I dont see how it's at all a strawman argument, it's just an argument which CTists avoid. If you believe the controlled demolition story, then compartmentalisation doesn't solve anything, alot of people would be involved in installing the explosives.

I dont see how it is emotional either. It is a fact that the more people who are in on a secret, the harder it is to keep it. It's logical to assume that one of the many many people involved might grow a conscious and come public with seriously damning evidence (not grainy youtube videos and wiki links to Operation Northwoods).

When you think of one of the biggest conspiracies of the past century, Watergate, someone came forward almost right away. Watergate was small scale too, it was just tapping phones. They must be employing vampires if someone on the inside hasn't come forward in the 6 years after that most horrible terrorist attack in the west.

Tell me about it. I've had some funny exchanges with debunkers about this very issue. They tend to run like this:

Me: What's your view on 9/11 conspiracy theories?

Debunker: No way. Have you read the 9/11 Commission’s Report? It’s packed with detail.

Me: Yeah, but it’s also full of holes. Even the Commission’s Chairman and Vice Chairman, not to mention other Commission members, said they didn’t ask enough questions and were lied to by the government.

Debunker: Yeah, but have you read it? It’s really detailed.

Me: But it’s based on lies – the authors even said so.

Debunker: Well, you’ve also got the government’s web site, which also quite clearly states the government wasn’t involved.

Me: Well of course they’re going to say…

Debunker: And the 9/11 Commission Report explains everything. I just don’t see your problem.

Me: What about the historical precedent? You’ve got Roosevelt deliberately provoking the Japanese, at an ultimate cost of nearly 2,500 American lives, just so he could justify entering WWII.

Debunker: Yeah, but that was 65 years ago – it doesn’t count.

Me: What about the US’s plans to provoke Cuba using domestic terror campaigns…

Debunker: Northwoods you mean? That never got implemented so it doesn’t count.

Me: What about the CIA’s involvement in Operation Gladio?

Debunker: Huh?

Me: Gladio was responsible for The Strategy of Tension, a domestic terror and propaganda campaign that swept through Italy in the 70’s and 80’s. Acts of terror were committed by CIA-backed secret service operatives against civilian targets and then blamed on the Communists.

Debunker: Oh...

Me: What's more, the US invested $ billions into the development of Islamic fundamentalism, starting with the US backing of the mujahideen during the Afghan-Soviet War. There have been many accounts since of al Qaeda and the CIA...

Debunker: Well, the 9/11 Commission Report doesn’t mention anything about the US-backing of the mujahideen. In fact, on page 56, it says, “…they [the mujahideen] received little or no assistance from the United States.”

Me: Exactly. That's what I'm saying, the Report is flawed and based in part on lies and deception.

Debunker: Hmmm. But have you actually read the 9/11 Report – it’s really very detailed.

And so it goes on, with the de-bunkers demanding proof from us.

So, you are using one conspiracy theory to refute another conspiracy theory? ok.......



Indeed, lets see your proof about LBJ being behind the JFK assasination.

Do you always miss such blatantly obvious sarcrasm?

How many people would you need to keep quiet, if the conspiracy was only that the CIA knew that the attacks were going to happen and chose not to stop them?

The agent who discovered the threat, his commanding officer(s) and a few people in the bush administration would be the bare minimum, which makes it far more likely than all the other theories I've heard.

I still dont buy it though, they say they had to let these attacks occur so they could justify going into Iraq, but the US has entered Iraq before without being attacked.

The reasoning behind why they'd let it happen is pretty much explained here, in Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, the infamous PNAC document.

But would they actually do it?

It's quite possible that you're not aware of Emad Salem, who was part of the 1993 WTC bombing team. His Wikipedia entry is definitely worth a read.

Quite interesting..it looks like another terrorist on the FBI's payroll....they create the terror then fight it...it's policy?..

The white house can't even keep Dick shooting a guy in the face, or Bush's constant appointment of antiscience people to science positions, or any number of silly things secret and you expect us to believe that they'd even be ABLE to keep a conspiracy containing thousands upon thousands of people going? Where's the book deals by insiders, the evidence, ANYTHING?

I was wondering when Kennedy was going to be brought up, In my opinion and i know its not worth 2 cents, but how can you say that Our Government was behind this when there is no way possible to me that they could hide such a Historical event such as 9/11 ? There would literally have to be Thousands of people either being killed to cover this up or lips being sewn shut, and thats just the beginning, don't forget the families and friends that would have the need to spill there guts at the first chance at trying to be first to come forward. Its just not plausible.

PS: If most of you who spend so much of your free time surfing these conspiracy sites would take the time and go to some of the Bigfoot hot spots and look for him, by now we would have had a couple at some of our big zoo's by now.

As for the ridiculous poll's that have been posted, i think they take these at conspirators houses, I live, work and play along side many AMERICANS where i live and i can personally tell you that here in my home town 99% of the people here believe we did the right thing going over there, we still back our President and we still say the pledge of allegiance in the morning in our school's. And in my opinion if your against our President then your unAmerican and you can get the Hell out of the US.

Now that being said, allot of us want our boys back here but we ALL agree that we want this to end before we do, Most of the Americans can agree that the WMD's that we were told about we did not find, let our boy's go into Syria and i can just about guarantee we will find them there.

I don't agree that we (The US) should have to be called everywhere to Police these 3rd world countries, but if we don't then who will?
China? Russia? I bet most of you don't even know who gave most of the Money to the US after Hurricane Katrina, its one of these little countries that we went over and helped when they needed us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International...rricane_Katrina

We will get to a point where we can go beyond these crazy blogs with some far fetched grasping and deal with future conflicts, and again i have never been more proud to be an American the day this tragedy happened and when we all stood side by side and said (Oh Hell no), our President did what had to be done and we all agreed, its still hard for me to watch the video's but i do and so do my children because ....We will Never Forget....

Agreed. They can't. Ever heard of Sibel Edmonds?

Here's an extract from her 2004 letter to Thomas Kean, The Chairman Of The 9/11 Commission.

"Over three years ago, more than four months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama Bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high-level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan he received information that: 1) Osama Bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting 4-5 major cities, 2) the attack was going to involve airplanes, 3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States, 4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months. The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism, Thomas Frields, at the FBI Washington Field Office, by filing "302" forms, and the translator translated and documented this information. No action was taken by the Special Agent in Charge, and after 9/11 the agents and the translators were told to 'keep quiet' regarding this issue. The translator who was present during the session with the FBI informant, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, reported this incident to Director Mueller in writing, and later to the Department of Justice Inspector General."

Yet, you think 19 guys can do what the CIA, Mossad and who knows who else can't do? The flight school instructor of Hani Hanjour (the pilot who flew into the pentagon) said he "He could not fly at all", failed to show up for classes and didn't seem very bright. It reminds me of the 1993 WTC bombing, where the dope returned to the place they rented the truck, after the bombing, and demanded his deposit back, real smart.



How can you argue it would take "thousands" of people when you believe it only took 19?

As far as the "family and friends" not spilling the beans, I guess you have never known anyone in the millitary or intelligence with classified clearance. The US keeps secrets everyday and they have methods of maintaining that secrecy. There are thousands of people employed in the millitary, CIA and FBI who manage not to "spill the beans" about what they do. Look into "compartmentalization" and "need to know basis". Also, if someone was to come forward like you expect, they would be discredited or worse and they would know this. Who knows, perhaps meny of the loose ends were cleaned up after playing their role.

There is a typical bureacracy in action. "fill in Form 302... file it... move it round from department to department... eventually gets lost in a pile of papers on a desk... put in filing cabinet... and forgotten about. " That's why I always say that I seriously doubt that an organisation as big as the CIA, let alone the whole US govenrment, could be organised enough to plan something on this scale and suppress the truth about it.


exactly; not because it was a conspiracy to suppress US government or CIA collusion in it, just out of embarassment that they'd forgotten about the warning.

The warning wasn't forgotten.

It found itself on the desk of the President of the United States, on the morning of 6th August 2001.

Frankly, I see this issue as needing to be filed under the catagory of *neglect* verses *conspiracy*. Was the US warned about 9/11, without a doubt. Were the proper safegauards and actions taken, not at all. Was there an attempt to cover up this ineptitude/neglect, absolutely.

Never underestimate the power of laziness and foolishness....especially where politics are involved.

Why am I responding here? I detest 9/11 discussion...carry on guys!

All the more proof of incompetence, or complacency, rather than conspiracy; i think, they see the main threat as "planning attacks with explosives", which was conventional terrorist behaviour; most likely GW, or his advisers, would have agreed with the document that talking about hijacking aircraft was "some of the more sensational threat reporting". Maybe they might have suggested that NORAD think about drawing up some sort of contingency plans just in case, but even if they thought that there might have been anything to "some of the more sensational threats", they probably wouldn't have imagined that it might have happened so soon. And if you were planning some conspiracy against your own people on this scale, if you'd got evidence that the intelligence services had got wind of your plans, would you have still gone ahead with it, or would you have done something different?

These warnings can be taken in a number of different ways, it’s easy to see exactly what was going to happen after the event. Also what other warnings were put on agencies / the president’s desks? Again it’s easy to point out specific memos individually after the event but if they were only one of dozens of different warnings then they become less significant.

I find the argument about compartmentalisation interesting. I think the ‘thousands must have been involved it couldn’t have been covered up’ argument is sometimes used too off-hand by believers of the official story. But conspiracy believers also blindly throw out compartmentalisation as a cure all for any problem with their theories.

For example, personally I think compartmentalisation is reasonable for a ‘small’ theory like ‘the CIA knew about the attacks and did nothing about them because they wanted them to succeed for x reason’. But the idea is really stretched whenever more detailed arguments about conspiracies get discussed. If you add things together then there’s people involved in setting explosives in the towers and getting them clearances and a team rigging airliners with radio controls and/or painting dummy planes to look like other planes and people at airfields swapping planes and fighter pilots secretly shooting down planes and the people needing to prep those planes and air traffic controllers who would have to lie about what they see and profiteering businessmen and some firefighters and police and and and….

..... and the CIA and the Mossad and sections of the military and influential politicians and powerful businessmen are very capable of this.

Plenty of my examples wouldn't necessarily fall under those headings though. And part of my point is the numbers are building up again, you already have five different areas where there would have to be people who are committed to the cause / greedy enough to be happy killing thousands of people or not be able to figure out what they've been involved with.

If that was the only information that the US intelligence services received, then I'd agree.

However - the list of information passed is extensive, as are the sources of that information, including Mossad & the British, French, Spanish, Indian, Egyptian and Russian Intelligence agencies:

• June 13, 2001: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak claims Bin Laden Wants to Assassinate Bush with an Explosives-Filled Airplane [New York Times, 9/26/01]
• Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US
• Jordanian intelligence (the GID) makes a communications intercept deemed so important that King Abdullah's men relay it to Washington. The message states that a major attack, code named “The Big Wedding,” is planned inside the US and that aircraft will be used. [International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02; Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02]
• July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks [Fox News, 5/17/02]
• July 2001: CIA Learns Impending Attack Widely Known in Afghanistan [9/11 Congressional Inquiry, 9/18/02]. This corresponds with evidence that bin Laden and others were telling many in Afghanistan about the attacks at this time.
• July 10, 2001: FBI Agent Ken Williams Sends Memo Warning That Inordinate Number of Muslim Extremists Are Learning to Fly in Arizona [Fortune, 5/22/02; Arizona Republic, 7/24/03]
• July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn al Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West [Times of London, 6/14/02]
• Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly; CIA Is Not Interested [CBS News, 10/9/02]
• Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Wakil Muttawakil Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US [Independent, 9/7/02; Reuters, 9/7/02]
• Late July 2001: Ex-House Judiciary Committee's Chief Investigator David Schippers Tries to Warn About Plans to Strike Buildings in New York
• Late July 2001: Argentina's Jewish Community Relays al Qaeda Attack Warning to the US [Forward, 5/31/02]
• Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings
• Britain gives the US another warning about an al-Qaeda attack. The previous British warning on July 16, 2001, was vague as to method, but this warning specifies multiple airplane hijackings. This warning is said to reach President Bush. [Sunday Herald, 5/19/02]
• August 2001: Russian President Vladimir Putin Warns US of Suicide Pilots Training To Attack US Targets [Fox News, 5/17/02]
• The head of Russian intelligence also later states, “We had clearly warned them” on several occasions, but they “did not pay the necessary attention.” [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/01] A Russian newspaper on September 12, 2001, claims, “Russian Intelligence agents know the organizers and executors of these terrorist attacks. More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation to these actions a couple of weeks before they happened.” Interestingly, the article claims that at least two of the terrorists were Muslim radicals from Uzbekistan. [Izvestia, 9/12/01]
• Early August 2001: Government Informant Randy Glass Warns Congressmen of Plan to Attack the WTC [Palm Beach Post, 10/17/02]
• August 2001: Moroccan Informant, Hassan Dabou, Warns US of Large Scale, Imminent Attack in New York [Agence France-Presse, 11/22/01]
• August 8-15, 2001: Israel Reportedly Warns of Major al-Qaeda Assault on the US is imminent [Fox News, 5/17/02]
• August 23-27, 2001: Minnesota FBI Agents Convinced Zacarias Moussaoui Plans to Fly Something Into The World Trade Center [Newsweek, 5/20/02]
• August 23, 2001: Mossad Reportedly Gives CIA List of 19 Terrorist Living in US Planning An Attack In The Near Future [BBC, 10/2/02]
• August 27, 2001: Spanish Police Tape Phone Calls Indicating Aviation-Based Plans to Attack US [Observer, 11/25/01]
• August 29, 2001: Cayman Islands Letter Warns of Major Terrorist Act Against US via an Airline or Airlines [Miami Herald, 9/20/01; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01; MSNBC, 9/23/01]
• August 30-September 4, 2001: Egyptian President Hasni Mubarak Warns al-Qaeda Is in Advanced Stages of Planning Significant Attack on US [Associated Press, 12/7/01]
• He says he learned this information from an agent working inside al-Qaeda. US officials deny receiving any such warning from Egypt. [ABC News, 6/4/02]
• Late August 2001: French Warning to US Echoes Earlier Israeli Warning [Fox News, 5/17/02]
• September 4, 2001: Mossad Gives Another Warning of Major, Imminent Attack [Sunday Mail, 9/16/01]

All extracts from a much larger list of warnings, that can be found here.

How do you explain the holocaust then? Thousands of Nazis, from Hitler down to lowly grunt gaurds, not to mention hundreds if not thousands more people in the private sector including American and international IMB executives and technicians, as well as I.G. Farben employees and who knows who else, all managed to keep their activities and knowledge from being officialy exposed untill the end of the war, some even untill very recent times. If it can happen with the murder of 12 million people over several years, its ridiculous to think a one time event killing 3,000 couldn't happen.

The fallacy of your argument is that it assumes those involved would be of good conscious who were unwilling to participate, when history shows just the opposite in cases of state sponsored murder. The SS chose those who were dedicated to the cause to oversee and man the camps and the corporations that were involved only cared about money. Why is it that 9/11 couldn't have been carried out by people no-less fanatical and greedy than the Nazis and their supporters? Mossad has had no problem in the past killing people in-line with their religious and political ideology. There are obvious benefits to war in the ME for followers of Zionist ideology. As well, this administration is knee deep in the defense and oil industries as well as direct ties to the CFR and Skull and Bones. The CIA and millitary industirial complex are by nature very secretive organizations ripe with corruption and believers in machiavellian philosophy.

I consider it a common sense piece simply based on the physics aspect of the falling of the towers. But people don't want to believe something like that, people like to think they actually elect a government that has the people in its best interest. Those people do not connect history with the present, though. You don't gain power by being kind and fair to people, you gain power by taking it from people. And the best way to take power from someone is to frighten them.

Controlled Demolition, BumblePlanes, Remote Controlled Planes, Cruise Missiles, No Planes, Energy Weapons.

I have one question for anyone who believes that the Government was complicit in any of the above.

What did the Government gain from the Twin Tower's falling that they wouldn't have achieved by just flying two planes into them?

You see, there is enough fierce debate and confusion six years on to make me suspect that it's partially due to some intelligent psyops to discredit the conspiracy theorists by generating a large amount of noise and drawing the attention away from what they don't want people to talk about. That, after all, is what psyops are all about.

I believe what happened is much, much simpler than any of the above.

The American Government knew that an Al' Qaeda attack was imminent. Certain elements within the Government chose not to respond meaningfully because it suited their political purposes to have "A new Pearl Harbour".

As simple as that.

The whole argument made about compartmentalisation is that very few people know the 'full truth' - lots of others perform actions that make up the whole picture but because they only see a very small part of it they don't realise what they are a part of. My point was there are so many times this kind of argument is used to defend a conspiracy aspect that it doesn't seem realistic that some people wouldn't have suspected what was going on.

On one hand you say only a few people really need to know what was going on because of compartmentalisation. Then, when I give an opinion that the sheer number of times that is used means that it's not realistic anymore you say that it doesn't matter because everyone involved would be happy to be involved anyway. This is contradictory.

I have no problem with the concept of Mossad agents being prepared to kill thousands of civilians to preserve Israel. Or a few people in the US intelligence industry willing to do similar things to further their goal, whatever you wish them to be. I have no problems with some business people caring about money and nothing else. But the more people you add to the list the less likely it becomes. For someone to be able to do this they have to have strong convictions that what they are doing is right and for that they would need to be in on the secret, thus making the secret harder to keep. Or the persons involved would have to be paid lots of money. The more people you add to that the more pricey it becomes, but more importantly the more risky it becomes that someone is going to try to get even more money by selling their story.

Take for example one conspiracy aspect that the aircraft that hit the WTC was radio controlled. Assuming the technology was available you'd need a few people to install that. That's a specialist skill unlikely to be held in normal CIA/Mossad/etc ranks so you'd have outsiders involved. They would either have to be brought into the secret (and be happy about it) or somehow never be suspicious about how one day they were fitting remote controls on three 767s and a little later three 767s hit some buildings. Even if we do say Mossad/CIA/whoever had the skills and didn't need outside help then you still need the regular airline engineers never to notice these remote control amendments. And if you suggest (as has been) that actually the planes were swapped you'd need even more people who would have to be involved in changing serial numbers and painting a different craft in UA/AA colours, and base staff/ATC staff on whatever airbase witnessing that plane and if the passengers were also swapped, more people to help with that etc. All these people would either have to be in on the conspiracy or be paid off or never be suspicious of what they saw /did. And this is only one example.

Your example of the holocaust is not comparable to the 911 situation. Hitler controlled an entire country and had indoctrinated quite a lot of it that country that the Arian race was the superior form and Jews, gays, gypsies etc were inferior. The concentration camps were not particularly secret and the 911 conspiracy is meant to be completely secret. Take as example a guard at a concentration camp - he would be someone who has been indoctrinated that all Jews are scum, all the other guards are in the same position and in fact half the country thinks that too. Compare that to whoever helped paint the swapped plane in my example above. The whole world believes that the 911 attacks were an atrocity, an act of evil. The painter guy would have to have enough understanding of the 'true purpose' of the conspiracy to go against the view of the rest of the world. Or be paid a lot. And the same would be the case for all the other people.

I am not even sure what you are saying there (bold). Are you saying that compartentalsit organization is not "realistic" because its been used to much??

You are confusing two responses. I do believe much less than "thousands" would need to be involved. The comparison I used of the holocaust was to point out that even if the inflated numbers you claim would be needed, doesn't mean the beans would get spilled and force an official omission.



Considering the billions in millitary contracts, a few hundred million is a drop in the bucket.

I allready offered a counter argument to this. How do you explain the holocaust not becoming officialy known untill the end of the war? How is that possible under your claim?




"Assuming the technology was available"??? I hope you know without a doubt the technology is available. Its the 21st century, we can fly a plane by remote control, no queston. They could do that atleast 40 years ago as documented in Project Northwoods.

Seriously, I am not trying to be a dick but much of the above statement displays a naiveity about organizations like the CIA Mossad and the millitary, not to mention the government.

"That's a specialist skill unlikely to be held in normal CIA/Mossad/etc ranks"

Nonsense. They were planing on flying planes via remote control 40 years ago. The CIA recruits people with the skills they need, they have fleets of vehicles that need maintenance and modification, I can think of no one better to make a remote control plane than the CIA.

If someone thought it was a usable plan 40 years ago to modify planes to fly via remote control, switch them with other passenger planes that were full of people, then I think its 40 years more likely they could do it today. You might be interseted to read up on Project Northwoods if you haven't. I think it would answer meny of yoru questions.



911 was an atrocity but you are very wrong, the "whole world" is not in agreement about that. And those who were actualy behind it are not going to tip-their-hand and say they thought it was worth it.

The American people are no more indoctrinated than the germans were during ww2. Within hours of the attacks we were told who was behind them. From the very first day, the official story hasn't changed. They claimed to have had no prior warnings, to knowing the entire story in a couple of hours. How is that possible?

Read up on machiavellian philosophy. I allready offered a counter argument to this point of yours and frankly you seem to be repeating the same thing over and over.

Neglect? Well Bush certainly wasn't neglectful when he threatened the FBI with arrest if they tried to stop the attack. I believe a high ranking FBI went public quit his job because of it- BEFORE the attack even happened. Was NORAD being neglectful, also? Or were they just confused as hell because of the drills that morning?

As far as all the theories about explosives being planted in the Twin Towers, etc, go, I have often thought: why? If you (according to the theory) have already flown a 767 into each of them, why would you then need to plant explosives, etc? Why would you need to demolish them totally, when undeniably, planes have already been flown into them? Wouldn't that bhe enough to suit your purpose (whatever it may have been)?

And regarding switching of planes/remote controlled planes, etc: what happened to AA11 and UA175 that took off from Boston that morning? if they were "switched" with some the CIA had prepared earlier, where did they go? Area 51? If the planes concerned were secretly adapted for remote control/armed with missiles to attack the Pentagon/whatever some time earlier, could the CIA have been sure those particular planes would be used on those particular flights that particualr day, or were several AA and UA 757s and 767s modified, just in case? And didn't any AA or UA maintenance workers notice, or were they all kept quiet?

Oh, somebody is confused alright. Sure, a President of the United States would just tell the FBI/CIA/NSA (whatever) to allow foreign terrorist powers to attack us? This is a rational hypothesis? This is the exact reason that I detest 9/11 discussions.




Frankly, if some people choose to believe the extreme extrapolations necessary to make such hypotheses work then there's really not much anyone can say anyway, is there?

why wouldnt he allow it..if he planned it?....whats irrational about needing his pearl harbor to enforce his mandate?...

And thinking that an American President would plan an attack on his own country is reasonable?




And this mandate must be the 'Martial Law' (complete with concentration camps) that we are all living under now, right?

Let's cut to the chase here...in 11 more months the US will go to election and Bush will no longer be the President. 9/11 took place after Bush was elected for his last term! This entire scenario about Bush master minding 9/11 for some kind of bid to "take over the world" or something er other is just not supported in reality. But, like I said before, none of this matters to those who believe in "9/11 truth".

his mandate was attacking iraq..whatever it took....and it worked...

Two quick-fire response:

First, do you believe this 'rule of thumb' applies to the US exclusively or to all countires?

Second, what if the President wasn't behind it? Can you conceive of a situation whereby either an intelligence agency or the secret service, or else some other body or composite was responsible for such a plan?

I think it was a drive-by post, to let us know from the mods how silly this all is?....you might get a response?....

Why not? From the view of the oligarchic elite families of very wealthy powerful people that really run the country, everyone else are just scum to be manipulated, cheated, lied to, and used for providing a workforce and troops.

Killing a few won't matter that much, especailly when they were planning on the deaths of ten times as many as just the cost of making billions in profit and gaining a strategic location in the Middle East that could threaten/manipulate and possibly dominate oil supplies that are needed by China. Something to keep China down, and under their thumb.

You may recall, I made a statement in the World Events & Current Affairs forum that no one responded to. It went a bit like this:

People (in the WE & CA forum) have argued that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were necessary evils - imperatives, even - in that our democractic and economic well-being is founded upon oil as collateral. Thus, any war that helps secure access to the region's resources is justifiable, notwithstanding the fact that both innocent civilians and American troops have and will continue to lose their lives.

So, if American troops (4,000 or so currently) have been sacrificed for a national imperative, why would the same people who developed the war strategy have any qualms about killing 3,000 in the attacks on 9/11, given that they were the catalyst that launched a series of actions pursuant to the very same national imperative?

Which matters hardly at all, since the policy difference between the two main political parties are only big in their words, not in their actions. Democrat politicos still voted in support of the Patriot Act, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the continuing financing of these imperial adventures...the rich families at the top all know each other, more than half the time the only difference is the rhetoric, but in their actions there's a bit of different ideological colour but in the big stuff no real difference at all. They hype-up their differences, but both get the money from the same sources, both watch the same polls....

The President knows who really put him in the Oval Office, and it wasn't the voting public - it was the lobbyists, moneymen, influence peddlers, and the tentacles of association between the same families at the very top of the pile.

Every administration since JFK's assassination has steadily increased the centralisation of control, eroded freedoms, and been adding a little bit more to a framework of "emergency powers"

When was the last time anyone who was born POOR, or even of average means, ever became President of the USA? It was a long time ago....

The rest of your argument is only a mixture of Ad Hominem and emotional excuses. Not logic.

Because crashing planes would not be enough to knock down those buildings and kill thousands.

PNAC wanted a new "Pearl Harbor", well the old "Pearl Harbor" attack resulted in the deaths of thousands, the new one would have to kill thousands too.

They wanted to put in the Patriot Act (which was already well prepared in advance, but there was no way anyone would've accepted it without 9/11), turn the USA into a police state, use the deaths of thousands as a pretext for a war that was going to cost thousands of American lives anyway.

If there'd been no 9/11, the American public would never have accepted what was pushed onto them afterwards.

By the way, it's clear that explosives were planted BEFORE the attacks. Why do bother repeating the strawman & misrepresentation od what the 9/11 Truth Movement has been saying, but trying to pretend we're saying it was "afterwards"?

What I was saying was the main point about compartmentalisation is very few people know the truth. By definition the more people you have to add who know the truth the more the point of compartmentalisation breaks down. I already criticised anti-CTs for blindly throwing out the 'thousands' figure without focus. But I also criticise pro-CTs for not looking at details of who would have to be involved, which I tried to illustrate in my example.


You don't know how much money would be needed, nor do I but the more people you need to pay off the bigger that number becomes and the harder to hide. It is a consideration, but difficult to resolve either way which was why I continued my sentence with 'but more importantly...'.

I've already said the holocaust is not comparable. You're saying that very few people knew the truth of 911 and yet you've already said yourself that hundreds or thousands of people would have known about the holocaust - all the guards, camps staff, train staff etc. And the allies DID know about the holocaust - years before the end of the war.


Yes, I am well aware of Northwoods. You say I am naive about the ways of the CIA/Mossad but you seem to blindly believe they are capable of doing absolutely anything you can come up with without any consideration of the details and complexities involved in how they could do it.

My comment about the technology was not about whether it's possible to do it but whether it's available. Sure, there are ways of guiding missiles into targets with pinpoint accuracy and we have things like auto-land on airliners now as well. I don't doubt it is possible to remote guide a plane into a building, but why build that technology, there's no need. Northwoods never actually happened. You seem to be suggesting that the CIA/whoever went away and developed the technology anyway and kept updating it as technology progressed which doesn't make much sense. Or they did it nearer the time specifically for the 911 operation. Developing the technology would still take time, many people would have to be involved in the design, install and testing. And again, all these are people who would either have to be in on the secret or paid off.

So I didn't doubt it was possible to do - I just doubt the availability and the scale of people who would have to be involved.


Yes, I am well aware of Machiavelli.
You said proof that many people could perform horrible actions was the holocaust. I said the comparison was not appropriate because the Germans had been indoctrinated to hate the Jews that were being killed. You counter that the American people are just as indoctrinated to hate Muslim terrorists? That makes no sense.

The Nazis could allow the holocaust to happen because the Jews were not the same as them - they were sub-human, they deserved to die. The people who died in the 911 attacks were fellow Americans. Good people, office workers, fire fighter, police - equals. For someone to be able to take part in the 911 attacks they would have to have a very strong faith that what they were doing was worthwhile all that killing - all of them, even down to the person who painted the plane.

An Ad Hominem is attacking someone personally (attacking someone's argument is not the same thing), see link here.

Just for the record, the major fallacy I see going on here has to do with burden of proof. The people who make a claim have the responsibility to show that what they claim is indeed reality, it doesn't work the other way around. For example, if it's claimed that planes can't bring down buildings, then one has to show numbers (ie, many) of qualified structural engineers (ie, PhDs) who will support this hypothesis.

Also, I was not speaking as a moderator when I gave my opinion on all this.

but you've already flown planes full of people into buildings full of people... that, surely, is more than enough of an outrage to achieve the results you might want? Why is bringing down the buildings necessary?

If Iraq was about oil, atatcking Iraq wasn't a very efficient way to go about it, as Iraq is only about #5 in the list of oil suppliers to the US, from what i saw the other day. And what was the point of attacking Afghanistan on the grounds of oil? How much oil does America import from Afghanistan? Was it some cunning back door route into the Caucasus?

whats afghanistans main commodity?...heroin...they use it to fund their blackbook projects...heroins big business in SE asia and the states...

you could well have a point.

I've heard alot of people ask why?..i think it lies here...alas that great city babylon that mighty city, for in one hour her judgement has come...rev 18.10..they were imo trying to recreate the revelation...

The thing about all this Iraq business and the deception leading to the invasion really lies with Iran. The main reason to go into Iraq is too get between Iran and Syria.

And of course going into Iraq just adds to the chaos which the U.S. needs so badly in the Mid-East. More chaos means a less unified Mid-East which secures European and American interests alike. Look at the coup dé-té in Iran in the late 50's. It just happens that Mossadeqq was taken out after he was giving the U.K a hard time with their oil pipelines. And of course the Shah is brought in and is more or less a tyrant which then led to the revolution and hostage situation in the late 70s.

It's all a real mess.

Then again you can't deny that Iran is a threat, this new report states that they ceased their nuclear arms programs. But for how long? Could have been 5 minutes for all we know.

That may be the current position, but there are a great many other factors to take into account.

The US's main oil suppliers are or will soon reach their peak rate of oil production. Meanwhile, the Middle East continues to have the capacity to increase its rate of production. By 2010, it is expected that the Middle East will produce more oil than the rest of the world combined - the so-called 'crossover event'. Within this equation, it must be remembered that Iraq has not had the means to really develop its oil production capacity for some 15 years or so, nor has it been able explore potential new reserves. It is widely believed Iraq has a number of untapped, high yield reserves that, with foreign investment (surprise, surprise) will now be tapped. The Iraqi government (or American government, depending upon how you read the situation) is currently trying to speed up the ratification of legislation designed to allow foreign companies to invest in this process.

There are also wider obvious strategic considerations, such as Iran and China to consider.

I agree with Unlimited to an extent - it was largely about drugs. But I believe it was also about oil transit. Plans for an invasion of Afghanistan were so advance that a US military build-up along the Afghan border had been observed by both Pakistan and India several months before 9/11.