900 replies to this topic

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 19 July 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

A lot of your points have to do with motive, but I guess I don't see then why that has anything to do specifically with the 'PH' comment; it's not that comment, it's the whole document that provides the motive. And it's not like any of this was secretive or anything, the Bush Administration was chock full of hawks and everyone knew it. This PH comment and this document is entirely superfluous since all the motive that should be needed was common knowledge, namely that the Bush Admin wanted increased defense spending, and they got it partially because they exploited 9/11. Maybe I should try it this way and ask that you and WT complete the following sentence if appropriate: "The 'Pearl Harbor' reference in the PNAC document bears mentioning because it specifically shows/suggests _____".

"The 'Pearl Harbor' reference in the PNAC document bears mentioning because it specifically shows/suggests motive for 9/11; the Neocon mindset that such an event would benefit their wider aims".

Perhaps the above is common knowledge to some, perhaps not to others. Though when those Neocons spell it out so boldly, it is only sensible to use as prime and easily demonstrated evidence of motive. The document even makes the link to 9/11 for us in holding up example of a direct attack on America, involving approximately 3,000 casualties, which served as catalyst to a long war.

Liquid Gardens, on 19 July 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

I understand that it's just providing 'motive' but it seems rather arbitrary to not take it any further. For instance, I haven't seen anything in the document saying that any of this transformation needs to be completed quickly (I may well have missed something there's only so much of that PNAC paranoid sales pitch I can stand to read at once), especially since it talks about a decades-long implementation, and WTs statement mentioned a 'fast overhaul' as being part of the point of the PH statement. I think it's entirely fair to say then, 'motive to do what exactly' and that is provided by the document that is providing that motive. Isn't the motive, as laid out in the document, to transform and upgrade our military, increase our presence over the world, increase defense spending over a period of decades? Wouldn't this be the preferable way to do this from a 'Republican' point of view to transition the other govt spending that they don't like, such as social programs, into defense, which will take time? Republicans are all about the deficit supposedly, they really wanted to rack up a bunch more debt to fight a couple wars? I think there's an assumption perhaps being made that since they said they wanted defense spending to increase that they wanted it to happen quickly and massively no matter what the downsides, and I'm not sure if the evidence for that assumption is found in this document that is providing this motive.

The suggested timelines of "decades" in the document are based on a premise that conditions following collapse of the Soviet Union would continue, i.e. "precluding the rise of a great power rival" and/or "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event". Lacking those occurrences, I agree with the authors that the aims would have taken decades to be realised, if at all.

The urgency and concern of the authors at a potential American slide is inherent throughout the whole document though, don't you think?

A couple of examples from many: -

"In sum, the 1990s have been a "decade of defense neglect." This leaves the next president of the United States with an enormous challenge: he must increase military spending to preserve American geopolitical leadership, or he must pull back from the security commitments that are the measure of America’s position as the world’s sole superpower and the final guarantee of security, democratic freedoms and individual political rights."

"For the United States to retain the technological and tactical advantages it now enjoys, the transformation effort must be considered as pressing a military mission as preparing for today’s theater wars."

If you understand the Neocon policy then you will know that a "pull back" was not an option. Also the onus is placed on the next president to take action, not the administration a decade or two down the line. It is a process that had to begin immediately, for the turnaround and increase in the defense budget could not occur overnight, not to mention the increased force presence in the Gulf.  Could it occur at all over multiple administrations without the transforming event as a driver?

9/11 was all too convenient, providing both reason and the renewed urgency sought - rendering the next president's (and future president's) decision(s) to endorse and enact the roadmap a no-brainer, with a high level of U.S. public support to boot.

This is enormous incentive for a false flag. Those leading career Neocons involved - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz - were not getting any younger and knew this would be their last chance in power, a 4-8 year window of opportunity to kickstart their agenda and change the course of history in their vision. Were they ruthless enough to generate the pretext? Or would they allow the opportunity to slip?

Liquid Gardens, on 19 July 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

Sorry about that, that was definitely unclear. I was just trying to point out that, again depending on what exactly the significance of PH is that is being argued, any number of lesser catastrophic events could have resulted in the Bush Adm ramping up defense spending in response.

If that were the reality then people would not draw the "new Pearl Harbor" comparison. The link is made because 9/11 does have a number of significant parallels to Pearl Harbor.  And it was a "new Pearl Harbor" that the PNAC referenced; not any lesser event.

Liquid Gardens, on 19 July 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

The whole point of this document is all the important people who signed on to it, but maybe they didn't read it? Seems like it would be a pretty important section to have rewritten if you were plotting the new 'PH'. Even if I grant for a second that they were actually plotting 9/11, isn't it possible they were aware of the PH statement but didn't felt they needed to take it out because they meant it in the way I've been arguing they meant it, strictly referring to upgrading the military? I'm definitely losing even more sight of why the 'PH' statement deserves any specific mention.

I'm sure that all of the project contributors read the document.

Perhaps they did not want to raise unecessary suspicion in demanding the line be removed?

Liquid Gardens, on 19 July 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

I'm with you up to the comma, but 'benefit' is a fairly subjective term and I think can only be compared across the same units of measure. The potential benefits to the govt was more money and power, and the benefits to AQ was fame/notoriety and more recruits, to just select a few; you can't really compare one of those being a greater 'benefit' than the other, it depends on what the benefitee is seeking.

Were those hypothesised aims of 'Al Qaeda' realistic? Did they succeed? Have they been a benefit to 'Al Qaeda'?
No all round.

Were the aims set out by the PNAC realistic? Did they succeed? Have they benefitted the PNAC roadmap?
Yes all round.

So we see that the 'Al Qaeda' plot achieved nothing but to drive the PNAC agenda... how curious.

Anyhow, I think we agree the motive that existed for a false flag attack, and that is the whole point which the "new Pearl Harbor" quote is used to demonstrate.  It's certainly no 'smoking gun' but one important snippet in building a backdrop to further evidence.

Edited by Q24, 23 July 2012 - 11:28 PM.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 23 July 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

"The 'Pearl Harbor' reference in the PNAC document bears mentioning because it specifically shows/suggests motive for 9/11; the Neocon mindset that such an event would benefit their wider aims".

Thanks for stating that, that does clarify it a bit.  I think overall we're in agreement that they wanted to increase defense spending pre-9/11, but just a few responses.

Quote

The suggested timelines of "decades" in the document are based on a premise that conditions following collapse of the Soviet Union would continue, i.e. "precluding the rise of a great power rival" and/or "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event". Lacking those occurrences, I agree with the authors that the aims would have taken decades to be realised, if at all.

The urgency and concern of the authors at a potential American slide is inherent throughout the whole document though, don't you think?

Yes, the urgency and concern is there throughout, as it is with almost every sales pitch, but there is a big difference between a 'slide' and our response to 9/11; we could stop the slide with much more modest increases in defense and foreign policy over a longer period of time.  I can definitely grant it's unclear, and thanks for providing the other quotes implying the urgency.  Again, no argument that they took advantage of 9/11.

Quote

This is enormous incentive for a false flag. Those leading career Neocons involved - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz - were not getting any younger and knew this would be their last chance in power, a 4-8 year window of opportunity to kickstart their agenda and change the course of history in their vision. Were they ruthless enough to generate the pretext? Or would they allow the opportunity to slip?

Fair enough questions.  I think there are fair questions on the other side as long as we're doing armchair psychology.  Was it an enormous incentive enough for treason?  They really didn't think they could kickstart their agenda in any other way?  They came to a decision less than half-way through their term to take this incredible risk (seriously, this would be a certain death penalty I believe, let alone the impact on their families, legacy, etc)?  Because they couldn't get enough benefit by playing the usual sleazy political way?   Aren't there much easier ways to play shenanigans with congressional members to get the kickstart in defense spending they wanted, that doesn't involve mass murder?  It's not 'ruthless', it's pathologically evil.  Just points for balance, not a rebuttal, especially since we haven't gotten into what exactly these conspirators allegedly did.

Quote

I'm sure that all of the project contributors read the document.

Perhaps they did not want to raise unecessary suspicion in demanding the line be removed?

By raising unnecessary suspicion by leaving it in.  If they can't even handle getting a line removed from a document that their own group authored, for consistency's sake I will be watching with a steely eye then for any proposed parts of your theory that require an inordinate ability of these conspirators to be covert or to get people to cooperate.

Quote

Were those hypothesised aims of 'Al Qaeda' realistic? Did they succeed? Have they been a benefit to 'Al Qaeda'?
No all round.

Were the aims set out by the PNAC realistic? Did they succeed? Have they benefitted the PNAC roadmap?
Yes all round.

So we see that the 'Al Qaeda' plot achieved nothing but to drive the PNAC agenda... how curious.

And the Manson family murders achieved nothing towards Charlie's hoped-for race war and effectively destroyed those pesky hippies, which was exactly what the government wanted, there are plenty of govt documents supporting that desire.  We can ask was Manson's plan realistic, did they succeed, did the govt benefit from that event, equally curious?  To make an argument out of this we need to add an assumption in there:  that Al Qaeda knew what was going to happen as a result of the attacks and can accurately predict their bleak future.  Their prediction of the future was incorrect, happens a lot, it doesn't make the original goals and potential benefits 'unrealistic'.  And I don't tend to think there's much overlap between Al Qaeda's religious beliefs and reality anyway.  I'm careful about putting too much credence in 'look who benefited' arguments; they lead to a very long list of possible ultimate assassins for JFK.  I know you're just providing motive though, so it's good by me as long as that's as far as we're taking it.

Quote

Anyhow, I think we agree the motive that existed for a false flag attack, and that is the whole point which the "new Pearl Harbor" quote is used to demonstrate.  It's certainly no 'smoking gun' but one important snippet in building a backdrop to further evidence.

I agree there was motive, not sure how much yet, but we're on the same page.  Like I said, I'm always a little skeptical of points that rely on, 'but look who benefited from x event', but we agree that it really comes down to the evidence.  Again, a refreshing change...

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 24 July 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

Thanks for stating that, that does clarify it a bit. I think overall we're in agreement that they wanted to increase defense spending pre-9/11, but just a few responses.

Apart from defense spending, the other main aim described in the document (which I've not really seen you mention): -

"… to play a more permanent role in Gulf…"
"… a substantial American force presence in the Gulf…"
"… forward-based forces in the [Gulf] region…"
"… longstanding American interests in the [Gulf] region."
"… seek to augment the forces already in the [Gulf] region…"

Also supported by earlier quotes from the Wolfowitz Doctrine which Rebuilding America's Defenses built upon: -

"In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."
~Paul Wolfowitz, 1992

And so it happens that the 9/11 attack, the most significant since Pearl Harbor, involved operatives directed not from Russia or China or Korea or African or internal, but how fortunately... the Gulf... which is where the PNAC had wanted to direct U.S. forces all along, even notwithstanding any improved relations with 'enemies' of the region as the PNAC document describes: -

"Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

"And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."

For sure, fate could not have dealt a better hand to the PNAC within the year they came to power. Except, it's nonsense - there was no fate about it - these politicians are exactly the type to manufacture their own 'luck', as they did before and after 9/11. It was all too simple, the loose structure of 'Al Qaeda' allowing, and circumstances indicating, that bin Laden, their chosen bogeyman, be caught in the trap.

Liquid Gardens, on 24 July 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

Yes, the urgency and concern is there throughout, as it is with almost every sales pitch, but there is a big difference between a 'slide' and our response to 9/11; we could stop the slide with much more modest increases in defense and foreign policy over a longer period of time. I can definitely grant it's unclear, and thanks for providing the other quotes implying the urgency. Again, no argument that they took advantage of 9/11.

How could the Neocon faction ensure 1) the popularity of their aggressive foreign/military policy 2001-2009 without a new great enemy and 2) that over the coming two decades another administration would not gain power and continue the slide of the post-Cold War Clinton years?

The "new Pearl Harbor" pulls the solution out of the hat yet again.

Liquid Gardens, on 24 July 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

Fair enough questions. I think there are fair questions on the other side as long as we're doing armchair psychology. Was it an enormous incentive enough for treason? They really didn't think they could kickstart their agenda in any other way? They came to a decision less than half-way through their term to take this incredible risk (seriously, this would be a certain death penalty I believe, let alone the impact on their families, legacy, etc)? Because they couldn't get enough benefit by playing the usual sleazy political way? Aren't there much easier ways to play shenanigans with congressional members to get the kickstart in defense spending they wanted, that doesn't involve mass murder? It's not 'ruthless', it's pathologically evil. Just points for balance, not a rebuttal, especially since we haven't gotten into what exactly these conspirators allegedly did.

We could speculate about "any other way" but they are the ones who set the scale at a "new Pearl Harbor"... remember, it's a long War on Terror that was required to drive their agenda for decades, a new threat to replace the Cold War... it really needed to be a momentus event... or a "transforming event" as another of their documents imagined it.

Also it was much further back than halfway through the first year of their term when the plot was decided - a lot came together from 1999, not least fifteen of the hijackers with no previous 'Al Qaeda' affiliation all at once presenting themselves at bin Laden's doorstep as suicidal volunteers, interestingly, just the same year a largescale CIA operation to infiltrate 'Al Qaeda' happened to take place - you see, the 9/11 operation was already underway.

What risk? Do you see any investigations or trials competent to expose the details? What we have in the most vital areas is a whitewash, and I can give examples.

Anyhow, I call it ruthless, you call it evil, but either way, it was putting the nation first, before the people. It's the same philosophy Hitler had... and remember there is a link found between the Nazi era and Neocon policy through Leo Strauss. And in the grand scheme of shaping the globe, which is the level these politicians work at, it does make sense - 3,000 people are nothing next to the future global pre-eminence of America itself. Too many cannot handle that fact.

Liquid Gardens, on 24 July 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

To make an argument out of this we need to add an assumption in there: that Al Qaeda knew what was going to happen as a result of the attacks and can accurately predict their bleak future. Their prediction of the future was incorrect, happens a lot, it doesn't make the original goals and potential benefits 'unrealistic'.

The outcome was not difficult to conclude even beforehand, and bin Laden knew it: -

"The fact is that Afghanistan, having raised the banner of Islam, has become a target for the crusader-Jewish alliance. We expect Afghanistan to be bombarded, even though the non-believers will say that they do so because of the presence of Usama."
~Osama bin Laden, 1999

I think it obvious that no conceivable benefit could come to 'Al Qaeda'. We would have to assume 'Al Qaeda' were fools who did not consider the consequences. I know, for every potential benefit you attribute to 'Al Qaeda', I'll describe two potential greater benefits to America, and both of which were actually realised.  But as you said, you don't put too much stock in motive.  Though isn't there a saying "motive is half the crime"?

Osama bin Laden was not a fool and had in the past been careful about just how implicated he became in any attack. It was the same with 9/11, bin Laden was not the commander, only this time the Western operation and propaganda had him setup brilliantly, as planned.

Liquid Gardens, on 24 July 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

I agree there was motive, not sure how much yet, but we're on the same page. Like I said, I'm always a little skeptical of points that rely on, 'but look who benefited from x event', but we agree that it really comes down to the evidence. Again, a refreshing change...

Was W Tell going to move onto other evidence?

I'm conscious of inadvertently detouring the thread here.

[W Tell]

Q24, on 24 July 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

Was W Tell going to move onto other evidence?

I'm conscious of inadvertently detouring the thread here.

I've been watching the thread. I'm kinda afraid I won't be able to give this discussion the kind of attention and well written posts that you two have so far provided... but I'm not too afraid of that.

As soon as LG is ready to go forward is cool with me.

[Liquid Gardens]

W Tell, on 25 July 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:

I've been watching the thread. I'm kinda afraid I won't be able to give this discussion the kind of attention and well written posts that you two have so far provided... but I'm not too afraid of that.

As soon as LG is ready to go forward is cool with me.

Thanks W, and likewise to you and Q on the well-written posts.  It's been my turn to be way too busy with work lately, but I'll try to keep up.  I'm interested in what both you and Q have to say actually; I think there will be some overlap but based on the progress so far I think I'm getting what I was looking for, which is the best case that can be made for theories other than the official one.  I think we're at the point where we are in agreement that the govt had clearly established motive by wanting to increase defense spending and expand the US's military power and presence.  If there's something in a previous post above that you think it's important I respond to or that I've left hanging, just let me know, otherwise I think I'm ready for the next step.  I'd recommend we continue as we have been, with W and I having the central conversation and Q and anyone else providing any commentary they'd like to the points we're discussing, but anyway you'd like to proceed is good by me.

[booNyzarC]

I look forward to seeing this thread move forward to the next point, but I did want to at least comment on one thing; apologies if this takes the thread any further off track.

Q24, on 24 July 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

For sure, fate could not have dealt a better hand to the PNAC within the year they came to power. Except, it's nonsense - there was no fate about it - these politicians are exactly the type to manufacture their own 'luck', as they did before and after 9/11. It was all too simple, the loose structure of 'Al Qaeda' allowing, and circumstances indicating, that bin Laden, their chosen bogeyman, be caught in the trap.

Bogeyman?  Yeah, right.  He was such a model global citizen, wasn't he?  That's why he would say things like this:

• The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it...
  
• We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

1998 Fatwa.

Yeah, model global citizen he was.  He couldn't possibly have had motive to attack, in any way possible, the United States.  Mr. Innocence.

The PNAC neocons just fabricated and orchestrated the whole thing I suppose?  Poor misused and misunderstood Usama bin Laden.  Nothing but a bogeyman.


Sorry Q, but I just don't agree with you here.  Usama bin Laden made his intentions very clear; and they were to terrorize, injure, and murder the United States devils in any way possible and on any front available.  He wasn't a fabricated PNAC neocon bogeyman.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 26 July 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

I look forward to seeing this thread move forward to the next point, but I did want to at least comment on one thing; apologies if this takes the thread any further off track.


Bogeyman?  Yeah, right.  He was such a model global citizen, wasn't he?  That's why he would say things like this:

• The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it...
  
• We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

1998 Fatwa.

Yeah, model global citizen he was.  He couldn't possibly have had motive to attack, in any way possible, the United States.  Mr. Innocence.

The PNAC neocons just fabricated and orchestrated the whole thing I suppose?  Poor misused and misunderstood Usama bin Laden.  Nothing but a bogeyman.


Sorry Q, but I just don't agree with you here.  Usama bin Laden made his intentions very clear; and they were to terrorize, injure, and murder the United States devils in any way possible and on any front available.  He wasn't a fabricated PNAC neocon bogeyman.

Yes, bogeyman - bin Laden was made into something greater, worse and more dangerous than he was ever proven to be, in order to scare the masses into supporting the preordained PNAC foreign military agenda. Though do not mistake the context of that comment...

Even though it is apparent that bin Laden was the Neocon chosen bogeyman, does not mean he was a "model global citizen" or "Mr. Innocence". If you read some of my previous posts on the subject you'd know that is not the case: -

Q24, on 23 November 2011 - 09:40 PM, said:

It is not a secret that bin Laden did not like American policies in the Middle East and Africa and would support actions against them.  You only need listen to the mentioned interviews or read the 1998 fatwa he put his name to.  I really cannot imagine he would discourage anyone from a 9/11 style attack, in fact his motive was the opposite.  That is, unless bin Laden was just an unbelievably accomplished actor and kept the show up for over a decade.

http://www.unexplain...50#entry4124304

Now I know you like to reference that 1998 fatwa and ignore any wider comments and explanation from bin Laden on the topic - regrettably, that blind eye allows you to make him out as the bloodthirsty psycopath you want.  The point necessary to realise is that bin Laden never specifically targetted civilians, he did not see it as an appreciable act, just an acceptable consequence of war; reciprocation to the United States’ own stategy.  We have discussed this before in context of his wider comments, to which you did not respond: -
http://www.unexplain...05#entry4095627

In fact we have discussed much further the involvement of bin Laden in regard to 9/11; his influence and certainly foreknowledge of the attack. I am fully aware he was no 'good guy', nevermind a "model global citizen" or "Mr. Innocence". It was this fact which made it so simple to lure, setup and use bin Laden.

Anyhow, please refer to our previous discussions if you have anything further to add.

[W Tell]

I'm not real sure where the conversation should go from here, since we've been talking motive. But I do want to talk about the buildings.

I suppose I'll start by asking a question. To LG directly, but anyone else that's interested.

Would our military response, that we justified by the actions of that day, have been the same if the buildings had stayed standing?

We would still of had the aftermath of jetliners hijacked and crashed. But if the buildings had stayed standing I don't think it would have had anywhere near the psychologil impact, and directly our military response would've been limited to Bin Laden and Al Quida. I doubt there would have been support for invading nations, replacing leaders, rebuilding them, the extreme loss of liberty at home, etc. I think those buildings had to fall. With people in them. Live on T.V. Seen around the world, to truly get the support needed.

I'm curious of what others think.

[Q24]

W Tell, on 28 July 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

I'm not real sure where the conversation should go from here, since we've been talking motive. But I do want to talk about the buildings.

I suppose I'll start by asking a question. To LG directly, but anyone else that's interested.

Would our military response, that we justified by the actions of that day, have been the same if the buildings had stayed standing?

We would still of had the aftermath of jetliners hijacked and crashed. But if the buildings had stayed standing I don't think it would have had anywhere near the psychologil impact, and directly our military response would've been limited to Bin Laden and Al Quida. I doubt there would have been support for invading nations, replacing leaders, rebuilding them, the extreme loss of liberty at home, etc. I think those buildings had to fall. With people in them. Live on T.V. Seen around the world, to truly get the support needed.

I'm curious of what others think.

The initial military response, the invasion of Afghanistan, could have been identical. I'm certain that the scale and shock of the 9/11 attack, even without the tower collapses, would have been sufficient to garner the public and international support necessary.

What this theoretical lesser scale attack, with greatly reduced loss of life and the lack of a permanent reminder on the New York skyline, could not achieve so assuredly in comparison to the actual event, is the same continued high level of support that we now see as we move further away from the attack. And remember from the previous discussion - as documented, it was a decades long driving force required; a new Pearl Harbor; a replacement to the Cold War threat; a history transforming event. The collapse of the towers and permanent scar that left, guaranteed the outcome.

No, repaired buildings and hundreds of deaths does not meet the requirement... the towers had to fall.

There was even an additional benefit to be had, though less important than discussed above. The asbestos used in the tower construction was a longstanding problem that needed to be remedied, and which was estimated to cost in the double-digit billion $s (more than the buildings were worth! - in insurance terms, that is called a 'write off'). The Port Authority had been considering having the towers taken down since 1991 due to this asbestos regulation problem but the insurers refused to cover the costs. The Port Authority took the insurers to court but lost the case, leaving them lumbered with that double-digit billion $ bill to come in future... far more costly than the current rebuild project.

Thus followed the Zionist collaboration of Lewis Eisenberg, Ronald Lauder and Larry Silverstein, instrumental in the first ever transfer in the history of the buildings which increased the existing insurance coverage from $1.5 billion to $3.55 billion only six weeks prior to the attack. The insurers, despite their earlier court victory, are now forced to pay out - as they say, there is more than one way to skin a cat.  Another benefit now being a compliant building owner to smooth the aftermath. Oh they just got lucky with the timing, I'm sure.

Indeed the towers had to fall and there are money men who will have breathed a concealed sigh of relief when they did - there could be no financial saving through repaired towers. Lewis Eisenberg, one such individual mentioned above, even had this quote to add the day after 9/11: "I just saw my two towers fall. I'm devastated beyond belief. In many respects this is significantly worse than Pearl Harbor, and we don't know who the enemy is." I'm sure his Neocon associates were most grateful for the reference.

There is a huge amount more to add and I could go on, this is only scratching the surface, but I'll wait for W Tell to lead the way...

[Liquid Gardens]

W Tell, on 28 July 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

I'm not real sure where the conversation should go from here, since we've been talking motive. But I do want to talk about the buildings.

I suppose I'll start by asking a question. To LG directly, but anyone else that's interested.

Would our military response, that we justified by the actions of that day, have been the same if the buildings had stayed standing?

We would still of had the aftermath of jetliners hijacked and crashed. But if the buildings had stayed standing I don't think it would have had anywhere near the psychologil impact, and directly our military response would've been limited to Bin Laden and Al Quida. I doubt there would have been support for invading nations, replacing leaders, rebuilding them, the extreme loss of liberty at home, etc. I think those buildings had to fall. With people in them. Live on T.V. Seen around the world, to truly get the support needed.

I'm curious of what others think.

Interesting question, but I'll throw out the caveat that this is a point that is far too complex to likely result in any direct evidence for any position.  It requires lots of guessing about the mental states of many people, like hundreds of congressmen and hundreds of millions Americans, and their decision making processes all coming together in a very chaotic and I'd argue unpredictable way.

I'm with Q that Afghanistan was pretty much a given.  Personally, I don't really think the actual towers falling added that much necessarily to it, it may even be worse and more infuriating to be able to see a severely damaged, wounded WTC left standing, the site of the murder of I'd guess still around a thousand people.  The towers collapsing was indeed a dramatic site, but I don't think it matched the shock, spectacle, and raw violence of the South Tower attack.  I think the message was largely established at that point:  American civilians, you are vulnerable at home.

I don't see how the buildings falling being televised worldwide was necessary for Iraq.  It's not like 'the coalition' wasn't composed of anyone who wouldn't support nearly anything the US does.

Again, intriguing question.  But again, I'm not sure how much hay we can make out of it.  If I understand where you are going, maybe it will be enough if you can show that the conspirators thought that the towers falling was necessary, even if we can't know if it actually was.  But I'm not sure what evidence there might be of that either.  Alternate histories are fun, but it's not the soundest of evidences IMO.  If you feel fairly certain concerning what the incremental components of 9/11 provided in the way of support, then it's fair to ask what more we would have done if 93 would have reached it's target?  Would we have invaded yet another country?  If 93's attack succeeded but the towers didn't fall, would that be enough to support Iraq?  Since it didn't happen that way, that doesn't leave much evidence to base any of our guesses on this.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 28 July 2012 - 11:12 PM, said:

Thus followed the Zionist collaboration of Lewis Eisenberg, Ronald Lauder and Larry Silverstein, instrumental in the first ever transfer in the history of the buildings which increased the existing insurance coverage from $1.5 billion to $3.55 billion only six weeks prior to the attack. The insurers, despite their earlier court victory, are now forced to pay out - as they say, there is more than one way to skin a cat.  Another benefit now being a compliant building owner to smooth the aftermath. Oh they just got lucky with the timing, I'm sure.

Okay, I may lack enough knowledge about this to really dispute it, but I'll try.  This seems a bit misleading; what you are leaving out is that the insurance coverage increased as part of Silverstein buying a lease on all of WTC.  He also asked for $1.5 billion originally and his lenders demanded he increased it, pretty logical since WTC had already been a target.  I'm going to crib something directly from screw loose change because I can't rephrase it better:

"As you can see, the article even mentions the fact that this new policy may not even cover the costs of rebuilding. This apparently is a new type of insurance scam, evidently he submitted a public bid on a lease for the complex, all for the opportunity to have his investment destroyed, so he could have the chance to spend years in court, all for the possibility of breaking even! What a scam."

Seriously, I don't know that much about this: how did these Zionists benefit financially from this transaction?  Keep in mind also something that was also mentioned on the site I got the quote above, that if the demolition is so obvious, you'll have to explain why that fact eluded the insurers, who are not exactly known for not checking those kind of things out.  I might be missing what you think the significance of the asbestos is though.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 29 July 2012 - 12:16 AM, said:

Personally, I don't really think the actual towers falling added that much necessarily to it, it may even be worse and more infuriating to be able to see a severely damaged, wounded WTC left standing, the site of the murder of I'd guess still around a thousand people.

That is if for some reason you wanted to personally believe that hundreds of deaths and repaired buildings (they would not be left in their severely wounded state) are the same as thousands of deaths of a Pearl Harbor equivalent and the permanent removal of landmarks; a constant visible reminder.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 July 2012 - 12:16 AM, said:

I don't see how the buildings falling being televised worldwide was necessary for Iraq. It's not like 'the coalition' wasn't composed of anyone who wouldn't support nearly anything the US does.

Because in that moment 2,000+ lives and landmark buildings were lost in a single catatrophic explosion. The use of this in regard to Iraq is revealed in its comparison to a WMD attack, which the Bush administration constantly talked up prior the 2003 invasion: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." And more. The scale of destruction on 9/11 was more comparable to a WMD attack than simply repaired buildings.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 July 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

Seriously, I don't know that much about this: how did these Zionists benefit financially from this transaction?

The aim was not to personally benefit financially - I have said this before, sorry for not making clear this time around. As you mention, prior to settling on the insurance, Silverstein made enquiries into taking out between $1.5 billion and $5 billion in coverage. I think it more important to view the $3.55 billion which was eventually decided upon and note this is a significant increase from the existing $1.5 billion policy. Also we should not let it pass that the WTC transfer was a notable first time ever event in the existance of the towers, only six weeks prior to 9/11.

The main benefit I see is this - a compliant building owner in the aftermath. Had this not been the case then we could have seen all sorts of uncomfortable lawsuits arise as the WTC owner attempted to sue the airlines and U.S. goverment for dereliction of duty in allowing the attacks to occur and the builders for stating the towers were resistant to collapse from airliner crashes. This could further have led to an increased investigation of the operation and building collapses (perhaps even a full aircrash investigation with physical recovery of the aircraft wreckage) which was not desired by the perpetrators.

So the installment of Silverstein was a control measure and the increased insurance coverage served to ease the burden of billion $ loans that would need to be taken out by the Port Authority (for notice this is where much of the rebuild funding is coming from; not from Silverstein's pocket despite his holding of the insurance policy).

Just a couple further notes of interest to add: -

As well as having the obvious Neocon and Zionist connections, Silverstein was a close friend of Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu who has stated, "It’s very good [9/11]… well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel]." and, "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq." This shows further motive for the above.

On the morning of 9/11 it is known that Silverstein was on the phone to his insurers attempting to negotiate the demolition of WTC7, before the building went down like this...




... a demolition immitating collapse.

I mean, come on. That should be enough to have Silverstein investigated/questioned at the very least, nevermind the further body of evidence, yet no one asked him a question about his demolition enquiry phone call. What is going on? An uncomfortable truth that official parties do not want made public, that's what.

It's ok, let's all just assume that fire beat Silverstein to the punch, and that a failed truss on an Eastern floor (the precise floor/collapse initiation level that happened to be occupied by the U.S. Secret Service no less) now leads to the rapid, complete, freefall, virtually symmetrical collapse of skyscrapers.

Edited by Q24, 29 July 2012 - 08:50 AM.

[manworm]

Q - one small point I would like to raise is how did they know WTC 7 was going to get hit by a chunk of concrete , or are there many co-conspirators . (otherwise it would be obvious it was a mock up ) sorry to butt in.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 29 July 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

That is if for some reason you wanted to personally believe that hundreds of deaths and repaired buildings (they would not be left in their severely wounded state) are the same as thousands of deaths of a Pearl Harbor equivalent and the permanent removal of landmarks; a constant visible reminder.

Let's not lose lose sight of what we are talking about here.  We are not talking about the equivalence between the two scenarios and if they are the same, we are talking about whether the military response would have been significantly different.  I don't see any reason that Bush and Cheney couldn't have railroaded us into Iraq just based on the death of over a thousand civilians along with the destruction.  If the WTC was left standing, it would also be a constant visible reminder, and the question raised by W pretty clearly refers to the WTC collapsing that day.  Heck, us Americans supposedly can't handle pictures of the flag-draped coffins of our fallen servicemen; how do you think a burnt gouged WTC standing like a giant grave marker is going to affect the national mindset.  Given how much damage was done I would not be surprised if they would have been demolished anyway even if they hadn't collapsed, and I'm not sure how many businesses would really like to relocate into rebuilt towers after 9/11.

And again, this whole analysis is based on us being able to break apart the different casualties of 9/11, measure them, and explain what the govt response will be over a period of months and years if they can garner support for it.  This is nearly pure guesswork, almost entirely opinion-based.  If you don't think it is and do think that we can tease apart the damage done and determine the threshold for support for various military responses, then again explain to me how the response would have been different if 93 had succeeded in hitting the White House/Capitol and the reasons and evidence for it.  If you have confidence that the towers had to fall to get public support for Iraq for instance, then you are stating that you do have some ability to assess what the response will be to the various destructive components of the disaster; if you do, then you should then be able to tell me what would be the response to 93 reaching it's target.  Assume it hit and destroyed the White House for instance but didn't kill any of our top officials.  I think the proper response to that question is that it is pretty much pure conjecture, who don't know how specifically they would have responded.  Likewise, to me, the effort in trying to determine the threshold of damage required to buttress support for an Iraq invasion is also largely conjecture.

Quote

Because in that moment 2,000+ lives and landmark buildings were lost in a single catatrophic explosion. The use of this in regard to Iraq is revealed in its comparison to a WMD attack, which the Bush administration constantly talked up prior the 2003 invasion: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." And more. The scale of destruction on 9/11 was more comparable to a WMD attack than simply repaired buildings.

I didn't technically hypothesize repaired buildings.  The question as asked assumes that they are collapsing dramatically on live TV for the world to see; it loses some of that drama if they stood and we had to take few months and dismantle them.  Again, I'm having trouble believing that there'd be many businesses seeking leases in a repaired WTC after a thousand+ people died there; it's kinda like putting up a YMCA at Auschwitz.  Regardless, I'm not necessarily seeing the strength of the connection you are seeing to the WMD scare-mongering and the necessity that the towers fall.  From a logical perspective, the towers falling don't seem to have much to do with the reasoning behind the threat of WMDs.  It's not that the towers fell that indicates we are vulnerable to a WMD attack, it's that guys with boxcutters were able to pretty easily attack us and cause widespread damage; if we are vulnerable to that then of course we're logically vulnerable to a WMD attack, that would require potentially even fewer perpetrators to pull off.

Quote

The aim was not to personally benefit financially - I have said this before, sorry for not making clear this time around.

No apology necessary Q, I appreciate you taking the time to provide the detail to someone who is just looking into this angle.

Quote

As you mention, prior to settling on the insurance, Silverstein made enquiries into taking out between $1.5 billion and $5 billion in coverage. I think it more important to view the $3.55 billion which was eventually decided upon and note this is a significant increase from the existing $1.5 billion policy. Also we should not let it pass that the WTC transfer was a notable first time ever event in the existance of the towers, only six weeks prior to 9/11.

What I heard is that Silverstein wanted to take out 1.5 bill and was forced by lenders to take out the 3.5 billion; if Silverstein would have gotten what he originally wanted he'd be short insurance wise and possibly he and his lenders would take a significant loss.  I'm not sure of the significance of the WTC transfer being a first time ever event.  Likewise not sure how the fact that the closing of the deal was only 6 weeks before (it had actually been agreed to in April).  Whatever the significance, how long would have needed to pass before it's not suspicious enough to merit mentioning?  If the deal was closed 6 months before would we also be making sure to 'not let it pass'?  A year?

Quote

The main benefit I see is this - a compliant building owner in the aftermath. Had this not been the case then we could have seen all sorts of uncomfortable lawsuits arise as the WTC owner attempted to sue the airlines and U.S. goverment for dereliction of duty in allowing the attacks to occur and the builders for stating the towers were resistant to collapse from airliner crashes. This could further have led to an increased investigation of the operation and building collapses (perhaps even a full aircrash investigation with physical recovery of the aircraft wreckage) which was not desired by the perpetrators.

So the installment of Silverstein was a control measure and the increased insurance coverage served to ease the burden of billion $ loans that would need to be taken out by the Port Authority (for notice this is where much of the rebuild funding is coming from; not from Silverstein's pocket despite his holding of the insurance policy).

What then is the benefit to Silverstein again?  It's not actually financial?  The Port Authority owned the building before Silverstein I believe, a govt agency.  'They' couldn't have quashed these hypothesized lawsuits right there?  Why can't they obtain the compliance of another govt agency?   Most importantly, how do they prevent the insurance companies from bringing these uncomfortable lawsuits, regardless of the actual ownership?

Quote

On the morning of 9/11 it is known that Silverstein was on the phone to his insurers attempting to negotiate the demolition of WTC7, before the building went down like this...

... a demolition immitating collapse.

Depends on which demolition expert you ask as far as how 'imitating it was', correct?

Quote

I mean, come on. That should be enough to have Silverstein investigated/questioned at the very least, nevermind the further body of evidence, yet no one asked him a question about his demolition enquiry phone call. What is going on? An uncomfortable truth that official parties do not want made public, that's what.

Huh, I'm not following you here.  First, the source of the evidence for this phone call is a journalist relaying what police officers overheard, I'm sure the message and context and full meaning was communicated perfectly...  And what is so unusual about this?  WTC 7 is significantly damaged and on fire, sounds like there was some structural problems, you think it's unusual for the owner of the property to be discussing options with his insurer?  I mean, come on, indeed.

Quote

It's ok, let's all just assume that fire beat Silverstein to the punch, and that a failed truss on an Eastern floor (the precise floor/collapse initiation level that happened to be occupied by the U.S. Secret Service no less) now leads to the rapid, complete, freefall, virtually symmetrical collapse of skyscrapers.

I hope you are just referring to WTC 7 with the reference to free fall; the twin towers collapse was clearly not free fall.  And I have to ask the question I usually do to points of this nature:  if you think the way WTC 7 collapsed does not make sense, then tell me what should have happened?  How should it have collapsed, or should it have withstood extensive damage and fires burning for hours?  Most importantly, how do you know this?  You seem to pretty clearly have made a prediction of what should have happened since something about the WTC 7 appears to be unusual to you. What is that prediction and how did you calculate it?  Needless to say, it is an extremely complex calculation with large chunks of missing data, I'm wondering how anyone can say 'it shouldn't have happened that way'.  I believe this type of analysis usually requires computer modeling, not sure if that exists and supports your alternate prediction.

[Q24]

Sorry LG, I'm halfway through a response, having time issues at the moment, should be there tomorrow.

manworm, on 29 July 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

Q - one small point I would like to raise is how did they know WTC 7 was going to get hit by a chunk of concrete , or are there many co-conspirators . (otherwise it would be obvious it was a mock up ) sorry to butt in.

Why do you assume anyone knew WTC7 would be impacted by the tower debris?