What you have to believe NOT to believe 911 complicity

[Must_B_Free]

Clearly we have the neocons demanding that Clinton go into Iraq in 1998.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

In 2001, they had acheived the executive power to do what they demanded in 1998.

So you would have to believe that for the large part of 2001, they what, simply forgot all about their published plan to invade Iraq?

Is this plausible to believe?

It doesn't seem plausible.

[MrSlayer]

1. Yes, well all you have to do is read page 63 of the RAD document.

And they clearly spell out their need for the "New Pearl Harbor" to occur so they can launch their plans into motion with alacrity.

[troublemaker]

2. This doesn't really add up

I seem to recall that half the news of the last six months has been about their eagerness to invade Iraq in 2001.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

3. Very True.

Let's not forget that they were angling to go after Iraq from DAY ONE. We learned this from the Paul O'Neill book, which IIRC came out in January, and the Richard Clarke book, which I'm currently reading. I'm not very far into the Clarke book, but he relates this story:

a scant few hours after the attacks, maybe 12-16 hours, Clarke finally gets a chance to go home and briefly shower and change. When he comes back to the white house:

"I expected to go back to a round of meetings examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were, what we could do about them in the short term. Instead I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq."

(page 30)

In my opinion, though, their eagerness to invade Iraq is one thing which points towards, not away from, LIHOP/MIHOP, which I think was the original poster's point.

[Must_B_Free]

14. This was only revealed lately.

My point is that they have been working on it all along and the retrospective details support that premise. But the official story - "we demanded Clinton do it, but then we just got to the whitehouse and twiddled our thumbs"... and then 911 happened and Dick said, "George, you know what? Now would be a good time to go pull off that plan to invade Iraq and free them."

Dubya says, "Oh year, I forgot all about that"

This is the official story they expect us to believe.

[ScrewyRabbit]

4. The problem with any conspiracy is that you would have to

believe that a whole lot of people were involved and that NONE of them stepped forward later to blow the lid off the story.

Think how hard it is for even one person not to tell a secret you've told them, much less the hundreds it would take to pull off 911. Human nature is very unreliable in this regard...

[MisterP]

5. do you know who Smedley Butler is?

[Sinistrous]

7. Actually, a whole lot of people are not required to be in on a conspiracy.

All you need is a whole lot of people dutifully following what they believe are legitimate orders, and a small, strategically placed, cabal to set it all in play.

[ScrewyRabbit]

26. You say a whole lot of peopel are not required

and then you say that a whole lot of people need to dutifully follow (something or other).

Please understand that I don't have a problem believing that the people in power are ruthless and would do anything to secure power, what I have a problem with is conspiracy theories that rely on giant numbers of low-level, fairly innocent people simply following orders. Large numbers of good-hearted people would not act like the conspiricists need them to in order to make their theories work...

[Old and In the Way]

9. Why do you think that?

"you would have to believe that a whole lot of people were involved and that NONE of them stepped forward later to blow the lid off the story. "

Not at all. When the conspiracy eminates from the top of government, an informal consensus on the plan and some basic orchestration in the orders (or lack thereof) to their minions below.

All you'd need for a good effective conspiracy is an agreement(say to LIHOP 9/11 and invade Iraq to steal the oil) is:

A President
A Vice-President (and a few key aids)
A Sec. of Defense (and a few key aids)
A JCS (and a few key aids)

Thats about it. The rest is history.

[Beam Me Up]

10. The TRICK is THIS:

You have to get the person BELOW you in authority to BELIEVE that whatever explanation you give them (a lie) is the truth. If they BELIEVE that what you've told them is TRUE, then they are not lying when they perpetuate it.

Media spokesmen say that the FBI said this or 'someone in the government' said that and present this to us as a plausible reality. We've been told repeatedly who perpetrated 9/11 and why. We've also been told 'do not ask questions' -- every man woman and child of us has been told this.

Consider: anyone who has direct physical or documentary evidence to a crime as grave as complicity in 9/11 by a high ranking official, holds a very powerful weapon. That is, a weapon powerful enough to topple the US government as it is currently constituted. You can be certain that if any such evidence exists, those who posses it are aware of both its power and its potential danger.

[Old and In the Way]

6. What was the 1st order of business?

The secret energy meetings. We've seen the map of Iraq sectioned off into lots for the oil companies. Had to get the spoils split up 1st.....bad form to have that bizness done in the public eye.

So they had the important bizness of post-Iraq figured out. They got the "event" on 9/11. Once we got the troops into the area (Afghanistan), the marketing of Operation Iraq Liberation could begin. Chalabi, the world-class conman on board? Check. NYTimes onboard with the WMD? check. OSP pumping bogus intel? check. Pentagon battle plan in place? check.

But the PNAC'le club, in their own little isolated echochamber, probably convinced each other that the Iraqi's would happily put up with any of our shit. They devoted probably 15 minutes to a post-war Iraq society. And anyway, Dick and Don were already thinking about Iran and Syria....

[BigDaddyLove]

8. What about the '93 attack on the WTC..........

was that LIHOP/MIHOP as well?

Or was that an honest to goodness terrorist attack without the help of the evil masterminds (Mwaa Ha Ha Ha Haaaaa), who are a part of the PNAC?

[Old and In the Way]

11. Check this link out................

The '93 WTC Bombing precedent

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=wtc_bombing


Makes one wonder....

[BigDaddyLove]

12. Cool, I will..........

Thanks.

[Must_B_Free]

13. it sure was a crude plan

and it failed

It could have been genuine but what does that really mean?

I can't see where terrorism acheives anything when it plays right into the hands of the opponant.

Who is really creating the terrorists and what are they thinking they will acheive?

[shraby]

15. They will achieve fear

in the populace. Fear used properly by those in charge can help them realize their plans.

[BigDaddyLove]

16. Your point about what terrorism achieves.........

I totally agree with.

On the other hand, if Osama's goal was to kill a whole bunch of Americans on American soil, 9/11 did indeed accomplish that goal.

Granted, Bush and Friends haven't done much since to make 'terrorists' decide against killing Americans, but the original motivation remains the same....that is, to strike at the U.S. as payback for the things these folks view as evil acts (hanging out militarily in Saudi Arabia, full-fledged support of Israel etc), only now there are even more things to be pissed about.

[Selwynn]

17. I think the real question is on the scope and severity of the conspiracy

I don't think too many serious people are defending the White House as innocent of wrong doing in 9/11 or the Iraq war - at least not here. I strongly reject some of the (lack of)evidence to support particular conclusions, but that's a far cry different from saying I do not believe there was any wrong doing at all. The reason I an critical and skeptical about certain claims is because frankly, I am smart. I am interested not in what we believe, but rather what we can prove and how to do that.

I don't rule any possibilities out, even the most extreme, until the plain facts necessarily rule them out for me. So far I don't see any clear incontrovertible evidence to rule much of anything out. The only thing I feel I can safely rule out of my mind is a completely innocent Administartion. What brings me into occasional tension with others is neither will I jump on the emotional senationalistic bandwagon and declare with absolute certainty that I KNOW for fact exactly what happened, where, when how and what the scope and severity of the misdeeds actually were.

So the interesting question(s) and the most important work we could be doing centers around trying to rationally, critically investigate exactly what the scope and severity of the wrong doing really is - there's little question that there is wrong doing; there is only questions of what wrong doing, done by whom, for what purpose.

[neebob]

18. That's not all you have to believe

As an alternative, you could believe the wise old man-God finally, after all this time, decided to prove America is the best country in the world and saw a worthy instrument - not to mention a massive, steel-reinforced package - in his dutiful and humble servant George Walker Bush. So He got the Holy Spirit to prompt a bunch of guys to come to America and learn to fly while Satan's minions were all occupied in the defense of Clinton's crooked, improperly used package. Then, when Servant Bush took office, they hijacked some planes and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Meanwhile He, in His infinite wisdom and patience, had set it up so that Saddam Hussein could be blamed because He wanted to take him out at the same time. And he just threw in the part where Servants Rumsfeld and Bush I helped put Saddam in power and the part where most of the people around Servant Bush II had bugged Clinton to attack Iraq and written a paper that made it seem like they had inadvertently guessed the plan to confuse the rest of us and test our faith - or, if we don't have any, to make sure we're all standing around scratching our heads one day when Bush disappears along with a bunch of other people and that we start wailing and gnashing our teeth and stuff when the real shit starts.

You don't have to believe that, but you could.

[RafterMan]

19. So they invented the event

to further their plans for Iraq, but forgot to plant any evidence linking the event to Saddam.

Is this plausible to believe?

It doesn't seem plausible.

[LunaC]

20. Can you offer a plausible explanation for this sequence of events?

In May 2001 the U.S. State Department met with Iran, German and Italian officials to discuss Afghanistan. It was decided that the ruling Taliban would be toppled and a "broad-based government" would control the country so a gas pipeline could be built there.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/7969.pdf.
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex20867.htm


Even as plans were being made to remove the Taliban rulers from power, Colin Powell announced a $43 million "gift" to Afghanistan.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-091701scheer.column
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html


Meanwhile, the U.S. Embassy in the UAE received a call that Bin Laden supporters were in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives. It was rumored that Bin Laden was interested in hijacking U.S. aircraft.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf


In July 2001, the private plot formulated in May for toppling the Taliban was divulged during the G8 summit in Genoa, Italy. Immediately after the conference, American, Russian, German and Pakistani officials secretly met in Berlin to finalize the strategy for military strikes against the Taliban, scheduled to begin before mid-October 2001

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,556254,00.html


In September 2001 the "catastrophic and catalyzing" modern-day Pearl Harbor envisioned years earlier by the PNAC came to pass when the WTC and Pentagon were attacked with U.S. aircraft. Immediately, the finger of blame was pointed at Osama bin Laden, a former CIA operative with ties to Afghanistan. Suddenly, the U.S. "gift" of $43 million to the Taliban in May was cast in a new light. Coincidentally, Pakistan had participated in the plan to attack Afghanistan and the chief of Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence agency was later linked to a 911 hijacker after wiring him $100,00 just days before the WTC fell.

http://cryptome.org/rad.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=1454238160


In October 2001, with flags waving, crowds cheering, and anthems playing, the "War On Terror" and the hunt for Osama began when Afghanistan was attacked right on schedule of July's secret meeting

Immediately afterwards, Iraq - the prime target for their planned Mideast base of operations - was just a hop, skip and a jump away. All they had to do was suggest that Saddam was linked to the event and the 'Merikun public and Congress swallowed it whole. The Mayberry Machiavellis are masters of deception and illusions!


To put this all in its proper context, please see "The Whispering Campaign" link in my sig line below.

[KuroKensaki]

21. Eh..

There are a lot more damning things than that.

Like how jet fuel burns at around 800-1000 degrees Fahrenheit and steel melts at I think around.. 2200 degrees Fahrenheit? Haven't looked up these figures in a while but they're out there.

Problem is, suggesting 9/11 complicity will get you flamed real quick on this board, I've found...

Lemme get this thing back on...

:tinfoilhat:

[neverborn]

22. No it won't.

Hell, before Nick Berg, we were all about LIHOP and MIHOP.

Which are you? :D

[KuroKensaki]

23. MIHOP, definitely

But you gotta admit, even calling into question 9/11 and now the Nick Berg tape tends to get blood boiling. The thinking liberals don't want to get saddled with us conspiracy theory wackos...

Least, that's been my experience. Maybe I only met a couple bad apples.

[KuroKensaki]

24. Then again..

I may just be bitter and disillusioned. A 9/11 MIHOPper was on Democracy Now! the other day, and made to look like a total wacko. It was 2v1, and Amy and her secondary guest weren't using very good debate technique. More along the lines of 'well you're a wacko so I don't have to consider your evidence.'

Course the guest was also in the missile-hit-the-Pentagon crowd.

That wacko.

[KuroKensaki]

25. Oh and as to that wacko--

Looking at physical evidence, it's hard to believe a 747 piloted by an amateur hit the Pentagon as it is supposed.

But then you've got lots of eyewitnesses.. And beyond that--why the HELL would they not just use the 747 which ended up in the 'official story'? Why go to the bother of shooting the place with a missile and PRETENDING it was a 747?

I'm not sure what I believe as to Pentagon-missiling yet. The physical evidence is compelling but it's contradicted by eyewitness reports and common sense, and I've really found no way to contradict or explain away either side.

Good thing I've got plenty of these. :tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat: