Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
UM-Debate-Bot

9/11 - What is true about it?

53 posts in this topic

I personally can't see the military pulling off a performance like that.

It was a military op but not in the sense of the USAF or regular army. I meant that it was carried out with military precision.

I know from the evidence given in my links that there was definitely a black op carried out at the Pentagon by nefarious elements from WITHIN the military machine. Which countries/agencies? I don´t know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why did there even need to be WMD's? War was declared and that was the goal to start a "just" conflict in the ME. WMD's didn't matter the war is still goin on man. So WMD's become irrelivant, found or not found, made no difference.

Nonsense. WMD's would have validated the entire Iraq war. Even if we had had absolutely no reason at all to invade, finding WMD's would have validated it.

If a SWAT team breaks into an apartment without due process and find absolutely nothing, they are in serious trouble. If, on the other hand, they break into an apartment without due process, and find roomfuls of explosives and timers, yeah, they'll be in trouble, but the fact that they found the explosives, and that they averted a potential disaster is going to go a long way towards getting them out of it. It's just basic human nature.

No, finding WMD destruction would have changed the entire way that America was viewed by the rest of the world. There is absolutely no way that the presence of WMD would not have been relevant. Heck, they would have been the entire focus.

Considering that the administration publicly announced that bin Laden was a principal character in the 9/11 attack and then promised to bring him to justice, I think the question of the real cause of the incident is moot and the administration failed miserably to resolve the issue just as it failed to prove or find WMDs in Iraq. **EDIT** on all counts.

**The profanity filters are there for a reason.**

Not sure what that has to do with the example of the government being hyper-efficient in one regard and utterly lacking in another, but as long as you understand the example, whatever.

Exactly WHO has run the ¨investigation¨ into what happened that day? Are you going to tell me that the whole episode was investigated in an unbiased fashion?

The whole process was worked backwards. First with the conclusions already predrawn and information woven in to fit said conclusion.

Testimony and evidence was cherrypicked and/or completely dismissed depending on whether or not it fitted neatly into the 9/11 commission´s findings.

Even the authors of the 9/11 commission have distanced themselves from the report on the grounds that their ´hands were tied´ in some areas of CIA contributions and demands of the government.

The official story (´story in every sense of the word) has become ´tenuous´ to say the least.

I´m not a proponent of all 9/11 theories that have surfaced but have found the aforementioned links in my other post to be VERY intriguing.

Not really interested in all the conspiracies about 9/11. Pretty much the only topic about it that gets my interest is the engineering aspects of it. As far as the engineering aspects go, and that covers everything physical and structural that occurred, if this was a performance by whoever, it was done perfectly. There is nothing about it that would be out of place in the scenario as described by NIST.

The banking fiasco was given as an example of how much the present regimes can get away with.

Oh? What did they get away with?

To the best of my knowledge, no one has even shown they were intentionally involved, let alone got away with it.

Or is "present regimes" one of those catch-all terms that can mean government leaders, secret NWO groups, world-wide banking cabals, or any vague, generalized, faceless enemy of human rights?

When I said that we are insignificant as a people, I meant in the scheme of things, that we are increasingly finding ourselves incapable of affecting change or for airing our grievances.

I do not see myself in the light that you presumed I painted. Far from it.

Really? 'Cause it really does seem to give that impression. It was almost depressing, reading that.

Human rights have been eroded for decades. After 9/11 they wrote it into law.

The US Constitution?

Draconian laws introduced to enable secret services and police more control and powers to invade our private spaces

to a degree where everything is covered under the guise of ´national security´, whether it be tapping our communications or censoring information. Arrest and detention. Free speech. The list goes on.

Yes, the US Constitution was indeed instituted to restrict state powers, enact a stronger (or draconian, if you want to be melodramatic about it) central government, and introduce the concept of "national security" to what was a disorganized and failing confederation of individual states. They understood that, as nice as the rhetoric given to the masses about freedom and liberty where, in all practicality a government that intends to be successful had better have control of the powers within it, or suffer the consequences (look at what happened with the rail system, the food industry, and most currently, the economic system. All grew powerful and corrupted until the government had to step in and restrict their freedoms).

How the government handled the aftermath has nothing to do with it.

It doesn't?

The claim is made that the government acted hyper-efficiently one moment, but how the government acted directly after then has nothing to do with it?

That's a rather specific way of defining your argument there. Any other annoying little discrepancies that go counter to the argument that you want to cut off before they start making sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense. WMD's would have validated the entire Iraq war. Even if we had had absolutely no reason at all to invade, finding WMD's would have validated it.

If a SWAT team breaks into an apartment without due process and find absolutely nothing, they are in serious trouble. If, on the other hand, they break into an apartment without due process, and find roomfuls of explosives and timers, yeah, they'll be in trouble, but the fact that they found the explosives, and that they averted a potential disaster is going to go a long way towards getting them out of it. It's just basic human nature.

No, finding WMD destruction would have changed the entire way that America was viewed by the rest of the world. There is absolutely no way that the presence of WMD would not have been relevant. Heck, they would have been the entire focus.

Not sure what that has to do with the example of the government being hyper-efficient in one regard and utterly lacking in another, but as long as you understand the example, whatever.

Not really interested in all the conspiracies about 9/11. Pretty much the only topic about it that gets my interest is the engineering aspects of it. As far as the engineering aspects go, and that covers everything physical and structural that occurred, if this was a performance by whoever, it was done perfectly. There is nothing about it that would be out of place in the scenario as described by NIST.

Oh? What did they get away with?

To the best of my knowledge, no one has even shown they were intentionally involved, let alone got away with it.

Or is "present regimes" one of those catch-all terms that can mean government leaders, secret NWO groups, world-wide banking cabals, or any vague, generalized, faceless enemy of human rights?

Really? 'Cause it really does seem to give that impression. It was almost depressing, reading that.

Yes, the US Constitution was indeed instituted to restrict state powers, enact a stronger (or draconian, if you want to be melodramatic about it) central government, and introduce the concept of "national security" to what was a disorganized and failing confederation of individual states. They understood that, as nice as the rhetoric given to the masses about freedom and liberty where, in all practicality a government that intends to be successful had better have control of the powers within it, or suffer the consequences (look at what happened with the rail system, the food industry, and most currently, the economic system. All grew powerful and corrupted until the government had to step in and restrict their freedoms).

It doesn't?

The claim is made that the government acted hyper-efficiently one moment, but how the government acted directly after then has nothing to do with it?

That's a rather specific way of defining your argument there. Any other annoying little discrepancies that go counter to the argument that you want to cut off before they start making sense?

Read my post again. Calmly this time?

The banking fiasco I was referring to was the bankrupcy that has happened of late.

My post showed that 9/11 was nowhere near the open and shut case that you seem to imply. That the government was caught ´offguard´ is a non runner.

All I am saying is that there needs to be a new unrestricted, open enquiry where ALL suspicions and irregularities aren´t just brushed under the carpet for the sake of convenience. That NOBODY has a veto on the outcome. Transparency.

How the government reacted afterwards has no bearing on this discussion the way you were talking about it.

´They felt they were mugged´ and struck out at anyone in their way...

It is a presumption based on what? How has my rejection of it made my argument non sensical?

You assume that I believe the US government had a role in the dynamics and carrying out of the operations.

I don´t know who carried them out nor even the real reasoning behind it but I certainly know that their hands aren´t clean. That they took a backseat that day. Allowing this atrocity to happen.

I have given proven facts (just a small number of those available) that prove that there was prior knowledge at the very least.

The attack on the Constitution would be bearable if it was being done so in the honorable and sensible way you say, but it is being used against individuals for selfish reasons. It is in the hands of unaccountable, faceless people loyal to themselves and the bankers.

FEMA have admitted that fire was the unlikely cause of the collapse of WTC7. NIST´s report on the towers is based on mathematical assumptions that have changed how many times? ´Pancake´? ´banana´? ´powerdrive´?

The ASCE report on the Pentagon fails before the plane allegedly made contact with the facade. The left engine dragging the lawn before impact?

´Present regimes´ is exactly what it implies. Those with power.

Please don´t try to pin the tinhat on me yet.

I hope we don´t enter that realm of discussion. It grates on me and I´m sure anyone watching the discussion.

Have you checked out the link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

´National Security´ can be the reason given for ANY withholding of information in the hands of the government.

It can also be used for arrest and detention.

It can be used to override ANY law they wish.

They can do or say anything they want on the back of these words.

Two simple words. No argument. Perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read my post again. Calmly this time?

As opposed to what? Oooh, I get it! You want to make it seem like I'm being irrational! Good one! ^_^

The banking fiasco I was referring to was the bankrupcy that has happened of late.

I figured. I just can't tell What relevance it had to what we were talking about, about the government being hyper-efficient one moment, and a failure the next.

My post showed that 9/11 was nowhere near the open and shut case that you seem to imply.

The thing about it is that, well, just saying something isn't the same as showing something. To you, claiming that the government cherry picked evidence, that tossed stuff out, that was biased to begin with, may well be showing, but to me...it's just you making these statements. In order to believe them, really the only option I have would be to believe you, and I don't really know you that well. And, like I said, it's not really my area of interest. I like the engineering aspects of it, in large part because there is no belief required there. You don't have to take someone's word that something works or doesn't. You can't check it yourself.

That the government was caught ´offguard´ is a non runner.

Don't understand this, so won't comment.

All I am saying is that there needs to be a new unrestricted, open enquiry where ALL suspicions and irregularities aren´t just brushed under the carpet for the sake of convenience. That NOBODY has a veto on the outcome. Transparency.

Yeah?

So who would you trust to be on this query board?

Who would you trust if, at the end of it, they told you that it was right the first time?

How the government reacted afterwards has no bearing on this discussion the way you were talking about it.

I can't see why not. The entire argument (which I did not begin, by the way), was that it didn't make sense that the same government who was so hyper-efficient that they could carry off a false attack on 9/11 suddenly became inept at pretending to find WMD in Iraq. That's a pretty direct correlation.

´They felt they were mugged´ and struck out at anyone in their way...

It is a presumption based on what? How has my rejection of it made my argument non sensical?

I don't know what you mean by "presumption" (presuming what?), but what made your argument nonsensical was saying that finding something so dangerous it would get pretty much anyone off the hook would be irrelevant and make no difference. We have a long history of human behaviour in which objectional behaviour was overlooked if the ends made that behaviour worthwhile.

You assume that I believe the US government had a role in the dynamics and carrying out of the operations.

I don´t know who carried them out nor even the real reasoning behind it but I certainly know that their hands aren´t clean. That they took a backseat that day. Allowing this atrocity to happen.

Honestly, it doesn't really matter to me, in terms of the argument. My argument is about logic, i.e. how can a government act hyper-efficiently one moment and utterly incompetent the next.

I have given proven facts (just a small number of those available) that prove that there was prior knowledge at the very least.

I'm sure you have. Heck, I even believe it. I haven't actually seen anything that makes me think that there was anything concrete enough to be acted on, but then, it really isn't something I have an interest in.

The attack on the Constitution would be bearable if it was being done so in the honorable and sensible way you say, but it is being used against individuals for selfish reasons. It is in the hands of unaccountable, faceless people loyal to themselves and the bankers.

Again, all I have to go on here is your belief that this is so, and I don't find your logic strong enough to warrant it.

FEMA have admitted that fire was the unlikely cause of the collapse of WTC7. NIST´s report on the towers is based on mathematical assumptions that have changed how many times? ´Pancake´? ´banana´? ´powerdrive´?

None, actually. I am quite familiar with what NIST said.

The ASCE report on the Pentagon fails before the plane allegedly made contact with the facade. The left engine dragging the lawn before impact?

If you like.

´Present regimes´ is exactly what it implies. Those with power.

Way to narrow it down. :tu:

Please don´t try to pin the tinhat on me yet.

I'll try, but you are kinda hitting each bullet on the list...

I hope we don´t enter that realm of discussion. It grates on me and I´m sure anyone watching the discussion.

Have you checked out the link?

No, I'm still on the argument that I was originally at. I'm still waiting for an answer as to how a government that put together such an incredible production on 9/11 was unable to put together a much more relatively simple on finding the WMD's in Iraq. It was an impressive dance you did, and it would probably have worked if I was interested in the rest of the topic, but as it is, the argument was not addressed; indeed, it was just dismissed as irrelevant with the same casual wave of the hand that skeptics are accused of doing with the CT arguments.

If you are looking to get into the politics of 9/11, I recommend asking someone else. As a lot of people here know, I just don't get into those discussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when a lot is at stake.... make sure you fight the right one....

:unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I'm still on the argument that I was originally at. I'm still waiting for an answer as to how a government that put together such an incredible production on 9/11 was unable to put together a much more relatively simple on finding the WMD's in Iraq. It was an impressive dance you did, and it would probably have worked if I was interested in the rest of the topic, but as it is, the argument was not addressed; indeed, it was just dismissed as irrelevant with the same casual wave of the hand that skeptics are accused of doing with the CT arguments.

If you are looking to get into the politics of 9/11, I recommend asking someone else. As a lot of people here know, I just don't get into those discussions.

The fallacy of that argument is that you assume that the sum total of the very same people who carried out 9/11 are one and the same as those who were involved in the WMD lie.

I believe the governments of both the US and Britain had a ROLE to play both before and after the event, but the actual carrying out of operations that day? No.

As we have seen they operate a well oiled PR propaganda machine but false smiles and empty words only go so far. They have ultimately failed in their parts in both the 9/11 saga and the WMD lie. But the seeds have been sown and for many it is easier to accept the official story, warts, lies and all, and seek a common enemy to rally against.

Fair enough I respect you not wanting to discuss the politics of 9/11. It gives me a sore head too lol.

My first post in this forum was actually along the lines of discussing actual proof of black ops that day. The heading is ´9/11, what is true about it?´

I was being very specific on the area of discussion so as to avoid the endless circle of discussion on the whole 9/11 political saga.

Sorry if I came across a little brash and disjointed but after years of being branded a ´nut´ just because I have serious founded doubts on what we have been spoonfed, I´ve developed a bit of a defensive attitude that sometimes blurs the lines between discussion and pushing a point.

Nice to meet you anyway mate.

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fallacy of that argument is that you assume that the sum total of the very same people who carried out 9/11 are one and the same as those who were involved in the WMD lie.

Actually, I'm saying that there wasn't a lie, but there should have been. If the government could pull off a show like the attacks, it could pull off finding WMD in Iraq.

Fair enough I respect you not wanting to discuss the politics of 9/11. It gives me a sore head too lol.

Well, thank you. ^_^ You don't know how often I get call nasty things because I don't like politics of whatever strip.

Sorry if I came across a little brash and disjointed but after years of being branded a ´nut´ just because I have serious founded doubts on what we have been spoonfed, I´ve developed a bit of a defensive attitude that sometimes blurs the lines between discussion and pushing a point.

Nice to meet you anyway mate.

Peace.

I know the feeling, man. I get labeled a government disinformation agent on a regular basis here. Puts one off an intelligent discussion, you know? I get snarky on occasion as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I'm saying that there wasn't a lie, but there should have been. If the government could pull off a show like the attacks, it could pull off finding WMD in Iraq.

The idea that 9/11 could not be a false flag operation because no WMD’s were found in Iraq is nonsensical.

I’m sure that the U.S. could have pulled off planting WMD’s in Iraq but this would have come with sizeable risks and the focal question is: was this imperative to continuing the war? The answer is “no” and the conclusion is that such unnecessary risks would not be taken.

Cheney made clear he did not care for public opinion, the people were provided with alternative pretexts and the forces that brought about the Middle East conflicts still achieved their aim of regime change in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that 9/11 could not be a false flag operation because no WMD’s were found in Iraq is nonsensical.

No, it isn't without reason. It checks the claims made by propagandists who routinely allege that 9-11 was an American operation to get at Iraq, which is nonsense.

Cheney made clear he did not care for public opinion, the people were provided with alternative pretexts and the forces that brought about the Middle East conflicts still achieved their aim of regime change in Iraq.

Listen to the opening remarks of liberal Democrat, Al Franken, regarding his views on this subject of taking public opinion into his deliberative process!

It's just another part of politics. Would a cautious and conservative debate about Afghanistan or Iraq have produced a different outcomes? Possibly.

The main point is, however, al-Qaeda was going to strike the U.S. no matter who was in the White House, in 2001. And, this raised some serious questions about what tasks lay ahead, in terms of U.S. responsibilities.

And, furthermore, there is not one jot of evidence about al-Qaeda cooperating with the USG. That is just speculation that various propaganda networks made up and spread over the Internet, and through the media and channels of various countries.

Edited by merril

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cheney made clear he did not care for public opinion, the people were provided with alternative pretexts...

and the forces that brought about the Middle East conflicts

still achieved their aim of regime change in Iraq.

"and the forces that brought about the Middle East conflicts" were not unilateral.

The main agenda for the U.S. even prior to 9-11 was to douse future prospects of WMD from Iraq, and to contain them as much as possible from those countries that did not have them. That became even more imperative after 9-11.

The problem is now Iran. At least, it may be a problem. And, perhaps Iraq will not even so much as facilitate WMDs.

Edited by merril

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a shame that checktheevidence.com didn't particapate here.

Mr Random Guy, I suggest you look at the events relating to the Pentagon and WT7, why is it that conventionalists fail to acknowledge these events and only focus attention the twin towers?

I'm not even trying to say you're foolish for trusting mainstream news services and political authorities, it is hard to accept it, but 9/11 is clearly, something we have been lied to about.

Edited by b_kid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that 9/11 could not be a false flag operation because no WMD’s were found in Iraq is nonsensical.

I’m sure that the U.S. could have pulled off planting WMD’s in Iraq but this would have come with sizeable risks and the focal question is: was this imperative to continuing the war? The answer is “no” and the conclusion is that such unnecessary risks would not be taken.

Cheney made clear he did not care for public opinion, the people were provided with alternative pretexts and the forces that brought about the Middle East conflicts still achieved their aim of regime change in Iraq.

Why would planting WMDs (burying a few tons of the nasty of your choice in the sand and then coming across it, "purely by chance", that's all they'd have to do) entail any risk at all, and if it did, why on earth would that put off a government that had apparently engineered the greatest con trick in history, in full view of millions? It disnae make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q24, I don't think Al Quida had any more idea 9-11 was coming down than I did. I'll admit that later I was expecting the U.S. to find WMDs in Iraq. I guess they realized they didn't need to. KennyB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is now Iran.

You got it. The sad thing is that you don’t see the pattern.

Problem: the Neocon roadmap dictates that the U.S. must control the Middle East region.

Reaction: the pretexts of terrorism... WMDs... now nuclear weapons…

Solution: war with Afghanistan… Iraq… now Iran…

It was decided to go to war with Iran years ago.

Why would planting WMDs (burying a few tons of the nasty of your choice in the sand and then coming across it, "purely by chance", that's all they'd have to do) entail any risk at all, and if it did, why on earth would that put off a government that had apparently engineered the greatest con trick in history, in full view of millions? It disnae make sense.

The risks: a large quantity of chemical/biological weapon “nasty” missing from U.S. facilities, transportation, the manpower involved in this and the “burying” of weapons, possibility of being observed, U.N. weapons inspectors identifying the source of the weapons. All unnecessary to continuation of the Iraq war. It disnae make sense that they would even try it.

Q24, I don't think Al Quida had any more idea 9-11 was coming down than I did. I'll admit that later I was expecting the U.S. to find WMDs in Iraq. I guess they realized they didn't need to. KennyB

I always ask – who are Al Qaeda? But no, I don’t think bin Laden saw it coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The risks: a large quantity of chemical/biological weapon “nasty” missing from U.S. facilities, transportation, the manpower involved in this and the “burying” of weapons, possibility of being observed, U.N. weapons inspectors identifying the source of the weapons. All unnecessary to continuation of the Iraq war. It disnae make sense that they would even try it.

The manpower necessary to do that, compared with the number of people who would have to be involved in some of the more colourful versions of the 9/11 conspiracy? I don't think that huge quantities of anything, or huge numbers of people, would be necessary actually; just a few tons of whatever would surely be enough. You could transport that nice and clandestinely with a couple of trucks and no more than a dozen or so men. A lot more cost-effective than setting up remote controlled planes or rigging the WTC with explosives. And surely the weapons inspectors could be distracted for an few hours; lead them off after a false trail somewhere else. You wouldn't have to take it from US stocks; you could buy them from somewhere else through a series of third parties that could never be traced fully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The manpower necessary to do that, compared with the number of people who would have to be involved in some of the more colourful versions of the 9/11 conspiracy?

The manpower involved in 9/11 would surely have been greater than that required to plant WMDs in Iraq. But why are you making a comparison? I don’t believe anyone has said that the planting of WMDs could not possibly have been achieved – only that it was an unecessary risk.

I don't think that huge quantities of anything, or huge numbers of people, would be necessary actually; just a few tons of whatever would surely be enough. You could transport that nice and clandestinely with a couple of trucks and no more than a dozen or so men. A lot more cost-effective than setting up remote controlled planes or rigging the WTC with explosives. And surely the weapons inspectors could be distracted for an few hours; lead them off after a false trail somewhere else. You wouldn't have to take it from US stocks; you could buy them from somewhere else through a series of third parties that could never be traced fully.

It’s nice to see you being accommodating of such a covert operation. Again, I agree that WMDs could have been planted in Iraq and at far less expense than the 9/11 false flag attack. I’m not sure I concur with the idea of ‘distracting’ weapons inspectors – I was thinking along the lines that were WMDs found then the international community would require verification of their composition and source through U.N. inspectors. With the suggestion of importing chemical/biological weapons through third parties this would still leave the risk of a trail of sorts which could be followed.

The above still misses the point: whether WMDs had been discovered, by whatever means, in Iraq or not, this would not have changed the end game.

So why bother? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The manpower involved in 9/11 would surely have been greater than that required to plant WMDs in Iraq. But why are you making a comparison? I don’t believe anyone has said that the planting of WMDs could not possibly have been achieved – only that it was an unecessary risk.

It’s nice to see you being accommodating of such a covert operation. Again, I agree that WMDs could have been planted in Iraq and at far less expense than the 9/11 false flag attack. I’m not sure I concur with the idea of ‘distracting’ weapons inspectors – I was thinking along the lines that were WMDs found then the international community would require verification of their composition and source through U.N. inspectors. With the suggestion of importing chemical/biological weapons through third parties this would still leave the risk of a trail of sorts which could be followed.

The above still misses the point: whether WMDs had been discovered, by whatever means, in Iraq or not, this would not have changed the end game.

So why bother? :unsure:

Why bother, indeed. Clearly, the absence of WMD's made no difference to the Chickenhawks' goals regarding Iraq - many years have past since they came up empty in their 'search', and the troops are still there.

If the lack of WMD's had become a real concern for their plans, it would have easy enough to plant and 'find'.

But 'finding' WMD's is just like 'finding' Bin Laden - it's no big deal!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the lack of WMD's had become a real concern for their plans, it would have easy enough to plant and 'find'.

Err! How do you plant WMD?

I mean where abouts do you obtain WMD from? Creating WMD is not an easy process and it doesn't grow on trees.

Then once they have gone and created it, how do they get it into Iraq without being noticed? Do you think they can carry it on a plane flying into Baghdad or do they bring it across one of the borders like Kuwait or Turkey.

Once it's planted, how do you make sure it is not traceable seeing as only a few countries would be capable of producing it.

The argument that it would be easy to plant WMD is laughable and can be easily dismissed when it is much, much easier for the perpetrators to lie about it with scary talk of AQ, underground bunkers and 45 minutes to launch threats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Err! How do you plant WMD?

I mean where abouts do you obtain WMD from? Creating WMD is not an easy process and it doesn't grow on trees.

Then once they have gone and created it, how do they get it into Iraq without being noticed? Do you think they can carry it on a plane flying into Baghdad or do they bring it across one of the borders like Kuwait or Turkey.

Once it's planted, how do you make sure it is not traceable seeing as only a few countries would be capable of producing it.

The argument that it would be easy to plant WMD is laughable and can be easily dismissed when it is much, much easier for the perpetrators to lie about it with scary talk of AQ, underground bunkers and 45 minutes to launch threats.

Would seem easy enough. Since "WMDs" seems a fairly wide category, all they'd need to do would be to ship a few barrels of some sort of chemical (it wouldn't have to be nuclear) over from US stocks, surreptitiously among lots of other supplies, or obtain it from a friendly neighbour (looks at Israel, perhaps), through a number of third parties to add deniability, put them on a truck, take 'em out somewhere quiet and bury them in the sand. Risk of detection: negligible (who, after all, would be likely to detect you except your own forces?), difficulty: minimal, deniability: plenty. I mean, obviously, the barrels wouldn't have "MADE IN THE USA (or Israel)" or "PROPERTY OF U.S. GOVERNMENT" on them, and it wouldn't be able to prove that they'd have come from US stocks. Now, while I see Q and Turbo's points about it all having been a fait accompli by then, I still think that, if the Bush government had been as cunning and ruthless as the 9/11 plot would imply, it would have been worth adding that extra touch to add verisimilitude to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surreptitiously among lots of other supplies, or obtain it from a friendly neighbour (looks at Israel, perhaps), through a number of third parties to add deniability, put them on a truck, take 'em out somewhere quiet and bury them in the sand.
Iraq is pretty much land locked.

So even if they had a secret source like Israel say, to give them some WMD, then you have the logistical problem of getting it to Iraq.

You can't just drive it there, they would have to ship it there and also cross the border via another country, like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria (These countries were sympathetic to Iraq) and that would cause all kinds of problems like how to do you get WMD through one of these countries customs and then into Iraq across the border.

Risk of detection: negligible (who, after all, would be likely to detect you except your own forces?), difficulty: minimal, deniability: plenty.
Risk of detection is much higher than you would think considering you can't just drive it into Iraq. You could fly it but Saddam watched the skies over Iraq.

Let say that Israel supplies America for this covert op, then once they got them, they would have to be shipped somewhere before it enters Iraq. I can't think of where they could ship it covertly other than Kuwait

I mean, obviously, the barrels wouldn't have "MADE IN THE USA (or Israel)" or "PROPERTY OF U.S. GOVERNMENT" on them, and it wouldn't be able to prove that they'd have come from US stocks.
You see it doesn't need a sign, just from checking out chemical signatures, it might be possible to trace where the WMD was made or where certain materials came from. So if the UN actually discovered some WMD and Saddam was like "I ain't got a clue where they came from" they would do some investigating to try and find out.
Now, while I see Q and Turbo's points about it all having been a fait accompli by then, I still think that, if the Bush government had been as cunning and ruthless as the 9/11 plot would imply, it would have been worth adding that extra touch to add verisimilitude to it.
I think it was much easier to lie about it and do what Bush did, get Saddam to prove that he doesn't have WMD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iraq is pretty much land locked.

So even if they had a secret source like Israel say, to give them some WMD, then you have the logistical problem of getting it to Iraq.

You can't just drive it there, they would have to ship it there and also cross the border via another country, like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria (These countries were sympathetic to Iraq) and that would cause all kinds of problems like how to do you get WMD through one of these countries customs and then into Iraq across the border.

Risk of detection is much higher than you would think considering you can't just drive it into Iraq. You could fly it but Saddam watched the skies over Iraq.

Let say that Israel supplies America for this covert op, then once they got them, they would have to be shipped somewhere before it enters Iraq. I can't think of where they could ship it covertly other than Kuwait

You see it doesn't need a sign, just from checking out chemical signatures, it might be possible to trace where the WMD was made or where certain materials came from. So if the UN actually discovered some WMD and Saddam was like "I ain't got a clue where they came from" they would do some investigating to try and find out.

I think it was much easier to lie about it and do what Bush did, get Saddam to prove that he doesn't have WMD.

Ah no, what I was thinking was, finding it after the invasion. Then they could just fly in it on any handy US transport plane, and then US forces could "find" it, gain kudos for themselves, and rub the UN inspectors' noses in it. I mean, obviously, there'd be all sorts of holes in it for anyone who was remotely suspicious, but if Bush was as cunning as the pro-9/11 conspiracy theories suggest, he could have got around that, i'd have thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah no, what I was thinking was, finding it after the invasion. Then they could just fly in it on any handy US transport plane, and then US forces could "find" it, gain kudos for themselves, and rub the UN inspectors' noses in it. I mean, obviously, there'd be all sorts of holes in it for anyone who was remotely suspicious, but if Bush was as cunning as the pro-9/11 conspiracy theories suggest, he could have got around that, i'd have thought.
Ahh, I see what you mean now. :)

If they had planted some WMD, I still say they wouldn't be able to rub the inspectors noses in it seeing as they were being guided by American intelligence to the various sites. And I think your right, it would open all kinds of holes.

I wouldn't trust Bush to tie my shoelaces let alone plot a conspiracy. :D

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't trust Bush to tie my shoelaces let alone plot a conspiracy. :D

What about Cheney, Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.