911 inside job - for what?

[itsnotoutthere]

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

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

You go.

Thanks

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

[skyeagle409]

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

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

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

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

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

I’m trying to keep speculation to a minimum.

Speculating without knowledge breeds conspiracy theories.

[redhen]

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

Er, well, like always.

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

[Babe Ruth]

Er, well, like always.

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

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

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

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

[skyeagle409]

WTC Steel Data Collection

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

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

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm

[skyeagle409]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And, the list goes on and on.

[Q24]

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

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

You wrote;

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

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

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

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

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

So let me revise my claim;

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

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

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

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

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

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

I dealt with this in post #718.

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

What might agents attempting to prevent an attack have done?

What might agents attempting to allow an attack have done?

Then compare this to actions in reality – the answer to which question above provides best match?

There is no escaping it.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Q24

[Babe Ruth]

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

[redhen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m not sure why you mention Soviet goals.

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

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

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

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

What might agents attempting to prevent an attack have done?

What might agents attempting to allow an attack have done?

Then compare this to actions in reality – the answer to which question above provides best match?

There is no escaping it.

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

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

[Little Fish]

whilst the attack as we know it could not have progressed without the CIA intervention I have previously noted, I accept there is no direct action of the Bush administration that would lead to quite an equal degree of culpability

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

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

Edited February 1, 2013 by Little Fish

[+Liquid Gardens]

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

What might agents attempting to prevent an attack have done?

What might agents attempting to allow an attack have done?

Then compare this to actions in reality – the answer to which question above provides best match?

There is no escaping it.

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

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

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

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

[skyeagle409]

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

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

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

[skyeagle409]

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

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

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

[redhen]

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

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

[skyeagle409]

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

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

Edited February 1, 2013 by skyeagle409

[redhen]

our ships have been attacked, which included the USS Pueblo, the USS Liberty, the USS Stark, and the USS Cole, ....and still, we did not go to war.

Ah yes, the USS Liberty. I wonder what an American-Israeli war would have looked like. As if !

Now there's a conspiracy to ponder.

[Q24]

You can string together all sorts of conspiratorial delusional fantasies (as described by the court judge who dismissed this ill-planned case), but unless you have strong evidence that shows mens rea, you're not going to get far.

Forget the Gallup case. I’m not sure how much you know of the background, but she was indeed ill-advised by a well known group of disinformation artists who call themselves a part of the truth movement. The guy who wrote the affidavit for her case even came to this forum once and was thoroughly rebuffed (oh, and I’m not allowed to speak freely on his forum anymore so strong was my disagreement there). To attempt a case against highest echelons of the Bush administration, on a claim of ‘no plane’ impact at the Pentagon of all topics, under thoroughly refuted study – it is hopeless and I back the judge in his ruling.

Now moving away from that sidetrack, looking at the rather more specific and lower aimed case of intelligence agency protection and assistance to the 9/11 hijackers which I initially presented to you here, there is no string of delusional fantasies but rather a consistent string of facts, which taken together spell out that an intelligence agency conspiracy did occur on some level, and it was absolutely mens rea; of pre-meditated intent – there was a decision that the FBI would not be allowed to intervene in the hijackers free movements or actions either outside or inside of the United States – that is a crime/against the law in itself – the hijackers were illegals who should never have set foot in the country.

The only question to answer is whether that crime was committed to further the pre-existing investigation into the terrorists, or to allow the perpetration of an attack. There is no option: ‘the CIA sat on their hands doing nothing’. That does not fit in the slightest given the CIA’s demonstrated interest in the terrorists and consistent action, not inaction, to block the FBI. And that is where former government defense, intelligence and Bush counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke agrees.

So how do we determine a more detailed mens rea; the true purpose of the intent? To do this it is necessary to drill down into the questions I’m asking, one of which you have refused three times now (should this be telling me it’s the nail in the coffin of your defence?): ‘what would you have done in the CIA position?’ You see I believe that your defence relies on the CIA being quite irrational. To put intelligence gathering before prevention of the attack. Is this not somewhat of a paradox? Surely the purpose of intelligence is to prevent the attack! And the CIA had the intelligence to do that many times over (so did the FBI, but were not allowed to act on it). It is through putting ourselves in the CIA shoes (given that me and you are sound of mind) that we can determine what is rational or not. It is not a position you’d want to be in, to back those decisions taken by the CIA.

Once this is established, the argument becomes ‘the CIA allowed the perpetration of an attack vs. the CIA were irrational’. Now all of my understanding is that these guys are fairly smart, there is a greater responsibility than your every day job and many tests of suitability (and sanity) to become an agent in such a role – you know, they don’t accept people off the last banana boat or who were born yesterday. At the least, I really think we must give benefit of the doubt that the people involved in the case are of sound mind. Following that, it really puts the defence in a poor position to claim and prove, that agents became temporarily irrational, or perhaps insane. Which leaves the only other conclusion.

The set of three questions asked in my last post, which you also refused to answer, only serve to reinforce all of this. The inescapable answer, if we are dealing with rational people, is that the CIA actions match those to be expected of an agency attempting to allow an attack.

This is where it all must begin for any competent investigation – not at a pre-conclusion of pinning the blame on bin Laden or the Bush administration, as the Western witch-hunt or lunacy of the Gallup case - but at the more grass roots level; the terrorists directly involved and the CIA action surrounding them. I’m certain that, lacking a plea of insanity, cases against both could be upheld... and from there we could really see where the trail leads.

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

Whilst I certainly think that the will of Muslim terrorists is a necessity of the operation (it’s something I’d be quite happy to talk about – bin Laden wanted to reciprocate U.S. aggression alright, though easier said than done), it does not account for the full body of background evidence, nor certainly in any way the list of facts specifically upon which I posed, “Under the circumstances... ”. That you bypassed those facts to arrive at the desired answer above is the result of debilitating tunnel vision. Wasn’t it you who started the thread to discuss why those inside the system would have executed the attack? But when tough questions are asked, it’s almost like you want to change the subject.

[Q24]

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

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

You say there is nothing uncomfortable about the questions but still, like redhen, you decline to give a straight answer.

The scenario you suggest above would perhaps be ok as an explanation of why the FBI were obstructed, if not for the accompanying lack of CIA intervention in the terrorist movements and actions along with that paradox (or reliance on insane CIA agents) mentioned in my previous post: “We may be attacked but by God we’ll have intelligence!” Your suggestion does not address the whole package of occurrence – the CIA action to block the FBI and the CIA inaction which provided a free path to the terrorists – whose side were these guys on?? Maybe they forgot, in their 'incompetence'. My question again would be, what were the CIA waiting for? What did they think would happen given their provision of indefinite protection to terrorists? What would you have done in their position?

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

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

I disagree – the case against the CIA is based on solid and specific facts established prior to 9/11, broadly that: -

The men were a part of Al Qaeda.

The men were connected to a previous attack.

The men were inside and illegal entrants to the United States.

The men were taking flight lessons.

The initial case I’m making is essentially the same one that FBI agent Steve Bongardt made in August 2001: “someday someone will die – and wall or not – the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain ‘problems’. Let’s hope the National Security Law Unit will stand by their decisions then, especially since the biggest threat to us now, UBL, is getting the most ‘protection’.” They are some strong words and accusations - it hardly sounds like a ‘routine occurrence’ that Bongardt had resigned himself to.

http://www.justice.g...s0606/final.pdf

It is also apparently as FBI agent Mark Rossini would later state in 2009, when complaining of the CIA restrictions imposed on him (he was the guy who discovered the terrorists had obtained visas and wanted to report it to FBI HQ who would have placed the names on a block list) and his desire to open a case against the hijackers pre-9/11: “People who are going to watch this, they're going to say, "Oh, it's hindsight 20–20." But, no, I'm not talking hindsight 20–20. I'm talking basic, logical investigation.” I guess he saw you coming LG!

http://www.pbs.org/w...py-factory.html

[skyeagle409]

I disagree – the case against the CIA is based on solid and specific facts established prior to 9/11, broadly that: -

The men were a part of Al Qaeda.

The men were connected to a previous attack.

The men were inside and illegal entrants to the United States.

The men were taking flight lessons.

And, the terrorist sought to attack the CIA by flying an aircraft into CIA headquarters, and the CIA sought to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. That is not what you want to call a cozy relationship between the CIA and the terrorist when the two sides are trying to kill one another.

Edited February 4, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

The set of three questions asked in my last post, which you also refused to answer, only serve to reinforce all of this. The inescapable answer, if we are dealing with rational people, is that the CIA actions match those to be expected of an agency attempting to allow an attack.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever because it has already been established the CIA made serious mistakes and the CIA has admitted to those mistakes as was the case with the FBI. In other words, you are speculating based on the wrong picture puzzle.

[redhen]

The set of three questions asked in my last post, which you also refused to answer, only serve to reinforce all of this. The inescapable answer, if we are dealing with rational people, is that the CIA actions match those to be expected of an agency attempting to allow an attack.

This is what I would have done as CIA director. I would have immediately rounded up the suspects and water-boarded the hell out of them. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated the other day that it was water-boarding that provided info that led to Osama bin Laden. Good job I say.

Wasn’t it you who started the thread to discuss why those inside the system would have executed the attack? But when tough questions are asked, it’s almost like you want to change the subject.

Indeed, I asked and keep asking "for what purpose". The answers I've seen claim that "global elites" wanted to establish a presence in the region, to secure oil and somehow make fistfuls of money.

If that's the case, why did Bush senior withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq after the first Gulf war? Before that, why did the British voluntarily leave this oil rich area? I think it was Silverthong who posited that it was the Bank of England that brought about 911.

I keep an open mind. I've mentioned several genuine historical false flag operations. It is possible that 911 was an inside job, I just don't see enough evidence. You keep trying to shift the burden of evidence, but that's a fallacious approach, as you know.

Now excuse me while I head back to the religion forum and deal with more people who hold unfalsifiable beliefs.

[Q24]

This is what I would have done as CIA director. I would have immediately rounded up the suspects and water-boarded the hell out of them. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated the other day that it was water-boarding that provided info that led to Osama bin Laden. Good job I say.

Yes, round ‘em up – illegal immigrants linked to Al Qaeda and previous attacks - I think that’s very reasonable. Sure let’s water-board them for information too, if we needed it. Heck I’d back you for CIA director. Had your policies been in position prior to 9/11 then the attack as we know it would never have occurred. I mean, it’s an obvious and rational answer to shutting down terrorist operations and preventing future attacks, isn’t it? It’s the route that any sane person would take to some degree. And by extension you must agree, the indication is that the CIA, whose actions were the polar opposite of your own suggestion, were unreasonable/irrational/insane. That is their only defence against the case I’m making.

Indeed, I asked and keep asking "for what purpose". The answers I've seen claim that "global elites" wanted to establish a presence in the region, to secure oil and somehow make fistfuls of money.

Well... that’s not how I put it... but you’re further along than when you started... “to give the armed forces combat experience” hehe. The best way to understand the purpose is of course to hear it from the horse’s mouth. I think Little Fish earlier directed you to a documented example but you didn’t want to read it for some reason. I’ll quote here, that which the Neocon transformation strategy relied upon (always worth a refresher): -

“

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

http://www.newameric...casDefenses.pdf

And a bonus quote, different document, same 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."

http://belfercenter...._terrorism.html

Didn’t 9/11 cure that “lack of imagination”, in doing so breaking free of the “serious constraint on current policy”?

See, why ask us “for what purpose” when it’s printed in black and white from the highest level of government circles? You could argue with the authors about the importance they deemed in a “transforming” or “Pearl Harbor” event – it is the opinion of the people in power that matters more than our own.

In case you are in any doubt as to importance of a presence in the Gulf region or the oil factor...

You can read it in the document linked above: -

“

… to play a more permanent role in Gulf…”

“… a substantial American force presence in the Gulf…”

“… forward-based forces in the region…”

“… longstanding American interests in the region.”

“… seek to augment the forces already in the region…”

~PNAC - Rebuilding America's Defenses, 2000

You can read it in the 1992 Wolfowitz doctrine: -

"

In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."

http://en.wikipedia....fowitz_Doctrine

You can hear it in Dick Cheney’s 1998 comment: -

"

I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian."

http://www.csmonitor.../p8s1-comv.html

You can read it set out in Congress, 1998: -

“

To begin, you may ask why is the United States active in the region? The United States has energy security, strategic, and

commercial interests

in promoting Caspian region energy development.”

...

“One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is

foreclosed

for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan

, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war.

From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company

.”

...

“As with the proposed Central Asia oil pipeline,

CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place

.”

http://commdocs.hous.../hfa48119_0.HTM

Every man and his dog knows it: -

“

U.S.-China relations are influenced by a wide array of issues from Taiwan to trade relations and human rights.

But undoubtedly access to Middle East oil will become a key issue in the relations between the two powers.

Clearly, in the short term, China recognizes that its energy security is increasingly dependent on cooperation with the U.S., rather than competition with it. China would like to maintain good relations with the U.S. and enjoy the economic benefits derived from such cooperation.

But this inclination is balanced by the feeling among many Chinese leaders that the U.S. seeks to dominate the Persian Gulf in order to exercise control over its energy resources and that it tries to contain China's aspirations in the region.

The U.S. is therefore considered a major threat to China's long-term energy security.”

http://www.iags.org/china.htm

If you read and consider all of this carefully then you will know “for what purpose” 9/11 served. 9/11 enabled all of the above which policy-makers came to believe the continued global pre-eminence of the United States relied upon (again, their beliefs, not mine) – there are few greater or more transparent motives to answer your question.

If that's the case, why did Bush senior withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq after the first Gulf war? Before that, why did the British voluntarily leave this oil rich area?

I guess we cannot know for sure - there are many possible reasons. Perhaps the United States did not want to risk getting bogged down in Iraq at that time (that was the reason given by GHW Bush and Cheney), so soon after witnessing the Soviet failure in Afghanistan. Perhaps the strategy and/or focus on the region simply changed through the 90s – obviously war would not have been required in Afghanistan had attempted U.S. reconciliations with the Taliban succeeded. I don’t think you can make an assumption that policies remained the same over decades.

It is possible that 911 was an inside job, I just don't see enough evidence.

Kudos for the acknowledgement of possibility - that alone should be enough to seek further investigation. Regarding the evidence, it doesn’t come across that you’ve looked very extensively to date or considered the implications in much detail.

[skyeagle409]

You can read it in the document linked above: -

“

… to play a more permanent role in Gulf…”

“… a substantial American force presence in the Gulf…”

“… forward-based forces in the region…”

“… longstanding American interests in the region.”

“… seek to augment the forces already in the region…”

~PNAC - Rebuilding America's Defenses, 2000

About that last line regarding the rebuilding of America's Defenses.

USA Today: Defense Spending Cuts Could Kill 1 Million Jobs

Steep defense cuts in store for America may eliminate 1 million jobs directly and then have ripple effects across the nation’s cities and towns, according to USA Today.

As Washington debates sequestration — automatic budgets cuts that could slash $600 billion in military spending — the defense industry and towns that depend on defense contracts fear sequestration is only the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.moneynews...02/04/id/488694

Defense Contractors Brace For Military Spending Cuts

SAN DIEGO — Looming defense cuts are casting a long shadow over the biggest defense contracting conference on the West Coast. Nearly every session, discussion and panel at West 2013 has something to do with potential defense department cutbacks.

http://www.kpbs.org/...-spending-cuts/

I guess we cannot know for sure - there are many possible reasons. Perhaps the United States did not want to risk getting bogged down in Iraq at that time (that was the reason given by GHW Bush and Cheney), so soon after witnessing the Soviet failure in Afghanistan.

That flies in the face of those who've claimed the United States invaded Iraq to take over its oil. I might add that the United States was partly responsible for the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Edited February 5, 2013 by skyeagle409

[DONTEATUS]

Is there a back door in here ? Only thing I see and read,Is So Stupid it turns one`s stomach !

Look to the facts of that Day ! Can you not see it all you Skeptics ? OR C.T`s

[redhen]

I’ll quote here, that which the Neocon transformation strategy relied upon (always worth a refresher): -

“

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

This is a think tank doing a defense review. They are surmising that the changes they would like to see that keeps the U.S. military in it's preeminent position will be slow, unless there's a major military challenge. What's controversial about that?

See, why ask us “for what purpose” when it’s printed in black and white from the highest level of government circles?

These defense analyst talk about, well, defense analysis. That's their job (I wish I could get paid for that). They don't talk about laying down a foundation for a "New World Order", headed by secretive "global elites" in a quest for power and money. I'm just not seeing any of that there in any of these defense documents, sorry.

You can read it in the 1992 Wolfowitz doctrine: -

"

In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."

That sounds like a reasonable goal to me. Except I would have told the Saudis and OPEC to go **** themselves, and buy oil elsewhere. Or better yet, wean ourselves off of oil.

You can read it set out in Congress, 1998: -

“

To begin, you may ask why is the United States active in the region? The United States has energy security, strategic, and

commercial interests

in promoting Caspian region energy development.”

...

“One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is

foreclosed

for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan

, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war.

From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company

.”

...

“As with the proposed Central Asia oil pipeline,

CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place

.”

http://commdocs.hous.../hfa48119_0.HTM

Sure, the U.S. is addicted to cheap oil. They will look everywhere to find reliable supplies. But I don't think Afghanistan is what you might call "stable", regardless of what historical period you refer to.

Kudos for the acknowledgement of possibility - that alone should be enough to seek further investigation. Regarding the evidence, it doesn’t come across that you’ve looked very extensively to date or considered the implications in much detail.

I said it's possible, not plausible. Kudos for you though for not buying into the thermite demolition, non-existent flight 77 (it was actually a missile dont'cha know) delusions. You believe the attacks were planned and carried out by Al Qaeda, with the tacit approval and cooperation from U.S. intelligence agencies. That's much more persuasive than people pointing to a video of a collapsing building and spitting out "how does steel turn to dust?!"