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


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.