763 replies to this topic

[psychoticmike]

booNyzarC, on 19 November 2011 - 07:10 AM, said:

If you made the effort to organize your response in a more legible format, yes I would take the time to respond.

better? ok, I'll redo that post tomorrow. I'm not sure where you are, but where i'm at its 1:45am and i have a family function tomorrow, technically today.

Quote

And if you don't, well, at least take comfort in the fact that I think you have one of the coolest avatars on the forum.

thank you, nice youtube links you got there LOL

Quote

By the way, dropping your attitude would go a long way too.

what can i say, i treat others how they treat me.

[Holmesian]

Q24, on 18 November 2011 - 08:05 PM, said:

I don’t personally find 2) important - just a ‘fortunate’ by-product.

What’s the difference between a ‘multi-millionaire’ and a ‘multi-millionaire plus a few million’?

Also, if the above were in chronological order, I’d put 4) before 3)



A separate note on this point.  Were there any Afghan or Iraqi assets available and willing to work directly for U.S. interests?  Doesn’t it make more sense in context of a false flag that agents are found to be from a country that is a U.S. ally and stood to gain from the ‘War on Terror’?  Doesn’t the fact explain why the hijackers received assistance from a Saudi government agent?

If anything, this point favours existence of a false flag operation.



For example… ??

The attack had to be attributed to terrorists (a state sponsored attack wouldn’t have made sense or allowed a widespread response), on a large and permanent enough scale to support a long ‘War on Terror’ (sufficient to replace the Cold War threat) and big enough that people would be hesitant to doubt.

I don’t see that the plan settled on was convoluted, overly risk adverse or unreasonable.

To be honest I can't see how the plan cannot be seen as ridiculously convoluted,overly risk adverse or unreasonable, for the reasons I have already noted. To me that seems self evident, but I appreciate you take a different view. Also I cannot fathom why you would choose deliberately hijackers predominantly nationals from one of your few allies in the region, if the idea is to engender a zeitgest in the american public for war in that region.Again we differ on this and I don't think there is much point labouring it.

You ask, I think in your post, if I can give an example of a less convolted and less risk adverse plan than sacrificing thousands of your own people,employing foreign terrorists to hijack four planes, switch those planes mid flight, fly them into iconic buildings, but also plant explosives in those buildings as well, as well as in building 7,which will surely leave traces of explosives but hope no one notices, hope the planes are not shot down or the terrorists are overcome by the passengers, so that we can launch an attack on a nation such s Iraq which is not linked with the specific terrorist group we are framing for this event ( in fact who hate each other). I do not claim to be a strategic mastermind, but yes, at a stretch I think I can come up with a less convoluted and less risky plan than that one.

[Q24]

Holmesian, on 19 November 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

Also I cannot fathom why you would choose deliberately hijackers predominantly nationals from one of your few allies in the region…

How do you know there was a choice?

Holmesian, on 19 November 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

You ask, I think in your post, if I can give an example of a less convolted and less risk adverse plan… yes, at a stretch I think I can come up with a less convoluted and less risky plan than that one.

For example… ?

Holmesian, on 19 November 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

…than sacrificing thousands of your own people,employing foreign terrorists to hijack four planes, switch those planes mid flight, fly them into iconic buildings, but also plant explosives in those buildings as well, as well as in building 7,which will surely leave traces of explosives but hope no one notices, hope the planes are not shot down or the terrorists are overcome by the passengers…

I’m still not seeing how the risk could not be mitigated.  You suggest there’s this huge unassailable risk but are not being specific.  What specific element of the operation was “ridiculously convoluted, overly risk adverse or unreasonable” and how?  I can’t respond without knowing what you’re aiming at.

The demolition setup for example - there was no chance for this to be uncovered as it would have been carried out under guise of legitimate refurbishment works to the fireproofing and/or steelwork.  If this were carried out in the elevator shafts it’s not like there would be anyone passing by to walk-in on the operation.  Once the demolition materials were set, they would be unnoticeable inside the profile of the ‘I’ columns and/or behind drywall.

Where is the insurmountable risk?

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 19 November 2011 - 01:04 PM, said:

The demolition setup for example - there was no chance for this to be uncovered as it would have been carried out under guise of legitimate refurbishment works to the fireproofing and/or steelwork.

False!

The buildings collapsed only at the points of impacts, which had nothing to do with explosives. Do you really think that explosives could be pre-planted and no one would notice? Not even the building inspectors? Not even those who issue building permits for any work on the WTC buildings? There is no way to predict where the aircraft would be struck and then, plant explosives at the floors where the collapses began. Look at the videos and note that no explosives were detonated when the aircraft struck nor afterwards. No detonation wires nor blast caps were found in either wreckage nor were there any evidence that explosives were used.

[booNyzarC]

Holmesian, on 19 November 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

To be honest I can't see how the plan cannot be seen as ridiculously convoluted,overly risk adverse or unreasonable, for the reasons I have already noted. To me that seems self evident, but I appreciate you take a different view. Also I cannot fathom why you would choose deliberately hijackers predominantly nationals from one of your few allies in the region, if the idea is to engender a zeitgest in the american public for war in that region.Again we differ on this and I don't think there is much point labouring it.

You ask, I think in your post, if I can give an example of a less convolted and less risk adverse plan than sacrificing thousands of your own people,employing foreign terrorists to hijack four planes, switch those planes mid flight, fly them into iconic buildings, but also plant explosives in those buildings as well, as well as in building 7,which will surely leave traces of explosives but hope no one notices, hope the planes are not shot down or the terrorists are overcome by the passengers, so that we can launch an attack on a nation such s Iraq which is not linked with the specific terrorist group we are framing for this event ( in fact who hate each other). I do not claim to be a strategic mastermind, but yes, at a stretch I think I can come up with a less convoluted and less risky plan than that one.

You have a masterful way with words Holmesian.  Very well said.

[unit]

/cue barry white

Quote

There is no way to predict where the aircraft would be struck and then, plant explosives at the floors where the collapses began.

Condy Rice: "...there's no way anyone could have predicted that airliners might have been used as missiles to bring down a building..."

that's funny..

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 20 November 2011 - 12:00 AM, said:

You have a masterful way with words Holmesian.  Very well said.

I can’t say I’m surprised to see you think that vague personal incredulity, unfounded assumption, lack of detailed thought, logic and/or example and avoidance of questions all amount to “well said” - such is last refuge of the official conspiracy theory.

skyeagle409, on 19 November 2011 - 11:23 PM, said:

Do you really think that explosives could be pre-planted and no one would notice? Not even the building inspectors? Not even those who issue building permits for any work on the WTC buildings?

Had building inspectors certified the ongoing steelwork renovation in the month prior 9/11?

skyeagle409, on 19 November 2011 - 11:23 PM, said:

There is no way to predict where the aircraft would be struck and then, plant explosives at the floors where the collapses began.

Was prediction necessary?

skyeagle409, on 19 November 2011 - 11:23 PM, said:

No detonation wires nor blast caps were found in either wreckage nor were there any evidence that explosives were used.

Was detcord necessary?

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 20 November 2011 - 02:22 AM, said:

Had building inspectors certified the ongoing steelwork renovation in the month prior 9/11?

I am very sure the buiding inspectors did not discover any planted explosives on 77th floors.  Do you really think that New York City would issue permits for planted explosives in the WTC buildings that were still occupied?

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 November 2011 - 04:41 AM.

[Holmesian]

Q24, on 20 November 2011 - 02:22 AM, said:

I can’t say I’m surprised to see you think that vague personal incredulity, unfounded assumption, lack of detailed thought, logic and/or example and avoidance of questions all amount to “well said” - such is last refuge of the official conspiracy theory.

Ah shame, that was unnecessary. I was reading your response to me above and I was about to write that despite our disagreement I appreciate how you never fail to respond politely and take the time to reply. Than I read further. Ah well. I actually was asking you these questions because you seemed the one on the conspiracy side who could calmly outline the position the best and convince me to look in to this further.

Let me take the time nevertheless to attempt to answer your critique of me.

vague personal incredulity

Firstly, I am not sure how my incredulity can be characterised as vague. I have outlined twice now why I believe that this plan is too convoluted given the risks involved. I appreciate you don't accept that, that doesn't surprise me, but still its not like I have just said "No, its too complicated" and left it at that.

One more time though, lest I be accused of vagueness again. The result, if this plan is ever discovered is cataclysmic for those involved.Therefore the plan should be as straightforward as possible, with as few people involved as possible, with as few margins for error as possible and for as little evidence left behind as possible. The result they are aiming for is to mould American consciousness to accept a war on terror. Not to actually invade America or whatever just to turn the public sympathies towards war. To this end you say the simplest plan is to hire hijackers to take four planes, hoping that these hijackers are not overcome or the planes shot down, switch those planes midflight, crash those new planes in to the pentagon and the world trade centre. At the same time they plant explosives in the buildings, because planes crashing in to the world trade centre by itself would not be enough to raise American consciousness. Now phase two of the plan kicks in, invasion of the middle east, Iraq is the second country where you send the troops, except they have no connections to the terrorist organisation you just risked everything to invade.

Yes I find that incredulous. But you say that my incredulity is vague and unfouded, and of course you are the reasonable one here.

unfounded assumption

Not sure what exactly this means. The assumption I have made is that if someone was going to do this and take this massive risk they wouldn't need such a layered plan to raise consciousness for war. Your assumption is that no they needed all these things to take place, the hijacking wouldn't be enough, just the planes flying in to the buildings wouldn't be enough etc. Alternatively just blowing up the buildings and blaming it on the terrorists wouldn't be enough. Because obviously if a plane flew in to the World Trade Centre killing all those innocent people that wouldn't be enough to raise the consciousness of the American people for war. Also they blow up building 7 when all the rescue people are on the scene, because without that happening the Americans still won't have the necessary appetite for war.

But my assumptions are the ones that are unfounded, because you are the reasonable one here.

Earlier in this thread you and Boony had an interesting discussion as to whether the words spoken by Bin Laden were enough to amount to a confesion. If I followed your argument correctly, you say that his words are enough to show that he may have had some knowledge of it, or that years previously he may have expressed a desire for planes to strike buildings in America but that is by no means enough to prove he was in any way responsible for the attacks on September 11. Fair enough, I understand your position on that. But yet, documents that show the US considering another Pearl Harbour event, or willingness to establish a false flag operation are used as evidence of the administrations involvement in these attacks.

lack of detailed thought, logic

Yeah, again I'm not sure what this allegation really means, but God forbid I should accuse you of vagueness. The thing is, I am not necessarily completely against your theories. I don't pretend to have spent the time or looked at in the same depth as you. I really have no love for the neocons and much of the machinations and duplicity that went on at the time.I throw up in my mouth a little bit every time I inadvertently stumble accross Fox "news".You and others point to interesting anomalies. I simply asked really, if moulding the consciousness for war was the purpose would this really be how they go about it. Apparently that question is illogical, or I haven't given this enough thought.

Should I accept that this is not a logical question to ask because you are the reasonable one here.

avoidance of questions

Well again, I feel like I have a number of times outlined previously why I believe the plan was overly complicated. I'm not sure whether you are saying I avoided coming up with a less convoluted plan. Is that what you see as me avoiding here? A less convoluted plan would be any plan which has been used before to whip up support for war. But again so that I am not seen as ducking the "hard question" ( I laughed a bit when I wrote that)

1) simply blow up the plane/ planes killing all those innocent people or
2) blow up the buildings and blaming it on the terrorists or
3) send one plane in to the pentagon/ world trade centre or
4) go on fox news and claim you had found plans of an imminent Iraqi rearming and that Saddam had stock piles of weapons of mass destruction,
5) or go on Fox news and show secret document that the terrorist were starting a base in cuba/afghanistan/wherever was convenient and you had discovered plans they were intending to invade America.
6)pretty much anything which is not taken from the plans of a supervillain from a batman comic


But you will say that none of these would have been enough to raise the American consciousness for war, they needed all the trappings of the plan that actually went ahead which was the least convoluted, and your assumptions are in no way unfounded or possibly not even assumptions, and you are being the reasonable one here.

[Q24]

Holmesian, on 20 November 2011 - 10:12 AM, said:

Ah shame, that was unnecessary. I was reading your response to me above and I was about to write that despite our disagreement I appreciate how you never fail to respond politely and take the time to reply. Than I read further. Ah well. I actually was asking you these questions because you seemed the one on the conspiracy side who could calmly outline the position the best and convince me to look in to this further.

Let me take the time nevertheless to attempt to answer your critique of me.

The comments are directed at characteristics of the argument you are putting forward - it is not intended as a critique of you; please don’t take it personally so far as possible.  I appreciate the calm way you raise suggestions, only finding the lack of detailed scrutiny to be frustrating.

For example, you have raised this: -

Holmesian, on 20 November 2011 - 10:12 AM, said:

… Iraq is the second country where you send the troops, except they have no connections to the terrorist organisation…

You are continually suggesting that if 9/11 were meant to support wars in Afghanistan and Iraq then operatives of those nationalities should have been utilised thus providing a direct connection to the attack.

For the third time I ask: -

Were there any Afghan or Iraqi assets available and willing to work to this end?
How do you know there was a choice about which nationals were used?

It is a big assumption that those behind the attack had Afghan and Iraqi agents willing to take direction from them.  What if there were not suitable Afghan or Iraqi assets available?  What if only Saudi agents were available?  This is reasonable; the latter (Western allies) more likely to be available and utilised than the former (Western enemies).

Are you suggesting those who became the hijackers should have created false identities of non-existent Afghan and Iraqi nationals?  But then I thought the whole basis of your argument was that the operation should be kept simple as possible.  Better then to use real people, keeping the fabrication to a minimum.

Can you answer any of these questions?

Holmesian, on 20 November 2011 - 10:12 AM, said:

One more time though, lest I be accused of vagueness again. The result, if this plan is ever discovered is cataclysmic for those involved.Therefore the plan should be as straightforward as possible, with as few people involved as possible, with as few margins for error as possible and for as little evidence left behind as possible.

The vagueness is in how you believe the plan was more convoluted than it had to be and in how any area was an excessive risk.  If you were to be more specific, you might explain X would be discovered because Y would notice Z.  At the moment you are hand-waving at the issue: ‘demolitions are too convoluted and risky’.  I’m asking how?  Why?  Have you really considered the specifics?

Once it is thought about in detail, the plan was potentially straightforward with relatively few people involved (mostly foreign to the United States, certainly with no motive to reveal all), built-in mitigation of risk and most evidence removed.  If you would like to raise any specific area of concern I can explain how and why.

Holmesian, on 20 November 2011 - 10:12 AM, said:

Is that what you see as me avoiding here? A less convoluted plan would be any plan which has been used before to whip up support for war. But again so that I am not seen as ducking the "hard question" ( I laughed a bit when I wrote that)

1) simply blow up the plane/ planes killing all those innocent people or
2) blow up the buildings and blaming it on the terrorists or
3) send one plane in to the pentagon/ world trade centre or
4) go on fox news and claim you had found plans of an imminent Iraqi rearming and that Saddam had stock piles of weapons of mass destruction,
5) or go on Fox news and show secret document that the terrorist were starting a base in cuba/afghanistan/wherever was convenient and you had discovered plans they were intending to invade America.
6)pretty much anything which is not taken from the plans of a supervillain from a batman comic

Yes, this is one area I was referring to - thank you for providing example.

First addressing 2) on its own - this carries most of the same risk as the operation settled on, and more.  Obviously the demolition setup still needs to be carried out.  Then there are numerous additional leads allowing investigators to go after the perpetrators.  If it is clear from the outset that explosives were used it raises questions: what materials were used, where were they obtained/manufactured, who had access to the buildings.  Suddenly everyone in the building comes under scrutiny, the attackers are still at large and possibly trapped inside the country, the Israeli agents detained on the scene are now investigated in a whole different light.  It could only be beneficial to disguise nature of the building destruction - the perpetrators could not be uncovered if investigations were looking the wrong way - it is covering your footprints and creating a false track to follow.

In addition, you realise this suggestion multiplies casualties significantly by not allowing time for building evacuation?  I thought you said the casualty scale was too high already.  Your suggestion increases it further.

The problem with the other suggestions is that none meet the stated requirement.

That is, not my requirement or your requirement - it doesn’t matter what we say was enough/sufficient (I know I wasn’t consulted).  The requirement was determined by those behind the operation; the requirement was theirs.

So listen to thoughts in their circles: -

“Readers should imagine the possibilities for themselves, because the most serious constraint on current policy is lack of imagination.  An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history.  It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans’ fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse.  Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force.  More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible.  Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after."
~Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy, Imagining the Transforming Event, 1998

http://www.hks.harva...n/terrorism.htm

The mention of “serious constraint” on government policy, an “act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands” instigating a change in public perception, a comparison to “Pearl Harbor”, a “Transforming Event”.  It demonstrates those circles knew an event of such scale would let their policies off the leash.

You don’t need me to quote the Rebuilding America’s Defenses document of 2000 where the PNAC/top level of the Bush admin refer again to “a new Pearl Harbor” providing a “catalyzing event” for their roadmap (ok, I just did quote it).

The examples you have provided do not meet their stated requirement.

Do you see this?

[Q24]

skyeagle409, on 20 November 2011 - 04:40 AM, said:

I am very sure the buiding inspectors did not discover any planted explosives on 77th floors.  Do you really think that New York City would issue permits for planted explosives in the WTC buildings that were still occupied?

I am also very sure building inspectors did not discover any explosives anywhere.  If they had I’m certain permits would not have been issued for them.  Now are you going to answer the questions: -

Had building inspectors certified the ongoing steelwork renovation in the month prior 9/11?
Was it necessary to “predict” where the aircraft would impact?
Is detcord necessary to a demolition?

[Holmesian]

Q24, on 20 November 2011 - 01:05 PM, said:

You are continually suggesting that if 9/11 were meant to support wars in Afghanistan and Iraq then operatives of those nationalities should have been utilised thus providing a direct connection to the attack.

For the third time I ask: -

Were there any Afghan or Iraqi assets available and willing to work to this end?
How do you know there was a choice about which nationals were used?

It is a big assumption that those behind the attack had Afghan and Iraqi agents willing to take direction from them.  What if there were not suitable Afghan or Iraqi assets available?  What if only Saudi agents were available?  This is reasonable; the latter (Western allies) more likely to be available and utilised than the former (Western enemies).

Are you suggesting those who became the hijackers should have created false identities of non-existent Afghan and Iraqi nationals?  But then I thought the whole basis of your argument was that the operation should be kept simple as possible.  Better then to use real people, keeping the fabrication to a minimum.

Can you answer any of these questions?

Ok, I will break up your responses for the sake of clarity. I will answer as many as I can but may have to put off some until tomorrow as it is very late here, or early depending on your perspective. I will start with this one as you believe I haven't answered it.You misconstrue my point here. It is twofold.

1)the idea of all this risk and loss of the lives of your own civilians( putting aside for the moment our disagreement on the quantum of the risk)was to create a mindset for the American public to accept war. The target of that war are terrorists, specifically Al-Qaeda, who can then be used as a ubiquitous threat and allow war in the middle east to be fought. It is not entirely clear how the American public are going to react but they are clearly going to be seeking revenge and exceptionally angry. When the identity of the nationality of where most of these perpetrators are from is discovered Saudi Arabia is going to be first in line. This is one of the last countries that the administration would want targetted as they are one of the few allies in the region.

You ask me whether I know if they had any operatives from Iraq or Afghanistan . Clearly this is not a genuine question as I presume you suspect I was not in at the planning stage so no I don't know. Neither do you.Maybe they struggled to find any Iraqis who hated America and would be willing to take part or who hated their own regime and wanted to open it up to war. In any event, if it is about making sure the vengance that follows is focused where it needs to be,as that is what the whole thing was about, then no I don't think whoever floated the idea of using Saudis, as they were the only operatives apparently available , was on to a sound start with the plan. If there were no other operatives available then the plan is potentially flawed from the start.

Secondly, if the whole thing is a play to engender hatred towards Iraq, then framing Al-Qaeda doesn't work. There is no connection between the two.

If they had gone to all this risk and planning to ultimately  justify an attack on Iraq, then why not include some link to Iraq as part of this initial grand plan rather than having to rely on tenuous links and this whole weapons of mass destruction thing which looks like it was made up on the run. Surely, Iraq was considered as one of the potential targets when the plan was hatched. You think no one at the meeting voiced concerns that the plan from the start doesn't actually specificly and unambiguously target one of the targets they wanted?

And yes, I think the plan should be kept as simple as possible, but given that we have a plan already of hijacking four planes, switching planes and blowing up buildings, including building 7 for some reason, then dodgying up a few passports to ensure that all this effort actually targets the people we want and does not inadvertently pour wrath upon our allies in the region, then yes, dodgying up passports or actually coming up with a plan that does this in the first place would be a better way to go.

I will address some of your other points tomorrow, although to be honest I do not think I can go over again why I think it was not a straightforward plan.

Actually, on that this might be easier if I limit it to this. Why was it necessary to blow up building 7 as part of this grand scheme. And why was it not enough to just have the planes crash into the building to achieve the awakening of consciousness? You say my idea of just blowing up the buildings without the planes wouldn't have worked because there was the risk that this would be traced and people would know the terrorists were not responsible. This risk is still there whether the planes fly in to the buildings or not.

[Q24]

I go through each sentence…

Holmesian, on 20 November 2011 - 04:33 PM, said:

1)the idea of all this risk and loss of the lives of your own civilians( putting aside for the moment our disagreement on the quantum of the risk)was to create a mindset for the American public to accept war. The target of that war are terrorists, specifically Al-Qaeda, who can then be used as a ubiquitous threat and allow war in the middle east to be fought. It is not entirely clear how the American public are going to react but they are clearly going to be seeking revenge and exceptionally angry.

… check… check… check… all agreed.

Then suddenly it goes way out of whack…

Holmesian, on 20 November 2011 - 04:33 PM, said:

When the identity of the nationality of where most of these perpetrators are from is discovered Saudi Arabia is going to be first in line.

… huh, what?  In which reality was that?

This is not something we need to speculate about.  The nationality of the hijackers was known from the start.  The reaction (those placed in the line of fire) is apparent for all to see.  The nationality issue was simply not a defining factor.  You see, the necessary background had already been set in place to drive the aim - the men had met with bin Laden (also a Saudi national) and this did take place in Afghanistan; the alleged base of operations for the attack, facilitated by the Taliban.

The idea that, “Saudi Arabia is going to be first in line”, is not a reflection of reality.

Ok, carrying on…

Holmesian, on 20 November 2011 - 04:33 PM, said:

This is one of the last countries that the administration would want targetted as they are one of the few allies in the region.

You ask me whether I know if they had any operatives from Iraq or Afghanistan . Clearly this is not a genuine question as I presume you suspect I was not in at the planning stage so no I don't know. Neither do you.Maybe they struggled to find any Iraqis who hated America and would be willing to take part or who hated their own regime and wanted to open it up to war.

… check… check… check… all agreed.

Then, oh oh…

Holmesian, on 20 November 2011 - 04:33 PM, said:

In any event, if it is about making sure the vengance that follows is focused where it needs to be,as that is what the whole thing was about, then no I don't think whoever floated the idea of using Saudis, as they were the only operatives apparently available , was on to a sound start with the plan. If there were no other operatives available then the plan is potentially flawed from the start.

… eh sorry?  Is the resultant reality in question?

Notwithstanding nationality of the hijackers, vengeance was very clearly focussed on Afghanistan and Iraq, not Saudi Arabia - this was permitted due to the background that had been put in place as previously mentioned.  There was not the slightest glimmer of a hitch and the pre-determined countries were targeted, exactly as planned.

The idea that, “the plan is potentially flawed from the start”, is not a reflection of reality.

Onwards and upwards…

Holmesian, on 20 November 2011 - 04:33 PM, said:

Secondly, if the whole thing is a play to engender hatred towards Iraq, then framing Al-Qaeda doesn't work. There is no connection between the two.

… ah, no check.

You know the operation was about wider aims than Iraq.  You put it very well already: “used as a ubiquitous threat and allow war in the middle east to be fought”.  This is far more accurate.  Iraq was just one facet of the wide-ranging ‘War on Terror’.

And once again, you are replacing unquestioned reality with speculation - I don’t get that.  The reality being that 9/11 did entirely work in generating public support for a war against Iraq.  The Bush administration promoted a connection and it worked (it could not actually have failed as no one would ignore when 9/11 was raised): -

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

The public were easily led on Iraq precisely due to the backdrop of 9/11.

The idea that, “framing Al-Qaeda doesn't work”, is not a reflection of reality.

Holmesian, on 20 November 2011 - 04:33 PM, said:

If they had gone to all this risk and planning to ultimately  justify an attack on Iraq, then why not include some link to Iraq as part of this initial grand plan rather than having to rely on tenuous links and this whole weapons of mass destruction thing which looks like it was made up on the run.

How exactly should links to Iraq have been included?  You appear to be making assumptions about what was possible and necessary.

The link was made, that it was tenuous didn’t matter - it had the desired outcome.

Holmesian, on 20 November 2011 - 04:33 PM, said:

And yes, I think the plan should be kept as simple as possible, but given that we have a plan already of hijacking four planes, switching planes and blowing up buildings, including building 7 for some reason, then dodgying up a few passports to ensure that all this effort actually targets the people we want and does not inadvertently pour wrath upon our allies in the region, then yes, dodgying up passports or actually coming up with a plan that does this in the first place would be a better way to go.

To summarise the reality: -

• The intended countries were targeted.
  
• There was no inadvertent wrath poured on countries not intended.

Someone asked, why add an unnecessary layer of convolution to the operation?  To anyone posing that question, the reason that fake Afghan or Iraqi identities were not created should be obvious.  The simplest and lowest risk solution meeting their requirement should be followed - that means using real people.  Doing otherwise would mean background of the hijackers could not be corroborated to any extent at all… because those fake identities are not real people.  It would only add a layer to the operation and enlarge the information black hole which raises doubt.

Holmesian, on 20 November 2011 - 04:33 PM, said:

I will address some of your other points tomorrow, although to be honest I do not think I can go over again why I think it was not a straightforward plan.

I’m not requesting you repeat yourself.  If you go with the X, Y, Z format I suggested we might move forward.  I’m away for a couple of days so feel free to take your time thinking about it.

Holmesian, on 20 November 2011 - 04:33 PM, said:

Actually, on that this might be easier if I limit it to this. Why was it necessary to blow up building 7 as part of this grand scheme. And why was it not enough to just have the planes crash into the building to achieve the awakening of consciousness? You say my idea of just blowing up the buildings without the planes wouldn't have worked because there was the risk that this would be traced and people would know the terrorists were not responsible. This risk is still there whether the planes fly in to the buildings or not.

Ok, three separate issues there.  I have already gone through the second and third in my post above but will reiterate as you have asked again.

1)  WTC7.  There are numerous possible reasons the building was included in the operation.  Was it another target until someone took the initiative and shot down Flight 93?  Was the base of operations not Afghanistan but WTC7, the demolition destroying not only evidence but a way of quickly disbanding the operations team?  Did the building owner, Larry Silverstein, see a financial benefit and easy opportunity to include this final building of his WTC estate?

2) The aircraft crashes alone.  This produces casualties in the hundreds, not thousands.  There would be no sudden and permanent reminder on the New York skyline to sustain public indignation so greatly.  The WTC asbestos problem estimated to cost double-digit billion dollars to rectify would remain.  It is not on the scale of Pearl Harbor, i.e. does not meet their stated requirement.

3)  The demolitions alone.  I’m not saying it wouldn’t have worked, but it would have raised enormous questions and provided significant leads that put the operation at higher risk of discovery from the get go.  The aircraft impacts provided an apparently obvious and pre-determined conclusion, meaning that official investigations never had to look for evidence of and/or seriously consider demolition which would more likely lead to the perpetrators.  It would have raised casualty figures beyond the stated requirement.

I don’t see any of this comes close to forming a barrier to the operation as it exists.

I think Holmesian, that you are imagining how you would choose to conduct the operation under ideal circumstances, by your own perceived standards of necessity and requirement.  The problem being - it was not your operation or standards behind 9/11.  It’s like if I declared 9/11 could not be a legitimate terrorist attack because if it were, why stop at four planes?  I refuse to believe four is the best they could do.  If I were the terrorist mastermind planning a grand attack I’d have directed another couple planes to be flown into the Pentagon, I’d have hit the White House, and a few nuclear stations too.  But it really doesn’t matter what I would have done or imagine might have been possible.  It is not a good argument against a genuine terrorist attack.

You are using the an equivalent argument against the false flag operation.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 20 November 2011 - 01:20 PM, said:

I am also very sure building inspectors did not discover any explosives anywhere.  If they had I'm certain permits would not have been issued for them.  Now are you going to answer the questions: -

Had building inspectors certified the ongoing steelwork renovation in the month prior 9/11?
Was it necessary to "predict" where the aircraft would impact?
Is detcord necessary to a demolition?

One of the reasons why building inspectors never discovered explosives inside the WTC buildings is because there were no explosives there to be discovered.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 20 November 2011 - 08:11 PM, said:

I go through each sentence…

This is not something we need to speculate about.  The nationality of the hijackers was known from the start.  The reaction (those placed in the line of fire) is apparent for all to see.  The nationality issue was simply not a defining factor.  You see, the necessary background had already been set in place to drive the aim - the men had met with bin Laden (also a Saudi national) and this did take place in Afghanistan; the alleged base of operations for the attack, facilitated by the Taliban.

Hijackers meeting with Bin Laden. I think we are getting somewhere as to who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Quote

1)  WTC7.  There are numerous possible reasons the building was included in the operation.  Was it another target until someone took the initiative and shot down Flight 93?

No one shot down United 93.

Quote

... Was the base of operations not Afghanistan but WTC7, the demolition destroying not only evidence but a way of quickly disbanding the operations team?  Did the building owner, Larry Silverstein, see a financial benefit and easy opportunity to include this final building of his WTC estate?

You don't blow up a building to hide evidence when all you have to do is to the remove the computers and paper files, otherwise, intact hard drives could still survive the demonlition process and reveal their contents. Even damaged hard drives can still reveal important infomation so the logical action to take is to remove the computers and paper files from the building, not blow it up where incriminating evidence could still survive..

Quote

2) The aircraft crashes alone.  This produces casualties in the hundreds, not thousands.  There would be no sudden and permanent reminder on the New York skyline to sustain public indignation so greatly.

With the raising of new buildings to replace the WTC towers, and the memorial center and two memorial pools, there will be a permanent reminder of the 9/11 attacks. In fact, one of the new buildings will be even talling than the tallest of the  WTC towers.

Quote

3)  The demolitions alone.  I'm not saying it wouldn't have worked, but it would have raised enormous questions and provided significant leads that put the operation at higher risk of discovery from the get go.  The aircraft impacts provided an apparently obvious and pre-determined conclusion, meaning that official investigations never had to look for evidence of and/or seriously consider demolition which would more likely lead to the perpetrators.  It would have raised casualty figures beyond the stated requirement.

Once again, there were no explosives planted and to this very day, no evidence of explosives has surfaced after more than 10 years, and there was no way to plant explosives and not be noticed, but then again, explosives were used in an earlier attack on one of the WTC towers and the building remained standing.

Quote

I don't see any of this comes close to forming a barrier to the operation as it exists.

There are a number of problems, but, it has already been proven beyond any doubt that the U.S. government had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, which was clearly evident when Philippine authorities uncovered a plot by terrorist to destroy American airliners and to fly aircraft into buildings, under the terroirst Bojinka Plot.

BOJINKA PLOT

Quote

  If I were the terrorist mastermind planning a grand attack I'd have directed another couple planes to be flown into the Pentagon, I'd have hit the White House, and a few nuclear stations to...

Well, we still had United 93, which never made it to its target and the United dispatcher spoiled another attack.

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 November 2011 - 09:58 PM.