9/11 military tapes released - Pentagon lied to the 9/11 commission

[Crispy]

Yes this level of orgaisation needed goes against everything that we've learned from the Bush administration.

Piss up in brewrey come to mind. Get a grip people, Bush just isnt that clever.

That's what they want you to think

 

[kyser_soze]

But each thread on the conspiracy comes from new evidence and yet that is treated the same way.

That's just it - they don't. The Pentagon lying was a new admission by them, but the disasterous response to the hijackings was unmasked by the 9/11 commission which is why the pressure was on the Pentagon to admit to it's fuck ups in the first place. Government personel lying to save their own careers and institutional prestige? I mean God, one of the main planks of the original theories was 'How come planes weren't scrambled?' - an argument that Pentagon incompetence, human error and budget cuts have completley undercut!

And you haven't answered WouldBe's intelligent question about how this supposed forensic evidence of demolition charges being used could come from materials that were supposedly disposed of. Nor have you seen fit to question the source of Mr CIA - I agree that he's a potentially more credible commentator then many, but not knowing his background, his interest in saying what he said, who his sources are etc make me question as well.

You see when it comes to anything like this I'm cynical of everyone - government and 'truth seekers' alike (how many of these tuth seekers have published books on the subject and used their websites as little more than sales tools for 9/11 and other beloved subjects like the Elders of Zion?). I also don't like making extrapolations based on the assumption 'This is what governments do' - I also don't take internal think tank papers that discuss theoretical military scenarios and consider them to be evidence of 'reasonable cause of suspicion'; if you regularly read Pentagon documents you'd see that a million and one scenarios are discussed - different strategies and tactics, different technologies etc etc...it's WHAT THE PENTAGON DOES - in fact it's what ALL military organisations in the world do, only unlike most others, because of the FOI situation in the US it's possible for people from all over the world to find out how military organisations think.

Evidence, yes. But also reasonable suspicion and intelligent questioning, and there's enough of it here that you continually stifle.

Well start by reasonable questioning your own assumptions and the pre-conceived notions you have! The one thing that I always question about your perspective is that it seems to only allow for one actor - the US - to have motivation and ability!

And reasonable questionng has never been stifled - but outside of the questions that the 9/11 widow wants answered (questions shared by all of us!) what additional ones are you bringing to the table? What new evidence - and I mean evidence, not speculation or extrapolation which is all that's been present in all your posts to date - are you bringing? What new questions? I mean you still haven't addressed the question of exactly where this 'forensic evidence' Mr CIA refers to comes from!

 

[squeegee]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Not this again.

Search: "northwoods" Results: fucking loads

What's the point of bringing up this near half-century old non-event again?

Because it proves that governments actively discuss murdering their own civilians. Reasonable cause to believe they could have done so on 911 and since. That's reasonable.

Don't you agree?

 

[kyser_soze]

Because it proves that governments actively discuss murdering their own civilians. Reasonable cause to believe they could have done so on 911 and since. That's reasonable.

Don't you agree?

Not especially - all it proves is that at one point the Pentagon was briefed to come up with a plausible way of generating support for an invasion of Cuba - indeed, it doesn't even prove that, all it proves is that someone/group in the Pentagon had the idea (which they didn't - this concept is in both Art Of War and The Prince, and arguably was used at Pearl Harbour) and that they put together a workgroup on it. To extrapolate from a decades old document to saying it's reasonable cause for suspicion is pushing evidence beyond it - I mean what would you do with a piece of evidence that said that one of the scenarios that were worked up in the weeks prior to 9/11 was one of flying a plane into a building? Does that provide clear evidence that the USG was considering such things so clearly they planned it all, or that it's reasonably suspicious? Or is it simply part of the normal day to day business of government to come up with 1001 possible disaster/attack scenarios and work through the implications? I would imagine that if you spent long enoug trawling through Pentagon strategy documents you'd find one that was a discussion of how much damage the US nuke arsenal could inflict on the US.

If you could trace a direct link between the authors of Nortwoods and 9/11 - maybe Rummy was chums with them, or maybe they are still in active service or SOMETHING that at least gives a degree of separation - then you might have a point, but as it is it's simply one docment among thousands that among the militaries of the world the USM gives unique access. I mean, do you have anything to compare it to in say, Russia or China to establish if it's unique US thinking? Do you know what the comments made when the Northwoods plan was presented/read?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Kyser - you may as well bash your head against a brick wall

 

[tarannau]

Someone in power some time ago once wrote about a wall and some fellow called 'Humpty Dumpty'

It was a horrible tale, full of 'great falls,' splitting heads and assorted nastiness. I can only surmise from this that there is a genuine danger of Kyser bashing his head, possibly seriously - for gawd's sake there's a proven track record of people hurting themselves on walls AND the king's men being clearly involved

Need I say any more. Things never change, the same secret societies and abuse of power carries on, regardless of what the official media may tell you. It's not my fault if you can't follow my impeccable logic to the truth.

 

[kyser_soze]

Someone in power some time ago once wrote about a wall and some fellow called 'Humpty Dumpty'

It was a horrible tale, full of 'great falls,' splitting heads and assorted nastiness. I can only surmise from this that there is a genuine danger of Kyser bashing his head, possibly seriously - for gawd's sake there's a proven track record of people hurting themselves on walls AND the king's men being clearly involved

Need I say any more. Things never change, the same secret societies and abuse of power carries on, regardless of what the official media may tell you. It's not my fault if you can't follow my impeccable logic to the truth.

 

[squeegee]

Kyser, I catually agree with most of what you say. But any discussion of a scenario in which a government discusses murdering its own people for military advantage should deeply shock our society. And it might be in the Art of War, but I think the people are now waking up and getting wise to this.

All governments have done this from the beginniing of our "civilisation". Check the Romans out.

And I'm not singling out the US. In fact my suspicion is that the UK is probably the main insigator of this war. Riding on the coat-tails my arse.

The City is the most influential financial institution.

Anyway, at work, so can't go detailed on all this. Will do longer post tonight.

 

[Crispy]

All governments have planned it. Very few have actually carried it out. Especially in such a spectacular way. I can think of any number of other ways the US could kill its own civillians and pin it on the Ay-rabs - ways that are far easier to do, far easier to keep secret and involve far less points of failure. Assuming that it was an inside job, then what crack were they smoking?

 

[kyser_soze]

Re: USG involvement...if it really was invovled, why would you piss around with just a couple of planes flying into the WTC/Pentagon/White House? Why pick such obvious targets? If I were a clever planner, I'd say detonating a nuke in the mid-west would have had even more impact (well, detonating a nuke anywhere in fact!)...the point being that if these conspirators had as much access as is claimed, why use planes? Using a nuke would really scare the shit out of EVEYONE.

 

[WouldBe]

Still waiting for a reply as to where the forensic evidence from untested rubble came from?

 

[tarannau]

And I'm not singling out the US. In fact my suspicion is that the UK is probably the main insigator of this war. Riding on the coat-tails my arse.

The City is the most influential financial institution.

Anyway, at work, so can't go detailed on all this. Will do longer post tonight.

Wearing his special hat squeegee just knew things. He could see things that other folks could not perceive, could make links that noone else could firmly connect given the available information, make leaps of logic like nobody else. Squeegee liked his hat, it just made him know - folks may be cynical of the Govt's official line, but they couldn't be distrustful of the 'truth' and 'likely' version of events that Squeegee had plucked out of his hat could they? Surely not?

Yes, the city is the most influential city institution, he assured himself. And that meant...

...the tin foil hat beckoned and the possibilities opened up to him like a bright tan prayer rug, the clarity of vision outstanding....

 

[Jonti]

All governments have planned it. Very few have actually carried it out. Especially in such a spectacular way. I can think of any number of other ways the US could kill its own civillians and pin it on the Ay-rabs - ways that are far easier to do, far easier to keep secret and involve far less points of failure. Assuming that it was an inside job, then what crack were they smoking?

It must have been the world's most smoothly choreographed cock-up. Maybe it was not so much an inside job, more a smooth-the-way and let-it-happen sort of job.

 

[Crispy]

It must have been the world's most smoothly choreographed cock-up. Maybe it was not so much an inside job, more a smooth-the-way and let-it-happen sort of job.

I could entertain that possibility. Maybe not all the way through the institutions (after all, I refuse to believe that every single employee of every organisation involved had their conscience removed) - but some high-level decisions could have been made to make things like this more likely. You couldn't set it up though - not without someone noticing, IMO.

 

[Jonti]

Certainly not all the way through the institutions. Plenty of folk protested at the idiocies that went down before 9/11 -- some of them got into severe trouble.

 

[detective-boy]

They were mate. But there seems an alarming amount of posters who are here these days to effectively give us the state's angle on things.

So who do you mean?

Let's hear exactly who it is you wish to censor (somewhat surprisingly, seeing as you claim to be in favour of Human Rights and Civil LIberties)

 

[squeegee]

Even a well-planned devious action would suffer from cock-ups. The suggestion made in the above posts that evidence of incompetence (which there is an abundance of) somehow proves that there was no conspiracy is also conjecture and doesn't necessarily follow.

It is possible that plans have been orchestrated and that they have not gone according to how they were envisaged. It doesn't have to be planned to the fine detail. People's natural unwillingness to believe that governments would be capable of this and the mainstream media's unwillingness to thoroughly investigate, all would mean that even if a 911 was inititiated by politicians or security top-brass, or renegade elements, and even if they left trails behind, they could be relatively safe in the knowledge that they wouldn't be singled out.

Tell a big enough lie...who said that again?

And as for a nuke being a better way to shit up the people. If that happened there would be utter mayhem. Which would be far more difficult to control.

If there is a world plan (and ed my mind's not "made up" but I sincerely believe that if all governments are liars and murderers then this would be quite within their capabilities and would resonate with everything else that seems to run conjunct to it...id cards, attempting to divide people along racial and religious lines etc) then the one that's happening is going pretty much the way the PNAC document stated it would.

The war is against "the people". Many are wise to this, some want to be cautious, but all this wait and see just lets the murderers off the hook, or at least gives them time to plan an exit strategy.

And if you want to follow a trail why doesn't someone investigate fully the insider dealing on American Airlines directly before 911, which was curiously left out of the US gov's report, as not being relevant.

Not relevant? someone must know.

It looks suspicious, and you don't have to trawl a single conspiraloon website to think that. If mainstream journalists dealt with that, how long before the fall-out gets to a critical level?

But they're not invesigating that. Not even in the Guardian. Instead we have John Harris in today's Guardian mouthing the same bullshit cliches about conspiracy theories, like, wow, there are some people who actually believe the US government had something to do with 911. Wow! How crazy.

It stinks to high heaven. And there is no serious discussion I've seen on it. The closest is this BB. But the level of abuse on here to the most basic questions means even here the debate is stifled.

Oh well

 

[WouldBe]

It stinks to high heaven. And there is no serious discussion I've seen on it. The closest is this BB. But the level of abuse on here to the most basic questions means even here the debate is stifled.

Oh well

Stop posting contradictatory bullshit as evidence and someone may take you more seriously.

So were do the forensic test results from untested rubble come from?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

But the level of abuse on here to the most basic questions means even here the debate is stifled

Indeed it is.

So, as soon as conspiraloons give answers to the many many basic questions asked of them time and time again we might get some chance of a debate

 

[squeegee]

Indeed it is.

So, as soon as conspiraloons give answers to the many many basic questions asked of them time and time again we might get some chance of a debate

Who do you think you are to demand such things? Give us answers? Why is the onus on "conspiraloons"? Why don't you answer some questions. Like how do you think that details of insider trading in the run up to 911 was not relevant to the 911 commission? Can you explain that?

 

[Jonti]

Operation Northwoods is a US government document. the fact that shooting down a passenger plane to instigate a war with Cuba was even considered is resonable cause for suspicion that a modern government could do the same.

Yes, of course the existence of plans and discussions to do something establishes it is possible the plan will be executed (in a somewhat stronger sense than waving one's hands around and saying "anything's possible"). Individuals can even be busted for conspiracy in suchlike circumstances.

But one can come a lot closer to modern times, and cite the downing of Iran Air passenger plane, Flight 655 in 1988. The Americans explained they had mistaken it for a military aircraft one third its size. Easily done, of course.

Students of officiallooniness will likely find this article from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting entertaining, in a grotesquely comic sort of way. It compares media coverage of that event, with media coverage of a similar incident some years earlier, when a passenger craft was shot down by North Korean action.

 

[Crispy]

Sounds dodgy. What are the details of this trading?

 

[WouldBe]

Who do you think you are to demand such things? Give us answers?

Right back atcha.

Why don't you lot try answering some questions instead of telling everyone else what to think.

 

[kyser_soze]

then the one that's happening is going pretty much the way the PNAC document stated it would.

You think? Look again - Iraq is a quagmire, oil prices are the highest they've ever been, the US is less in control of primary resources than at any time in the last 50 years...you really think that the PNAC world is happening?

But they're not invesigating that. Not even in the Guardian.

The Guardian, Indie, Telegraph and Times - fuck, I think even the Mail has had someone rave about it (they're quite partial to conspiracies are Mail and Express readers, much like their US 'brethren' in all those mad survivalist communities in the North West ) have all run op-ed pieces on the possibility of USG involvement in 9/11, so I'd go back and do better research if I were you.

 

[Jonti]

... you really think that the PNAC world is happening?

Not the way they planned it, no.
Not unless they're dominated by religious fucktards who are expecting the Apocalypse some time soon.

Oh, wait ...

 

[squeegee]

You think? Look again - Iraq is a quagmire, oil prices are the highest they've ever been, the US is less in control of primary resources than at any time in the last 50 years...you really think that the PNAC world is happening?

and in the bigger plan, they're a hair's breadth away from their main objective, Iran and Syria. The more mayhem the better. But to the honest soldiery, even high up, who believe they are doing something noble, that mayhem is causing deaths both civilian and military, and if the soldiers ever got wind of what the government is up to (and the lack of steel armour-plating was one such case where military personnel did question whether their government's objective was to win the war in Iraq) then the elite fucks might well be in trouble.

How many billions have gone missing in the Iraq mayhem. War zones are perfect opportunities to make money. As long as it is contained. Who gives a fuck whether the Iraqi people have any clean water. As long as the oil fields are secure.

Anyone care to mention the insider trading on AA before 911. Anyone think this is a loonspud theory. Anyone here NOT think it highly suspicious that this would not be invesigated in the 911 commission's report.

How is it not relevant?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Who do you think you are to demand such things? Give us answers? Why is the onus on "conspiraloons"?

How 9/11 debate works, part 243


Conspiraloon posts up a theory
Theory is full of holes
Holes are pointed out by people pissed off that they are reading the same tired old shite for the 100th time
Poster is asked to explain holes, find further evidence
Poster ignores request, posts up more shite
Repeat until bin.

 

[tarannau]

And if you want to follow a trail why doesn't someone investigate fully the insider dealing on American Airlines directly before 911, which was curiously left out of the US gov's report, as not being relevant.

But they're not invesigating that. Not even in the Guardian...

...It stinks to high heaven. And there is no serious discussion I've seen on it. The closest is this BB. But the level of abuse on here to the most basic questions means even here the debate is stifled.

Oh well

Do you actually bother to undertake even the most basic of research before winding up your mouth to repeat any load of cack you find on the usual conspiratastic sites?

Plenty of folks looked into the financial irregularities after 9-11, with no journo able to uncover any devastating web of incriminating links. Hell, even the 911 Commission Report was moved to comment:

Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options – investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price – surged in the parent companies of United Airlines [UAL] on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 – highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC [Security and Exchange Commission] and the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation], aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

911 Commission Report, P499

For a 'truth seeker' you're remarkably prone to running your mouth without any independent thought or research...

 

[Jonti]

Sounds dodgy. What are the details of this trading?

September 24, 2001 Posted: 12:25 PM EDT (1625 GMT)
By CNN's Tom Bogdanowicz and Brooks Jackson

LONDON, England (CNN) -- European and U.S. regulators are on the hunt for anyone who might have manipulated financial markets ahead of the terror attack in the hope of profiting from it.

Central banks and supervisory bodies in New York and across Europe are conducting investigations into what one European central banker says are ever-clearer signs of market manipulation.

more

I'll just check the "Questions" site to see if they are happy with the officialloony explanation.

ETA: Not listed as an outstanding question.

 

[kyser_soze]

Not the way they planned it, no.
Not unless they're dominated by religious fucktards who are expecting the Apocalypse some time soon.

Oh, wait ...

Heh...I think that's less the neocons and more the Rapturists for that one...

they're a hair's breadth away from their main objective, Iran and Syria.

I take it this is some kind of hair that's about 1million miles wide? The US is nowhere NEAR being able to actively engage with Iran and Syria without using nukes!

On the suspicious trades prior to 9/11...well lets see...OBL and his relatives and buddies in Saudi Arabia all had extensive stock holdings in the US - and wouldn't it have been a superb way to make money to fund further actions by taking advantage of such a disaster on US soil - that woudl TRULY be turning Satans work against him!; then you get me-too trading when some fund managers will see an aberrant set of trades and simply copy them and see what happens. But you're right - this is dodgy, and there aren't any answers to it immediately apparent, just speculation such as mine above...

Jonti - I remember reading an article in Janes about the Vincennes - apparently Rogers flipped the auto-fire button on which sets up a 250m bubble around the ship, and anything within that bubble that isn't broadcasting a IFF signal gets shot at...

e2a - thanks tara, I thought the whole issue of the trades had been addressed but couldn't be arsed (eek!) to look it up...