DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
err the Dollar bill anyone
*The evidence for the 'hijack' theory of 9-11
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
err the Dollar bill anyone
So what you're saying is that they had this plan - that Jessie was talking about - and they persuaded Bush it was a good one and started carrying it out - like Jessiedog said - and now that it's going spectacularly badly they may not get chance to complete the master plan** - for which we should all be mightily grateful.
I don't get what was wrong with Jessie's point?
[size=0.5]Unless Israel bombed Syria, or something like that.[/size]
What I'm saying is that there is no hidden conspiracy, nor the need to create a terrorist spectacular.
These people have been saying the same thing openly since the 1980s, and it so happened that the events of 2001 made what they were saying seem like perfect sense to Bush and Rice.
So they went with them. And, now they can see that there were significant flaws in the plan, they're not going with them any more.
All this stuff about the US wanting to be able to fight more than one war at once - yeah, that's true. I don't need to make veiled references to timorous US officials, either: I can give you names of military academics and political commentators who believe(d) that network-centric warfare would allow the US to fight multiple campaigns in multiple theatres without reverting to WWII levels of mobilisation. It's all out there, it's all public domain, if you can be arsed to look for it yourself.
So waging a war in Iraq looked like a good idea for a lot of reasons, and waging in the way that Rumsfeld's Pentagon advocated looked like a good idea too.
The problem is, network-centric warfare is a remarkable and brilliant idea on an operational or theatre level, but it has fucked up equally remarkably on a strategic level. The inability to set up an adequate structure to replace Saddam's society is compromising the aim of reshaping the Middle East, since the situation at present is offending public opinion: that hardly sets much of an example to the rest of the Middle East.
So Bush and Rice appear to have gone back to Powell for a bit, advocating multilateral involvement in the reconstruction of the country so as to undo the mess that Rumsfeld has created.
The thing is that this isn't the carefully managed conspiracy that you all seem to be advocating. It is the way that any bureaucracy you care to mention works: there will be people with opposing ideas, and the CEO picks whichever sounds best to him at the time. But those ideas don't spring naked and fully-formed in response to such and such an event: people usually have very particular ideas about how the world works, which they have held for much of their careers. If something happens, the advice they will give will always reflect those underlying beliefs they have.
Still no conspiracy there, though.... The PNAC is a worrying organisation in many ways, but for me it highlights the problem of having political appointees doing the jobs of civil servants. But this attempt to portray it as an Elders-of-Zion-esque secret society with a secret master-plan to impose ZOG on the world is painfully far off the mark,
These people have been saying the same thing openly since the 1980s, and it so happened that the events of 2001 made what they were saying seem like perfect sense to Bush and Rice.
So they went with them. And, now they can see that there were significant flaws in the plan, they're not going with them any more.
All this stuff about the US wanting to be able to fight more than one war at once - yeah, that's true. I don't need to make veiled references to timorous US officials, either: I can give you names of military academics and political commentators who believe(d) that network-centric warfare would allow the US to fight multiple campaigns in multiple theatres without reverting to WWII levels of mobilisation. It's all out there, it's all public domain, if you can be arsed to look for it yourself.
So waging a war in Iraq looked like a good idea for a lot of reasons, and waging in the way that Rumsfeld's Pentagon advocated looked like a good idea too.
The problem is, network-centric warfare is a remarkable and brilliant idea on an operational or theatre level, but it has fucked up equally remarkably on a strategic level. The inability to set up an adequate structure to replace Saddam's society is compromising the aim of reshaping the Middle East, since the situation at present is offending public opinion: that hardly sets much of an example to the rest of the Middle East.
So Bush and Rice appear to have gone back to Powell for a bit, advocating multilateral involvement in the reconstruction of the country so as to undo the mess that Rumsfeld has created.
The thing is that this isn't the carefully managed conspiracy that you all seem to be advocating. It is the way that any bureaucracy you care to mention works: there will be people with opposing ideas, and the CEO picks whichever sounds best to him at the time. But those ideas don't spring naked and fully-formed in response to such and such an event: people usually have very particular ideas about how the world works, which they have held for much of their careers. If something happens, the advice they will give will always reflect those underlying beliefs they have.
Still no conspiracy there, though.... The PNAC is a worrying organisation in many ways, but for me it highlights the problem of having political appointees doing the jobs of civil servants. But this attempt to portray it as an Elders-of-Zion-esque secret society with a secret master-plan to impose ZOG on the world is painfully far off the mark,
Occam's razor. What's the simplest explanation?
editor
hiraethified
It's not a 'theory'.
It is the accepted explanation of events, disputed only by a microscopic minority of people, the vast chunk of whom are articulating their fascinating alternative theories on anonymously authored free homepages, untroubled by scientific analysis and peer review.
Jessie,
Given that all I can provide is words on a screen, I doubt that there's much point attempting to persuade you of the hijack theory. Moreover, I don't have any access to the kind of evidence that I would convince me, or anyone else, of it. Hopefully some will be forthcoming...
Even so, I don't believe that what happened on 9/11 was in any was instigated by the US government. I don't think there's any real need, and I don't feel that Northwoods is really a viable precedent, given that a)it didn't happen and b) I've seen no real proof that the plan was even drawn up.
I do think that there was a 'conspiracy' to draw the USSR into a costly and protracted war in Afghanistan, and that Osama Bin Laden was a CIA asset during that war.
I do believe - because of an intelligence report made public by the Dutch commission into the failure of DutchBat to prevent the massacre at Sbrenica - that the CIA used its contacts with the mujaheddin to shift men and weapons into Bosnia to fight against the Serbs. We all know that they went there, somehow, after all; it isn't inconceivable that they didn't have assistance from the CIA. I imagine it could well have been a useful quid pro quo for both sides. But, I have only the one source (and access to it is fairly restricted), so I can't corroborate it.
Still, OBL may have proved quite useful to the Americans, and if he was an asset, I presume he would have had maintained his contacts with the CIA. There's a report in Le Monde that alleges that he made contact at some point in the run-up to the attacks.
Now, some people will argue that this is evidence that the CIA got him to do the job. I disagree, because of the reasons I have been reiterating here and elsewhere: you don't need to kill your own people to go to war. There are easier ways.
Likewise, there are simpler explanations. I don't buy for a second this crap about remote controlled planes. But I do think that OBL may have persuaded his contacts that he was carrying out a job for the US, and so assisted the hijackers' entry into the country and their getting flight training courses.
That, to me, is a hell of a lot more believable than remote controlled planes, and it explains the reluctance of the USG to release any evidence - after all, it would be rather embarrassing to have to admit that your own pet terrorist has bitten you quite badly, wouldn't it?
That is as conspiratorial as I get on this though.
As for whether anyone will believe my argument - well, I don't have anything with which to back it up, just a few articles here and there which point towards a vague possibility.
My argument, though, manages to fit quite closely to all the information about the attacks that has come out into the public domain, without having to invent any new technologies. Occam's razor, I guess. And that's if it's even the case - it could well be that everything happened exactly as we are told it happened.
But to be quite honest, I'm not sure I care any more. Those people are dead, and they aren't coming back. We are unlikely to ever know exactly what happened - but that's the way life works. We never know very much for certain. We just have to make do with what seems to make the most sense, without going off into a haze of delusional paranoia.
Given that all I can provide is words on a screen, I doubt that there's much point attempting to persuade you of the hijack theory. Moreover, I don't have any access to the kind of evidence that I would convince me, or anyone else, of it. Hopefully some will be forthcoming...
Even so, I don't believe that what happened on 9/11 was in any was instigated by the US government. I don't think there's any real need, and I don't feel that Northwoods is really a viable precedent, given that a)it didn't happen and b) I've seen no real proof that the plan was even drawn up.
I do think that there was a 'conspiracy' to draw the USSR into a costly and protracted war in Afghanistan, and that Osama Bin Laden was a CIA asset during that war.
I do believe - because of an intelligence report made public by the Dutch commission into the failure of DutchBat to prevent the massacre at Sbrenica - that the CIA used its contacts with the mujaheddin to shift men and weapons into Bosnia to fight against the Serbs. We all know that they went there, somehow, after all; it isn't inconceivable that they didn't have assistance from the CIA. I imagine it could well have been a useful quid pro quo for both sides. But, I have only the one source (and access to it is fairly restricted), so I can't corroborate it.
Still, OBL may have proved quite useful to the Americans, and if he was an asset, I presume he would have had maintained his contacts with the CIA. There's a report in Le Monde that alleges that he made contact at some point in the run-up to the attacks.
Now, some people will argue that this is evidence that the CIA got him to do the job. I disagree, because of the reasons I have been reiterating here and elsewhere: you don't need to kill your own people to go to war. There are easier ways.
Likewise, there are simpler explanations. I don't buy for a second this crap about remote controlled planes. But I do think that OBL may have persuaded his contacts that he was carrying out a job for the US, and so assisted the hijackers' entry into the country and their getting flight training courses.
That, to me, is a hell of a lot more believable than remote controlled planes, and it explains the reluctance of the USG to release any evidence - after all, it would be rather embarrassing to have to admit that your own pet terrorist has bitten you quite badly, wouldn't it?
That is as conspiratorial as I get on this though.
As for whether anyone will believe my argument - well, I don't have anything with which to back it up, just a few articles here and there which point towards a vague possibility.
My argument, though, manages to fit quite closely to all the information about the attacks that has come out into the public domain, without having to invent any new technologies. Occam's razor, I guess. And that's if it's even the case - it could well be that everything happened exactly as we are told it happened.
But to be quite honest, I'm not sure I care any more. Those people are dead, and they aren't coming back. We are unlikely to ever know exactly what happened - but that's the way life works. We never know very much for certain. We just have to make do with what seems to make the most sense, without going off into a haze of delusional paranoia.
wr and ed,
..................................................
DrJazzz: 30-09-2003 07:18 PM.
"This thread is intended seriously and for those who do accept the 'hijack' theory, it's a chance to go over the basics.
So, what evidence do we have for the 'hijack' theory, and against Osama Bin Laden?" (My emphasis.)
...................................................
Woof
..................................................
DrJazzz: 30-09-2003 07:18 PM.
"This thread is intended seriously and for those who do accept the 'hijack' theory, it's a chance to go over the basics.
So, what evidence do we have for the 'hijack' theory, and against Osama Bin Laden?" (My emphasis.)
...................................................
Woof
Oh, sorry JD. I wasn't joining the debate. I think this is utterly pointless and diversionary. I can't help popping in from time to time though. I'm a bit sad like that.
editor
hiraethified
For fuck's sake, I'm not going over this all over again.
Maybe you should just ask yourself why the world isn't full of highly trained scientists, crash investigators, respected investigative journalists, qualified aeronautics experts, Middle Eastern governments and Arab news sources all screaming out that it was all a big con.
After all, totally unqualified conspiracy theorists keep asserting that it's so incredibly obvious that they can see it. So why can't those who actually specialise in those areas of expertise?
Perhaps you think DrJ and his highly unqualified anonymous band of dodgy 'found-on-the-internet' sources know more than the amassed wealth of specialist knowledge from the world's scientific community.
I don't. Not by a long fucking chalk.
Jessie -
A bunch of people posting on the internet cannot construct a watertight case about something like this. Which is why trial lawyers get paid a hell of a lot of money, after all...
The thing is, one theory fits the facts fairly well.
A bunch of people with boxcutters can hijack and pilot a plane. We have seen hijacks before; and it isn't actually that difficult to fly an airliner unless you want to land it in one piece.
The other theory comes up with layers upon layers of hidden conspiracies, newfangled technology, and a level of organisation that I couldn't expect even from the most highly trained bunch of intelligence agents in the world.
A bunch of people posting on the internet cannot construct a watertight case about something like this. Which is why trial lawyers get paid a hell of a lot of money, after all...
The thing is, one theory fits the facts fairly well.
A bunch of people with boxcutters can hijack and pilot a plane. We have seen hijacks before; and it isn't actually that difficult to fly an airliner unless you want to land it in one piece.
The other theory comes up with layers upon layers of hidden conspiracies, newfangled technology, and a level of organisation that I couldn't expect even from the most highly trained bunch of intelligence agents in the world.
info,
As I previously posted on this thread:
Personally, I find the "remote control theory" to be less credible than the "cock up theory", but this is based on little other than "gut feel" and "common sense" (something I am not generally known for being deeply imbued with).
On balance, at the moment, I still lean towards a version of events that closely resembles "the official story", but again recognise that this effectively hinges merely upon my acceptance of what I hear from govt and mainstream media. It is good that I do not rely entirely on this "trust", I feel.
Don't think it would be that tough.
The rest of your post, is, as ever, erudite. For which I thankyew.
After all, in the same post I quote above I also wrote:
Threads such as this, have been an extremely useful educational tool for me (and I suspect many others) in this regard. I don't know that my opinions have shifted that much, but I do know that I am far better informed than I would be in their absence.
(wr - no probs, I'm only here for the learnin' and fun meself.)
And therein, dear gentlepeeps, lies my support of these threads. (Or perhaps I'm just a veeeeeery lazy researcher, eh info'?
.)Blessings all.
Edited: 'cos I meant to say that info' was "erudite", not "erudiye"
. Woof
System of a Down
Set my people free !!!
I just witness. And I can see my observations are right. You're pissed off cause you can't really have that conversation. Why don't you give it a rest? You just don't know just like everyone, accept it.
In the previous Reagan/Bush era, they were referred to as 'the crazies' - they didn't have a hope.
And why is it that in 1997 they wrote about their plans, starting with the invasion of Iraq and then noted that it would likely be impossible without an event of similar magnitude to Pearl Harbor? Here's Pilger's article quoting them on it.
Surely they've been around long enough to know what it would take to convince the President to convince the public?
editor
hiraethified
Remember that kid who mailed himself home a few months back in an aircraft freight box?
If he'd been a terrorist, there'd have been a flurry of conspiracy-tastic posts asserting that it must have been an inside job because there's no way he could get past the airport security in something as ridiculous and as obvious as a great big wooden box.
With airholes.
nala: Who called them the 'crazies'? Where has that nugget come from? Give me a link.
From what I can tell, these people worked in government or in influential thinktanks, and whilst some people might not have liked their views, they certainly did not go ignored.
As for the Pearl Harbour comment - well, I have come across that somewhere before, in one of those PNAC articles. I don't really know what to tell you, though, given that your mind is made up. I will tell you an anecdote, though: a friend of mine and I co-authored a paper on Iran's strategic situation: he dealt with missiles and fossil fuels; I dealt with political structure and mobilisation. What we both kick ourselves over now is that because we didn't talk enough about Iraq, we didn't see that if the US army was tied down, even right next door to Iran, that would make a wonderful opportunity to make the final sprint to go nuclear.
Now, I don't want Iran to go nuclear. I have a very human fear of nuclear weapons. But I wish that I had had the intellectual rigour and imagination to go one step further, make connection and to put that argument forward at the time. Why? I dunno, some kind of pride, I suppose. It's so glaringly obvious now that I kick myself.
I really don't think that trying to predict political dynamics necessarily means that I want the things to happen; nor do I believe that is case with these PNAC people. They're off the wall, maybe - but that's not really proof of anything.
From what I can tell, these people worked in government or in influential thinktanks, and whilst some people might not have liked their views, they certainly did not go ignored.
As for the Pearl Harbour comment - well, I have come across that somewhere before, in one of those PNAC articles. I don't really know what to tell you, though, given that your mind is made up. I will tell you an anecdote, though: a friend of mine and I co-authored a paper on Iran's strategic situation: he dealt with missiles and fossil fuels; I dealt with political structure and mobilisation. What we both kick ourselves over now is that because we didn't talk enough about Iraq, we didn't see that if the US army was tied down, even right next door to Iran, that would make a wonderful opportunity to make the final sprint to go nuclear.
Now, I don't want Iran to go nuclear. I have a very human fear of nuclear weapons. But I wish that I had had the intellectual rigour and imagination to go one step further, make connection and to put that argument forward at the time. Why? I dunno, some kind of pride, I suppose. It's so glaringly obvious now that I kick myself.
I really don't think that trying to predict political dynamics necessarily means that I want the things to happen; nor do I believe that is case with these PNAC people. They're off the wall, maybe - but that's not really proof of anything.
editor,
Despite being an avid reader, I have only recently started posting on these "conspiracy" threads. I seem to perceive that my contributions are exacerbating the ire and angst they (the threads,) seem to cause you.
For this, please accept my apologies.
You should (I hope,) know that this is the very last thing I would wish.
I will henceforth do my utmost to refrain from posting on these threads and to restrict myself, once again, to reading them.
But please do not lose them. They really do add value in my humble opinion.
My apologies again.
Edit: To remove double word.
Woof
According to an ex-CIA geezer and buddy of Bush Snr. Interviewed in Pilger's latest film. There was a Guardian article based on the film - not sure if it's in there. You could watch the film though.
Edited to add: Cool - found a link - by Pilger.
My understanding is that they were, and are, actively arguing for the US to establish itself as the unchallengeable sole super-power. It's not a passive political theory sort of thing - it makes active recommendations towards the goal.
And it starts with Iraq.
Fortunately, I do think they might be scuppered now. The state department's resurgent for sure - but it ain't all over yet.
Oh.... Jessiedog!Originally posted by Jessiedog
editor,
Despite being an avid reader, I have only recently started posting on these "conspiracy" threads. I seem to perceive that my contributions are exacerbating the ire and angst they (the threads,) seem to cause you.
For this, please accept my apologies.
You should (I hope,) know that this is the very last thing I would wish.
I will henceforth do my utmost to refrain from posting on these threads and to restrict myself, once again, to reading them.
But please do not lose them. They really do add value in my humble opinion.
My apologies again.
Edit: To remove double word.
Woof
Soon as you are challenged you roll over, play dead, and ask to have your tummy tickled, as if your bone is going to be taken away any second.... I thought you had some bite in you!
No more doggy snacks from me!!! I'm a cat person!
Beat me to it DrJ - got distracted by a PM.Originally posted by DrJazzz
Oh.... Jessiedog!
Soon as you are challenged you roll over, play dead, and ask to have your tummy tickled, as if your bone is going to be taken away any second.... I thought you had some bite in you!
No more doggy snacks from me!!! I'm a cat person!
Bad dog Jessie! You make some of the very few sane, reasonable and non-abusive points around here. Someone spouts a bit of nonsense and you stick your tail between your legs and go hide in the corner. No!
I'm still trying to work out infobomb's theory about OBL being a CIA double-agent.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Any chance of this thread being abandoned? 
Thanks for the link, will check it out.
As for this bit I've quoted - loook, I don't have anything to go on other than my gut feeling either, but I think there is a difference between saying that something will be possible if something else happens, and actually setting out to make that prerequisite happen.
That is, although the PNAC were in favour of making the US the world's dominant power for another century, I don't think that leads necessarily to the implication that they would have tried to orchestrate 9/11.
Put it another way: assuring US predominance is hardly an aim limited to the 'neocons' (I think that term is a misnomer though). It is pretty much an inevitable objective for a world power, and is no different to what the UK attempted to ensure through various wars.
Understanding that a major push could only be made if a major incident occured seems Machiavellian, but I have read far, far worse in the writings of plenty of academics, journalists and talking heads. The difference is that these people were close to power, which makes everyone very skeptical.
Anyway, my little OBL theory basically boils down to 'dog bites hand that feeds it', and the guy who was feeding the dog doesn't want it known that he was feeding it because everyone knew the dog had rabies.
True. But it is a remarkable coincidence that the chain of events they envisaged happened more or less as soon as they got some power via Bush. Doesn't prove anything, but it is kind of sinister.
Yeah - I got that bit. What I didn't understand was the timing. You implied that the CIA might have unwittingly assisted him in the run up to 9/11 believing him to be in their side ... so was he on their side in 1993 the first time he had a shot at the WTC? The embassy bombings in Africa? When exactly did he turn on them ... and how long did it take them to work it out?
Here's a link to bring some of the discussion of the sidelining of the PNAC up to date: FT: Rumsfeld denies that the Pentagon is being sidelined
I don't know how much the CIA knew about the first crack at the WTC in 1993. I do know that the war in Bosnia hadn't finished by then, and that mujaheddin, according to the Dutch report, were being flown into Bosnia in American C-130s with Saudi money and Iranian guns.
As for the embassy bombings... Not sure. Could be that the compartmentalisation of the US intelligence services stopped the information from flowing as freely as it should have done.
On the other hand, it could be that the theory doesn't hold water. It's about as conspiratorial as I can realistically envisage, and even it has more holes than a swiss cheese.
I don't know how much the CIA knew about the first crack at the WTC in 1993. I do know that the war in Bosnia hadn't finished by then, and that mujaheddin, according to the Dutch report, were being flown into Bosnia in American C-130s with Saudi money and Iranian guns.
As for the embassy bombings... Not sure. Could be that the compartmentalisation of the US intelligence services stopped the information from flowing as freely as it should have done.
On the other hand, it could be that the theory doesn't hold water. It's about as conspiratorial as I can realistically envisage, and even it has more holes than a swiss cheese.
It's not really a conspiracy, though. Just a cock-up and a cover-up.
Or if you want to look at it differently, I think if there is any conspiracy, it is to cover up the failings in the intelligence services.
I sincerely do not believe that the US government knew about the attacks in advance; nor do I think there is any doubt about how the planes flew into the WTC and Pentagon.
Or if you want to look at it differently, I think if there is any conspiracy, it is to cover up the failings in the intelligence services.
I sincerely do not believe that the US government knew about the attacks in advance; nor do I think there is any doubt about how the planes flew into the WTC and Pentagon.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
