9/11

[dekker87]

What else have you been keeping up your sleeve, Little Fish?

“Imagining the Transforming Event”

Astounding.

After discussing the lack of Cold War threat and asking, “What strategy should replace it?” they then cram...

• 
  
• “state-sponsored terrorism”
  
• “[u.S. retaliation] against both the individuals and the governments.”
  
• “ the World Trade Center ”
  
• “the unconventional alternatives [for an attack].”
  
• “An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands...”
  
• “Like Pearl Harbor, such an event... ”
  

... all into one short section.

And then it happened!

Right after a large number of those who shared the view took office.

This was no unforeseen terrorist attack that caught everyone off-guard, not in a million years.

9/11 was their vision of a “Transforming Event” come true.

And they wouldn’t have wanted that now... errr... would they?

Oh it’s beyond a joke, it really is.

They facilitated this thing – it’s plain as day.

you're insane!!

may i ask if, prior to 9/11, you had any interest in governmental beaurcracy or politics?

you just seem incredibly naive as to the inner workings of large organisations.

IF 'it's as plain as day' that the US 'facilitated' this atrocity do you not think that reports such as this would have magically disappeared?

[Little Fish]

so absence of documents is disprove, and presence of document is disprove.

[dekker87]

so absence of documents is disprove, and presence of document is disprove.

lol - no!

you simply have no case whatsoever!

tom clancy wrote about terrorists flying an airplane into the whitehouse about 8 years before 9/11 (it was the first thing i thought of on the day) so does that mean he is in some way culpable!?!?

all your 'transforming event' thing has proven is that the various agencies were close...very close...to uncovering this plot...yet, sadly, not close enough.

nothing like this has ever, nor will ever happen. go on...use that phrase 'false flag'...tell me about operation northwoods....yawn...proves naught...and northwoods didnt take place..

[Stundie]

I didn't know that Tom Clancy was a policy advisor to the government or that he was chosen to investigate 9/11.

And I didn't know that a plane had hit the White House!!

All excellent points Dekker!! lol

[dekker87]

I didn't know that Tom Clancy was a policy advisor to the government or that he was chosen to investigate 9/11.

and? please state your point caller...

And I didn't know that a plane had hit the White House!!

one was heading that way tho....

the point about clancy being that this low-tech warfare scenario had been explored previously in his work...it wasn't just some policy advisers at the white house who had imagined such a thing....which, clearly, is proof that the US 'facilitated' the attacks

IF the US were behind the attacks then why was Massood assassinated the week before in Afghanistan?

[flyingswan]

Do you think Zelikow's 911 commission conclusion of "failure of imagination" was a valid conclusion when Zelikow himself wrote a document on behalf of the Council on Foreign Relations called "Imagining the Transforming Event" two years before in which he imagined the destruction of the twin towers.

It was no surprise that the WTC was one of the targets on 9/11, since it had been attacked before. The failure of imagination was in anticipating the method of attack, which was not considered in "Imagining the Transforming Event".

Do you think it fishy that the Zelikow 911 commission concluded that 911 happened because of the cracks betweent the fbi and the cia when Zelikow wrote a document 2 years before called "Imagining the Transforming Event" where they said such a thing could happen if the cracks between the fbi and the cia were exploited.

No, I think it is all too typical of how people in general ignore such things. As a comparison, look how failure to learn the "normalisation of deviance" lesson of the Challenger disaster led to the Columbia disaster. Look how the Japanese built a nuclear power station in an area with a history of earthquakes and tsunamis.

Do you think it fishy...

questions are rhetorical because I know what your answers are going to be.

Anyone who reads my posts on this forum knows that.

[turbonium]

It was no surprise that the WTC was one of the targets on 9/11, since it had been attacked before. The failure of imagination was in anticipating the method of attack, which was not considered in "Imagining the Transforming Event".

War games seem to show you are quite wrong about this.

[Q24]

You asked what evidence should exist if your ideas are correct. I am merely suggesting that if the conspiracy involved more than a couple of people, it would have left a paper trail.

For the past couple of pages I have been cajoling you to describe what ‘smoking gun’ should necessarily exist of a conspiracy between the Vice President and head of the CIA bin Laden unit to prevent U.S. agencies from acting against the hijackers (over and above that evidence already discussed on this thread). We have seen there is no reason that a confession must exist, and now you have come to this vague, hand-waving answer...

A paper trail.

Of what, flyingswan???

What should necessarily be written down that would blow this thing open to you?

If no evidence which should necessarily be present is missing in support of the theory then it needs to be treated as a very real possibility. Well, you have already said that it is “not impossible”.

As you find this particular two-man conspiracy to be possible, then by extension you must see the motive of providing, “a new Pearl Harbor” to be a possibility also. The pretext was not ‘possibly’ created for nothing.

It looks, in truth, that you agree with far more than you like to let on. When you deny this truth you only prove to fool yourself.

Breathtaking leap of logic - someone gives a warning of an impending disaster, a disaster then happens, so the person giving the warning is the obvious guilty party.

You are right – that is a breathtaking leap of logic you make.

First, that the document provides nothing but a “warning”.

If this document were nothing but a warning, then we might realistically expect the heading to read, “Imagining the Threat”, wouldn’t you? Instead it states, “Imagining the Transforming Event”. This is hugely telling and cannot be ignored.

What is this transforming event? It is one like, “Pearl Harbor”. Where did Pearl Harbor lead? To a strategy of prevention and deterrence. What do they want the strategy to be now? One of prevention and deterrence (especially the latter in relation to Iraq, the document tells us). How can this effectively be achieved? With an event like, “Pearl Harbor”; the transforming event.

This indicates that above all else, the discussion was one of wider strategy. The biggest hint is in the opening paragraph, “What strategy should replace it?” Again, you cannot ignore this defining aspect of the document and label it simply a “warning”.

Second breathtaking leap of logic, is to believe the specific authors were responsible for the disaster.

This document cannot be taken as declaration of the perpetrators’ intent.

It does however show that the idea of such an attack and consequences were bandied about in some influential circles (leading to reports such as discussed). It does indicate the benefit and strategy those circles thought would be brought to fruition by the event. It does, as with Rebuilding America’s Defenses, show the motive that existed for a transforming event. Where this latest document goes even further is that it does outline what the, “new Pearl Harbor” event might be – location, implementation, cause, effect.

To summarise, the document is not just a “warning” and/or held as evidence of intent – this would be a shallow and illogical view. The document is one describing a strategy and the strong motive which existed in some circles for 9/11 to be realised.

I do not expect you to agree – as said previously, you do like to fool yourself into opposing what is apparent.

you're insane!!

You have called me “anti-semitic” and “insane” now – well I guess that renders my argument void.

Or perhaps it is that you cannot discuss the subject so attack the messenger?

Let’s see...

you just seem incredibly naive as to the inner workings of large organisations.

Can you explain where I have been naive to the inner workings of large organisations and how this is affecting my conclusion?

IF 'it's as plain as day' that the US 'facilitated' this atrocity do you not think that reports such as this would have magically disappeared?

I don’t believe in magic, so no I do not think the report should “magically” disappear, do you?

I do believe that an attempt to ‘cover-up’ such documents, which were available in the years before 9/11, to be impractical and would ultimately cause more suspicion to fall on supporters of the strategy.

And of course it is “plain as day” – the motive was enormous and so many actions leading to the event point heavily toward its benefit. If you don’t think there is anything to question about that, then you would have to believe coincidence, fortune and fate conspired together to lead to this end. And that truly is naive. These people are driving the future shape of the globe – they don’t idle through life waiting for things to happen, they make their own fate.

[dekker87]

For the past couple of pages I have been cajoling you to describe what ‘smoking gun’ should necessarily exist of a conspiracy between the Vice President and head of the CIA bin Laden unit to prevent U.S. agencies from acting against the hijackers (over and above that evidence already discussed on this thread). We have seen there is no reason that a confession must exist, and now you have come to this vague, hand-waving answer...

A paper trail.

Of what, flyingswan???

What should necessarily be written down that would blow this thing open to you?

If no evidence which should necessarily be present is missing in support of the theory then it needs to be treated as a very real possibility. Well, you have already said that it is “not impossible”.

As you find this particular two-man conspiracy to be possible, then by extension you must see the motive of providing, “a new Pearl Harbor” to be a possibility also. The pretext was not ‘possibly’ created for nothing.

It looks, in truth, that you agree with far more than you like to let on. When you deny this truth you only prove to fool yourself.

You are right – that is a breathtaking leap of logic you make.

First, that the document provides nothing but a “warning”.

If this document were nothing but a warning, then we might realistically expect the heading to read, “Imagining the Threat”, wouldn’t you? Instead it states, “Imagining the Transforming Event”. This is hugely telling and cannot be ignored.

What is this transforming event? It is one like, “Pearl Harbor”. Where did Pearl Harbor lead? To a strategy of prevention and deterrence. What do they want the strategy to be now? One of prevention and deterrence (especially the latter in relation to Iraq, the document tells us). How can this effectively be achieved? With an event like, “Pearl Harbor”; the transforming event.

This indicates that above all else, the discussion was one of wider strategy. The biggest hint is in the opening paragraph, “What strategy should replace it?” Again, you cannot ignore this defining aspect of the document and label it simply a “warning”.

Second breathtaking leap of logic, is to believe the specific authors were responsible for the disaster.

This document cannot be taken as declaration of the perpetrators’ intent.

It does however show that the idea of such an attack and consequences were bandied about in some influential circles (leading to reports such as discussed). It does indicate the benefit and strategy those circles thought would be brought to fruition by the event. It does, as with Rebuilding America’s Defenses, show the motive that existed for a transforming event. Where this latest document goes even further is that it does outline what the, “new Pearl Harbor” event might be – location, implementation, cause, effect.

To summarise, the document is not just a “warning” and/or held as evidence of intent – this would be a shallow and illogical view. The document is one describing a strategy and the strong motive which existed in some circles for 9/11 to be realised.

I do not expect you to agree – as said previously, you do like to fool yourself into opposing what is apparent.

You have called me “anti-semitic” and “insane” now – well I guess that renders my argument void.

Or perhaps it is that you cannot discuss the subject so attack the messenger?

Let’s see...

Can you explain where I have been naive to the inner workings of large organisations and how this is affecting my conclusion?

I don’t believe in magic, so no I do not think the report should “magically” disappear, do you?

I do believe that an attempt to ‘cover-up’ such documents, which were available in the years before 9/11, to be impractical and would ultimately cause more suspicion to fall on supporters of the strategy.

And of course it is “plain as day” – the motive was enormous and so many actions leading to the event point heavily toward its benefit. If you don’t think there is anything to question about that, then you would have to believe coincidence, fortune and fate conspired together to lead to this end. And that truly is naive. These people are driving the future shape of the globe – they don’t idle through life waiting for things to happen, they make their own fate.

seriously....lifes too short to waste arguin with the deluded...especially the self-deluded...it's simply not possible to debate with people like yourself who have such closed minds.

you've made your mind up and you make the evidence fit the crime...

[Q24]

Or perhaps it is that you cannot discuss the subject so attack the messenger?

Let’s see...

seriously....lifes too short to waste arguin with the deluded...especially the self-deluded...it's simply not possible to debate with people like yourself who have such closed minds.

you've made your mind up and you make the evidence fit the crime...

Thank you for confirming.

[dekker87]

Thank you for confirming.

my 4yr old son can argue with me til the cows come home but he has no argument and makes no sense....so other than idle amusement it's pointless debating things with him (only last night he tried to tell me that obi wan kenobi was a bad guy and general grevious was a goodie)...

i don't mean to be rude but you have deluded yourself if you think that there is any remote case that the govt. were involved in the planning and execution of 9/11....

the evidence you have posted does not remotely back up any such case whatsoever.

i'm no novice on this subject...i spent around 5 years considering the possibility that the US may have been involved...and quite simply they weren't.

seriously...don't waste your time on something so ridiculous...most 9/11 conspiracy theories are nothing more than people with a deep anti-western bias placing unrelated facts next to each other to produce some sort of conspiracy collage that then looks damning.

"In this scholarly mirror universe, where truth and fiction are equally interesting so long as they titillate the creative intellect, and where a generalised hostility to Western interests can pass as a proxy for political progressivism, the old hard Left and the new far Right join together in a splendid danse macabre, Black and Red carolling in joyous euphony."

i recommend you have a read of this book:

My link

[Little Fish]

I recommend you read this one

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302792529&sr=8-1

[dekker87]

I recommend you read this one

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302792529&sr=8-1

i read it about 10 years ago...prior to 9/11.

what do you think it proves in relation to this thread then?

[Little Fish]

"But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book"

"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia) Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia -- and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained"

"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. "

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RUP111B.html

[dekker87]

"But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book"

"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia) Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia -- and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained"

"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. "

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RUP111B.html

all true.

and what does that prove in relation to this thread!

that the US government exploited the 9/11 attacks to maximum advantage by goin into the middle east?!?

no argument from me there...but there is no stench of culpability whatsoever!

i bet you think that pearl harbour was a 'false flag' <YAAAAAAWWWN> as well eh...

IF american government were behind 9/11...which they used as a pretext to place their military forces across the middle east then why is it that they 'set up' Bin Laden but invaded Iraq?

[Little Fish]

because they lied about saddam having nuclear bombs and lied about saddam working with the stateless bin laden, besides which they invaded afghanistan first.

"any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime"

[Q24]

i'm no novice on this subject...i spent around 5 years considering the possibility that the US may have been involved...and quite simply they weren't.

You must be privy to a greater level of inside information than the rest of us to reach your conclusion. Yet strangely you seem unable to discuss the subject, explain your reasoning or answer simple questions despite my effort. Due to this, and your demonstrated preference to attack the messenger, the opinion you have given is hollow.

War games seem to show you are quite wrong about this.

Yes,the significant warnings and exercises such as Amalgam Virgo II (planned) and Pentagon Mascal prior to the event show that airliners as a target and/or method of attack were far from unimagined (the FBI, NORAD, FAA, military and intelligence all practiced similar scenarios).

More interesting still are those relevant war games closely mirroring actual events as they happened in real time on the day of 9/11: -

• The NORAD hijacking drill, Vigilant Guardian, which momentarily confused controllers...
  POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?
  NASYPANY: Think we put the exercise on the hold. What do you think?
  FOX: I've never seen so much real-world stuff happen during an exercise.
  I think this is a damn input, to be honest
  
• The NRO drill of an airplane crashing into their HQ building, scheduled to occur at 9:32, minutes prior to the Pentagon impact on 9/11, the simulated aircraft departing from the same Dulles airport as Flight 77 had just done.
  
• The FEMA drill, Tripod, of a terror attack due to take place September 12th which meant emergency staff and equipment were already present the day prior to 9/11.
  

Edit: that is, in the air, in New York and just 30 miles West of Washington, exercises which mirrored the timing and particulars of the 9/11 event - quite the coincidence I’m sure. These exercises may all have provided diversion to assist the real attacks and/or a failsafe get out clause had the operation been exposed or aborted at any moment.

Those in command of the military, thus NORAD, were the Neocon PNAC signatories Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. The head of the NRO also reports directly to these individuals. The new head of FEMA in place on 9/11 had close ties to the Bush administration and vetting of Cheney as Vice President... before he went on to work for a CIA founded firm to, take advantage of business opportunities in the Middle East following the conclusion of the US-led war in Iraq. These are the individuals with the influence to order the above drills.

Wouldnt it be nice if the peculiarities did not tie so effortlessly back to these same people over and over again.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Q24

[dekker87]

You must be privy to a greater level of inside information than the rest of us to reach your conclusion. Yet strangely you seem unable to discuss the subject, explain your reasoning or answer simple questions despite my effort. Due to this, and your demonstrated preference to attack the messenger, the opinion you have given is hollow.

Yes,the significant warnings and exercises such as Amalgam Virgo II (planned) and Pentagon Mascal prior to the event show that airliners as a target and/or method of attack were far from unimagined (the FBI, NORAD, FAA, military and intelligence all practiced similar scenarios).

More interesting still are those relevant war games closely mirroring actual events as they happened in real time on the day of 9/11: -

• The NORAD hijacking drill, Vigilant Guardian, which momentarily confused controllers...
  POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?
  NASYPANY: Think we put the exercise on the hold. What do you think?
  FOX: I've never seen so much real-world stuff happen during an exercise.
  —I think this is a damn input, to be honest
  
• The NRO drill of an airplane crashing into their HQ building, scheduled to occur at 9:32, minutes prior to the Pentagon impact on 9/11, the simulated aircraft departing from the same Dulles airport as Flight 77 had just done.
  
• The FEMA drill, Tripod, of a terror attack due to take place September 12th which meant emergency staff and equipment were already present the day prior to 9/11.
  

Edit: that is, in the air, in New York and just 30 miles West of Washington, exercises which mirrored the timing and particulars of the 9/11 event - quite the coincidence I’m sure. These exercises may all have provided diversion to assist the real attacks and/or a failsafe get out clause had the operation been exposed or aborted at any moment.

Those in command of the military, thus NORAD, were the Neocon PNAC signatories Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. The head of the NRO also reports directly to these individuals. The new head of FEMA in place on 9/11 had close ties to the Bush administration and vetting of Cheney as Vice President... before he went on to work for a CIA founded firm to, “take advantage of business opportunities in the Middle East following the conclusion of the US-led war in Iraq”. These are the individuals with the influence to order the above drills.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the peculiarities did not tie so effortlessly back to these same people over and over again.

but they don't!!

you're continually taking things out of context and giving linkage where none exists!

[dekker87]

because they lied about saddam having nuclear bombs

no they didnt the intelligence was flawed. they used it to their advantage KNOWING it was flawed but Saddam needed to go in any case.

and lied about saddam working with the stateless bin laden,

no they didnt. they never ever said that.

besides which they invaded afghanistan first.

20,000 US troops in Afghan at that time....150,000 in Iraq.

it's pretty obvious what their game was. and it wasn't Afghanistan they were interested in.

"any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime"

seems fair enough to me.

[Little Fish]

and lied about saddam working with the stateless bin laden,

no they didnt. they never ever said that.

"We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization. We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven."

- dick cheney

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/default.htm

there is no point discussing anything further with you when you make assinine statements like "no they didn't" to basic truths. you're not here to learn or educate, you're here to argue by contradiction.

[dekker87]

"We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization. We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven."

- dick cheney

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/default.htm

there is no point discussing anything further with you when you make assinine statements like "no they didn't" to basic truths. you're not here to learn or educate, you're here to argue by contradiction.

they are not lies!

they just aren't anything to do with 9/11...

but this is drifting away....tell me what this has to do with the US being behind 9/11?

i said that if they did it then why set up the 'wrong' guy in bin laden when it was clear they wanted to invade iraq....and you've started waffling on about 'lies' told regarding Iraq...duh hello!! my point is entirely that if they had set up Iraq (as you claim they did bin laden) then they wouldnt have needed to lie...

and round and round we go...

[Little Fish]

dekka, if you want casus belli to invade every country in the middle east in order to control eurasia (you need to read brzezinski's/CFR book which you clearly haven't), then what would be the point in framing the iraqi government, your agenda would stop there. by having an amorphous stateless enemy like bin laden and a doctrine of invading harbouring countries you can have casus belli against any country you want by producing "flawed" intelligence (lies) from within the neocon Office of Special Plans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

Edited April 14, 2011 by Little Fish

[Stellar]

they used it to their advantage KNOWING it was flawed but Saddam needed to go in any case.

Do you believe that this is acceptable?

[flyingswan]

I do not expect you to agree – as said previously, you do like to fool yourself into opposing what is apparent.

Then I won't disappoint you. All I see is you doing your usual trick of reading the meaning you want into some piece of evidence. I'm right there with Dekker on this:

you've made your mind up and you make the evidence fit the crime...

[Q24]

they used it to their advantage KNOWING it was flawed

That is lying in anyone’s book.

Whether you think they fabricated or ‘only’ perpetuated the lie is not so important.

no they didnt. they never ever said that.

You have a lot of catching up to do if you do not think the Bush administration linked Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden. Please see post here for a long selection of quoted examples from just the President alone: -

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=201103&view=findpost&p=3814687

Then I won't disappoint you. All I see is you doing your usual trick of reading the meaning you want into some piece of evidence. I'm right there with Dekker on this:

So you refuse to answer any questions put to you in my last post or to acknowledge those parts of the document I quoted. Then additionally you align yourself with the guy who thinks it’s ok the Bush administration peddled knowingly false WMD intelligence and believes they never attempted to tie Iraq to 9/11.

You don’t disappoint; your (lack of) response does my argument proud.