of the terrorism fear to implement new laws. To some it looks like they were in on it all along but they were not, they were doing what politicians always do use the situation to their advantage.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Us or Israeli secret services new about the 9/11 plans all along. They may have even played a role in encouraging them, they probably played Bin Laden and his men like a fiddle. I wouldn't even be surprised if the US got Israel to stoke things up in the Palestinian conflict to provoke the attack. Bin Laden fell for it hook line and sinker because the moment those planes hit the tower America knew they would have control of Iraq's oil and Israel knew they could do what the **** they wanted with Palestine for generations.

 

But the USA was in effect already the sole superpower in the 'unipolar' post Cold War world that had existed ever since the demise of the Soviet Union. Therefore it's not a question of their attempting to engineer this situation because it had already been existence for some time. As for the theory that the sinister 'neo cons' employed 9-11 as a excuse to gain control of the middle east's oil reserves, that might sound more convincing had the invasion of Iraq been the sole US reaction to 9-11. But to be consistent how does that theory also explain Afghanistan - a nation not noted for the extreme wealth of its natural resources?

 

No, it seems to me that quite clearly Afghanistan was invaded as a direct response to the Taliban's part in 9-11. It seems equally likely that the primary reason behind the US decision to topple Saddam was that (rightly or wrongly) he was seen to be a continuing threat to regional order and the security of world oil supply. On the face of it Saddam's long history of funding international terrorism and his disastrous miscalculation of invading Kuwait back in 1990 (and subsequent brutal oppression of his own people) does tend to suggest that this view is not entirely unjustified does it not?

 

None is this is to say that I believe the George W Bush's administration behaved at all wisely in the wake of the national trauma caused by 9-11 - far from it. But the 'War on Terror' was probably a misguided but genuine reaction to 9-11 and the notion that Bush (either knowingly or not) was enacting some devilish conspiratorial plot to gain even more power for himself and his cronies in the evil 'miltary-industrial complex' leaves this observer of history unconvinced to put it mildly.

[Batman]

The Taliban had warned the US the the 9/11 attacks were going to take place. The yanks had various sources telling them as in Intel world was going mental leading up to it.

 

Can only think that arrogance got the better of them on that one

[buctootim]

For me it's simple, a boeing 767 never hit the pentagon.

 

You've clearly never been to the Pentagon, otherwise you'd realise what a heroically stupid assertion that is. The Pentagon is surrounded by densely populated areas of Arlington. The adjacent I395 was packed with traffic. The busy airport is across the road. There were thousands of witnesses, amongst them colleagues of mine.

Edited 25 May, 2014 by buctootim

[John Smith]

You've clearly never been to the Pentagon, otherwise you'd realise what a heroically stupid assertion that is. The Pentagon is surrounded by densely populated areas of Arlington. The adjacent I395 was packed with commuters. The busy airport is across the road. There were thousands of witnesses, amongst them colleagues of mine.

 

I am genuinly pleased that I have been so heroically stupid! But, I am glad you have come forward buctootim. Even though I thought it was relatively quiet time of day when the 'plane' hit, I am sure there are thousands of eye witnesses and video evidence and smashed windows from the plane passing at a few hundred feet at 400 miles an hour. Even the scorch marks from the engines on the lawn would help. Even so, I am just amazed that your colleagues saw this plane, flying at inches above the ground at 400+miles per hour and were skilled enough, in that moment, in that time of terror and devastation, say to each other, "that was a boeing 767". Also, please provide reasons as to how in that moment, they remained so calm as to have the wherewithall to recognise it as a Boeing 767. They must be real enthusiasts. So, please provide a copy of the police report they would have a copy off as your evidence. Let's see how circumstantial it is? Did they take any photo's? They must show the debris for sure, a copy would be good.

 

So, other than these eye witness accounts that you will post on here for me, what else? Engines? Seats? Luggage? Terrorist Passport? Please provide substantial 'evidence' not hearsay, to show that the boeing 767 hitting the Pentagon is a 'fact' and not just another one of these conspiracy theories? Clearly, as you have been to the Pentagon, you will have all this information ready and at hand unlike me.

 

Really, cannot wait to see all this evidence that result in facts and p[ut my stupid little mind at rest.

[OldNick]

I don't about you but by the time I have found my phone and got it to camera mode, a plane flying at 400 miles an hour would be gone. You would look around a say 'f### me that plane is flying low' and before you could do anything it was gone

[buctootim]

I am genuinly pleased that I have been so heroically stupid! But, I am glad you have come forward buctootim. Even though I thought it was relatively quiet time of day when the 'plane' hit, I am sure there are thousands of eye witnesses and video evidence and smashed windows from the plane passing at a few hundred feet at 400 miles an hour. Even the scorch marks from the engines on the lawn would help. Even so, I am just amazed that your colleagues saw this plane, flying at inches above the ground at 400+miles per hour and were skilled enough, in that moment, in that time of terror and devastation, say to each other, "that was a boeing 767". Also, please provide reasons as to how in that moment, they remained so calm as to have the wherewithall to recognise it as a Boeing 767. They must be real enthusiasts. So, please provide a copy of the police report they would have a copy off as your evidence. Let's see how circumstantial it is? Did they take any photo's? They must show the debris for sure, a copy would be good.

 

So, other than these eye witness accounts that you will post on here for me, what else? Engines? Seats? Luggage? Terrorist Passport? Please provide substantial 'evidence' not hearsay, to show that the boeing 767 hitting the Pentagon is a 'fact' and not just another one of these conspiracy theories? Clearly, as you have been to the Pentagon, you will have all this information ready and at hand unlike me.

 

Really, cannot wait to see all this evidence that result in facts and p[ut my stupid little mind at rest.

 

Not a quiet part of the day, 10am with 4 lanes of highway gridlocked and the other four in the opposite direction busy. No smashed car windows, apart from one guy's car who got hit by the plane's wing hitting and knocking down lamposts. My colleagues were travelling in from Arlington to Dupont circle. Afaik they didnt recognise it as a 767, just as an American Airlines plane smashing into the Pentagon. They got a clear view, along with the hundreds of other cars.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/The+Pentagon/@38.867511,-77.060788,3a,75y,10.37h,82.24t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1swGQnQi15tMqF0eFW4Dl5_w!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89b7b6df29ed2c27:0xaf83d0f8c013532f?hl=en

[John Smith]

Not a quiet part of the day, 10am with 4 lanes of highway gridlocked and the other four in the opposite direction busy. No smashed car windows, apart from one guy's car who got hit by the plane's wing hitting and knocking down lamposts. My colleagues were travelling in from Arlington to Dupont circle. Afaik they didnt recognise it as a 767, just as an American Airlines plane smashing into the Pentagon. They got a clear view, along with the hundreds of other cars.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/The+Pentagon/@38.867511,-77.060788,3a,75y,10.37h,82.24t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1swGQnQi15tMqF0eFW4Dl5_w!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89b7b6df29ed2c27:0xaf83d0f8c013532f?hl=en

 

Awesome, I love your sarchasm! I mean that is sarchasm right? Your friends didn't recognise it as a Boeing 767! So, no evidence then. Ans, I agreed with you on the busy part, not sure why that is important to recognise the numbers of people that didn't have a camera or camera phone with them that day. Also, are you seriously providing google maps as your only source of evidence to prove a Boeing 767 hit the Pentagon! Haha, now I've seen everything. You Conspiracy theorists are right nut jobs, google maps, lmao!

 

So, when you produce this evidence that you are so sure about, please come back, I love your sarchasm, but, in all honesty, providing evidence to prove a 'Boeing 767' hit the pentagon is what we need, or, an eye witness statement used by your friends, oh yes, you confirmed they already cannot identify it as a Boeing 767. Correct. So, your own evidence, other than googlmaps (sorry, still lmao), confirms my statement rather than disagrees with it. Who could've identified it exactly as a Boeing 767 at that speed and altitude and also identify that it was that exact Boeing 767 that hit the pentagon. With 'evidence' you would have to. So far, all you've given is hearsay and (still lmao) google maps. And that's what you think will back up your conspiracy, quality, sorry, back again. So, your conspiracy theory, please provide evidence.

[buctootim]

Awesome, I love your sarchasm! I mean that is sarchasm right? Your friends didn't recognise it as a Boeing 767! So, no evidence then. Ans, I agreed with you on the busy part, not sure why that is important to recognise the numbers of people that didn't have a camera or camera phone with them that day. Also, are you seriously providing google maps as your only source of evidence to prove a Boeing 767 hit the Pentagon! Haha, now I've seen everything. You Conspiracy theorists are right nut jobs, google maps, lmao!

 

So, when you produce this evidence that you are so sure about, please come back, I love your sarchasm, but, in all honesty, providing evidence to prove a 'Boeing 767' hit the pentagon is what we need, or, an eye witness statement used by your friends, oh yes, you confirmed they already cannot identify it as a Boeing 767. Correct. So, your own evidence, other than googlmaps (sorry, still lmao), confirms my statement rather than disagrees with it. Who could've identified it exactly as a Boeing 767 at that speed and altitude and also identify that it was that exact Boeing 767 that hit the pentagon. With 'evidence' you would have to. So far, all you've given is hearsay and (still lmao) google maps. And that's what you think will back up your conspiracy, quality, sorry, back again. So, your conspiracy theory, please provide evidence.

 

That post demonstrates very eloquently what reality is up against.

[pap]

I agree about what you say about the neo-cons and America's desire to be the sole superpower. The potential motive is obvious, as is the fact that the US would happily kill innocents to achieve their aim. But if you are looking for conspiracies involving robots flying planes, or building rigged with silent explosives you are looking on the wrong place. The US or Israeli secret services would never be able to carry out such an elaborate, complicated and risky operation. No government would ever consider taking such risks. They are far too clever for that.

 

First, governments (or elements of them) have participated in such risky endeavours. Such operations have frequently been used by countries to legitimise conflict. The USS Liberty incident was a case of US/Israel attempting to covertly destroy a US asset, servicemen and all. The US government never "got away with it". The truth of the situation was known in some form from the moment the first survivors were eventually pulled from the water. People know what happened, it has just never been followed up in an official capacity. It's off the agenda. There are numerous other examples of governments using fabricated events/reports of events to start a shooting war, from the tales of Iraqi soldiers upending babies out of incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals, the Gulf of Tonkin incident which triggered Vietnam, Hitler's push into Poland off the back of the Gleiwitz incident or project TPAJAX, which preceded the 1953 coup against Mossadegh.

 

The reason for all these conspiracies is that Bush used 9/11 as a reason to carry out what he wanted to do in the middle east, he just took advantage of the situation, just like the way the UK the government took advantage of the terrorism fear to implement new laws. To some it looks like they were in on it all along but they were not, they were doing what politicians always do use the situation to their advantage.

 

I heard an excellent quote the other day; "the reason that conspiracy theories exist is because investigative journalism is dead". Sure, it's a little hyperbolic, and exceptions like the Snowden case drive a double decker through the general rule. That said, there's an element of truth to that. I've said this before, but the vast majority of mainstream media is controlled by corporate or state interests. The recent European Elections and the campaign against UKIP gave sparkling insight into the way the mainstream media can align itself in furtherance of a single goal or the propagation of a few key messages.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Us or Israeli secret services new about the 9/11 plans all along. They may have even played a role in encouraging them, they probably played Bin Laden and his men like a fiddle. I wouldn't even be surprised if the US got Israel to stoke things up in the Palestinian conflict to provoke the attack. Bin Laden fell for it hook line and sinker because the moment those planes hit the tower America knew they would have control of Iraq's oil and Israel knew they could do what the **** they wanted with Palestine for generations.

 

Back in the early days, people considered both LIHOP ( let it happen on purpose ) and MIHOP ( make it happen on purpose ) as the two broad alternatives to the official narrative. LIHOP is supported by pre-9/11 events, particularly the complete failure to avert the catastrophe despite the efforts of their own law enforcement agencies and the foreign governments.

 

However, there's a huge problem with LIHOP. How exactly do you let something happen on purpose? If you just do nothing, various operational standard procedures will kick in, fighter jets will be in the air and the planes should be intercepted, as they successfully did the 67 times in 2001 before 9/11. On the day, interception protocols completely failed at the worst possible moment. Five military drills were occurring that day, either diverting potential interception resources or creating confusion for those trying to unscramble the mess. Former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's claimed that Cheney stood NORAD down for 50 minutes while tracking the inbound plane to the Pentagon. This was denied, and he was characterised as someone who'd muddled his timings. CNN reports from the same day back up his claim that the Pentagon was aware of the plane 50 minutes before arrival.

 

Some might argue that the above could be categorised as LIHOP, but I'd disagree. Any "help", omission of action, etc, would make the prosecuting authority part of the plan. Any realistic LIHOP option would involve some indirect MIHOP assistance (stand down orders, etc). Feasible, but not entirely logical. Both LIHOP and MIHOP would have been underpinned by a desire for the attacks to succeed. LIHOP puts entire parts of the desired objective outside the control of the people "letting it happen". Under MIHOP, everything is controlled.

 

You've said you're open to the idea of elements of the US govt/Mossad letting it happen. Is allowing foxes into the henhouse much different than firing the shots yourself? The broad intent is the same, as is the end result. The big differences are the means, directness of involvement and overall probability of mission completion. If a New Pearl Harbor was the desired outcome, would those involved in the planning really trade so much operational control for the tiny bit of moral comfort that LIHOP provides?

Edited 25 May, 2014 by pap

[buctootim]

I heard an excellent quote the other day; "the reason that conspiracy theories exist is because investigative journalism is dead". Sure, it's a little hyperbolic, and exceptions like the Snowden case drive a double decker through the general rule. That said, there's an element of truth to that.

 

There is an element of truth to it now - but there wasnt in the 1960s /70s / 80s and 90s when most of the 'famous' 'conspiracies were meant to have taken place.

 

Aintforever is right. Ther neo-cons got their way in the aftermath of 9/11 - but that is hugely different to saying they planned it and got away with it.

[CB Fry]

Awesome, I love your sarchasm! I mean that is sarchasm right? Your friends didn't recognise it as a Boeing 767! So, no evidence then. Ans, I agreed with you on the busy part, not sure why that is important to recognise the numbers of people that didn't have a camera or camera phone with them that day. Also, are you seriously providing google maps as your only source of evidence to prove a Boeing 767 hit the Pentagon! Haha, now I've seen everything. You Conspiracy theorists are right nut jobs, google maps, lmao!

 

So, when you produce this evidence that you are so sure about, please come back, I love your sarchasm, but, in all honesty, providing evidence to prove a 'Boeing 767' hit the pentagon is what we need, or, an eye witness statement used by your friends, oh yes, you confirmed they already cannot identify it as a Boeing 767. Correct. So, your own evidence, other than googlmaps (sorry, still lmao), confirms my statement rather than disagrees with it. Who could've identified it exactly as a Boeing 767 at that speed and altitude and also identify that it was that exact Boeing 767 that hit the pentagon. With 'evidence' you would have to. So far, all you've given is hearsay and (still lmao) google maps. And that's what you think will back up your conspiracy, quality, sorry, back again. So, your conspiracy theory, please provide evidence.

 

Wow.

[pap]

But the USA was in effect already the sole superpower in the 'unipolar' post Cold War world that had existed ever since the demise of the Soviet Union. Therefore it's not a question of their attempting to engineer this situation because it had already been existence for some time. As for the theory that the sinister 'neo cons' employed 9-11 as a excuse to gain control of the middle east's oil reserves, that might sound more convincing had the invasion of Iraq been the sole US reaction to 9-11. But to be consistent how does that theory also explain Afghanistan - a nation not noted for the extreme wealth of its natural resources?

 

The PNAC document acknowledges the USA's status as sole superpower. The broad aims of the document are about consolidating this status, not achieving it.

 

Afghanistan is not as worthless as you'd imagine. First, it's strategically important - borders Pakistan and Iran, two key players. It's economically important - it'll eventually be home to part of the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline. And of course, there's the opium - which started coming out of Afghanistan almost as soon as the coalition forces established some semblance of control. Heroin is cheaper, more available and causing real problems. Iran Contra showed that senior government officials have no problems slinging a bit of dope; it's a great source of off-the-books cash which can be used to fund black operations. I wouldn't be surprised if we weren't somehow making an earner.

 

 

 

No, it seems to me that quite clearly Afghanistan was invaded as a direct response to the Taliban's part in 9-11. It seems equally likely that the primary reason behind the US decision to topple Saddam was that (rightly or wrongly) he was seen to be a continuing threat to regional order and the security of world oil supply. On the face of it Saddam's long history of funding international terrorism and his disastrous miscalculation of invading Kuwait back in 1990 (and subsequent brutal oppression of his own people) does tend to suggest that this view is not entirely unjustified does it not?

 

During the Afghanistan bombing campaign, the Taleban offered to give up bin Laden.

 

There were two conditions:-

 

1) evidence that bin Laden was involved

2) bin Laden to be handed to a neutral court

 

Not a big ask if they have a case. bin Laden would have been on his way to an international court somewhere for a trial. A successful conviction in an international court based on solid evidence would have been the best outcome. Punishment served, and a strong statement about how the leader of the free world goes about its business.

 

Afghanistan was the foot in the door war. Overkill? Maybe, but given public sentiment at the time, few complained loudly.

 

In reality, if they'd had a prosecutable case and the political will, the invasion could have been avoided and the US could have basked in its new-found moral authority. The PNAC document suggests the neo-conservatives were gagging for war. Afghanistan represented the most expedient means of getting into one of their desired theater campaigns.

 

None is this is to say that I believe the George W Bush's administration behaved at all wisely in the wake of the national trauma caused by 9-11 - far from it. But the 'War on Terror' was probably a misguided but genuine reaction to 9-11 and the notion that Bush (either knowingly or not) was enacting some devilish conspiratorial plot to gain even more power for himself and his cronies in the evil 'miltary-industrial complex' leaves this observer of history unconvinced to put it mildly.

 

Some of the neocons, notably Wolfowitz, were involved in a project called Team B. Some felt that the US wasn't nearly as alarmed as it should be about the Soviet threat following 70s detente. It was a competitive analysis exercise which hawks like Bush Sr and Donald Rumsfeld called for. They hoped it would prove a bit spicier than the dull truth of Soviet military decline. The Team weren't thrilled with some of their base variables, so they ramped up things like Soviet GDP, production, capabilities of weapons systems.

 

Bush allowed a panel of outsiders, deliberately stacked with hard-liners, to second-guess the agency's findings. Not surprisingly, the result was a depiction of Soviet intentions and capabilities that seemed extreme at the time and looks ludicrous in retrospect.

 

They extrapolated and invented stuff purely on the basis of the desired outcome. Didn't seem to matter.

 

Despite Kissinger's condemnation of Team B's assessment, Rumsfeld was effusive in promoting it as a credible study--and thereby undermining arms control efforts for the next four years. Two days before Jimmy Carter's inauguration, Rumsfeld fired parting shots at Kissinger and other disarmament advocates, saying that "no doubt exists about the capabilities of the Soviet armed forces" and that those capabilities "indicate a tendency toward war fighting ... rather than the more modish Western models of deterrence through mutual vulnerability." Team B's efforts not only were effective in undermining the incoming Carter administration's disarmament efforts but also laid the foundation for the unnecessary explosion of the defense budget in the Reagan years. And it was during those years that virtually all of Rumsfeld's compatriots were elevated to positions of power in the executive branch.

 

There's an interesting turn-up. Reagan-era spending was Rumsfeld-inspired and Donald and co all got promoted!

 

By the time George Bush Jr rolled in, many of Dubya's administration had served times on boards of various military industrial corporations, casting further doubt on motive and potential conflicts of interests in a new era of military spending increases, no-bid contracts, private military contractors, a permanent war economy and a steady stream of real extremists created through the West's heavy-handedness, allowing us to ironically justify this mess.

Edited 25 May, 2014 by pap

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Pap I think you seriously underestimate the new political reality created by the 9-11 attack. It seems to me that no US president, be they Republican or Democrat, could possibly not react decisively to this devastating attack on New York City and expect to remain in office for long. The US public demanded of their political class some form of retaliation for 9-11 ... and that is precisely what President George W Bush gave them. Indeed had 9-11 occurred in London rather than New York I'm not at all sure the UK public would have reacted much differently.

 

The (obvious) analogy to be drawn here is with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on the 7th December 1941. Al Qaeda is no powerful nation, such as Imperial Japan certainly was, but the profound sense of shock and outrage caused by both attacks is perhaps roughly comparable. Indeed, in this age of mass media and instant communication, the effect on the US public of 9-11 (although clearly less serious than Pearl Harbour) may actually have been heightened. On a personal note, I expect that we can both remember exactly where we were when we heard of this outrage. I also recall that the dust had hardly settled before I had arrived at the conclusion that some form of military response to this attack was utterly inevitable.

 

Now I'm not arguing here that retaliation should be a proper 'driver' behind the foreign policy of any nation, perhaps in a truly mature democracy cooler heads should prevail. Nevertheless, politics remains a rough and ready business and politicians must ultimately respond to the demands of the voters who elect them or expect to face the consequences.

[OldNick]

Pap I think you seriously underestimate the new political reality created by the 9-11 attack. It seems to me that no US president, be they Republican or Democrat, could possibly not react decisively to this devastating attack on New York City and expect to remain in office for long. The US public demanded of their political class some form of retaliation for 9-11 ... and that is precisely what President George W Bush gave them. Indeed had 9-11 occurred in London rather than New York I'm not at all sure the UK public would have reacted much differently.

 

The (obvious) analogy to be drawn here is with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on the 7th December 1941. Al Qaeda is no powerful nation, such as Imperial Japan certainly was, but the profound sense of shock and outrage caused by both attacks is perhaps roughly comparable. Indeed, in this age of mass media and instant communication, the effect on the US public of 9-11 (although clearly less serious than Pearl Harbour) may actually have been heightened. On a personal note, I expect that we can both remember exactly where we were when we heard of this outrage. I also recall that the dust had hardly settled before I had arrived at the conclusion that some form of military response to this attack was utterly inevitable.

 

Now I'm not arguing here that retaliation should be a proper 'driver' behind the foreign policy of any nation, perhaps in a truly mature democracy cooler heads should prevail. Nevertheless, politics remains a rough and ready business and politicians must ultimately respond to the demands of the voters who elect them or expect to face the consequences.

There is a theory that Roosevelt knew of the Pearl Harbour attack so that he could get the US into the war,

[igsey]

There is a theory that Roosevelt knew of the Pearl Harbour attack so that he could get the US into the war,

 

And, much like the one portrayed above by Pap, it's conspiracy b*llocks.

[aintforever]

You've said you're open to the idea of elements of the US govt/Mossad letting it happen. Is allowing foxes into the henhouse much different than firing the shots yourself? The broad intent is the same, as is the end result. The big differences are the means, directness of involvement and overall probability of mission completion. If a New Pearl Harbor was the desired outcome, would those involved in the planning really trade so much operational control for the tiny bit of moral comfort that LIHOP provides?

 

Of course there is little difference between letting it happen or doing it themselves, I'm not disputing the broad intent if that is what they did.

 

But your theory that the planes that flew into the towers were not airliners is just completely unbelievable. If the US government were to carry out such a complicated and risky plan it is nuts to think they wouldn't use the same type of aircraft as the ones that were supposed to be hijacked. Getting hold of a couple of airliners, painting them the same colour and adding a few vinyl American Airline graphics would be p!ss easy and absolutely vital to pull such a plan off. They would have no control as to what camera crews were watching, how many Japanese tourist would be filming in good quality cameras etc who could get footage online almost instantly.

 

Then of course if they were not the hijacked planes they would have to have been flown by remote control - the technology is there but would add another massive layer of risk (I expect flying jumbos by remote is very different to flying drones). It would also involve recruiting teams of drone specialists from the military to fit and operate the planes - all willing to commit mass murder on US soil and risk the death penalty in the process (that process alone would be impossible).

 

Then of course you have the 4 x airliners full of passengers and crew to dispose of. I suppose they were flown to area 51 and executed and planes destroyed (more willing mass murderers required).

 

They would also have had to recruit 4 teams of middle eastern looking agents (again all willing to commit mass murder on US soil and risk the death penalty) to hijack the planes. unless of course you think the phone calls from the planes were faked - but then of course they would need teams of agents to do that plus voice morphing experts (again all willing to slaughter thousands of innocents and risk their own life in the process).

 

I expect Air traffic control and US military radar operators would also have to be in on it - that's more people complicit in mass murder.

 

We havn't got to the task of wiring the WTC with explosives and carrying out the massive cover up on the ground in New York and you are already using probably a few hundred people in your plan. People willing to risk their lives to carry out a heinous crime on innocent US citizens just so the country can go to some war in the middle east - you seriously believe that?

[pap]

Of course there is little difference between letting it happen or doing it themselves, I'm not disputing the broad intent if that is what they did.

 

But your theory that the planes that flew into the towers were not airliners is just completely unbelievable. If the US government were to carry out such a complicated and risky plan it is nuts to think they wouldn't use the same type of aircraft as the ones that were supposed to be hijacked. Getting hold of a couple of airliners, painting them the same colour and adding a few vinyl American Airline graphics would be p!ss easy and absolutely vital to pull such a plan off. They would have no control as to what camera crews were watching, how many Japanese tourist would be filming in good quality cameras etc who could get footage online almost instantly.

 

Then of course if they were not the hijacked planes they would have to have been flown by remote control - the technology is there but would add another massive layer of risk (I expect flying jumbos by remote is very different to flying drones). It would also involve recruiting teams of drone specialists from the military to fit and operate the planes - all willing to commit mass murder on US soil and risk the death penalty in the process (that process alone would be impossible).

 

Then of course you have the 4 x airliners full of passengers and crew to dispose of. I suppose they were flown to area 51 and executed and planes destroyed (more willing mass murderers required).

 

They would also have had to recruit 4 teams of middle eastern looking agents (again all willing to commit mass murder on US soil and risk the death penalty) to hijack the planes. unless of course you think the phone calls from the planes were faked - but then of course they would need teams of agents to do that plus voice morphing experts (again all willing to slaughter thousands of innocents and risk their own life in the process).

 

I expect Air traffic control and US military radar operators would also have to be in on it - that's more people complicit in mass murder.

 

We havn't got to the task of wiring the WTC with explosives and carrying out the massive cover up on the ground in New York and you are already using probably a few hundred people in your plan. People willing to risk their lives to carry out a heinous crime on innocent US citizens just so the country can go to some war in the middle east - you seriously believe that?

 

Hold up a second; I didn't start the thread or knowingly put forward a "planes were not airliners" theory. Can you let me know the origin of your point?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

There is a theory that Roosevelt knew of the Pearl Harbour attack so that he could get the US into the war,

 

You are correct in that this theory has indeed been postulated.

 

In a similiar vein, by all accounts Stalin was repeatedly warned that Hitler was planning to invade the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941. Yet the record shows that he too failed to take the appropriate measures required to address this threat - with disastrous consequences. Stalin's folly seems well established, Roosevelt's rather less so, but perhaps the nub of the problem is that governments are constantly flooded with intelligence information from a wide variety of sources, and that much of this 'intel' is either unreliable, false or even contradictory in nature. It is not the mere gathering of intelligence that matters, it is evaluating it correctly that counts.

 

For arguments sake say the US government did indeed receive some indication that Al qaeda was planning the 9-11 attack. This alone by no means proves that the US government therefore must have deliberately allowed this outrage to happen in order to further some expansionist 'neocon' agenda of theirs. This is a conspiracy theory too far for me, indeed a preposterous notion that only someone afflicted with a serious case of paranoia could believe.

 

It seems rather more likely that the CIA is subject to a unremitting barrage of terrorist threat warnings, from both domestic and foreign intel sources, and that in their hearts they didn't truly believe that a mere terrorist organisation was capable of conducting an attack of this unprecedented scale and audacity anyway. In short they failed to pay sufficient attention to this particular threat. This is a thread that runs throughout history, we underestimate our opponents at our peril.

 

A old lesson Humanity seems doomed to never learn.

Edited 26 May, 2014 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[CB Fry]

Hold up a second; I didn't start the thread or knowingly put forward a "planes were not airliners" theory. Can you let me know the origin of your point?

 

Pretty solidly covered in your hallowed "resource", Pappy. It's a treasure trove of wisdom it really is.

 

Luckily on this thread absolutely no-one has constructed a "strawman". And absolutely no one as offered up a "complete solution". Because that would be, like, awful.

 

http://letsrollforums.com/9-11-plane-witness-t22697.html

 

Strawman me the fu ck up.

Edited 26 May, 2014 by CB Fry

[pap]

Pretty solidly covered in your hallowed "resource", Pappy. It's a treasure trove of wisdom it really is.

 

Luckily on this thread absolutely no-one has constructed a "strawman". And absolutely no one as offered up a "complete solution". Because that would be, like, awful.

 

http://letsrollforums.com/9-11-plane-witness-t22697.html

 

Strawman me the fu ck up.

 

Hehe. Cherry-picking is probably more appropriate.

 

I link a forum, say it's a good resource - but also say I've had nothing to do with the content.

 

On this thread, I have provided my own content, frequently taking the time to address the specific "man in the pub" jizz that prematurely dribbles out of your mouth.

 

You've elected to go to a public forum that I've linked, deciding for the purposes of your argument that I endorse 100% everything on the site, then attempt to ascribe other people's opinions to me based on my broad statement that the forum as a whole was a good resource.

 

I feel the only positive contribution you've made here is to the double glazing industry. I've written excitedly to them this morning, sharing the exciting news that we've finally found something more transparent than glass.