Iranian President suggests 9/11 foul play and cover up

[Lock&Light]

Sometimes, he can be arrogant in a self-effacing manner.

Often, IMO, that's the worst sort of arrogance there is.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

The bigger problem is the collapse of credibility the US and UK Governments now have, following the attack on Iraq. Americans felt the attack was justified given their belief that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks -- it's not true, but Bush has failed to correct the misapprehension. And Blair lied about the danger from Iraq.

But the question of how exactly the Twin Towers and WTC7 collapsed is not the subject of this thread. This is ...

Indeed it isn't and while this one http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=162112&page=43 isn't either i had a look at one of the videos that all this controlled demolitions bollocks is based upon and stuck up some of my thoughts.

 

[Jonti]

OK, so the official narrative is so overall so unconvincing ("a complete surprise", seems to the sum total of the US Government line) that even the mechanics of the destruction of the WTC buildings is doubted, and the issue keeps intruding into unrelated threads. That's nothing to do with me. I asked only for information from you, having failed to find what I expected on a cited link. Thanks for supplying it.

To my mind, those concerns about the actual mechanics of the destruction are something of a side issue. It would be better if they were dealt with on their own thread, instead of having them obscure this thread, and the 7/7 report thread.

Again, back to the issue on this thread ...

September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?

I've said what I think. I think the answer to the first question is "Unlikely" and the answer to the supplementary questions is "Because the consequences were congenial to the PNAC agenda.".

But what do others think? Anyone?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I think the answer is "yes" and "what aspects"?

Oh no, i get it, the ones we don't know about, cos they is, like, secret like yagetme?

 

[fela fan]

Again, back to the issue on this thread ... I've said what I think. I think the answer to the first question is "Unlikely" and the answer to the supplementary questions is "Because the consequences were congenial to the PNAC agenda.".

But what do others think? Anyone?

I think it'll be fairly quiet from hereon in mate.

But we cannot forget the media here, and it's on-topic. For a while now we've heard all this sabre-rattling over iran from both the US and UK - politicians and political commentators in the media alike.

The iranian president then writes a long letter to bush. Quite understandably bush rejects it (far too many home truths for him to digest, huge wall of self-delusion to thick to prick), but where has been the discussion of the contents of this letter in the anglo-american media??

This is the heart of the problem with US hegemony. Only certain voices can be heard. The iranian president has been made out as some kind of religious fanatic, how on earth can the manipulators let it be seen that the man can talk sensibly, coherently, and most presciently over the actions of the US?

So, usual hatchet job. Attack the messenger, forget/bury the message.

And you can see that attitude exemplified often on urban, on this thread yossarian is doing the job for us all.

 

[Jonti]

Remember the thing about making unnecessary digs, hmmm?

Yossarian came on strong and uncivil, granted*. It seems he had some fears about where I might have been coming from. But he calmed down, and was pretty civil to you when he explained you'd managed to miss the part of the letter that denied the Holocaust. I suspect the letter was carefully crafted so the unwary would miss the denial. But Yoss didn't make a big deal of it, that's the point.



* but, hey, he's no Brit, so that should make you happy at least

 

[fela fan]

Remember the thing about making unnecessary digs, hmmm?

Yossarian came on strong and uncivil, granted*. It seems he had some fears about where I might have been coming from. But he calmed down, and was pretty civil to you when he explained you'd managed to miss the part of the letter that denied the Holocaust. I suspect the letter was carefully crafted so the unwary would miss the denial. But Yoss didn't make a big deal of it, that's the point.



* but, hey, he's no Brit, so that should make you happy at least

Fair enough. But yossarian's got a history of being somewhat uncivil towards me, for reasons i've never fathomed. Probably 911, but i can't remember now.

Maybe it was a dig, but the point i made is valid. I mean the messenger message distinction.

 

[laptop]

(more than once)

September eleven was not a simple operation.

Bot not that complicated.

You could write the essentials of the plan on one side of A4 in quite large type.

Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration?

Yes, it could be.

This is the "I cannot imagine" argument.

This argument is a statement about the limitations of the speaker's imagination, not about the world. (In the case of "conspiracy theorists", the speaker wants not to imagine how things could have been done, can be done and are done in the real world - that'd spoil the delusion-world fun.)

It also relies on the assumption that the people planning a private, illegal thing are stupider than the speaker. Making this asumption proves its falsehood

Learning to point a a plane at a large target, hijacking a plane, and doing so is not complex.

Doing so four times is no more complex.

In fact it's intrinsically rather simpler than the Brinks-Mat gold bullion robbery at Heathrow. (No escape plan required, no money-laundering, only four people need know the plan and only 16 others need to be recruited... go on, write yourself a plan for the Brinks-Mat robbery.)

It's intrinsically rather simpler than putting on a Reclaim the Streets party, ffs.

It's far, far simpler than the Enron scam.

Of course this is just an educated guess.

No, it's not. It's an uneducated guess.

Speaking as someone who knows people who have planned and done more complex things... no, I know no bank robbers.

 

[Azrael23]

Bot not that complicated.

You could write the essentials of the plan on one side of A4 in quite large type.



It's far, far simpler than the Enron scam.

I`d love to see this A4 essential plan. Please.

Whats your hypothesis on the enron scam?

 

[laptop]

I`d love to see this A4 essential plan.

Always wanting someone else to do the work... do it yourself.

 

[fela fan]

This is the "I cannot imagine" argument.

Which essentially is the argument put forward by those who believe the USG version of events.

I just cannot imagine people in the american government killing their own...

... so it must have been incompetence.

It fits both ways laptop.

 

[fela fan]

In fact it's intrinsically rather simpler than the Brinks-Mat gold bullion robbery at Heathrow. (No escape plan required, no money-laundering, only four people need know the plan and only 16 others need to be recruited... go on, write yourself a plan for the Brinks-Mat robbery.)

Maybe it is intrinsically simpler, but is it practically simpler?

Now, surely when doing the planning of a crime, one has to consider all the possible things that could go wrong, and therefore working out how to counter each of those possibilities that may block one from achieving one's objectives.

Did they believe that they'd be allowed so much time up in the air prior to hitting their intended targets?

 

[Jonti]

It's an uneducated guess.

But it's not, is it?

The question is posed by someone who has access to the resources of a state security network; and with the approval of the constitutional processes and institutions of that state party.

Certainly, the asymmetrical warfare of the 9/11 attacks has huge advantages to the perpetrators. A History of the Car Bomb is well worth a read to hammer the point home. But, organising a demo is one thing; organising a mass murder/suicide quite another.

 

[Blagsta]

Again, back to the issue on this thread ... I've said what I think. I think the answer to the first question is "Unlikely" and the answer to the supplementary questions is "Because the consequences were congenial to the PNAC agenda.".

TBH, how hard is it to hijack planes and fly them into big fuck off buildings? Not too hard. Although of course, they were dumb foreigners weren't they, so they must have had help.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

It's intrinsically rather simpler than putting on a Reclaim the Streets party, ffs.

Well, not really, but the people involved possessed rather greater organisational skills than are evident in RTS....

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Maybe it is intrinsically simpler, but is it practically simpler?

Now, surely when doing the planning of a crime, one has to consider all the possible things that could go wrong, and therefore working out how to counter each of those possibilities that may block one from achieving one's objectives.

Did they believe that they'd be allowed so much time up in the air prior to hitting their intended targets?

Listen to yourself:

Smuggle people into the US, train some of them as pilots, get them to hijack planes and crash them into large buildings.

As opposed to the fuckspud version that involves all of the above, but with explosives in the buildings and possibly some remote controlled jets to go with it.

Time in the air: Yes they could, no one keeps armed fighter jets up in the air to do intercepts on a routine basis, no one intercepts planes that quickly (find me one where they did in under an hour). Even a brief look will tell you that the odds are pretty good for the hijackers, and in the worst case they get shot down, oh no wait, there was no reason to do so at the time.

As long as they got the hijackers onto the planes it was a partial sucsess, if the hijackers could fly the planes then it's even better. If they crash into their targets that's fantastic. As such it's a very simple plan, where after they got on the planes failure of one part does not compromise the rest. The risky bit being getting the people onto the aircraft in the first place, (since they were going for internal flights that's reasonable, security being lighter).

It's a lack of imagination and thought on your part again.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Did they believe that they'd be allowed so much time up in the air prior to hitting their intended targets?

I suspect not: and that's quite likely why there were four planes, so as to maximise their chances of getting through.

After all, if it was a inside job by the state, and they were bound to get through, why have four planes? Why not only have one so as to minimise the number of people involved and the risk of leaks?

[This is number #99999 in a list of Obvious Points That Conspiracy Theorists Are Likely To Ignore.]

 

[Jonti]

TBH, how hard is it to hijack planes and fly them into big fuck off buildings? Not too hard. Although of course, they were dumb foreigners weren't they, so they must have had help.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Of course they had help, unless you are suggesting that everyone involved in the conspiracy to hijack and crash the planes perished in the attacks.

 

[Jonti]

Did they believe that they'd be allowed so much time up in the air prior to hitting their intended targets?

Bob_the_lost says Yes they could (believe that they'd be allowed so much time up in the air prior to hitting their intended targets).

Donna Ferentes suspects not, which is why four planes were used.

The killer cult (and collaborators, if any) certainly gave things their best shot that day, I think we can be sure of that much. It's good strategy to get stuck into a fight with your best shot, if you intend to win. No mystery about that.

But the more devastating the blow, the more planning is needed. And the more planning is needed, the more likely it is for info to leak. It does look like info leaked (the put options on United Airlines), but not in a way that compromised the mission. So, well, looks as if the organisers got the balance about right.

It is probably not helpful to wonder what the hijackers believed. That would depend on their individual motivations and understanding of what they were doing. A religiously motivated fundamentalist would likely have had a different take on things than the politically motivated kamikaze killers. And the latter group may well have had different perceptions as to the chances of the attack succeding, depending on what they knew about the organisers and their contacts.

 

[kyser_soze]

OK, here's the 9/11 plot, on less than 1 side of A4...

Learn the basics of flying an aircraft
Supplement this training with the use of MS Flight Simulator for 737s
Learn how to disconnect plane transponders
Decide the date
Check flight schedules for relevant times and desintations
Buy plane tickets
Board aircraft
Hijack planes
Disconnect aircraft transponders
Fly planes into buildings

There are a few details to add to this - niceties such as working out how much fuel will be left in the planes for example - but the basis of the plan can really be written in one paragraph:

'Learn the basics of flying a plane, hijack one and then fly it into the WTC'

It's also worth remembering that the terrs didn't think about this one first - Tom Clancey did about 18 years ago in a book.

What I love about these threads is that while it's accepted that the US has pissed off most of the Muslim world (or at least a big chunk of it), it's completely unbelievable that an extreme group from the Muslim world could pull something like 9/11 off, and that it had to be the USG that is behind it all.

A religiously motivated fundamentalist would likely have had a different take on things than the politically motivated kamikaze killers.

Ummm...I'd suggest you study the Shintoism of the Japanese military that led to the volounteering for the Kamikazi. It was VERY religious indeed.

 

[Blagsta]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Of course they had help, unless you are suggesting that everyone involved in the conspiracy to hijack and crash the planes perished in the attacks.

The main thrust of your argument seems to be that you don't think that Islamicist terrorists are bright enough to have planned this attack.

 

[Jonti]

The main thrust of your argument seems to be that you don't think that Islamicist terrorists are bright enough to have planned this attack.

I'm afraid you'll have to talk me thro' your reasoning on this one.

 

[Jazzz]

I suspect not: and that's quite likely why there were four planes, so as to maximise their chances of getting through.

After all, if it was a inside job by the state, and they were bound to get through, why have four planes? Why not only have one so as to minimise the number of people involved and the risk of leaks?

[This is number #99999 in a list of Obvious Points That Conspiracy Theorists Are Likely To Ignore.]

9/11 would not have been anything like the same if simply one plane had hit a target killing a few hundred. Creating the iconic, unthinkable shock-inspiring act of terrorism that 9/11 was required the hitting of three targets including two world trade centre towers. Not only that but they had to fall too.

If you have only one plane you can only hit one target, rather obviously.

However, there's really little difference in terms of the number of people that would have to be cognisant of the affair if the plot involves one or four planes - after all, none are on them.

"[This is number #99999 in a list of Obvious Points That Conspiracy Theorists Are Likely To Ignore.]"

Having addressed that perhaps you can have a go at this very simple one DF. Why on earth would the hijackers - concerned with maximising their chance of getting through, of course - allow flight77 to fly away from Washington for 40mins before hijacking it to return there?

 

[kyser_soze]

Your posts seem to have the underlying assumption that the USG had to be complicit in the attacks in some way and that they couldn't have happened all on their own Jonti. You appear to be saying that without outside (i.e. non Al-Q) help the attackers could not have conceived, planned and executed such a mission.

Which is either

a. Patronising verging on racism ('I can't imagine a bunch of Ay-rabs could do this on their own')
b. Unintentional and down to a language thing.

Which is it?

 

[kyser_soze]

However, there's really little difference in terms of the number of people that would have to be cognisant of the affair if the plot involves one or four planes - after all, none are on them.

Oh dear, we're back to the 'empty planes' bollocks again...

 

[Jonti]

Ummm...I'd suggest you study the Shintoism of the Japanese military that led to the volounteering for the Kamikazi. It was VERY religious indeed.

Sorry if the term kamikaze killer was misleading. I borrowed it from the French equivalant expression for the English "suicide bomber" as having fewer unwarranted connotations. I guess that backfired a tad

Thanks for the advice to study the Shinto branch of Zen Buddhism. This from The Hard Truth About Suicide Bombers

At present, 31 of 35 organizations perpetrating suicide terror are Muslim. But five years ago, a majority of attacks were carried out by secular rather than religious organizations. Because religion-terror correlations have changed over time, they tell us little about causation. Even if the statistics were stable, it is not possible to infer bomber motivations from organizational charters. Rather than ask who is perpetrating the attacks, we need to ask why.

Here history can help. Martyr missions made their official twentieth-century debut in the Second World War with the Kamikazes; they showed up again in the 1960s, when Viet Cong sympathizers exploded themselves amidst U.S. troops. Their debut in the Islamic world was not until the 1980s, during the Iran-Iraq war. Facing a far superior Iraqi military, Ayatollah Khomeini rounded up children by the tens of thousands and sent them in "human waves" to overrun the enemy. While Persians accrued losses in the war against Iraq, the role of the martyr in defensive jihad was exalted. As in U.S. wars, the dead became heroes.

The Iranian example had seismic effects. Lebanese groups appropriated the notion of a martyr's death almost immediately, employing human bombs against Israeli and international presences in Lebanon as early as 1981. Half of the human bombs in Lebanon were perpetrated by secular organizations. The Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka perfected the tactic, becoming the most professional cadre in the world. Human bombs were also used by the Kurdish PKK against Turkey, the Sikhs in India, and the Palestinians against Israel, to name a few.

When we think of suicide bombers, we think of extremism. But the cases above locate the bomber as one popularly supported element in a coherent campaign of resistance against a perceived occupier, and such was true for 95 percent of the bombings prior to 2003. Note that allegiance to resistance appeared to trump allegiance to religion. And most important, for bombers and for the publics that exalted them, the notion of self-sacrifice would not have existed except for the context: a perceived necessity for group defense.

 

[Jazzz]

Oh dear, we're back to the 'empty planes' bollocks again...

That wasn't the implication of that at all. Please attempt to follow the train of discussion properly before posting.

 

[Jonti]

... here's the 9/11 plot, on less than 1 side of A4...

Indeed it is. But I could give you the basics of a Shakespeare play in a similarly concise format. It would throw little light on the logistics of finding the actors, funding the rehearsals, and staging a full scale production.

Gotta go. I really need to plan for an interview tomorrow. Something tells me I may find a lot of stuff to catch up on later.

 

[kyser_soze]

I borrowed it from the French equivalant expression for the English "suicide bomber"

Now I'm completely lost as to what you mean - 'kamikazi' is Japanese and means 'divine wind' and has nothing to do with French.

As for the secular vs. religious thing...

As in U.S. wars, the dead became heroes.

Why single out 'US wars' - this is pretty much true of all conflicts for at least some of the population (depending on how popular the war is) when the dead come back home.

And the reason for using suicide missions hasn't changed either - in all the cases listed here the side using suicide missions was in a desparate military situation so it's a situationally derived solution. Plus it's just about the hardest weapon to beat for the opposing force - in Iraq sending kids into fight would have been used as much to demoralise the enemy (imagine having to shoot a load of kids, even tho you know they are going to kill you if they get the chance) and cause domestic revulsion at the conflict.

 

[kyser_soze]

9/11 would not have been anything like the same if simply one plane had hit a target killing a few hundred. Creating the iconic, unthinkable shock-inspiring act of terrorism that 9/11 was required the hitting of three targets including two world trade centre towers. Not only that but they had to fall too.

If you have only one plane you can only hit one target, rather obviously.

However, there's really little difference in terms of the number of people that would have to be cognisant of the affair if the plot involves one or four planes - after all, none are on them.

Why was it necessary that all 4 targets were sucessfully struck to make an impact Jazz? What actual evidence do you have to support this claim? Yes, hitting both towers and the Pentagon certainly increased the impact, but even one plane hitting the towers would have been enough to cause an impact on people.

And having 4 planes was simple - redundancy. With 4 planes you have 4 times the chance of hitting at least one target, and you could create a single action plan for each plane. Fairly logical if you set your mind to it really.

And what exactly do you mean by your last line then? It reads as tho you are saying that no one was on the planes...or have you retreated from that specific position now?