Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 4 votes

911 inside job - for what?


  • Please log in to reply
4446 replies to this topic

#751    itsnotoutthere

itsnotoutthere

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,066 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Royston Vasey

  • “Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while”

Posted 31 January 2013 - 07:37 PM

View Postredhen, on 12 January 2013 - 01:48 AM, said:

For those who hold that 911 was an inside job, I would like to discover why you believe those responsible would have executed this plan.

I can only think of one possible reason that might make sense; to launch a war, to give the armed forces combat experience.

You go.

Thanks


Er....since when did the americans need an excuse to start a war?

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
― Groucho Marx

#752    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,282 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 31 January 2013 - 08:14 PM

View PostQ24, on 24 January 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:


Remember, there was a CIA operation surrounding the terrorists at that time – they’d already gone so far to monitor Al Mihdhar at the 2000 Al Qaeda meeting, break into his hotel room and consistently restrict, deter and prevent the FBI from taking action.  Given the above ‘chance’ meeting, close contact with the hijackers, assistance and quick absolvement of wrongdoing by this Saudi government agent, Bayoumi, is it speculation to say that he was a part of the CIA operation – the Middle Eastern go-between of the CIA and hijackers?  It appears obvious.  Why else befriend the hijackers and in particular pass them on to a U.S. informant, of all people?  It certainly matches the profile of Muslim men who could blend into Al Qaeda as head of the CIA bin Laden unit, Cofer Black, had been aiming.

The alternative to the above is that the CIA, whilst having an operation surrounding the terrorists, did nothing (except hold leash of the FBI) whilst all of this Bayoumi assistance occurred under their noses and the terrorist residence with a U.S. informant fell into place by accident?  Is that reasonable?

Seems you failed to read the rest of the story because you read only the cover.

First of all, the CIA did not support bin Laden and his group in Afghanistan, and the fact you failed to open the book and read the rest of the story is why you were unaware that the Afghan Mujahideen was supported by the CIA, and the Afghan Arabs, which included Osama bin Laden, were actually two different groups.  

Secondly, the CIA and the FBI have admitted to their mistakes, and it was no secret that the CIA and the FBI failed to communicate with one another, and as a result, they dropped the ball and that had nothing to do with a 911 government conspiracy conspiracy; just missteps and blunders involving our intelligence agencies..

Quote

I’m trying to keep speculation to a minimum.

Speculating without knowledge breeds conspiracy theories.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#753    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 31 January 2013 - 08:27 PM

View Postitsnotoutthere, on 31 January 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

Er....since when did the americans need an excuse to start a war?

Er, well, like always.

Name one war America started, without a reason. I'm having difficulties just trying to imagine such a scenario. Hmm, is it possible to accidentally start a war? Would insurance cover such an accident?


#754    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 31 January 2013 - 08:35 PM

View Postredhen, on 31 January 2013 - 08:27 PM, said:

Er, well, like always.

Name one war America started, without a reason. I'm having difficulties just trying to imagine such a scenario. Hmm, is it possible to accidentally start a war? Would insurance cover such an accident?

My 2 cents, a war with a LEGITIMATE reason, for example, legitimate enough to trigger the constitutional threshold of "Declaration Of War".

During my lifetime this country has not been in a legitimate and legally declared war.  It has been at war for almost my entire lifetime, but none have been legitimate, legal, honest or proper.  In my lifetime, the US Government has never met a war it did not like, but one must remember that the US Government is completely controlled by special interests who profit from waging war.

But you're right in the sense that the US Government can and does manufacture all manner of specious reasons and hoaxes so that wars might be waged.


#755    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,282 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 31 January 2013 - 08:45 PM

Quote

WTC Steel Data Collection

WTC steel data collection efforts were undertaken by the Building Performance Study (BPS) Team and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) to identify significant steel pieces from WTC 1, 2, 5, and 7 for further study. The methods used to identify and document steel pieces are presented, as well as a spreadsheet that documents the data for steel pieces inspected at various sites from October 2001 through March 2002.

Collection and storage of steel members from the WTC site was not part of the BPS Team efforts sponsored by FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). SEAoNY offered to organize a volunteer team of SEAoNY engineers to collect certain WTC steel pieces for future building performance studies. Visiting Ground Zero in early October 2001, SEAoNY engineers, with the assistance from the New York City Department of Design and Construction (DDC), identified and set aside some steel pieces for further study.

http://911research.w.../WTC_apndxD.htm


KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#756    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,282 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 31 January 2013 - 08:57 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 31 January 2013 - 08:35 PM, said:

My 2 cents, a war with a LEGITIMATE reason, for example, legitimate enough to trigger the constitutional threshold of "Declaration Of War".

During my lifetime this country has not been in a legitimate and legally declared war.  It has been at war for almost my entire lifetime, but none have been legitimate, legal, honest or proper.  In my lifetime, the US Government has never met a war it did not like, but one must remember that the US Government is completely controlled by special interests who profit from waging war.

But you're right in the sense that the US Government can and does manufacture all manner of specious reasons and hoaxes so that wars might be waged.

*   The United States didn't go to war when Pan Am 103 was bombed out of the sky

*   The United States didn't go to war when terrorist blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania

*   The United States didn't go to war when terrorist killed US troops after the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia

*   The United States didn't go to war when terrorist bombed the USS Cole

*   The United States didn't go to war after the Oklahoma bombing

*   The United States didn't go to war after the 1993 WTC1 bombing

*   The United States didn't go to war after the night club bombing in Europe

*   The United States didn't go to war when terrorist hijacked its airliner

*   The United States didn't go to war when terrorist killed Marines in Lebanon

*   The United States didn't go to war when the Philippine government revealed a plot to bomb American airliners out of the sky

*   The United States didn't go to war when it was revealed that  terrorist planned to fly an aircraft into CIA headquarters

And, the list goes on and on.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#757    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 01 February 2013 - 01:03 PM

View Postredhen, on 31 January 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

That's because I didn't see any logic. All I keep seeing is a bunch of names of people, organizations, categories of people or occupations, allegedly all tied together for some nefarious purpose, that involved the murder of 3,000 U.S. citizens on American soil.

I’m sorry to say but your current knowledge seems somewhat in question – you did say that the best reason you could come up with for a 9/11 false flag is “to give the armed forces combat experience” and seemed unaware of the term ‘Neocon’, or their stated goals, or how these have been achieved due to the attack – from this disadvantaged position it is understandable that you don’t grasp the logic in my ‘Wolf and Raven’ analogy and are overwhelmed or unable to structure many of the names, organizations and categories mentioned.  I will say that some links I see alleged can be weak, though can only suggest you carry out more research or ask questions to determine those connections that do exist.  You need to be more specific, though to not see “any” logic appears largely a failure of your knowledge.


View Postredhen, on 31 January 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

You wrote;

The same goals can also be attributed to the Soviet... er I mean Russian empire. Your insinuation that the timing of the attacks and the then recent U.S. election was more than coincidental, is just that, an insinuation.

I’m not sure why you mention Soviet goals.  It does not detract from the stated Neocon goals to which you enquired. I do hope you are not attempting to argue that we should place Russia, having equally grand goals to the U.S., under similar suspicion.  The insufferable flaw to that theory would be the complete lack of Russian presence, action and benefit in regard to 9/11 which preclude even a motive, all in contrast to that of U.S. individuals and goals achieved.  I’ll forget you ever raised that.

Also, I’m not opposed to insinuation, but it is a little deeper than that, more a combination of inductive and abductive reasoning that leads to the conclusion ‘timing of the attack and election were more than coincidence’.  But granted, this only deals in probabilities not certainties.  For instance, whilst the attack as we know it could not have progressed without the CIA intervention I have previously noted, I accept there is no direct action of the Bush administration that would lead to quite an equal degree of culpability – the attack itself could have been performed entirely as an intelligence agency driven operation under any administration.

However, we do know that the CIA element in question shared political ideologies of, and were answerable to, the Bush administration as the situation deteriorated.  We do know FBI officials complained that restrictions on bin Laden and Saudi related cases specifically, “became worse after the Bush administration took over this year.”  We do know that the Bush administration took no positive action on the growing number of intelligence warnings (for one example, see Presidential Brief in post #1552 and consider the questions asked).  We do know that a 9/11 scale attack suited the Neocons’ longstanding agenda for war, particularly regime change in Iraq, and wider stated motives, and that those in the Bush administration did not hesitate to benefit.  Under another administration that did not share those motives, allowance of the attacks may not have been so simple and there is high risk that advantage to the Neocon ideology may not be taken (a prime example: the Clinton administration failure to maximise military ventures based on  the 1993 WTC bombing) – the operation could have come to nought.  We do know that of all the times 9/11 could have occurred, it happened to coincide within a year of the Neocons, those who would benefit most, taking power.

Under the circumstances it is only logical to reason there is probability that ‘timing of the attack and election were more than coincidence’.  Honestly, what else am I supposed to think?  The very worst and most ignorant option is to not consider it at all, perhaps to auto-disregard everything above as ‘coincidene’ to follow a preferred reality.  The most frustrating part is that we could get definite answers had the correct investigation been carried out.  So then we must ask, who are these people that would not like to see that investigation, and why?  Again, the lead culprits are the Bush administration and intelligence services.


View Postredhen, on 31 January 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

So let me revise my claim;

Truthers are heavy into metaphor, analogy, insinuation, inferences and implications.

I think you are trying to make an attack on ‘truthers’ here, but really I don’t see the above characteristics as a negative.  I already mentioned analogy/metaphor being linked to cognitive ability in my last post.  Likewise the ability to imagine possible scenarios and their consequences (“insinuation, inferences and implications”) is further a sign of intelligence.  Even Einstein said, “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.”

My only complaint would be the selectivity of your description; which fails to mention the above positives, vast knowledge that most ‘truthers’ hold on the 9/11 topic and reasoning invoked, etc.


View Postredhen, on 31 January 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

I previously had suggested we take up a collection here on the UM forum to enable a court case to be filed against Bush, Cheney et al. But I see someone actually tried that, with less than stellar results, lol.

"Army specialist April Gallup filed suit claiming that Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials orchestrated the 9/11 attacks and the Pentagon was hit by an attack ordered by Cheney. The suit was dismissed in 2010 by Judge Denny Chin, who said the claim was "the product of cynical delusion and fantasy". Her lawyers filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals which in April 2010 issued a show cause order why the lawyers and Gallup should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Her lawyers asked that the judges on the Court of Appeals recuse themselves because their emotions made them prejudge the case and abuse their power. On October 14, 2011 the judges sanctioned her lawyers $15,000 each for both the frivolous lawsuits and the accusations of prejudice"

So, forget about my request to "put your money where your mouth is", you seem like a decent enough fellow, I wouldn't want you to lose your shirt.

I dealt with this in post #718.

Anyhow, thank you for your response, it is interesting to read.  You still did not answer the question in my post #710 ‘what would you have done in the CIA position?’  I’ll present a few more uncomfortable questions from another angle, given CIA information that existed pre-9/11 on the terrorists: -

What might agents attempting to prevent an attack have done?
What might agents attempting to allow an attack have done?
Then compare this to actions in reality – the answer to which question above provides best match?

There is no escaping it.

Edited by Q24, 01 February 2013 - 01:48 PM.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#758    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 01 February 2013 - 02:02 PM

It's those uncomfortable questions that are never addressed by those embracing the OCT.  And there are so many uncomfortable questions. :alien:


#759    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 01 February 2013 - 04:34 PM

View PostQ24, on 01 February 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

you did say that the best reason you could come up with for a 9/11 false flag is “to give the armed forces combat experience”

Not the best reason, just the first thing that came to mind.

Quote

and seemed unaware of the term ‘Neocon’, or their stated goals,

I've read National Review, founded by William F. Buckley, everyday for years. I suppose that makes me a neocon, or willing dupe, take your pick.

Quote

or how these have been achieved due to the attack – from this disadvantaged position it is understandable that you don’t grasp the logic in my ‘Wolf and Raven’ analogy and are overwhelmed or unable to structure many of the names, organizations and categories mentioned.  I will say that some links I see alleged can be weak, though can only suggest you carry out more research or ask questions to determine those connections that do exist.  You need to be more specific, though to not see “any” logic appears largely a failure of your knowledge.

You can string together all sorts of conspiratorial delusional fantasies (as described by the court judge who dismissed this ill-planned case), but unless you have strong evidence that shows mens rea, you're not going to get far. I don't know why I keep putting in it time here. I suppose it's because unlike the moon landing conspiracies and the flat earthers, the 911 attacks and the Sandy Hook massacre have a tragic human face to them. Just yesterday an acquaintance of mine posted a truther smear, questioning whether it was a plane at all that smashed into the Pentagon. Once again I had to post the pictures from the Moussaoui trial that shows corpses, some still strapped in their seats on flight 77.

Quote

I’m not sure why you mention Soviet goals.

Because there are many nations (like Russia) that would love a warm water port.

Quote

Under the circumstances it is only logical to reason there is probability that ‘timing of the attack and election were more than coincidence’.  Honestly, what else am I supposed to think?

Hmm, I dunno. Maybe a fanatical Muslim terrorist group wanted to hit back for what they believed were incursions by infidel Crusaders and the Great Hated Satan, aka the U.S.A., as they've stated all along for years?

Quote

I’ll present a few more uncomfortable questions from another angle, given CIA information that existed pre-9/11 on the terrorists: -

What might agents attempting to prevent an attack have done?
What might agents attempting to allow an attack have done?
Then compare this to actions in reality – the answer to which question above provides best match?

There is no escaping it.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (R.I.P. Carl Sagan)

You need extraordinary evidence, not insinuations, or you would be laughed out of court like the last truther who managed to embarrass himself and lose a pile a money in court costs.


#760    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 01 February 2013 - 05:48 PM

View PostQ24, on 01 February 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

whilst the attack as we know it could not have progressed without the CIA intervention I have previously noted, I accept there is no direct action of the Bush administration that would lead to quite an equal degree of culpability
Rumsfeld's changing of the hijacker response procedure shortly before 911 was an intervention and 'direct action' which facilitated the attacks.

Quote

The very worst and most ignorant option is to not consider it at all, perhaps to auto-disregard everything above as ‘coincidene’ to follow a preferred reality
:yes:

Edited by Little Fish, 01 February 2013 - 05:50 PM.


#761    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,578 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 01 February 2013 - 05:55 PM

View PostQ24, on 01 February 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

I’ll present a few more uncomfortable questions from another angle, given CIA information that existed pre-9/11 on the terrorists:

What might agents attempting to prevent an attack have done?
What might agents attempting to allow an attack have done?
Then compare this to actions in reality – the answer to which question above provides best match?

There is no escaping it.

Of course there is escaping it and I don't see anything uncomfortable about these questions, this is not a complete construction of all the elements at play. Here are some further questions:

- Is it inconceivable that the CIA may have restricted the FBI because the CIA wanted to get more intelligence on the terrorists, information they probably wouldn't be able to obtain once they were busted or kicked out of the country?  What might an intelligence agency, who at the time was in an intelligence environment where information was not shared freely between different agencies and where each agency wants to take near total ownership (and credit) for their investigations, do when another agency wants to disrupt their tracking/monitoring possible terrorists as part of their own agency's investigation?  I'd say they'd do pretty much what the CIA did to the FBI, shut them down and prevent them from going after the CIA's suspects.  

- Your argument here is suffused with the benefit of hindsight.  Have you separated all of these 'suspicious' actions of the CIA concerning 9/11 from the noise of all the other warnings they have been receiving, suspects they've been tracking, agents just being lazy, etc?  It's easy but potentially unreasonable to look back and say, 'hey you were warned about 9/11 right here, there's no feasible reason why you shouldn't have done more to prevent it', as one feasible reason is that they have received many vague threats for years, almost all of which do not pan out nor occur, and that they do not have unlimited resources nor personnel.

There's a legitimate reason for the saying, 'hindsight is 20/20'.  You haven't shown that the CIA's actions here are anything but 'business as usual' for the time, and I don't know how without a much higher security clearance you can know differently. So how are you separating these specific 9/11 actions/inactions from the noise?  You haven't shown that there's anything unusual about the CIA's actions here, as you haven't differentiated these actions from what they usually do, and that goes directly to how 'suspicious' this actually is.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#762    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,282 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 01 February 2013 - 07:59 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 01 February 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

Rumsfeld's changing of the hijacker response procedure shortly before 911 was an intervention and 'direct action' which facilitated the attacks.

:yes:

That has no bearing on anything because the F-16 pilots were not familiar with NORAD's intecept protocol nor were they trained to shoot down airliners. In addition, civilian ATC controllers failed to notify the military in a timely manner and there was no order for the pilots to shoot down airliners at that time.

That is why one F-15 pilot  stated for the record that even if he had intercepted an airliner, he would not have shot it down. What if he shot down the wrong aircraft in absence of evidence  on the intentions of that aircraft? I might add that pilots were under "aircraft identification orders" only. When the shootdown order was finally received, some commanders still refused to convey that order to their pilots for fear of shooting down the wrong aircraft.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#763    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,282 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 01 February 2013 - 08:08 PM

View PostQ24, on 01 February 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

You need to be more specific, though to not see “any” logic appears largely a failure of your knowledge.

Were you aware the CIA sought to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in the years prior to the 911 attacks? Were you also aware of terrorist plans to attack CIA headquarters with an aircraft prior to the 911 attacks? Were you aware of CIA and FBI admissions regarding their intelligence failures prior to the 911 attacks?

Were you aware the CIA and the FBI failed to share intelligence information between agencies prior to the 911 attacks? Were you aware that such intelligence failures continued during the years after the 911 attacks?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#764    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:22 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 08:08 PM, said:

Were you aware that such intelligence failures continued during the years after the 911 attacks?

That's the truly sad part. After all the government improvements and changes (if you call Homeland Security an improvement) at enormous costs, I don't think America is much safer. And yes, embassies are American soil. Hillary, I'm looking at you!


#765    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,282 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:43 PM

View Postredhen, on 01 February 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

That's the truly sad part. After all the government improvements and changes (if you call Homeland Security an improvement) at enormous costs, I don't think America is much safer. And yes, embassies are American soil. Hillary, I'm looking at you!

Yes indeed, you are correct! :tu: Our embassies were bombed and our ships have been attacked, which included the USS Pueblo, the USS Liberty, the USS Stark, and the USS Cole, and WTC1 was bombed in 1993, and to mention the downing of our EC-121 by North Korea and still, we did not go to war.

Edited by skyeagle409, 01 February 2013 - 10:43 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users