WTC Attack - Just another one for the conspiracy theorists or not?

[editor]

My apologies for the cut and pastes

Thank you.
I have to stop people indulging in cut and paste because it slows the pages down for everyone else and exchanges of c'n'p soon ceases to be discussion. Less is definitely more!

 

[CaroleK]

'Without that, you may as well believe in the fairies.
Or obscure Portuguese ex-pat holiday let sites.'

No need to get emotional now. We NONE of us know exactly HOW it was done, we just know it was done. And we're simply throwing it all up in the air to see where it ... you get my drift.

Look ... no threat.

...

 

[Jazzz]

You can read the actual Operation Northwoods document which proposes the use of the drone (remote controlled) aircraft here

... obviously, the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US military wouldn't have remarked 'it is possible' and proposed this plan if the technology did not exist.. and this was some forty years ago...

 

[editor]

You can read the actual Operation Northwoods document which proposes the use of the drone (remote controlled) aircraft here

... obviously, the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US military wouldn't have remarked 'it is possible' and proposed this plan if the technology did not exist.. and this was some forty years ago...

Which has got nothing - repeat nothing - to do with the notion of large commercial aircraft being installed with near-invisible, precision remote control equipment that would remain undetected by ground staff, maintenance crews and pilots.

Unless you can produce solid proof that such a hugely advanced technology existed in Sept 2001, your theory is sheer fantasy.

Oh, what about those phone calls, DrJ?

 

[Diamond]

You can read the actual Operation Northwoods document which proposes the use of the drone (remote controlled) aircraft here

... obviously, the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US military wouldn't have remarked 'it is possible' and proposed this plan if the technology did not exist.. and this was some forty years ago...

So let me get this right: You're posting up documents relating to cold war hostilities between cuba and america which DO NOT outline anywhere, except in passing reference, the technology that would be exploited to fulfill these missions to qualify a conspiracy theory involving planes flying into the NYC WTC 40 years later.

hmmm........ then you say this: 'the US military wouldn't have remarked 'it is possible' and proposed this plan if the technology did not exist.'

Have you ever heard of a blueprint plan where you work out what technology you need for 'what if?' situations and then try to obtain it? It's pretty standard stuff with the most recent high-profile abject failure being the US military's 'star wars' programme.

And lastly what do you say to my previous post, in response to a question by Fela Fan, evaluating to what extent 9/11 fulfilled OBL's desires?

 

[Jazzz]

So let me get this right: You're posting up documents relating to cold war hostilities between cuba and america which DO NOT outline anywhere, except in passing reference, the technology that would be exploited to fulfill these missions to qualify a conspiracy theory involving planes flying into the NYC WTC 40 years later.

hmmm........ then you say this: 'the US military wouldn't have remarked 'it is possible' and proposed this plan if the technology did not exist.'

Have you ever heard of a blueprint plan where you work out what technology you need for 'what if?' situations and then try to obtain it? It's pretty standard stuff with the most recent high-profile abject failure being the US military's 'star wars' programme.

And lastly what do you say to my previous post, in response to a question by Fela Fan, evaluating to what extent 9/11 fulfilled OBL's desires?

This wasn't a tentative plan - it was hot to trot. The only thing which stopped it was John F. Kennedy. Besides which there was a whole TV documentary on in the last week about whether remote control should be fitted as standard to commercial aircraft! Really I feel I am some insane place here sometimes. I wanted a remote control plane when I was a kid (I never got it). And people doubt whether the military with its $trillion budgets could have the same.

And I don't play interrogation victim on these threads, sorry. I've done far too much of that already. You can thank editor for that... I can't address his posts directly because everytime you answer him another ten questions pop up, and then when you answer those he forgets what you said originally, or totally misrepresents it.

 

[CaroleK]

Nyfd

Just found this film.

NYFD

For those who can't access it, its said to be a group of New York firemen discussing WTC. And seeing each floor blow out in turn as if, they said, by detonators.

 

[Jazzz]

Here's a link from the Federation of American Scientists detailing the list of UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) that have been developed in the military since the 1950s for reconnaissance missions.

I hope this continued doubting of RC technology is going to stop - I find it an extremely low level of debate

 

[Diamond]

This wasn't a tentative plan - it was hot to trot. The only thing which stopped it was John F. Kennedy. Besides which there was a whole TV documentary on in the last week about whether remote control should be fitted as standard to commercial aircraft! Really I feel I am some insane place here sometimes. I wanted a remote control plane when I was a kid (I never got it). And people doubt whether the military with its $trillion budgets could have the same.

And I don't play interrogation victim on these threads, sorry. I've done far too much of that already. You can thank editor for that... I can't address his posts directly because everytime you answer him another ten questions pop up, and then when you answer those he forgets what you said originally, or totally misrepresents it.

Ok a couple of things here: when I was a child I got a remote controlled car. Proportionate to its weight and size it could withstand drops of up 10 times its own size from jumps that me and my friends laboriously and lovingly constructed. I broke the suspension on my parents car recently when I went over a humped-back bridge a little too fast and ended up a couple of feet in the air before crashing back down.

What's my point: there are different physical forces involved that are do not develop proportionately. That has to be one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard: I can buy a small toy remote controlled plane, so someone must be able to construct a remote controlled airliner. It just doesn't logically follow.

By the way refusing to acknowledge another person's comments while holding forth continously is NOT communication, it is NOT debate, it is NOT dialogue, it IS monologue, it IS lecturing, and it is CONCEITED.

p.s. that website made me sick as well, articles denying that the Srebrenica massacre ever took place and that it is all a conspiracy. Linking to sites like that and then refusing to engage in conversation isn't just sickening, it's got vaguely deluded fascist overtones. Nazism being predicated on one of the most enduring conspiracy theories of all time, but then I suppose I don't need to tell you about that do I?

 

[Diamond]

Here's a link from the Federation of American Scientists detailing the list of UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) that have been developed in the military since the 1950s for reconnaissance missions.

I hope this continued doubting of RC technology is going to stop - I find it an extremely low level of debate

Well done, you've found a link to the predator UAV.

It's about the size of a small light aircraft and carries 1 small hellfire missle, it can only carry one because it is so fragile and complex that any more would challenge its structural integrity.

It is not evidence that the USA can fly airliners by remote control.

 

[fela fan]

Then why has he not denied it?

You have not a single shred of evidence to support these claims. Nothing. In fact, you can't even show me a single example of a commercial passenger aircraft being flown in this manner, even though the technology would be worth billions.
And what about the 'faked' calls? No cray-zeee conspiracy scenario can adequately explain how people could be fooled in this manner. There is no way that anyone could fool me with a call from someone claiming to my girlfriend. One private joke and they'd be rumbled. So how come so many people were supposedly so easily duped?
Rubbish. History proves that America has embarked on a long series of attacks on other countries without the need to destroy their own cities and mass murder their own citizens in phenomenally expensive conspiracies first.
Err, exactly what he wanted!
You really should try and get a copy of the OBL documentary, you know.

Er, did you not even read the second half of my post? Coz it sure seems not. I guess certain words leapt up into your consciousness, and blindfolded you to the rest of what i was saying.

I even prefixed everything i was about to say by 'I think'. So why on earth would i be 'thinking' how something occurred if i had anything more than a 'single shred of evidence'???????

As for the OBL documentary mate, yes i'd absolutely love to get a copy of it. But i have a question for you, a single solitary question: how do you know that it was OBL in the film?

 

[Jazzz]

There is absolutely no obligation to answer someone else's questions diamond. Especially if they weren't addressed to you. There is even an 'ignore' facility to assist in not getting dragged into an unfruitful debate. I would say it's extremely rude to demand that someone else sits in the chair while you fire questions at them. Just make your point and be happy with it; it's not up to you to decide if others must discuss it thereafter.

My few contributions here (this is my seventh, compared to nineteen by editor) have been relatively polite and pertinent to the discussion.

I linked directly to a copy of the original Northwoods document confirming the existence of the drone aircraft. What was on the rest of the site hosting that document is simply not relevant.

 

[Mungy]

3. The Dotcom bubble burst a year and a half before 9/11. America's economy was just starting to recover and the Enron scandal had yet to explode the culture of book cooking and corporate greed among top US companies. In fact a careful reading of the scandal shows that 9/11 preceded Enron's collapse by a month, and it was to be at least a year until the true crisis was revealed. The US economy was healthy at the time and there were frequent predictions of a new bull run.

If I remember rightly around the middle of august 2001 I saw on the news (BBC I think) that the US economy was heading in to a recession.

I have just done a search on the bbc to see if I can back it up. I didn't read the articles, but the overview seems to be speculation over recession.
link here

I know this is out of the scope of the thread, I just thought I'd mention it

 

[editor]

As for the OBL documentary mate, yes i'd absolutely love to get a copy of it. But i have a question for you, a single solitary question: how do you know that it was OBL in the film?

If you mean the videos in the documentary, I believe it was him because:
(a) the journalists knew him
(b) some of them appeared in the video with him (one was invited to OBL's son's wedding)
(c) none of the journalists/colleagues interviewed who had met him mentioned any faked videos or disputed any of the central claims of his involvement. In fact, after hearing the first hand testimony of interviewees, OBL's motives become clearer and his involvement with 9/11 (directly or indirectly) became more obvious.

 

[editor]

My few contributions here (this is my seventh, compared to nineteen by editor) have been relatively polite and pertinent to the discussion.

Which of my posts weren't polite and pertinent?

The truth is that it's you who's dredging up irrelevant pipedreams from the 1960s while avoiding simple, direct, relevant questions to support your wild and highly improbable conspiracy claims.

I've asked you to provide proof of the invisible remote control technology that would have made you 9/11 scenario possible. You've answered with a load of totally irrelevant guff about non-existent drones from 40 years ago.

 

[fela fan]

Well the Arabs gained little IMO, but then again it was a very small minority of the Arab population who planned the event and carried it out. The hijackers were never representative of the Arabs and neither are their actions.

OBL gained a vast amount of respect and publicity but the most valuable thing he gained was a paradigm shift in how the world community views itself. Previous to 9/11 there had always been vague talk of the West but no one had ever bothered to vaguely define the East, it just seemed to be a mass of heterogenous impoverished countries governed by piss poor leaders.

In the first paragraph, you state things very authoritively, as facts. How can the hijackers not be representative of the arabs when they've been selected from a representation of the arab population? To carry out actions that will be well received by the arab population? After all, terrorsim is always a symbolic act that goes down well with the oppressed people in whose name it is carried out. Otherwise it surely could never succeed?

But then in the second paragraph you contradict yourself mate. Having said that the hijackers weren't representative of the arab population, you then declare that OBL gained a whole load of respect amongst the arab population as a consequence of 9/11.

You know man, you can't have it both ways!!

 

[editor]

But then in the second paragraph you contradict yourself mate. Having said that the hijackers weren't representative of the arab population, you then declare that OBL gained a whole load of respect amongst the arab population as a consequence of 9/11.

As the documentary reported, OBL chose Saudi hijackers because he wanted to drive a wedge between the Saudis and the US.

Given OBL's relationship with the Saudi government (you know about them revoking his passport for several years, right?) and his hatred of their involvement with the US, I'd say it all makes perfect sense compared to bonkers theories about the US blowing up its own cities to provide some, err, completely unnecessary excuse to attack another country.

 

[fela fan]

If you mean the videos in the documentary, I believe it was him because:
(a) the journalists knew him
(b) some of them appeared in the video with him (one was invited to OBL's son's wedding)
(c) none of the journalists/colleagues interviewed who had met him mentioned any faked videos or disputed any of the central claims of his involvement. In fact, after hearing the first hand testimony of interviewees, OBL's motives become clearer and his involvement with 9/11 (directly or indirectly) became more obvious.

Thanks for a direct reply to a direct question. It does make a change!!

I note your use of the word 'believe' it was him.

And i ask the following coz to me it's very pertinent. It's not to be pedantic in any way, especially as i think this thread is taking a good turn...

(a) could be dodgy because how do you know the journos knew him? (remember i haven't seen the film, so these are questions to someone who did see it)

(b) Britain has celeb lookalikes. I know that Saddam had the same, to help him avoid an assassin's bullet. How could the journos who appeared in the video with him know that they weren't with a lookalike?

Even though i've not seen the film, it seems vital to me that for it to be worth anything, we must be sure that it was the real OBL who appeared in it. Believing it to be him is not enough.

And even if it was, he could have been having a laugh with his expected western audiences, speaking lies interspersed with truths. Just like most maniacal leaders. Eg Gaddhafi, Bush.

 

[fela fan]

As the documentary reported, OBL chose Saudi hijackers because he wanted to drive a wedge between the Saudis and the US.

Given OBL's relationship with the Saudi government (you know about them revoking his passport for several years, right?) and his hatred of their involvement with the US, I'd say it all makes perfect sense compared to bonkers theories about the US blowing up its own cities to provide some, err, completely unnecessary excuse to attack another country.

If that is the case, then why, within hours of the NY attacks, were the USG zeroing in on Saddam and Iraq as the link between 911 and their war on terrorism? Why not saudi arabia? For a country that practised such a grand scale of incompetence over 9/11, they were amazingly and unerringly quickly onto who was responsible: OBL and/or Iraq. How could they know so damned quickly (remember it was hours not days or weeks)? Their intelligence and reactions to the hijacked planes were so bumbling, and yet hours later the same intelligence is totally sure of itself????

And if getting the US troops out of saudi was OBL's avowed objective, why, now that they are out of the country, should he choose to blow up 200 spanish citizens a year or two later?? The US are his enemy, not Spain...

 

[Diamond]

In the first paragraph, you state things very authoritively, as facts. How can the hijackers not be representative of the arabs when they've been selected from a representation of the arab population? To carry out actions that will be well received by the arab population? After all, terrorsim is always a symbolic act that goes down well with the oppressed people in whose name it is carried out. Otherwise it surely could never succeed?

Well how about leaders of almost all islamic (don't use arab, OBL's organisation is about religion, not race) nations, excepting the pariah states, condmening the bombing?

How about CNN desperately dredging up pictures from the gulf war and misrepresenting them as muslims celebrating?

How about all my islamic mates here in London who condemned it, and then when they returned from holidays in their respective islamic countries conveying to me the depth of anger felt towards OBL that he had done this atrocity in the name of Islam?

And I have no idea how the last sentence of the quotation above logically follows. Terrorism is an extremist action that by its nature is usually carried out by a MINORITY claiming to represent a majority to fulfill the MINORITY DEMANDS of that group.

But then in the second paragraph you contradict yourself mate. Having said that the hijackers weren't representative of the arab population, you then declare that OBL gained a whole load of respect amongst the arab population as a consequence of 9/11.

You know man, you can't have it both ways!!

No I don't. Where do I say that he gained the respect of a whole broad populous (be it Islam or Arabia or whatever).

I just said he gained respect and publicity, or are YOU denying what YOU have posted before about HAVING RESPECT for OBL. I'm pretty sure you're not Islamic, unless you've converted since our last in depth conversations on conspiracy theories, and I'm pretty sure you're not writing from the 'Islamic/Arabic street', unless you've moved from thailand to somewhere else very recently.

He gained the respect of enough downtrodden extremists* worldwide to incite them to further violence, not some generalised Islamic or Arabic street.

Now why don't you do me the respect of having a stab at addressing the majority of my post which you selectively quoted from, as I have done to you?

I mean had you heard much about OBL and his struggle before 9/11 because I'd only heard vague snippets that I deemed to be irrelevant?

*as well as some anti-american sympathisers as well.

 

[fela fan]

I think this 911 thread is the best yet, coz those on opposite camps are actually engaging in debate. Questions being asked are being answered. From both 'sides'.

Perhaps we on urban have been down this road so often, we wish to progress?

Perhaps things are slowly coming out of the woodwork across all forms of media?

I really do hope that we can continue in this vein. Coz to be honest, in this new (well dodgy) century of ours, it can be totally and uniquely shaped by getting to the bottom of who carried out 911.

 

[Diamond]

If that is the case, then why, within hours of the NY attacks, were the USG zeroing in on Saddam and Iraq as the link between 911 and their war on terrorism? Why not saudi arabia? For a country that practised such a grand scale of incompetence over 9/11, they were amazingly and unerringly quickly onto who was responsible: OBL and/or Iraq. How could they know so damned quickly (remember it was hours not days or weeks)? Their intelligence and reactions to the hijacked planes were so bumbling, and yet hours later the same intelligence is totally sure of itself????

You should probably read some of Dick Clarke's testimony to the 9/11 commission explaining the current administrations obesession with Iraq, and also take a look at US oil supplies.

And if getting the US troops out of saudi was OBL's avowed objective, why, now that they are out of the country, should he choose to blow up 200 spanish citizens a year or two later?? The US are his enemy, not Spain...

Remember who was in the coalition: Spain, UK, USA.

 

[Jazzz]

Which of my posts weren't polite and pertinent?

The truth is that it's you who's dredging up irrelevant pipedreams from the 1960s while avoiding simple, direct, relevant questions to support your wild and highly improbable conspiracy claims.

I've asked you to provide proof of the invisible remote control technology that would have made you 9/11 scenario possible. You've answered with a load of totally irrelevant guff about non-existent drones from 40 years ago.

I wasn't commeting about the quality of your posts at all, I was defending myself against diamond who was making out that I was 'lecturing' rather than taking a proper part in the thread, because I wasn't addressing a post he made elsewhere. That's why I said my posts were 'relatively polite and pertinent to the discussion'. I wasn't actually having a go at you there at all.

I try to restrain myself from doing that even though it can be rather tempting sometimes...

plus the drones existed, and furthermore I linked to page describing 29 different types. However I am going to wrap up the remote control discussion on another thread as there is too much going on here.

 

[fela fan]

Hey hey hey diamond, i never said i had respect for OBL. I said i had respect for what he said about american foreign policy. I'm not denying something i never said. Let's get this right eh?

Without requoting your post, to save space, let me address what you said:

What leaders say about events often does not tally with what the citizens are thinking.

You talk about your islamic mates and their negative reactions to OBL. Fair enough, but you should have seen the t-shirts and masks of OBL and the attacks on the WTC available to the muslims of southern Thailand and Malaysia, a country predominantly muslim after the attacks. People were cheering on what happened. There was nothing like anger being expressed. Furthermore even people of western nationalities in this part of the world were saying the US deserved it.

So i guess it all depends on which type of muslims or which type of people you talk to...

My bit on terrorism was trying to say that terrorism can only continue with the support of x amount of a population. By its very nature, it uses the oxygen of publicity that such acts attract to make its cause known. If no-one supported their declared aims and causes, things would just have to fizzle out. The IRA lasted as long as it did, due to their causes having popular backing. Same with the basques.

Like you, and all of us, i can only reply to certain bits of posts, those that interest/pique us usually. Especially when threads are going too quickly to combine thinking and typing speed.

C'mon, there are bits i thought i posted that were important and needed addressing, but you didn't address them. No big deal! If they're important enough, jog my memory and/or highlight which bits of your posts you find important to get answers for, and ask again.

 

[fela fan]

Remember who was in the coalition: Spain, UK, USA.

And Turkey and Indonesia?? Both countries with large muslim populations??

Why no attacks in UK, why no futher attacks in the US? Why none in Romania, Thailand, Japan?

Edit, sorry not romania, i meant poland.

 

[Diamond]

I wasn't commeting about the quality of your posts at all, I was defending myself against diamond who was making out that I was 'lecturing' rather than taking a proper part in the thread, because I wasn't addressing a post he made elsewhere.

So when you selectively read a post that is part of a wider argument elaborated over several posts, then extract one point from the aforementioned post and run with it, pretending that you are constructing a complete response to the entirety of the argument in question; and then you refuse to answer any questions that might have been raised by your argument: what's that? Dialogue? Discussion?

Because I think that's a form of lecturing, but then again I might be wrong.

Anyway I don't want to get mired in this petty bickering. You're either going to engage or not, what's it going to be?

 

[Diamond]

And Turkey and Indonesia?? Both countries with large muslim populations??

Why no attacks in UK, why no futher attacks in the US? Why none in Romania, Thailand, Japan?

Edit, sorry not romania, i meant poland.

The UK, USA, and Spain were the only one represented at the March 2003 conference in the canaries by their leaders where they drew up the final plans. They were also the only countries that had high profile publicity during the conflict. They were also the only countries who had combat troops on the ground doing the fighting and affronting Islam.

BTW Turkey=Bombed. And it's a secular state hated by OBL anyway. Remember they had to deny the US use of its country as one of its major entry points into Iraq?

 

[fela fan]

Because I think that's a form of lecturing, but then again I might be wrong.

Anyway I don't want to get mired in this petty bickering. You're either going to engage or not, what's it going to be?

You are wrong mate.

And DrJazzz does engage, very politely so, especially considering the absolute crap and disresect that gets thrown his way (not talking about you here). In fact he engages in debate over this topic way better than 99% of his detractors.

Now like i just typed in my previous thread, give folk a fucking breather man! If you write a longish post, don't expect posters to deal with all of it, and if you find certain bits of what you write to be pertinent and want specific replies, then cut out the rest of it!!

 

[Diamond]

C'mon, there are bits i thought i posted that were important and needed addressing, but you didn't address them. No big deal! If they're important enough, jog my memory and/or highlight which bits of your posts you find important to get answers for, and ask again.

Fair play.

The bit I was referring to was the bit that I thought was central to that post. It regards who the post-9/11 paradigm shift in, and polarisation of geo-politics benfitted, i.e. OBL.

 

[fela fan]

The UK, USA, and Spain were the only one represented at the March 2003 conference in the canaries by their leaders where they drew up the final plans. They were also the only countries that had high profile publicity during the conflict. They were also the only countries who had combat troops on the ground doing the fighting and affronting Islam.

BTW Turkey=Bombed. And it's a secular state hated by OBL anyway. Remember they had to deny the US use of its country as one of its major entry points into Iraq?

Eh?

March 2003? Final plans? What plans? Is that date right?

Only countries that had high profile during the conflict? You mean Iraq? If so, wrong, what about the troops of Australia and Poland? Just as high a profile as Spain, in my memory (usually shaky), higher.

And i repeat, why would obl blow up spanish people when all their government were doing was providing support to the arch enemy the US with a couple of thousand troops? Especially considering that he was killing people, 90% of whom objected to their governement's arselicking towards the US.

And why hasn't he been back to the US to bomb them again, and after two and a half years, still he is yet to bomb the prime supporter of the arch enemy, namely the UK?

And why bomb Turkey and Indonesia??