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 2
Persia

9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop

764 posts in this topic

/cue barry white

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

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

that's funny..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

Was prediction necessary?

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

Was detcord necessary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

vague personal incredulity

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

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

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

unfounded assumption

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

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

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

lack of detailed thought, logic

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

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

avoidance of questions

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

1) simply blow up the plane/ planes killing all those innocent people or

2) blow up the buildings and blaming it on the terrorists or

3) send one plane in to the pentagon/ world trade centre or

4) go on fox news and claim you had found plans of an imminent Iraqi rearming and that Saddam had stock piles of weapons of mass destruction,

5) or go on Fox news and show secret document that the terrorist were starting a base in cuba/afghanistan/wherever was convenient and you had discovered plans they were intending to invade America.

6)pretty much anything which is not taken from the plans of a supervillain from a batman comic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

For example, you have raised this: -

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

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

For the third time I ask: -

Were there any Afghan or Iraqi assets available and willing to work to this end?

How do you know there was a choice about which nationals were used?

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

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

Can you answer any of these questions?

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

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

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

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

1) simply blow up the plane/ planes killing all those innocent people or

2) blow up the buildings and blaming it on the terrorists or

3) send one plane in to the pentagon/ world trade centre or

4) go on fox news and claim you had found plans of an imminent Iraqi rearming and that Saddam had stock piles of weapons of mass destruction,

5) or go on Fox news and show secret document that the terrorist were starting a base in cuba/afghanistan/wherever was convenient and you had discovered plans they were intending to invade America.

6)pretty much anything which is not taken from the plans of a supervillain from a batman comic

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

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

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

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

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

So listen to thoughts in their circles: -

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

~Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy, Imagining the Transforming Event, 1998

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

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

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

Do you see this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Was it necessary to “predict” where the aircraft would impact?

Is detcord necessary to a demolition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

For the third time I ask: -

Were there any Afghan or Iraqi assets available and willing to work to this end?

How do you know there was a choice about which nationals were used?

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

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

Can you answer any of these questions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I go through each sentence…

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

… check… check… check… all agreed.

Then suddenly it goes way out of whack…

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

… huh, what? In which reality was that?

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

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

Ok, carrying on…

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

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

… check… check… check… all agreed.

Then, oh oh…

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

… eh sorry? Is the resultant reality in question?

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

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

Onwards and upwards…

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

… ah, no check.

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

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

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

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

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

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

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

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

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

To summarise the reality: -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Was it necessary to "predict" where the aircraft would impact?

Is detcord necessary to a demolition?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I go through each sentence…

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

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

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

No one shot down United 93.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BOJINKA PLOT

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

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

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I have decided that when you deliberately ignore questions pertinent to your assertion and repeat the initial assertion backed with nonsense logic, I’m going to have to report it.

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

The hijackers met with a Saudi government agent.

The hijackers met with a U.S. intelligence asset.

An associate of Atta was reported to be CIA.

Ali Mohammed was CIA.

A relative of Jarrah was an Israeli intelligence asset.

Omar Sheikh was MI6/ISI.

You don’t want to go the route of who the hijackers were associated with.

Tip of the iceberg people - look it up :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have decided that when you deliberately ignore questions pertinent to your assertion and repeat the initial assertion backed with nonsense logic, I’m going to have to report it.

Be prepared to a huge amount of work, then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Prior to 9/11, FAA and Department of Defense Manuals gave clear, comprehensive instructions on how to handle everything from minor emergencies to full blown hijackings. These 'protocols' were in place and were practiced regularly for a good reason -- with heavily trafficked air space; airliners without radio and transponder contact are collisions and/or calamities waiting to happen.

Those protocols dictate that in the event of an emergency, the FAA is to notify NORAD. Once that notification takes place, it is then the responsibility of NORAD to scramble fighter-jets to intercept the errant plane(s). It is a matter of routine procedure for fighter-jets to 'intercept' commercial airliners in order to regain contact with the pilot.

If that weren't protection enough, on September 11th, NEADS (or the North East Air Defense System dept of NORAD) was several days into a semi-annual exercise known as 'Vigilant Guardian." This meant that our North East Air Defense system was fully staffed. In short, key officers were manning the operation battle center, 'fighter jets were cocked, loaded, and carrying extra gas on board.'

Lucky for the terrorists that none of this mattered on the morning of September 11th. Let me illustrate using just flight 11 as an example:

American Airline Flight 11 departed from Boston's Logan Airport at 7:45 a.m. The last routine communication between ground control and the plane occurred at 8:13 a.m. Between 8:13 and 8:20 a.m. Flight 11 became unresponsive to ground control. Additionally, radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its assigned path of flight. Soon thereafter, transponder contact was lost -- (although planes can still be seen on radar - even without their transponders).

Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately called American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew. At this point, it would seem abundantly clear that Flight 11 was an emergency.

Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m. Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m. -- a full 32 minutes after the loss of contact with flight 11.

Why was there a delay in the FAA notifying NORAD? Why was there a delay in NORAD scrambling fighter jets? How is this possible when NEADS was fully staffed with planes at the ready and monitoring our Northeast airspace?

Flights 175, 77 and 93 all had this same repeat pattern of delays in notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets. Delays that are unimaginable considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the World Trade Center.

Even more baffling for us is the fact that the fighter jets were not scrambled from the closest air force bases. For example, for the flight that hit the Pentagon, the jets were scrambled from Langley Air Force in Hampton, Virginia rather than Andrews Air Force Base right outside D.C. As a result, Washington skies remained wholly unprotected on the morning of September 11th. At 9:41 a.m., one hour and 11 minutes after the first plane hijack confirmed by NORAD, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The fighter jets were still miles away. Why?

So the hijackers' luck had continued. On September 11th both the FAA and NORAD deviated from standard emergency operating procedures. Who were the people that delayed the notification? Have they been questioned? In addition, the interceptor planes or fighter jets did not fly at their maximum speed.

"Had the belatedly scrambled fighter jets flown at their maximum speed of engagement, MACH-12, they would have reached NYC and the Pentagon within moments of their deployment, intercepted the hijacked airliners before they could have hit their targets, and undoubtedly saved lives."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manworm, please cite your source(s) for the material you post. To do otherwise is to engage in plagiarism.

I'm informed that your recent post originated from:

"Statement of Mindy Kleinberg to the

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

March 31, 2003"

http://www.9-11commi...s_kleinberg.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition, the interceptor planes or fighter jets did not fly at their maximum speed.

"Had the belatedly scrambled fighter jets flown at their maximum speed of engagement, MACH-12, they would have reached NYC and the Pentagon within moments of their deployment, intercepted the hijacked airliners before they could have hit their targets, and undoubtedly saved lives."

:rolleyes:

12 Mach, eh?

What sort of fighter is that?

What aircraft has ever flown at 12 Mach (Shuttle excluded, and it didn't fly above 1 mach below 50,000 feet), and of what use is such a velocity to a fighter? We're talking 2-2.5 miles per second.

Just curious...some of the stuff I see here is occassionally amazing... :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 Mach, eh?
maybe its a typo in the 911 commission report. perhaps it should read mach 1.2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have decided that when you deliberately ignore questions pertinent to your assertion and repeat the initial assertion backed with nonsense logic, I'm going to have to report it.

The hijackers met with a Saudi government agent.

The hijackers met with a U.S. intelligence asset.

An associate of Atta was reported to be CIA.

Ali Mohammed was CIA.

A relative of Jarrah was an Israeli intelligence asset.

Omar Sheikh was MI6/ISI.

But, what does that have to do with 9/11? Did you know that CIA headquarters was also a target of the terrorist? The terrorist were to use an airplane to slam into the CIA building and the plot was conveyed by Philippine officials.

You know the old saying; Never bite the hand that feeds you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe its a typo in the 911 commission report. perhaps it should read mach 1.2

It definitely shouldn't be Mach 12. Anyway, compared to the other sloppy mistakes the 9/11 Commission Report made... like forgetting to mention WTC 7 at all, for instance (I think they need their very own "oops"), that's not that major.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

… huh, what? In which reality was that?

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

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

Ok, carrying on…

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

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

Yes, the reality as it materialised was as you say. But you are looking at it after the event. My point was that at the time of inception, if this was the plan, the conspirators would have no way of ensuring that. Sure, they may have believed they would be able to control the public mood in the aftermath, but they could not know this for certain. It is not a question of speculation over reality. We are talking about what would have been in the conspirators' minds at the time, when weighing up the risks involved with the certainty of success. It is all speculation unless either of us were there. Cards on the table, I wasn't present. Your position is that the risks in the plan were minimal and the end result was ensured. My position is that the risks were great and the end result was not assured. Basically I think most of our disagreements come down to this different view on risk/reward and it may be that at this stage we are really just arguing aroud in circles.

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

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

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

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

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

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

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

I can accept it was wider in scope than just Iraq however given the relative speed that Iraq was targetted you would accept perhaps that Iraq must clearly have been a target when the plan was formulated. Yes, the link was made and the reality was that a lot of the public did form a tenuous link between Iraq and 9/11 however this could not have been a known certainty at the time, and to me it doesn't make sense to take this massive risk and detailed operation and not include a more direct link to one of the main targets.

Again this is my opinion. Yours is that effectively the risks inherent in the plan for those involved was not great ( obviously relatively speaking) because the plan itself was (relatively) straight forward, and to those involved there was no, or little risk at least, that as a result of 911 the public could be swayed to a war on Iraq, or possibly that Iraq was not intended as one of the initial targets but would get caught up in the aftermath along the way. I don't mean to put words in your mouth here,so if I am incorrect in stating your opinion I apologise, but my point here is that we disagree on some fudamental aspects and basically we may just get down to the point where we are both effectively just repeating ourselves.

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

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

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

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

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

My question here was not about "why not just blow up the buildings". I may have phrased my query poorly leading to confusion. Certainly, that was an earlier question I asked and as you say you answered that. You dismissed simply exploding the building as a viable alternative as there would then be explosive traces, an investigation into where the explosives came from etc which would make it easier to trace the real culprits etc. My point is, the fact that they did blow up the buildings, on your theory, still leaves that very risk very much open. You say, I believe, that this was unlikely to be discovered due to the destruction or distraction caused by the planes. I say this adds another level of complexity and another possibility of discovery which is not worth the risk, given that the end game can be achieved by the planes alone. You say ( I think) there was not much chance of the explosives being discovered, and that it was absolutely necessary because without the buildings coming down the effect would not be in accordance with the magnitude required in the manifesto in Catastrophic Terrorism.

Addressing that issue now, which I neglected to reply to the other night. You say that the planes alone would not be sufficient as it would not be of the magnitude of “a new Pearl Harbor” providing a “catalyzing event” with thousands or tens of thousands of lives lost. This I think leads neatly on to your final point which I will address below.

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

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

To be honest I don't think your false flag analogy thing quite works but I really don't want to get bogged down in that here.

Taking your main point that my disbelief comes from my own perceived standards of necessity and requirement:To a point yes. In evaluating whether these powers that be would really hit upon this as the plan, in all the circumstances, I put myself hypothetically in their position, so in that sense there is always some degree of subjectivity. Maybe they were ultra zealous damn the torpedos cavalier with the enormity of the risk crazy people with no sense of self preservation, in which case any contemplation I have of their likely reasoning and concerns is way off base.

What you are essentially saying is that I am just speculating, I have no idea what these people would believe was necessary or required. To that I respond, yes, of course. Guilty as charged. Of course it is speculation. What I point out though is you are also speculating as to what these conspirators would accept as necessary or required, (putting aside for the moment the speculation that there were any conspirators in the first place) hence your comments that the buildings needed to be exploded as well as the planes colliding or else the effect would not have been big enough etc.

You will probably point out that no, your view is not speculation because we know what they were thinking because we have the Catastrophic Terrorism manifesto ( I know I'm the one who keeps calling it a manifesto, it just makes the document sound suitably macabre). Well, no. We don't know that, in fact. Just because an idea is floated calling for more creativity in thinking, and that what was really needed was a suitable massive event involving tens of thousands of deaths of American lives does not inevitably mean that they were therefore necessarily willing to go through with it in actuality. We are just speculating that any one took this seriously enough to actually act on it in reality. We are just speculating to believe that the majority of the people involved took this seriously, in fact if only one person in the chain of the whole operation was actively sickened by this, the whole thing falls apart. You are just speculating when you say not only was everyone willing to follow this but that they all agreed it had to be implemented to the letter ( as vague as the actual level of destruction as outlined in the document is). Hence you say that the buildings had to be exploded, or it was not enough to just hijack the planes etc, or that there couldn't have been a simpler plan because that would not have had the desired level of destruction that they required. That this was the agreed level of destruction which was necessary is just your speculation, if you get over the speculation firstly that anyone was actually willing to put such a horrendous plan in to action. Maybe they all did, I don't know, my point is your proof is no less speculation than my ponderings.

Earlier in this thread you were referring to Bin Laden's "confession" ( I put that in quotes because you argue it is not a confession, others argue it is. I don't really want to repoen that as I think it has been argued comprehensively by both sides).

The quote was:

Bin Laden's Own Words

"We decided to destroy towers in America." "God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You wrote:

"Well congratulations on pulling out a quote.

First, the above is a thought that Bin Laden described having in 1982. It is not the same as your claim Bin Laden said he ordered the hijackers to the United States near two decades later. When I was fifteen years old I decided that I wanted to be a fighter pilot… I worked toward that end but it wasn’t to be… though obviously you would still claim I am a fighter pilot today… I assure you I’m not, despite my earlier decision.

Second, just for the record, the translation above is at odds with that ‘Al Qaeda’ provided. The original translation is, “we should destroy towers in America”. I think ‘Al Qaeda’ know better than anyone the English message they wanted to convey."

Similarly then, the fact that there existed the Catastrophic Terrorism document does not show that these were the actual thoughts or desires of the alleged conspirators four years later any more than your fifteen year old ambition to become a fighter pilot in the years following is proof of that. Sure, it gives food for thought, it may lead to something but ultimately it is just your speculation.

The fact that you say for example that they may not have had any suitable Iraqi agents so that they could provide a more direct link to Iraq ( which given how events unfolded must have been a preordained target if the conspiracy theory is to be believed) is just speculation. You may be right, but it is speculation nonetheless.

One final note, I have tried to outline my thoughts in as much detail as possible, not in an attempt to convince but because earlier you expressed frustration at my lack of explanation as to my thought processes in this matter. I actually don't post that much on this forum, due to other time constraints so I can't really continue to engage in long debates on this issue, which whilst undeniably interesting, is not one that I want to spend greats amount of time on, at least not at present.

Having said that, I imagine you may want to respond and argue with some of the things I have raised and it is not fair if I just say my piece and leave the discussion, so I will definitely respond to any points you wish to raise, it may just be somewhat sporadic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the reality as it materialised was as you say. But you are looking at it after the event. My point was that at the time of inception, if this was the plan, the conspirators would have no way of ensuring that. Sure, they may have believed they would be able to control the public mood in the aftermath, but they could not know this for certain.

The reality that materialised after 9/11 was entirely predictable, both the targets and mood of the public.

Do you not see the groundwork was in place beforehand?

Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind, had been banished from Saudi Arabia (his passport revoked) in 1994, had been provided sanctuary in Afghanistan from 1996, shared a close relationship with Mullah Omar, Al Qaeda were seen as synonymous with the Taliban, the hijackers were known to be interlinked with that individual, group and country even before the event.

Due to these facts it was ensured/known for certain that Afghanistan could be targeted. It would not have made the slightest sense to go into Saudi Arabia when aware of the above.

Furthermore there was an air of shock and fear after 9/11 along with feeling there had to be an instant and strong response, of course there would be. No one would question when the administration took charge of the situation and turned their focus on Afghanistan (accompanied with the above facts). Even usually restrained/anti-war Congressmen like Ron Paul voted in favour of military action to eliminate bin Laden so severe was the threat.

You seriously think the public were going to rail against this, march in the streets, “No war against Afghanistan! Save bin Laden! Down with Saudi Arabia!” and that this would have affected the administration’s stance? Sorry - it’s ludicrous.

Your perception of the situation before 9/11 is off the mark and the reality, the facts I have set out and ease in which the Afghanistan war was pushed through, shows this. That most of the hijackers were Saudi was neither here nor there, a point that was fully predictable prior to the event as described.

I can accept it was wider in scope than just Iraq however given the relative speed that Iraq was targetted you would accept perhaps that Iraq must clearly have been a target when the plan was formulated. Yes, the link was made and the reality was that a lot of the public did form a tenuous link between Iraq and 9/11 however this could not have been a known certainty at the time, and to me it doesn't make sense to take this massive risk and detailed operation and not include a more direct link to one of the main targets.

Yes Iraq was absolutely in the firing line from the inception.

You know, you give the public far too much credit. The fact is, most don’t think, they follow, especially in issues billed as patriotism in the aftermath of a traumatic national event. When the Bush administration repeatedly connected Iraq to the ‘War on Terror’ along with WMDs, the events of 9/11 were barely a year past. People were fearful with the event still fresh in mind. It was not possible for most to be blasé at the connection that was made; the implication that removing Saddam Hussein made safe from another 9/11. Of course it was a nailed on certainty that the inescapable backdrop of 9/11 and heavily propagandised connection to Iraq would garner considerable support for the war. I really have no idea why you think this wouldn’t be the case.

And again, the reality that the war did go ahead, supported by a majority of the public (a majority who believed a 9/11 connection), shows that your perception there could have been a problem is misplaced.

What can I say? I can see how 9/11 would without doubt garner support for the wars. I’m sure they could see without doubt how 9/11 would garner support for the wars. You apparently don’t see how 9/11 would garner support for the wars (on the basis the hijackers were Saudi nationals of all things). The resultant reality shows who was correct.

In all, it is necessary to consider both the clear background that was in place before 9/11 and obvious psychological factors that would come of the attack… all known and easily predictable from inception of the operation.

My question here was not about "why not just blow up the buildings". I may have phrased my query poorly leading to confusion. Certainly, that was an earlier question I asked and as you say you answered that. You dismissed simply exploding the building as a viable alternative as there would then be explosive traces, an investigation into where the explosives came from etc which would make it easier to trace the real culprits etc. My point is, the fact that they did blow up the buildings, on your theory, still leaves that very risk very much open. You say, I believe, that this was unlikely to be discovered due to the destruction or distraction caused by the planes. I say this adds another level of complexity and another possibility of discovery which is not worth the risk, given that the end game can be achieved by the planes alone. You say ( I think) there was not much chance of the explosives being discovered, and that it was absolutely necessary because without the buildings coming down the effect would not be in accordance with the magnitude required in the manifesto in Catastrophic Terrorism.

That is a reasonable summary of the discussion.

The point it keeps coming back to and which really appears to be sticking overall, is that you perceive the risk(s) were just too high. Yet, you still have not explained in any detail what you think the specific risk(s) were, despite me having asked numerous times.

If nothing else, it’d be useful if you could answer this, being the crux of your argument.

Earlier in this thread you were referring to Bin Laden's "confession" ( I put that in quotes because you argue it is not a confession, others argue it is. I don't really want to repoen that as I think it has been argued comprehensively by both sides).

Similarly then, the fact that there existed the Catastrophic Terrorism document does not show that these were the actual thoughts or desires of the alleged conspirators four years later any more than your fifteen year old ambition to become a fighter pilot in the years following is proof of that. Sure, it gives food for thought, it may lead to something but ultimately it is just your speculation.

I agree with your whole discussion on speculation - we both do it.

Here is what I don’t understand…

How can a conclusion be confirmed or ruled out based on speculation?

Isn’t speculation about having an open mind and considering possibilities? Yet for some it appears the opposite; speculation is deliberately used to close doors and draw absolutes. I really like the comparison you have brought up between thoughts bin Laden had in 1982 and thoughts in Washington in the years prior 9/11. I can use this to demonstrate the different approaches: -

  • Thoughts of bin Laden. I accept bin Laden had these thoughts and a role in the 9/11 operation. I add, this is not proof bin Laden was mastermind of the operation. Note I do not use this speculation to come to a conclusion he was or was not responsible either way - what I’m actually saying is that the conclusion is unconfirmed. Others say, bin Laden had these thoughts and so was responsible for the operation.
  • Thoughts in Washington. I do not claim the documents in question prove anything, rather they show an undeniable motive that existed through discussion of an attack and the benefits that would come of it. Others say, although an attack and the benefits were discussed, the motive was not strong enough and they would not do it.

To summarise: Based on this evidence, I say it is not confirmed either way that bin Laden or those in Washington were responsible. Based on this evidence, others say it is confirmed bin Laden was responsible and those in Washington were not.

In each case above, who has taken their speculation to the extreme limit; to absolute conclusion?

This is not what speculation is about. It is beyond speculation. It has become an unswerving faith.

The same pattern is followed throughout your grievances. You speculate Saudi hijackers were too risky to contemplate. You speculate demolition was too risky to contemplate. You speculate involving planes and WTC7 was too risky to contemplate. You use speculation in one direction, to slam the door shut… without ever considering speculation in detail which allows a false flag to exist.

And that is the very first base to reach - understanding that it could have been done. Once at that stage, then it is possible to really begin weighing up the evidence. Ok… it could have happened… now did it happen?

I see your argument as a defensive mental block. I do understand when the above stage is reached, acceptance that a false flag could have happened, then it can all get a little… unnerving… to your established world view. Unfortunately what we feel comfortable with doesn’t define the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are very well spoken Q24 and raise a lot of valid considerations. I must ask though, in your mind which speculations carry the most weight and therefore seem the most likely? Or are you actually undecided in your views?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the comparison you have brought up between thoughts bin Laden had in 1982 and thoughts in Washington in the years prior 9/11. I can use this to demonstrate the different approaches: -

  • Thoughts of bin Laden. I accept bin Laden had these thoughts and a role in the 9/11 operation.

Why do you think that Osama bin Laden had a role in the operation, other than that of a patsy? Note that I used the full name: Osama bin Laden. Why? Because I don't deny the very real possibility that other members of his -family- had a role in the operation. The fact that many members of his family were flown out of the country when all civil airlines were grounded after the attacks, without so much as being questioned by any government organization even as the media and the government started pointing the finger at Osama bin Laden; well, even Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" found that rather suspicious. As to the alleged video confession, many (including myself) don't believe that that guy was Osama bin Laden. Not only that, but those who understand the untranslated version don't believe he confessed to anything.. he refers to the operation as if someone else did it; so it may have been someone other than bin Laden simply commenting on what happened on 9/11. The fact that the FBI never charged him for 9/11 is another one of those things.. as Pilots for 9/11 Truth's video

stated, "Bin Laden isn't even listed as a suspect for 9/11, yet we went into Afghanistan to smoke him out". Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that many members of his family were flown out of the country when all civil airlines were grounded after the attacks, without so much as being questioned by any government organization even as the media and the government started pointing the finger at Osama bin Laden;

You sure about that?

They weren't flown out until the 20th, AFTER airspace was reopened, and AFTER being questioned.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_family_flight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sure about that?

They weren't flown out until the 20th, AFTER airspace was reopened, and AFTER being questioned.

http://www.911myths....n_family_flight

Even your document doesn't have any statement from the FBI saying that they were questioned regarding 9/11. It says that they were "interviewed", as if they were applying for a job; and even that is thrown into doubt by the article following. Here's a choice line in your link there from an FBI spokesperson on the issue:

“We didn’t interview 100 percent of the [passengers on the] flight. We didn’t think anyone on the flight was of investigative interest.”

Yeah, why bother questioning Bin Laden's family? Surely they couldn't have had a clue what Osama was up to, and perish the thought that any of his family might have been involved :rolleyes:. As to the exact point in time they were evacuated, this remains somewhat sketchy, despite FBI assurances that it was all done on the 20th of September. Here's a good article on the subject:

*************

Bin Laden may have arranged family's US exit: FBI docs

Osama bin Laden may have chartered a plane that carried his family members and Saudi nationals out of the United States after the September 11, 2001 attacks, said FBI documents released Wednesday. The papers, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, were made public by Judicial Watch, a Washington-based group that investigates government corruption.

One FBI document referred to a Ryan Air 727 airplane that departed Los Angeles International Airport on September 19, 2001, and was said to have carried Saudi nationals out of the United States. "The plane was chartered either by the Saudi Arabian royal family or Osama bin Laden," according to the document, which was among 224 pages posted online. The flight made stops in Orlando, Florida; Washington, DC; and Boston, Massachusetts and eventually left its passengers in Paris the following day.

In all, the documents detail six flights between September 14 and September 24 that evacuated Saudi nationals and bin Laden family members, Judicial Watch said in a statement. "Incredibly, not a single Saudi national nor any of the bin Laden family members possessed any information of investigative value," Judicial Watch said. "These documents contain numerous errors and inconsistencies which call to question the thoroughness of the FBI's investigation of the Saudi flights. "For example, on one document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 20 of 23 passengers on the Ryan International Airlines flight ... on another document the FBI claims to have interviewed 15 to 22 passengers on the same flight."

Asked about the documents' assertion that either bin Laden or the Saudi royals ordered the flight, an FBI spokesman said the information was inaccurate. "There is no new information here. Osama bin Laden did not charter a flight out of the US," FBI special agent Richard Kolko said. "This is just an inflammatory headline by Judicial Watch to catch people's attention. This was thoroughly investigated by the FBI."

Kolko pointed to the 9-11 Commission Report, which was the book-length result of an official probe into the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington that killed nearly 3,000 people. "No political intervention was found. And most important, the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals that left on chartered flights. This is all available in the report," Kolko said. On the issue of flights of Saudi nationals leaving the United States, the 9-11 report said: "We found no evidence of political intervention" to facilitate the departure of Saudi nationals. The commission also said: "Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights."

Meredith Diliberto, an attorney with Judicial Watch, said that her group had seen a first version of the documents in 2005, although the FBI had heavily redacted the texts to black out names, including all references to bin Laden. Nevertheless, unedited footnotes in the texts allowed lawyers to determine that bin Laden's name had been redacted. They pressed the issue in court and in November 2006, the FBI was ordered to re-release the documents.

Diliberto said mention that "either" bin Laden or Saudi royals had chartered the flight "really threw us for a loop." "When you combine that with some of the family members not being interviewed, we found it very disturbing."

*************

http://www.breitbart...200413.fd64rwmy

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are very well spoken Q24 and raise a lot of valid considerations. I must ask though, in your mind which speculations carry the most weight and therefore seem the most likely? Or are you actually undecided in your views?

I’m not sure if you are referring only to the specific speculations mentioned in my last post, speculations in general or aiming at ‘false flag speculation vs. official theory speculation’.

I think you know my end/overall view of 9/11.

If we are to discuss in general, the speculation which makes most sense and/or fits most facts in any instance must carry the most weight. The degree of likelihood of any speculation varies depending what exactly we are talking about. I don’t think a conclusion can be proven based on an isolated piece of speculation - otherwise it would not be speculation.

It is not a one-sided process - I do not say any speculation toward a false flag is correct and any speculation toward the official theory is wrong. I highlight where I think any absolute conclusions are improperly drawn, e.g. I will point out that the words of bin Laden do not prove he was the mastermind and director as readily as I will point out that the ACARS does not prove Flight 175 was still in the air after the WTC impact. I see both sides taking speculation to the extreme.

I do it on occasion too, but usually where the various facts are so concerning or have mounted and converged to make an issue impossible to ignore. This is how I come to my end view - a totting up process of the complete evidence and likelihoods involved. Not one or two pieces, hundreds of pieces. As I have said before, I wouldn’t accept it for years. It reaches the stage where if you can hold every thought at once and see the big picture (that also includes the evidences I know you have chosen to deem irrelevant), there is not a snowball in hell’s chance that the official narrative as a whole is even close to complete or accurate.

Though more often I find I am discussing how possibilities for a false flag operation exist and make logical sense (hopefully neutralising mental blocks/false notions) and demanding further investigation, than setting out to prove it actually did happen. It is necessary to realise the first before moving onto the second.

I’ll mention again, it is speculation on specific points like Holmesian and yourself have put forward which appear to end in ultimatums that something definitely did or did not happen. I’m the one pointing out such theories are unproven, perhaps not even likely and that there are alternatives.

The best I can give you is this: 9/11, before, during and after, if the official theory is true, was the most coincidental, irregular and peculiar coming together of circumstances imaginable… though it is said that a monkey with a typewriter will come up with the works of Shakespeare given infinite time. So it’s not impossible, but when one day that monkey turns up clutching Romeo and Juliet, I’m going to call him a cheating monkey who had outside assistance… not pat him on the head and say clever boy.

You might have to read this post again, it does answer your questions but I’m rambling :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.