Smoke screen? 9/11 AGAIN...

[Abooga]

Hello everyone. I don´t know if this has ben covered already but it´s something that worries me. There are so many posts about SILLY, TOTALLY RIDICULOUS AND UNPROBABLE 9/11 conspiracy theories that the most believable one seems to go unnoticed. Fair enough, a conspiracy organise the whole thing, blow up the towers etc. is ridiculous, but..

...what about the possibility that the government just KNEW what was coming and didn´t do anything to avoid it? Something quite like the Pearl Harbour conspiracy theory, which is not such a crazy idea, is it?

I think the links between the Bush-es and the Bin Ladens, the fact that there were intelligence reports warning about an attack that were ignored, the weird reaction by the president, the fact that Bush was greatly benefited by the whole affair etc. are quite suspicious facts, aren´t they?

And everyone keeps talking about the ridiculous claims that the towers were blown up... why? a smoke scReen to keep us busy with the wrong conspiracy theory?

It reminds me of the Vatican making such a big fuss about the Da Vinci Code (very easy to contradict) while ignoring and keeping out of the media the really important and well argumented works that question the historicity of Jesus etc...

What do you skeptics think?

[MikeW]

...what about the possibility that the government just KNEW what was coming and didn´t do anything to avoid it? Something quite like the Pearl Harbour conspiracy theory, which is not such a crazy idea, is it?
That's called the LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) theory. There are quite a few people who believe in that, but it's the MIHOP (Make It Happen On Purpose) crowd who make the most noise & all the headlines.

I think the links between the Bush-es and the Bin Ladens, the fact that there were intelligence reports warning about an attack that were ignored, the weird reaction by the president, the fact that Bush was greatly benefited by the whole affair etc. are quite suspicious facts, aren´t they?
What links/ which intelligence reports were you referring to/ why was his reaction weird/ how has Bush benefited?

[Abooga]

Thank you for clearing that up MikeW.

The Bush - bin Laden links : I mean the ones mentioned by Michael Moore. Pretty well "known".

The intrelligent reports... ok, intelligence report, without the "s":_ The one that has been talked about a million times already, too busy riaght now to find links.

The weird reaction: When he was reading to those kids in the school... Have you been living in a cave?

And the benefits: Do I have to explain this?

[Shrinker]

Thank you for clearing that up MikeW.

The Bush - bin Laden links : I mean the ones mentioned by Michael Moore. Pretty well "known".

The intrelligent reports... ok, intelligence report, without the "s":_ The one that has been talked about a million times already, too busy riaght now to find links.

The weird reaction: When he was reading to those kids in the school... Have you been living in a cave?

And the benefits: Do I have to explain this?

You're saying he had time to plan his reaction to the attacks. It makes no sense that he chose that particular reaction. He made a fool of himself IMO. Was that part of the scheme?

You do have to explain the benefits. What has he gained? Don't say oil, unless you can tell us where he keeps the oil.

[MRC_Hans]

The Bush - bin Laden links : I mean the ones mentioned by Michael Moore. Pretty well "known".

Uhh, the US more or less "made" OBL. I think you could argue that for practically any US hater.


The intrelligent reports... ok, intelligence report, without the "s":_ The one that has been talked about a million times already, too busy riaght now to find links.


What about the other intelligence reports?

...Which other? The myriads of intelligence reports that arrived over the years. Now, in hindsight, we can easily pick out the ones that gave good hints about 911, but that was not so easy before the fact.


The weird reaction: When he was reading to those kids in the school... Have you been living in a cave?


Ehrm, that would have indeed been a very weird reaction if he knew. However, it exactly fits the asumption that he was totaly surprised.

... Premeditated to appear surprised? Well you can alway say that, but even planning to feign surprise, would he plan to look totally dumbfounded? I think not.

And the benefits: Do I have to explain this?

You mean having to strain the economy, send soldiers abroad to return in body-bags, straining his relationship with his voters by infringing on civil rights, all of which is now giving him an all-time low on popularity and threatens to send him into history as the president who re-staged Vietnam? ... If that is your definition of "benefits" I don't want in on your benefit package.

If we need to discuss Pearl (I have quite a bit of knowledge of that era), let's do it in another thread.

Hans

[beachnut]

Da Vinci Code

fiction

more fiction than you think as you take into account the fake stuff in france

Find the guy that warned us about terrorist killing the pilots by cutting throats and then you have something

tell me we were warned of hijackings and I will tell you I knew that, all pilots know that, we had plans for hijackings, not for cut throats

too late to prepare when you feel the warm stuff and you ...

[PerryLogan]

I think the LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) theory suffers from the same logical defect as the "FDR knew about Pearl Harbor" story, to wit: even if the leaders knew an attack was coming, there would be no reason to let it happen.

If the administration knew about the attacks, they could have looked like heroes by stopping the attacks. They could still use the threat of terrorism to further their political agenda (Patriot Act, war with Iraq, etc.), so there is no bonus in letting the attacks actually occur.

Similarly, if Roosevelt had really known about the attack on Pearl Harbor, he would have scrambled our planes, beat back the attack, and looked like a hero. That would work much better than letting us get clobbered. And we would still be at war with Japan.

So saying they let it happens makes no sense. Why would they want to look like chumps, when they could look like heroes?

[MRC_Hans]

I think the LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) theory suffers from the same logical defect as the "FDR knew about Pearl Harbor" story, to wit: even if the leaders knew an attack was coming, there would be no reason to let it happen.

If the administration knew about the attacks, they could have looked like heroes by stopping the attacks. They could still use the threat of terrorism to further their political agenda (Patriot Act, war with Iraq, etc.), so there is no bonus in letting the attacks actually occur.

Similarly, if Roosevelt had really known about the attack on Pearl Harbor, he would have scrambled our planes, beat back the attack, and looked like a hero. That would work much better than letting us get clobbered. And we would still be at war with Japan.

So saying they let it happens makes no sense. Why would they want to look like chumps, when they could look like heroes?

Precisely! You may need the enemy to fire the first shot, and you may notice him taking aim and deciding to let him go ahead and pull the trigger, but who would be idiot enough to not duck?

Hans

[MikeW]

The Bush - bin Laden links : I mean the ones mentioned by Michael Moore. Pretty well "known".
You mean that they both invested in the Carlyle Group for a while? Not sure that means much. If you mean the Arbusto story then that's not compelling evidence, either.

The intrelligent reports... ok, intelligence report, without the "s":_ The one that has been talked about a million times already, too busy riaght now to find links.
You could be talking about several things... Perhaps you mean the August 6th PDB, "bin Ladin determined to attack inside the US"? People "exaggerate" the usefulness of that. The relevant bits are here:

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a xxxxxxxxxx service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
http://www.911myths.com/html/august_6_memo.html
So, they're dubious about one hijacking claim. They say there is "suspicious activity consistent with preparations for hijackings", and do mention "surveillance of federal buildings in New York". But the WTC is not a federal building, there's no suggestion of using planes as missiles, they also say the preparations could be for "hijackings of other types of attacks" (which means just about anything), and if you read the whole thing, there's not really any suggestion that attacks are imminent.

The weird reaction: When he was reading to those kids in the school... Have you been living in a cave?
Nope. Just trying to get you to expand on what you're saying. I see others have dealt with this, so moving on...

And the benefits: Do I have to explain this?
From where I am (in the UK) it looks like the US is far worse off financially and politically than it was pre-9/11, & I don't see much in the way of personal benefit for Bush, either. So yes, please explain this, I'd like to know.

[Abooga]

"You're saying he had time to plan his reaction to the attacks. It makes no sense that he chose that particular reaction. He made a fool of himself IMO. Was that part of the scheme?"

Ok. True enough.

"You mean having to strain the economy, send soldiers abroad to return in body-bags, straining his relationship with his voters by infringing on civil rights, all of which is now giving him an all-time low on popularity and threatens to send him into history as the president who re-staged Vietnam? ... If that is your definition of "benefits" I don't want in on your benefit package."

Perhaps he´s not too worried about the welfare of soldiers. But after his fraudulent election, the war actually strenghtened people´s support of their president (remember all that nationalistic hysteria post-9/11?) This tactic is well known and has been used many times before by leaders (I can think of Franco right now, kept on inventing problems with England, Morocco or whoever to keep people from questioning internal affairs)


"What about the other intelligence reports?

...Which other? The myriads of intelligence reports that arrived over the years. Now, in hindsight, we can easily pick out the ones that gave good hints about 911, but that was not so easy before the fact."

Yes that´s reasonable. I was just adding that as a cummulative argument

"I think the LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) theory suffers from the same logical defect as the "FDR knew about Pearl Harbor" story, to wit: even if the leaders knew an attack was coming, there would be no reason to let it happen.

If the administration knew about the attacks, they could have looked like heroes by stopping the attacks. They could still use the threat of terrorism to further their political agenda (Patriot Act, war with Iraq, etc.), so there is no bonus in letting the attacks actually occur.

Similarly, if Roosevelt had really known about the attack on Pearl Harbor, he would have scrambled our planes, beat back the attack, and looked like a hero. That would work much better than letting us get clobbered. And we would still be at war with Japan.

So saying they let it happens makes no sense. Why would they want to look like chumps, when they could look like heroes?"

Well, the Pearl Harbour theory proponents usually say that at that time the US citizens had no interest in engaging in a world war, even in the leaders realised it was a necessary thing to do. So they had to let P.H. happen to make a big impression in people and start the war. (Thank f*uck for that, by the way.) Even if they could have come accross as heroes avoideng the attack, that wouldn´t have accomplished the desired effect. Perhaps.

Same as 9/11. A dismantelled terrorist plot wouldn´t have been quite as impressive.

But overall, i agree with you guys, it´s quite far-fetched. I just don´t like dismissing conspiracy theories offhand, just because they are conspiracy theories. Some are probably true.

[geggy]

Besides the rising cost of oil price, what about the massive increase in military spending that benefits the military industrial complex such as KBR and it's subsidiaries? The unprecedented power for bush and his administration? Boost of profit in arms trafficking for the Carlyle/Binladen Group in which hw bush and tony blair are co-chairpersons of? There are so much more in ways that many people have benefited from the attack

Althought it's an op-ed piece, thought this article is a good read worth taking in as a consideration whether if the bush administration are really incompetent or it's all lies fabricated for the reason of creating an innocuous images of themselves.

Incompetent Design (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032706J.shtml)


Oh yeah, and how convinient it is that the attack occured during the first year of bush's presidency? Lucky for them...yep yep

[Abooga]

What do yo guys (and dolls) think the level of corruption is in the US govenment?

Maybe I should start a poll about this.

Or is it too much of a hot potato issue?

[Shrinker]

Oh yeah, and how convinient it is that the attack occured during the first year of bush's presidency? Lucky for them...yep yep

Did you use the handy convenience chart for this deduction?

1st year: conveniently the first year of office
2nd year: conveniently inoccuous (don't want to be too obvious)
3rd year: conveniently coming up to an election year
4th year: conveniently an election year
5th year: conveniently just after re-election
6th year: conveniently innoccuous (don't want to be too obvious)
7th year: conveniently coming up to an election year
8th year: conveniently an election year

[Skibum]

Did you use the handy convenience chart for this deduction?

1st year: conveniently the first year of office
2nd year: conveniently inoccuous (don't want to be too obvious)
3rd year: conveniently coming up to an election year
4th year: conveniently an election year
5th year: conveniently just after re-election
6th year: conveniently innoccuous (don't want to be too obvious)
7th year: conveniently coming up to an election year
8th year: conveniently an election year

Brilliant.

Good thing the founding fathers didn't go with a 5 year cycle.

[Skibum]

Last edited by Abooga : Today at 09:11 AM.

OMFG, you're in on it.

But seriously, I think being at least a little bit corrupt is a prerequisite to be a politician.

[Abooga]

OMFG, you're in on it.

What do you mean? I is spanish innit! I don´t get that...

But seriously, I think being at least a little bit corrupt is a prerequisite to be a politician.

So the more corrupt the better politician! brilliant!

[Shrinker]

What do yo guys (and dolls) think the level of corruption is in the US govenment?

Maybe I should start a poll about this.

If you start a poll, make sure to give a fair set of choices.

Personally, I suspect there are corrupt individuals and there are groups who put political gain before all else. I doubt there are groups of individuals who put personal gain before the country, since I doubt enough of them trust each other to engage in such things. I think most groups and individuals think they know what's right for the country and put most of their energies into either setting those schemes in motion, or convincing the rest of the country to think like they do. I also think that most of those people are probably wrong in a good proportion of what they think. I think there's a huge amount of incompetence, since running a country is enormously difficult. I think the vast majority of dishonesty that takes place in governement is for the purpose of concealing that incompetence from the press/public. I think the vast majority of concealment ultimately fails, and I think that is because politicians can't keep other peoples' secrets while at he same time jostling for power with those same people.

Sorry for the brain dump - that ain't gonna win a TLA!

[Abooga]

Last edited by Abooga : Today at 09:11 AM.

OMFG, you're in on it.

What do you mean? I is spanish innit! I don´t get that...

I get it now! how silly of me! LOL

[realitybites]

What do yo guys (and dolls) think the level of corruption is in the US govenment?

Maybe I should start a poll about this.

Or is it too much of a hot potato issue?
Go for it. But don't bother putting it in the conspiracy forum. That's better suited for the politics/current events forum.

As far as benefiting from 9/11, would you say that Bush's current popularity both here and abroad and the popularity of the Republican party as a whole is a benefit? So he got increased military spending and a neverending "war for oil". Who, after Vietnam, would purposefully to go after that thinking it would be "beneficial"?

[uk_dave]

To suggest that bush knew about 9/11 and let it happen on purpose is to allow that the attacks occured exactly as planned.

I'm not sure (perhaps there is evidence I'm not aware of) that we can honestly say the plane that hit the pentagon and the wtc towers hit them precisely where planned, only that they managed to hit 3 very large targets. Similarily we know that the plane brought down in pa was not intended to hit the ground there.

So to allow a terrorist plot such as 9/11 to go ahead means you have to have an awful lot of faith that the terrorists are actually able to complete their missions without all planes crashing in the middle of nowhere, or even worse without an even greater amount of damage and loss of life being caused.

What if the second plane in new york had crashed into the street?
What if the pentagon plane had hit towards the centre of the complex?

I think the terrorist acts took bush and his admin by surprise, despite the warnings which, with 20/20 hindsight, we can all now see.

[geggy]

If the administration knew about the attacks, they could have looked like heroes by stopping the attacks. They could still use the threat of terrorism to further their political agenda (Patriot Act, war with Iraq, etc.), so there is no bonus in letting the attacks actually occur.

Isn't that what they've done in the foilings of terror plots to blow up NYC and Los Angeles in the past? Isn't that what homeland terror alert level is used for? What would be the point of implementing patriot act if 9/11 has been successfully prevented? Tool of fear has been proven to be far more effective than the hero scenrio. At the time of the 9/11 attack, the unimaginable has happened and it was proven to anyone that america can be vulnerble to the possiblilities of large scale terror acts. If the 9/11 plot was foiled and has made bush look like a hero, everyone will only forget and move on. Since 9/11 attack has forever etched the minds of the people, the bush administration are constantly exploiting the 3000 fallen and use it as a reminder to make it harder for us to question what they are doing.

The only reason why america is far worse off economically than it was during pre-9/11 is because of the uprising surge in corruption in the white house.

[geggy]

To suggest that bush knew about 9/11 and let it happen on purpose is to allow that the attacks occured exactly as planned.

snip

Isnt that why the FBI, the CIA and the military defense, the only superpower in the world, such as NORAD have "failed" in preventing the attack? Bush did nothing at the elementary school when told of the attack? Do you think that what they knew was coming would be a huge opportunity for them if they had allowed it to happen?

[realitybites]

Since 9/11 attack has forever etched the minds of the people, the bush administration are constantly exploiting the 3000 fallen and use it as a reminder to make it harder for us to question what they are doing.
Yeah... I mean just look at the poll numbers. Bush is obviously still riding high on this 9/11 thing. Loved by everyone, democrats and republicans alike. It's all worked out according to plan....

Question geggy. What do you think will happen in '08? Will Bush force legislation through to allow himself a 3rd term? How long do you expect he'll be riding this wave of popularity?

[DavidJames]

Yeah... I mean just look at the poll numbers. Bush is obviously still riding high on this 9/11 thing. Loved by everyone, democrats and republicans alike. It's all worked out according to plan....
Quick in and out again comment. IMHO w/o 9/11 Bush loses in 2004. He was able to use the soft on terrorism things to his best advantage. Back then even many reasonable people felt the war in Iraq was somehow part of the war on terror. Two years later, most of the reasonable people have woke up, leaving Bush with only the Republican faithful in his pocket.

This discussion is best suited for the politics forum, however.

[geggy]

Yeah... I mean just look at the poll numbers. Bush is obviously still riding high on this 9/11 thing. Loved by everyone, democrats and republicans alike. It's all worked out according to plan....

The reason why poll numbers are low is either because of their "incompetence" and "failure" or people are waking up...slowly...

Question geggy. What do you think will happen in '08? Will Bush force legislation through to allow himself a 3rd term? How long do you expect he'll be riding this wave of popularity?

They will simply cut and run and continue to profit from the mess they've created in the middle east while leaving the responsiblity to the next president.

[Anti-sophist]

So I mean, do you have any proof that they knew about it and let it happen on purpose? Or are you just guessing?

[uk_dave]

Isnt that why the FBI, the CIA and the military defense, the only superpower in the world, such as NORAD have "failed" in preventing the attack? Bush did nothing at the elementary school when told of the attack? Do you think that what they knew was coming would be a huge opportunity for them if they had allowed it to happen?


What I am saying is that 9/11 was a chaotic event with no guarantees of 'success' for the terrorists and no guarantees of 'acceptable' levels of civilian and military casualties for the implicated administration.

The stakes were too high for this to have been a "we know it's gonna happen so we're gonna let it because we may benefit" scenario.

[Shrinker]

The reason why poll numbers are low is either because of their "incompetence" and "failure" or people are waking up...slowly...


If by 'waking up' you mean 'being subjected to a relentless barage of lies, distortions, junk science and innuendo, and lacking the time, inclination, or wit to see through it' you might be right. Many people here would like to see Bush pay politically for the things that he has actually done, but if you're completely lacking in principles I guess a baseless smear campaign works just as well.

[Brainster]

I think the best response to the LIHOP crowd is the same as the response to the MIHOP crowd: Why did the attack have to be so big? Suppose just one tower had been hit that morning, and subsequently collapsed. Would anybody say "Oh, that's not sufficient cause for the Patriot Act and Afghanistan or Iraq?" Well, yes, but it would be the same people who said it after both towers were hit as well as the Pentagon. The Patriot Act would still have passed 99-1, the Taliban and Saddam would have been overthrown. Indeed suppose the government had shot down Flights 175 and 77; wouldn't the people be more supportive of the President, knowing that he had saved many lives on the ground?

This is why I say the conspiracy theories are all reverse-engineered; because they make no sense if you look at them head on. It is only when you walk them backwards that the conspiracy theory seems to hold together.

[Abooga]

So I mean, do you have any proof that they knew about it and let it happen on purpose? Or are you just guessing?

If you´re asking me... I was just guessing, I guess. I have no special information. I just wanted to see other people´s opinions about it. Obviously. From a general perspective.

[Ersby]

When faced with a terrorist attack, CTers tend to say the govt Made or Let It Happen. When a news story breaks of a foiled terrorist attack, they say it is a False Flag operation, designed to heighten fear in the population and allow them to further infringe on human rights.

As far as their concerned, any outcome supports their theory.

[MG1962]

Similarly, if Roosevelt had really known about the attack on Pearl Harbor, he would have scrambled our planes, beat back the attack, and looked like a hero. That would work much better than letting us get clobbered. And we would still be at war with Japan.


In reality the US had very little to combat the attack with. The Japanese were extremely concerned about being ambushed by the Americans, and went to great lengths, even on the morning of the attack, to confirm that suprise was complete.

FDR made a politcal error by moving the fleet to Pearl. Rather than a deterrent he hoped for, it created a target to good to resisit.

On the other hand, the base at Pearl probably would have been hit, fleet or no fleet. I hate to think what the political ramifications for FDR would have been if a state of the union had been left undefended, in the face of an obvious threat.

[stateofgrace]

Besides the rising cost of oil price, what about the massive increase in military spending that benefits the military industrial complex such as KBR and it's subsidiaries? The unprecedented power for bush and his administration? Boost of profit in arms trafficking for the Carlyle/Binladen Group in which hw bush and tony blair are co-chairpersons of? There are so much more in ways that many people have benefited from the attack



Geggy have you any idea how much the attacks of 911 cost the US?

No neither have many people but it is extremely high. The World TRADE centers were destroyed, they housed many financial institutes. Entire networks that were in place to do business transactions were wiped out. The airlines were grounded for days and airline transport was disrupted for many months to come. The stock market and financial markets nose dived, wiping millions off share values. Depending on where you read some people put the cost of the actual attack as high as $95bn.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,786326,00.html
http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D154989%2526M%253D50011,00.html

Add to this cost of the Afghanistan Champaign, the Iraq war and improvements in homeland security. This as been put at $386 billion since 2001.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06885t.pdf

Do you honestly see revenue from an oil pipe line matching this? Some shady military deal raking it all back in.

It has cost the US close to $500 billion. Can you show me the end result of all this expenditure please? Show me this masive revenue the US has gained by the investment of $500 billion.

This is just the US; heaven only knows how high the figure would be if you were to look at the losses suffered by Americas allies as well.

[Nero]

Boost of profit in arms trafficking for the Carlyle/Binladen Group in which hw bush and tony blair are co-chairpersons of?

Geggy,

I don't get involved with thr 911 CT stuff, better people than me, and all that. But re your comment above, I may of course be wrong, but I'd be very surprised if Tony Blair is a co-chairperson of the Carlyle Group? Can you offer substantive proof?

Or were you making a joke?

Thanks

[gumboot]

The "Bush is connected to OBL" thing is BS. And a bit boring.

Here's the thing...

On the one hand - the Bush family, with significant political position in the US, and significant links to the oil industry.

On the other hand, the Bin Laden clan - a very important family in Saudi Arabia.

Now.

Saudi Arabia has lots of oil. So there's link one from the Bin Ladens to the Bushes.

While a particular Bush was President, the US happened to fight a war in the Middle East, and they based themselves in Saudi Arabia.

So there's ANOTHER significant link from the Bin Ladens to the Bushes.

What does this have to do with OBL? Nothing. And that's why all this is so stupid.

The Bin Laden clan is enormous. Connections to SOME does not mean connections to ALL - especially when those in question have been disowned by their family.

Oh sure, members of the family will still have a fondness, no doubt they keep in contact, no doubt their "disownership" isn't as solid as they'd have us believe. OBL wasn't exactly the first Bin Laden to get stuck into Terrorism.

But it's a staggering jump of logic to go from "The Bushes have connections to some Bin Ladens, and those Bin Ladens don't necessarily hate Osama" to "The Bushes are mates with Osama".

Indeed, it's pretty obvious Osama frikken HATES the Bushes - since it was George Bush Snr who he believe sulled the holy land and set him on his crazy crusade.

-Gumboot

[MRC_Hans]

Well, the Pearl Harbour theory proponents usually say that at that time the US citizens had no interest in engaging in a world war, even in the leaders realised it was a necessary thing to do. So they had to let P.H. happen to make a big impression in people and start the war. (Thank f*uck for that, by the way.) Even if they could have come accross as heroes avoideng the attack, that wouldn´t have accomplished the desired effect. Perhaps.

Does not compute, sorry! Yes, FDR wanted an excuse to enter the war, nobody ever made a secret of that. He advocated entering the war, quite openly. They were treating the Japanese negotiaters, who were in Washington right at the time, like dirt. And yes, maybe they wanted the Japanese to fire the first shot (most politicians who plan on starting a war want that). But there is absolutely no reason, if they knew where and when the attack was coming, that they should not have tried to make it as costly for the Japanese as they could. I won't derail this thread, but I have studied the Pearl Harbour incident, and they could have made the Japanese pay dearly. They would not need a single US casualty as an excuse for declaring war, because just after the attack, the Japanese declared war (what else could they do, in the circumstances?).

Same as 9/11. A dismantelled terrorist plot wouldn´t have been quite as impressive.

Yet later, Iraq was invaded based on (false as it turned out) reports of wmds.

But overall, i agree with you guys, it´s quite far-fetched. I just don´t like dismissing conspiracy theories offhand, just because they are conspiracy theories. Some are probably true.None of us do. We reject them when they seem far-fetched.

Hans

[geggy]

Geggy,

I don't get involved with thr 911 CT stuff, better people than me, and all that. But re your comment above, I may of course be wrong, but I'd be very surprised if Tony Blair is a co-chairperson of the Carlyle Group? Can you offer substantive proof?

Or were you making a joke?

Thanks

Excuse me, it's not tony blair, it's john major. I'm terrible with names, so forgive me.

Of course the bush administration had received warnings that bin laden was planning to strike the US otherwise how would they have had named bin laden as the prime suspect within 4 hours of the attack?

[Retrograde]

So to allow a terrorist plot such as 9/11 to go ahead means you have to have an awful lot of faith that the terrorists are actually able to complete their missions without all planes crashing in the middle of nowhere, or even worse without an even greater amount of damage and loss of life being caused.

What if the second plane in new york had crashed into the street?
What if the pentagon plane had hit towards the centre of the complex?

Crashing a plane into mid-town Manhattan or even nearby New Jersey would likely result in many, many casualties and extensive property damage, which IMHO would be just as effective as hitting the tower, in terms of instilling fear, uncertainty and doubt. I don't know about hitting the center of the Pentagon. BTW, my own speculation is that the Capitol building - out by itself on the highest point in D.C. - was the intended target and Hanjour either missed it or couldn't control the plane well enough so he looked for the first big target - it's hard not to spot the Pentagon from the air.

I think the terrorist acts took bush and his admin by surprise, despite the warnings which, with 20/20 hindsight, we can all now see.As much as I can't stand the guy, I have to agree.

[defaultdotxbe]

In reality the US had very little to combat the attack with. The Japanese were extremely concerned about being ambushed by the Americans, and went to great lengths, even on the morning of the attack, to confirm that suprise was complete.

FDR made a politcal error by moving the fleet to Pearl. Rather than a deterrent he hoped for, it created a target to good to resisit.

On the other hand, the base at Pearl probably would have been hit, fleet or no fleet. I hate to think what the political ramifications for FDR would have been if a state of the union had been left undefended, in the face of an obvious threat.
actually hawaii wasnt a state yet during WW2

as far as pearl harbor LIHOP, i agree there was no need to let the attack happen if he knew about it, or at the very least not leave so much of the fleet there open to attack (i believe only the carrier group was at sea at the time) an act of war is an act of war, no matter what japan did it would have demanded a response

as far as 9/11 goes, a completely prevented terror attack wouldnt have been as effective, however if the all planes were shot down after being hijacked it would still be the worst terror atack in US history, and would have served bush's needs...although there would be the argument that nothing bad would have happened to the passengers had the flights not been shot down...so i dont know

....not sure whos ideas i just supported there, lol

[Nero]

Excuse me, it's not tony blair, it's john major. I'm terrible with names, so forgive me.?

Geggy,

Sorry for picking you up on such a minor point, but your original assertion that Tony Blair was/is a chairperson for the Carlyle Group, and then your subsequent excuse that you got the name wrong really needs to be challenged.

As well you know, a lot of the CT modus operandi is built around picking up on seemingly minor and/or overlooked pieces of "evidence" and ten stringing these together to create a coherent story that isn't necessarily visible to us all.

Whilst a large number of the more seemingly outlandish claims that are made to support the CT stance I am not in a position to challenge, what I can challenge is basic fact.

So the facts are:

* John Major was the British Prime Minister who lost his postion to Tony Blair in 1997 (Note four years prior to 911)
* You stated that Tony Blair was/is a chairperson for the Caryle Group (WRONG), and was able to gain some personal benefit from 911.

So Geggy, to my point, if you are not able to get even these small and very verifiable claims correct how can I be expected to belief some of your claims I cannot verify?

I'm terrible with names, so forgive me.?

I believe you want others to believe your claims, how is this possible when in reality it is not merely names that you are not very good with but basic facts.

I don't expect you'll answer to this, I realise I have none of the kudos of Gravy et..al., but a short reply would be very much appreciated.

Thanks

Nero

[PerryLogan]

The LIHOP theory just falls apart from any angle. I would cite the fact that, when they told him the news, Bush sat there stunned.

There you go. If Bush or his people had known the attacks were coming, they'd have been prepared. They would have prepped their guy so as to make him look good--not lame.

Incompetence clearly provides the best explanation for 9/11.

[T.A.M.]

Coming from my background in the medical profession, I wish to ask if the following comparison is fair.

Once a drug has been around for a while, its patent runs out, and it is then picked up by a mass producing "Generic" firm, which then makes the drug for next to nothing and sells it for a little more.

Is the same true of military expendature on old technology. I mean how much profit do the defense contractors make off mass producing the same old cheap guns and weaponry used in the Iraq war, compared with, lets say, the amount they could make off the development, production, and then selling of new, intelligent weaponry???

TAM;)

[Oliver]

* John Major was the British Prime Minister who lost his postion to Tony Blair in 1997 (Note four years prior to 911)
* You stated that Tony Blair was/is a chairperson for the Caryle Group (WRONG), and was able to gain some personal benefit from 911.

So it is true that Major is a chairperson for Carlyle? :confused:

[cloudshipsrule]

What do yo guys (and dolls) think the level of corruption is in the US govenment?

Show me a government that has no corruption!

I think the system checks and balances put in place by those (James Madison, et al) who drafted documents like the Federalist Papers and the constitution help keep the level of corruption in the US government low compared to the VAST majority of governments in the world.

Not to say I don't think there are greedy bastards elected-in-place that look out for themselves more than their country, but I think given a different system, the level of corruption would be much worse.

[Oliver]

What do yo guys (and dolls) think the level of corruption is in the US govenment?

Maybe I should start a poll about this.

Or is it too much of a hot potato issue?

I started a thread about the corruption conspiracy:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66763

[Polaris]

Besides the rising cost of oil price, what about the massive increase in military spending that benefits the military industrial complex such as KBR and it's subsidiaries? The unprecedented power for bush and his administration?


Read a book about Abraham Lincoln's administration sometime. Or Nixon for that matter.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I think the LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) theory suffers from the same logical defect as the "FDR knew about Pearl Harbor" story, to wit: even if the leaders knew an attack was coming, there would be no reason to let it happen.

If the administration knew about the attacks, they could have looked like heroes by stopping the attacks. They could still use the threat of terrorism to further their political agenda (Patriot Act, war with Iraq, etc.), so there is no bonus in letting the attacks actually occur.

Similarly, if Roosevelt had really known about the attack on Pearl Harbor, he would have scrambled our planes, beat back the attack, and looked like a hero. That would work much better than letting us get clobbered. And we would still be at war with Japan.

So saying they let it happens makes no sense. Why would they want to look like chumps, when they could look like heroes?

Perry, you're thinking like a normal person. Politicians are not normal people. The government benefited far more from Pearl Harbor, and from 9/11, than they ever would have if either attack would have been "defended".

The politicians do not want to "look like heroes". They want to expand their power, and increase the amount of wealth extracted from the productive citizens. "Failure" is always much better at accomplishing these goals than is "success". 9/11 led to Afghanistan, Iraq, Department of Homeland Security, takeover of airport security, the Patriot Act, etc. No way could "success" have led to all that.

Consider hurricane Katrina in New Orleans as another example. The government would have "looked like heroes" if FEMA would have responded quickly and effectively. Instead they "failed" and got a $10 billion increase.

[stateofgrace]

Perry, you're thinking like a normal person. Politicians are not normal people. The government benefited far more from Pearl Harbor, and from 9/11, than they ever would have if either attack would have been "defended".

The politicians do not want to "look like heroes". They want to expand their power, and increase the amount of wealth extracted from the productive citizens. "Failure" is always much better at accomplishing these goals than is "success". 9/11 led to Afghanistan, Iraq, Department of Homeland Security, takeover of airport security, the Patriot Act, etc. No way could "success" have led to all that.

Consider hurricane Katrina in New Orleans as another example. The government would have "looked like heroes" if FEMA would have responded quickly and effectively. Instead they "failed" and got a $10 billion increase.

Really?

from this very thread.


Geggy have you any idea how much the attacks of 911 cost the US?

No neither have many people but it is extremely high. The World TRADE centers were destroyed, they housed many financial institutes. Entire networks that were in place to do business transactions were wiped out. The airlines were grounded for days and airline transport was disrupted for many months to come. The stock market and financial markets nose dived, wiping millions off share values. Depending on where you read some people put the cost of the actual attack as high as $95bn.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september1...786326,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,786326,00.html)
http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_m...D50011,00.html (http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D154989%2526M%253D50011,00.html)

Add to this cost of the Afghanistan Champaign, the Iraq war and improvements in homeland security. This as been put at $386 billion since 2001.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06885t.pdf

Do you honestly see revenue from an oil pipe line matching this? Some shady military deal raking it all back in.

It has cost the US close to $500 billion. Can you show me the end result of all this expenditure please? Show me this masive revenue the US has gained by the investment of $500 billion.

This is just the US; heaven only knows how high the figure would be if you were to look at the losses suffered by Americas allies as well.


Show me the return TS.

[Nero]

So it is true that Major is a chairperson for Carlyle? :confused:

John Major became a member of the Carlyle Group’s European Advisory Board in 1998, and was appointed Chairman of Carlyle Europe in May 2001, standing down in August 2004.

Note of caution, the above info is from Wikipedia, but I have no reason to doubt it

And not a word from Geggy, re little "mistake".

Nero

[Larry Lovage]

Sorry, is Carlyle Group some kind of new Bilderberg?

In addition to the signficant economic worries, the entire logic of the conspiracy theory behind 9/11 falls down on the basic origin of it. I saw a new film called Oil Smoke and Mirrors which starts off as an interesting examination of the possibility of Peak Oil - ie that we've found and extracted the maximum amount of oil from the Earth, and that the amount of oil available for use will start declining. Then at roughly the half way point the movie says, It is universally accepted by the mainstream media that the War against Terror is a battle between rational Secularism and religious extremism.
*fade out*
*fade in*
There are other views, however.However interesting the various talking heads were up to that point, immediately my BS meter went off. Because only CT-inspired documentaries make baseless statements as an article of faith like this. And the leading Peak Oil proponent started talking about his suspicions about 9/11. His theory, however - that in order to gain control of Iraq's substantial oil fields before all the oil ran out, America staged the 9/11 terrorist attack and then used that as a pretext to invade - suddenly made you doubt the value of his Peak Oil research. I haven't seen the film further than his assertion that six of the 19 hijackers "are still alive and well". So does everything he says come straight off Internet conspiracy sites? Because I believed in Peak Oil!

But my point is this: America gave Saddam arms and supported him in his war against Iran. If it's the oil they wanted, then they would have remained friends with him. As it is, for the second time in two decades they destroyed or forced the destruction of millions of barrels of the very stuff they were trying to save, replaced a tyrranical but secular and stable government, with an unstable system fundamentally undermined by religious differences, the end result of which could easily mean the loss of all oil input from that region altogether!

It's so facile to claim that because the oil price went up, then oil barons automatically become richer. Every thing that has happened - 9/11 itself, the Iraq war and finally the sheer increase in usage of fossil fuels will do nothing except put the price of oil up. And it's a sad fact, but it's true - that no American politician expects to keep his office if he puts the price of petrol up.

The Bushes did not become Presidents and governers to do stupid things to put the price of oil up and "increase their profits" (push their customers into Prius cars is all that that has achieved). They essentially became oil barons in order to become Presidents and Governers.