What hit the Pentagon?

[Space Commander Travis]

It does appear, then, that none of the questioners of the official version seem to be willing or able to offer any coherent alternative sequence of events, or, and this is my point, why, in their view, this may be more likely than the official version. What I've been trying to do is give those who do disbelieve the official version a chance to offer a coherent explanation as to what their alternative theory is, and why they feel that their alternative seems, to them, more likely. But instead, I seem to get offered cut-price psycholanalysis and cut & pastes from dictionaries. I presume, then, that no one does have any coherent theories, or any reasoning behind them, beyond a vague sentiment that "They are evil enough to do it". Consequently, unless or until anyone is willing to, their arguments are no longer worth listening to.

Edited May 3, 2009 by 747400

[Q24]

I’ve figured it out – 747400 is some kind of bot!

bot

n. A software program that imitates the behavior of a human, as by querying search engines or participating in chatroom or IRC discussions.

It explains why he repeats the same questions over and over and over again, yet never engages in discussion or retains information when the question is answered. Seriously, I have answered this question more than once, before the 747400-bot disappears and pops up asking the same again.

• Why, basically, is the official explanation less likely than the alternative theories?

• Who did it?

  and why?

• This ... is more likely ... than that "**** ******s" did it?

[Eldorado]

A hijacked passenger plane hit the Pentagon.

Why confiscate the videos and censor the images? You wanna see people burned beyond recognition?

A conspiracy? That involves police, paramedics, fire crews, eye-witnesses, government employees, news agency employees etc?

[GoldenSilence]

Really intereseting video, really makes you wonder.

[MID]

A hijacked passenger plane hit the Pentagon.

Why confiscate the videos and censor the images? You wanna see people burned beyond recognition?

A conspiracy? That involves police, paramedics, fire crews, eye-witnesses, government employees, news agency employees etc?

Yes, Eldorado...I think you have touched on the crux of the matter here.

Pretty much sums up the whole pseudo-intellectual argument for conspiracy in a nutshell...

[aquatus1]

I’ve figured it out – 747400 is some kind of bot!

...

It explains why he repeats the same questions over and over and over again, yet never engages in discussion or retains information when the question is answered. Seriously, I have answered this question more than once, before the 747400-bot disappears and pops up asking the same again.

You're right!

After all, it's not like you have a history of avoiding answering questions with any sort of clearness or conciseness!

[Space Commander Travis]

I’ve figured it out – 747400 is some kind of bot!

bot

n. A software program that imitates the behavior of a human, as by querying search engines or participating in chatroom or IRC discussions.

It explains why he repeats the same questions over and over and over again, yet never engages in discussion or retains information when the question is answered. Seriously, I have answered this question more than once, before the 747400-bot disappears and pops up asking the same again.

• Why, basically, is the official explanation less likely than the alternative theories?

• Who did it?

  and why?

• This ... is more likely ... than that "**** ******s" did it?

Yes, you have indeed an explanation more than once, Q, to be quite fair, that's quite true, and I am indeed grateful that at least someone has been willing to. It seems, though, that everyone seems to have a different "alternative" theory. Some say a missile hit the Pentagon; some say it was a remote controlled plane, and opinions as to the type of plane differ widely. I was rather hoping that one or two of the others who disbelieve the official sequence of events might be willing to offer a few similar ideas of their own, and then, perhaps, might be able to suggest why they consider that their theory is more likely than the official version. And, like I've robotically repeated numerous times, I just think that with an accusation on the scale that is being made by these theories, some very firm evidence would be needed. You see, all these alternatives would all seem to be far, far more complicated than the official version, with so much possibility for error, and to involve so many people. Who knows, then we might perhaps be able to sift through a few of the alternative theories, compare them with those that you've put forward, and assess the probablility of each othe them. That's why I keep asking, merely in a spirit of enquiry.

And, by the way, if I haven't "engaged in discussion", then it's been out of, well, politeness, really, in that I don't want to say that the alternatives offered so far seem to be based almost completely on supposition and circumstantal evidence, and that hard evidence seems so far to be somewhat lacking. I've been waiting hopefully for a few more alternative ideas to be put forward before endeavouring to discuss them, but since yours has been about the only really thought-through one yet offered, I've been waiting for some while.

Edited May 4, 2009 by 747400

[Q24]

Yes, you have indeed an explanation more than once, Q, to be quite fair, that's quite true, and I am indeed grateful that at least someone has been willing to. It seems, though, that everyone seems to have a different "alternative" theory. Some say a missile hit the Pentagon; some say it was a remote controlled plane, and opinions as to the type of plane differ widely. I was rather hoping that one or two of the others who disbelieve the official sequence of events might be willing to offer a few similar ideas of their own, and then, perhaps, might be able to suggest why they consider that their theory is more likely than the official version.

I understand – you are looking for other opinions. It’s just that I see the tactic used all the time by official liners where they will claim that no one is “willing or able to offer any coherent alternative sequence of events” in attempt to discredit any sort of conspiracy. Of course it’s not true and many people can suggest a framework for the false flag attack with supporting reasoning.

The question of the type of plane that hit the Pentagon or even if it was a missile does divide opinion but everyone supporting an alternative version of events agrees on the big picture – this was planned by the neocons, the hijacking was staged, Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, a false flag attack.

And, like I've robotically repeated numerous times, I just think that with an accusation on the scale that is being made by these theories, some very firm evidence would be needed.

What is perplexing is that you don’t seem to hold the official story to the same standards of evidence. Flight 77 was not tracked on radar heading for Washington, Flight 77 was not identified by the FBI or NTSB, Flight 77 has not been identified on video footage, in fact there is no evidence of Flight 77 from 8:56am onward; over 40 minutes prior to the Pentagon impact.

You talk about the scale of the accusation being important and I quite agree. The U.S. have been goaded into a war in Afghanistan, urged to support a war in Iraq and are now squaring up to Iran (due in part for their support of the Hamas and Hezbollah ‘terrorist’ organisations) all off the back of 9/11. Estimates for deaths in these wars vary from tens of thousands up to over a million depending on who you listen to… it seems likely we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of victims from all sides. That includes not just Middle Eastern mothers, fathers and children but the thousands of ISAF and coalition troops. Indeed the stakes were high off the back of the 9/11 accusation.

And where is the evidence of Flight 77? Where is the evidence of Osama Bin Laden’s involvement? Where is the trial that would have proven where responsibility for the attack lies? I see the fingerprint of intelligence services all over this plot yet rather less of the crazy '**** ******s' as you said. The Taliban even offered Bin Laden up for trial – the U.S. were not interested. I agree with you, some very firm evidence should have been needed!

You see, all these alternatives would all seem to be far, far more complicated than the official version, with so much possibility for error, and to involve so many people. Who knows, then we might perhaps be able to sift through a few of the alternative theories, compare them with those that you've put forward, and assess the probablility of each othe them. That's why I keep asking, merely in a spirit of enquiry.

You are right in that the alternative version would be more complicated than the official story. And… what? The complications don’t determine what is most likely. The peculiarities and circumstance show what is more likely.

Are you familiar with the Gleiwitz incident? German intelligence agents dressed in Polish uniforms attacked their own broadcast station, sending out an anti-German message in Polish. Polish prisoners were dressed to look like saboteurs then killed by lethal injection, given gunshot wounds and left dead at the scene. World War II was launched off the back of this false flag event and of course the idea that the Poles had simply attacked was less complicated to understand.

It is said that we should learn from history.

[Space Commander Travis]

Hi, Q. I suppose my doubts about the practicality of something like this being able to be planned and put into action seamlessly comes from, I don't know, a different view of the efficiency of governments, assuming that the government was at least responsible to executing it, if not actually completely behind it. I mean, the Gleiwitz incident (and other things like Operation Northwoods) were quite complex plans, yes, but they were on a very local scale, and would have to involve far fewer people than must have been involved in the 9/11 plot. And the stakes were much lower there; even if it hadn't come off, it wasn't going to put a major dent in Hitler's plans. I mean, the entire justification for the invasion of Poland didn't hinge on it. And it wouldn't have the potential consequences that any revelation that the US government had been plotting to kill thousands of its own people would have. Even if it wasn't the US government but was some other shadowy organisation that was behind it, I think the same applies, really. I think there sometimes seems to be an idea that these (hypothetical) secretive organisations, whatever you might want to call them, are super-efficient and able to plan and execute things on this scale flawlessly. Of that, too, I have my doubts. I just wonder why no one who was ever involved with it, at any level, ever seems to have come forward to say that were involved. Incidentally, I can't remember what the asterisks represented in "crazy '**** ******s' ", but i think that was probably a quotation from something that I saw someone else say.

[Airdale]

one must take into consideration what is Americas only cultural claim?

Americas Culture in a nutshell..............................."Hollywood"

says it all

[merril]

The question of the type of plane that hit the Pentagon or even if it was a missile does divide opinion...

No it doesn't. People who make such a speculation are so out of bounds as to not have a viable opinion.

but everyone supporting an alternative version of events agrees on the big picture – this was planned by the neocons, the hijacking was staged, Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, a false flag attack.

To what ends? Your scenario does not add up.

Another thing. You have yet to address the condolences in the media from corporations of their deceased employees, who died aboard Flight 77. Or, the interviews of surviving family at the Pentagon Memorial by national news.

You must be far and away, and out of touch from what goes on in the U.S.

Why don't you acquire the various media concerning Al Qaeda? It's out there, and it implicates them.

Why don't you get Peter Lance's book? You could stand to learn.

[Obviousman]

AND THE OVER 100 WITNESSES WHO SAW THE AIRCRAFT HIT THE PENTAGON.

[TK0001]

one must take into consideration what is Americas only cultural claim?

Americas Culture in a nutshell..............................."Hollywood"

says it all

Says nothing, but you've been doing that for awhile now.

[preacherman76]

I understand – you are looking for other opinions. It’s just that I see the tactic used all the time by official liners where they will claim that no one is “willing or able to offer any coherent alternative sequence of events” in attempt to discredit any sort of conspiracy. Of course it’s not true and many people can suggest a framework for the false flag attack with supporting reasoning.

The question of the type of plane that hit the Pentagon or even if it was a missile does divide opinion but everyone supporting an alternative version of events agrees on the big picture – this was planned by the neocons, the hijacking was staged, Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, a false flag attack.

What is perplexing is that you don’t seem to hold the official story to the same standards of evidence. Flight 77 was not tracked on radar heading for Washington, Flight 77 was not identified by the FBI or NTSB, Flight 77 has not been identified on video footage, in fact there is no evidence of Flight 77 from 8:56am onward; over 40 minutes prior to the Pentagon impact.

You talk about the scale of the accusation being important and I quite agree. The U.S. have been goaded into a war in Afghanistan, urged to support a war in Iraq and are now squaring up to Iran (due in part for their support of the Hamas and Hezbollah ‘terrorist’ organisations) all off the back of 9/11. Estimates for deaths in these wars vary from tens of thousands up to over a million depending on who you listen to… it seems likely we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of victims from all sides. That includes not just Middle Eastern mothers, fathers and children but the thousands of ISAF and coalition troops. Indeed the stakes were high off the back of the 9/11 accusation.

And where is the evidence of Flight 77? Where is the evidence of Osama Bin Laden’s involvement? Where is the trial that would have proven where responsibility for the attack lies? I see the fingerprint of intelligence services all over this plot yet rather less of the crazy '**** ******s' as you said. The Taliban even offered Bin Laden up for trial – the U.S. were not interested. I agree with you, some very firm evidence should have been needed!

You are right in that the alternative version would be more complicated than the official story. And… what? The complications don’t determine what is most likely. The peculiarities and circumstance show what is more likely.

Are you familiar with the Gleiwitz incident? German intelligence agents dressed in Polish uniforms attacked their own broadcast station, sending out an anti-German message in Polish. Polish prisoners were dressed to look like saboteurs then killed by lethal injection, given gunshot wounds and left dead at the scene. World War II was launched off the back of this false flag event and of course the idea that the Poles had simply attacked was less complicated to understand.

It is said that we should learn from history.

Well said.

[Q24]

No it doesn't. People who make such a speculation are so out of bounds as to not have a viable opinion.

People who claim, in the middle of a conspiracy forum no less, that there is no debate about what exactly impacted the Pentagon, really are way out of bounds.

To what ends? Your scenario does not add up.

Familiarise yourself with the Wolfowitz Doctrine and the PNAC document Rebuilding America’s Defenses and you will know precisely to what end 9/11 served. To put it simply – the people who came to power in January 2001 had previously stated their desire and indeed the U.S. necessity, to be the predominant power in the Middle East.

Another thing. You have yet to address the condolences in the media from corporations of their deceased employees, who died aboard Flight 77. Or, the interviews of surviving family at the Pentagon Memorial by national news.

Nearly 3,000 people lost their life on 9/11 and my sympathies are with anyone who knew them.

Why don't you acquire the various media concerning Al Qaeda? It's out there, and it implicates them.

I’m sure some of the various media does implicate Al Qaeda but as I said in the other thread, you have to know who and what Al Qaeda are.

Why don't you get Peter Lance's book? You could stand to learn.

Peter Lance appears to be a decent reporter to me – digging up many of the facts without suggesting a conspiracy seems a good way of staying mainstream whilst still getting a message across. His latest book, Triple Cross, sounds interesting and you are right, the publication subject led me to learn something new…

An individual named Ali Mohammed was a CIA/Al Qaeda double agent and given time away from the U.S. special forces unit he was also a part of to travel to Afghanistan where he became Osama Bin Laden’s first trainer. He was arrested in 1998 for some part in the Nairobi and Tanzania embassy bombings and has disappeared off the face of the Earth since. Yet another demonstration that Al Qaeda is not the simple terrorist group we are sold.

[Q24]

Hi, Q. I suppose my doubts about the practicality of something like this being able to be planned and put into action seamlessly comes from, I don't know, a different view of the efficiency of governments, assuming that the government was at least responsible to executing it, if not actually completely behind it.

I assume what you are aiming at is that President Bush wasn’t bright enough to concoct or execute such a plan and I would completely agree. Anyhow, ‘the government’ wasn’t behind 9/11… well, I’ve never heard anyone suggest it was a Republican plot.

As I have mentioned before, certain individuals within the government could be the masterminds – Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, amongst others – but this is very different to simply ‘the government’. There are certain groups that can influence members of government or, at the opposite end, work outside of normal government frameworks and I think this is where we should in part be looking for the implementation.

I mean, the Gleiwitz incident (and other things like Operation Northwoods) were quite complex plans, yes, but they were on a very local scale, and would have to involve far fewer people than must have been involved in the 9/11 plot.

I have narrowed the 9/11 operation down to an estimate of a few dozen individuals within the U.S. plus any number of foreign intelligence agents – not the obscene numbers some would like to have us believe.

The Gleiwitz incident was only one part of Operation Himmler which comprised another twenty similar events along the German/Polish border. I would estimate that hundreds of German SS would have to be involved with this, not only to make the staged attacks appear convincing but to transport the Polish prisoners to be left at the scene. Even the German media was strongly involved in creating the propaganda of Polish aggression.

And the stakes were much lower there; even if it hadn't come off, it wasn't going to put a major dent in Hitler's plans. I mean, the entire justification for the invasion of Poland didn't hinge on it. And it wouldn't have the potential consequences that any revelation that the US government had been plotting to kill thousands of its own people would have.

Yes, Polish aggression and ethnic cleansing of Germans living in Poland were the justifications given to the public as World War II broke out. The Nazis could not have mobilised public support behind an invasion of Poland without having the German people believe they were under threat. Hermann Goring knew this well: -

“Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the

leaders

of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

To put it bluntly, the German people would have been extremely ****** off if they had known they were being tricked into fighting an unnecessary war for their megalomaniac upper hierarchy.

Even if it wasn't the US government but was some other shadowy organisation that was behind it, I think the same applies, really. I think there sometimes seems to be an idea that these (hypothetical) secretive organisations, whatever you might want to call them, are super-efficient and able to plan and execute things on this scale flawlessly. Of that, too, I have my doubts.

The 9/11 operation was far from flawless – that is one reason there is so much doubt about it today.

I just wonder why no one who was ever involved with it, at any level, ever seems to have come forward to say that were involved. Incidentally, I can't remember what the asterisks represented in "crazy '**** ******s' ", but i think that was probably a quotation from something that I saw someone else say.

Why would anyone involved in the 9/11 false flag attack ‘come forward’ – to be the world’s most hated person and face the death penalty? It doesn’t make sense to me. Also if you believe these people have any sort of conscience or regret for their actions then you aren’t accepting their reasons for staging the event. As far as any of the perpetrators would be concerned, they were ultimately serving the greater long term good of their countries.

The only reason details of the Gleiwitz incident became public knowledge was due to the Nazis eventual defeat and the Nuremburg trials some 6 years later. I dare say that if Dick Cheney had been properly questioned then we may have had many more details of 9/11 too.

There are so many parallels that can be drawn between 9/11 and the Gleiwitz incident but it seems people will make the same mistakes whichever period of history they live in.

[Space Commander Travis]

I assume what you are aiming at is that President Bush wasn’t bright enough to concoct or execute such a plan and I would completely agree. Anyhow, ‘the government’ wasn’t behind 9/11… well, I’ve never heard anyone suggest it was a Republican plot.

As I have mentioned before, certain individuals within the government could be the masterminds – Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, amongst others – but this is very different to simply ‘the government’. There are certain groups that can influence members of government or, at the opposite end, work outside of normal government frameworks and I think this is where we should in part be looking for the implementation.

I have narrowed the 9/11 operation down to an estimate of a few dozen individuals within the U.S. plus any number of foreign intelligence agents – not the obscene numbers some would like to have us believe.

Why would anyone involved in the 9/11 false flag attack ‘come forward’ – to be the world’s most hated person and face the death penalty? It doesn’t make sense to me. Also if you believe these people have any sort of conscience or regret for their actions then you aren’t accepting their reasons for staging the event. As far as any of the perpetrators would be concerned, they were ultimately serving the greater long term good of their countries.

If they had any sense of conscience? To see justice be done? Is it impossible that one person, out of all those involved (see below) could have decided that they couldn't live with the knowledge of being involved in this and so decide to blow the whistle? Considering how much importance is attached to whistleblowers in other plots, I might have thought that the truth movement would be very keen to see one come forward. I doubt if I'd expect Dick Cheney or Paul Wolfowitz to come forward, if they were responsible, but I don't really see how only "a few dozen individuals" could possibly have been all that were needed. I don't see how any fewer than thousands could have been involved in the execution of it in some way, if not at the top level of planning. A little way up above somewhere, I think there was a list of all the people and all the organisations who in some people's view would seem to have had to be involved.

[Q24]

If they had any sense of conscience? To see justice be done? Is it impossible that one person, out of all those involved (see below) could have decided that they couldn't live with the knowledge of being involved in this and so decide to blow the whistle? Considering how much importance is attached to whistleblowers in other plots, I might have thought that the truth movement would be very keen to see one come forward.

From the perpetrators perspective, justice is being done. I don’t see it is possible anyone involved could now change their mind as there would be too much to lose with no benefit to them. It would be useful to the Truth Movement but the mainstream media would be unlikely to give a whistleblower any coverage and it’s just not going to happen anytime soon anyway. I still don’t think you are putting yourself in the perpetrators shoes and understanding their view that the state itself is greater than its citizens.

I doubt if I'd expect Dick Cheney or Paul Wolfowitz to come forward, if they were responsible, but I don't really see how only "a few dozen individuals" could possibly have been all that were needed. I don't see how any fewer than thousands could have been involved in the execution of it in some way, if not at the top level of planning. A little way up above somewhere, I think there was a list of all the people and all the organisations who in some people's view would seem to have had to be involved.

Yes, that would probably be hazzard’s obscene list that I comprehensively responded to here.

[Space Commander Travis]

So who fitted the remote control to the planes then? How was that done without anyone knowing? How did they make sure that the specific planes chosen were actually used? Are you honestly trying to say that that was done without the collusion of American and United Airlines? And the mystery of AA77 seems doomed to remain shrouded in a perpetual fog. What was the plane that took off? Was that a set up? What heppend to it? And whatever did happen to UA93; if it was shot down, the pilot and controllers involved in that were either kept quiet or were so fanatically devoted to the cause that they've kept quiet ever since. And whoever fired a missile/remotely flew a plane/whatever into the pentagon. Again, the've kept quiet, ever since. How was the remote control technology flight-tested (yes, I know "it was developed in 1984". it's never been tried out in real life, though, on any airliner, not since the 707 back in the 70s or whenever it was.) But it worked, perfectly, straight out of the box. I just don't think that things work like that in real life.

[Airdale]

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2007/02/cl...rt-mystery.html

[Q24]

So who fitted the remote control to the planes then? How was that done without anyone knowing? How did they make sure that the specific planes chosen were actually used? Are you honestly trying to say that that was done without the collusion of American and United Airlines?

I can’t give out names and details but I can suggest options.

First, the plane to be used in the operation could be owned by an intelligence agency run airline (remember Air America) or private individual. I have been thinking more recently that perhaps this airline or individual was in the process of buying/selling some of their fleet from AA or UA – airlines appear to transfer their fleet around between each other and this could be one way of having the plane in the livery required.

Fitting of the remote control would be carried out by agents of the intelligence agency which I would suspect to be CIA and/or Mossad. Of course with the plane owned as described above, security measures are not going to be an issue.

The planes could be swapped at the airports or, especially in the case of Flight 77 which disappeared from radar, in the air. The more I look into air traffic/ground control and maps/photographs of the airports involved, the more convinced I become it was possible for two aircraft to change places during taxiing. Only the pilots would have to be involved with this for the rigged airliner to take-off in the original plane’s place.

And the mystery of AA77 seems doomed to remain shrouded in a perpetual fog. What was the plane that took off? Was that a set up? What heppend to it?

As above, whether this flight was switched at the airport or in flight cannot be known. The original Flight 77 would be taken into the intelligence agency or private individuals fleet to replace the drone airliner that impacted the Pentagon.

And whatever did happen to UA93; if it was shot down, the pilot and controllers involved in that were either kept quiet or were so fanatically devoted to the cause that they've kept quiet ever since.

Any military personnel that were involved in a shoot down or other areas, such as covering up Cheney’s actions in the PEOC, were not a direct part of the false flag attack. These would be individuals following orders and now professionally adhering to the secrecy acts they signed when joining the service. They would be told that their leaders simply made mistakes or rash decisions in the heat of the event and actions must remain confidential to avoid embarrassment and prevent the inevitable public uproar.

How was the remote control technology flight-tested (yes, I know "it was developed in 1984". it's never been tried out in real life, though, on any airliner, not since the 707 back in the 70s or whenever it was.) But it worked, perfectly, straight out of the box. I just don't think that things work like that in real life.

As well as normal auto-pilots, there is a vast list of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in existence both military and non-military, state sponsored and privately owned. From what I have read, some of these can be flown from the ground as though using a simulator. As can be seen, the basis of this technology is widespread and has been in use for years.

[merril]

People who claim, in the middle of a conspiracy forum no less, that there is no debate about what exactly impacted the Pentagon, really are way out of bounds.

I was referring to the idea of a missile. It makes no sense, and is contra-indicated by the facts of that day. Not to mention the numerous efforts by others to present clear discussion and pictures to explain everything. Probably, this was settled several years ago, even on this very website.

Familiarise yourself with the Wolfowitz Doctrine and the PNAC document Rebuilding America’s Defenses and you will know precisely to what end 9/11 served. To put it simply – the people who came to power in January 2001 had previously stated their desire and indeed the U.S. necessity, to be the predominant power in the Middle East.

I will review it tomorrow evening. From what I did read, previously, I gathered they were just calling things as they saw it. Foreign policy and military analysts may be right, or they may be wrong, when they try to assess the future. I did not see it as anything but a typical evaluation of the world, seen through the eyes of many conservatives, at the time. Military preparation for the post-Cold War, and the new century with advancing technology.

Anyone else could have written that, and we would not be discussing it.

Nearly 3,000 people lost their life on 9/11 and my sympathies are with anyone who knew them.

I feel the same way, and that includes everyone. I believe in rallying support for those with the highest standards and ideals, which goes a lot farther and sets better examples.

I’m sure some of the various media does implicate Al Qaeda but as I said in the other thread, you have to know who and what Al Qaeda are.

I think of them as al-Zawahiri, bin Laden (presumed deceased), those who recruited and trained, and those who were ever indoctrinated by them. I think of Ramsey Yousef as one of theirs, along with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Since bin Laden said he conceived of some of his plans from events in Lebanon, it stands to reason he wanted to create another Hezbolla.

I don't believe they were not secretive, deceptive, or that they were open to outside influence. Reporters who were allowed an interview went through difficult means, much less the CIA. After everything bin Laden was thought to have supported or been reponsible for, and given the opportunity, he would have been captured.

Peter Lance appears to be a decent reporter to me – digging up many of the facts without suggesting a conspiracy seems a good way of staying mainstream whilst still getting a message across. His latest book, Triple Cross, sounds interesting and you are right, the publication subject led me to learn something new…

An individual named Ali Mohammed was a CIA/Al Qaeda double agent and given time away from the U.S. special forces unit he was also a part of to travel to Afghanistan where he became Osama Bin Laden’s first trainer. He was arrested in 1998 for some part in the Nairobi and Tanzania embassy bombings and has disappeared off the face of the Earth since. Yet another demonstration that Al Qaeda is not the simple terrorist group we are sold.

My feeling is that the U.S. did not want a repeat of events surrounding the sentencing of Omar Abdel-Rahman. There were Camp David meetings that year of 2000. That is just my opinion. There may be some special provisions for people like Ali Mohamed. That is, to avoid an international event that may be violent, he was moved to an appropriate location where he would eventually be, anyway.

[merril]

There was a double post, for some reason.

But, again, I'll take the opportunity to suggest that Ali Mohamed never strayed from his roots. He used an american greencard marriage to gain entry to the U.S., while he ran from the impending events surrounding Sadat, in Egypt.

He introduced himself to his counterparts, in the U.S. Some saw him as a rare bird, others became wary. Nonetheless, he was giving away the game plan to Al Qaeda. Teaching them our counter-intelligence about hijackings, bombings, and developing an intel and evasive methodology which secret cells use.

Was it a mistake to recruit him? Obviously, yes.

Edited May 11, 2009 by merril

[Q24]

I will review it tomorrow evening. From what I did read, previously, I gathered they were just calling things as they saw it. Foreign policy and military analysts may be right, or they may be wrong, when they try to assess the future. I did not see it as anything but a typical evaluation of the world, seen through the eyes of many conservatives, at the time. Military preparation for the post-Cold War, and the new century with advancing technology.

I would mostly agree with that but rather than an assessment, these documents provided a plan or future roadmap for American hegemony in the Gulf region. The following objectives are taken from the PNAC document Rebuilding America’s Defenses published shortly prior 9/11: -

• “Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

• “Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.”

• “And, according to the force posture described in the preceding chapter, future American policy should seek to augment the forces already in the region or nearby.”

It is interesting to note that an American force presence transcends the issue of Saddam Hussein and would be desired even if relations improved with Iran, ie these were but pretexts to meet the aim. But the important part is as follows…

Read the bolded text again and understand what is being called for – a permanent and substantial American force in the Gulf. There is only one way that can be achieved and the document tells us what this is: -

• “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.”

For the expansion of current forces in the Gulf region to meet long-term interests, a catalyzing event was required on the scale of Pearl Harbor.

Anyone else could have written that, and we would not be discussing it.

But it was not anyone authoring this roadmap; it was Paul Wolfowitz, Dov Zakheim, Eliot Cohen and I. Lewis Libby, a part of the PNAC group to which Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton and a number of others belonged.

Within a year of those individuals taking up the highest positions of power within the U.S. they had their catalyzing event and the roadmap continued to unfold impressively throughout the Bush years.

I think of them as al-Zawahiri, bin Laden (presumed deceased), those who recruited and trained, and those who were ever indoctrinated by them. I think of Ramsey Yousef as one of theirs, along with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Since bin Laden said he conceived of some of his plans from events in Lebanon, it stands to reason he wanted to create another Hezbolla.

Can I ask for your view on Omar Sheikh? Specifically in regard to the following…

Former Pakistani President, Pervez Musharraf, has stated that Sheikh was originally recruited by British intelligence agency, MI6, while studying in London.

According to ABC, Sheikh began working for Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in 1993.

The Times described Sheikh as “no ordinary terrorist but a man who has connections that reach high into Pakistan's military and intelligence elite and into the innermost circles of Osama Bin Laden and the al-Qaeda organization.”

In October 2001, a U.S. government official told CNN that investigators had discovered Omar Sheikh, using the alias "Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad" had sent about $100,000 to Mohammed Atta.

A month before her assassination, Benazir Bhutto stated that Osama bin Laden was killed by Omar Sheikh.

Connections like these cannot continue to be ignored.

[Mario Lemieux]

This whole theory is B.S. as far as I'm concerned, so we are supposed to believe that the 3 planes that actually went missing are still out there somewhere?

And how do they explain the 4th plane that crashed?

Do you see a plane in that building? Do you see anything that even looks like part of a plane? Especially a plane the size of a 757?

Edited August 21, 2009 by Mario Lemieux