Tough Questions for LIHOPers

[durutti]

Only for LIHOPers, since MIHOP is so wildly implausible and unsubstantiated that I won't even consider it.

1. Both Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers were in the Pentagon when the hijacked jet crashed into it. Why?

2. What if there was a leak? The whole thing would blow up in their faces, with dire repurcussions.

3. It's one thing to kill American military for political purposes, and another to kill foreign civilians. But how can you possibly believe that the American government would target American civilians? Such a thing is unprecedented, as far as I know.

LIHOP skeptics, please add any additional questions that come to mind.

[Sterling]

1. Are you starting this thread just to

give LIHOPers a chance to layout the facts again or are you serious?

How long have you been researching the subject?

[durutti]

10. Both.

I've researched the facts a bit. The problem is that when I ask for details, I get linked to conspiracy Web sites or long essays by Phys. Ed. teachers.

[loudnclear]

137. Have you ever heard of the Talladega study?

Have you ever heard about the release of pathogens in the Phiadelphia subway? Have you ever heard about faking an incident and then joining a war and putting our troops in harms way?

[Terwilliger]

2. Operation Northwoods

Members of the US government developed a plan to make the country clamor for war by attacking civilian targets and blaming the incidents on Cuba.

LIHOP is tame by comaprison, which is why MIHOP is just as likely.

[durutti]

11. Wrong

Northwoods involved a number of plans. Among them were attacking U.S. military targets, attacking recent Cuban immigrants, faking the downing of an American civilian airliner, and provoking a war between Cuba and a Latin American country. At no point did officials contemplate targeting American civilians.

[DUreader]

17. Link? Can you back that up?

[durutti]

23. Yes.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html

[Terwilliger]

25. this link disproves what you claim

orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. :shrug:

[durutti]

29. Of course, if you'd actually read the article...

Instead of looking at the summary below the headline, you'd find that the violent terrorism was directed against Cuban immigrants.

[The Magistrate]

39. A Point Often Negelected, Mr. Durriti

Is that this plan never was carried out. It makes therefore a poor precedent to cite; it cannot in any wise be regarded as indicating a standard operational procedure, that people are foolish not to believe occured.

[bpilgrim]

92. that was one plan not carried out

but it does give a glimps into the mind set of these folks not to mention that the executive who squased the idea was executed by a conspiracy that hasn't been solved to this very day.

how many other wars did we involve ourselves in based on lies?

plenty.

this shows that they are capable of it period and with the right executive in office there is no telling how far they would go.

peace

[JackieO]

19. Wrong

One of the Northwoods plans involved having a sniper pick off American citizens in a large city. Sound familiar?

Also... after "faking the downing of an American civilian airliner", what do you do with the civilians?

[durutti]

26. This Way

First of all: what's your source for that Northwoods revelation? And even if true: it's one thing to kill a handful of people. It's quite another to kill 3,000.

Anyway, about the fake downing of a civilian airliner:

'Among the most elaborate schemes was to "create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight."

'Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs worked out a complex deception:

'An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CJA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone . Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida.

'From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Elgin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency a "May Day" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MiG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft, which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO
-- from Body of Secrets by James Bamford.

[Terwilliger]

22. oh REALLY!

what a convenient fact to counter with...any substantiation?

Here...the first hit and its the ABC News website...try summa dat...

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html


OH YAH!! Some more!!

The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.

Members of the US Government using the death of an astronaut to foment a war.

[durutti]

28. You're right about one thing.

I forgot about John Glenn. But as I said in my previous post, it's one thing to kill one person or a handful of people. It's another to kill 3,000.

The "violent terrorism" referred to in the ABC story was directed against Cuban immigrants.

[Terwilliger]

31. cuban immigrants in US cities?

orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

[durutti]

36. Yes.

In Miami especially. Read the other page I linked. It outlines all of the Northwoods plans. It's an excerpt from the first book to popularize Northwoods.

What, did you think Cuban immigrants live in the forest or something?

[Gore1FL]

81. That shows that a plan could be made

It doesn't show that it would be carried out, as northwoods was not.

It also doesn't do anything to prove or disprove LIHOP or MIHOP, merely that the scenarios are within the realm of something that could be planned.

I have yet to see anything that convinces mer that 9/11 definately was or definately was not MIHOP or LIHOP.

I would have to admit the most plausable is the third option: LIHDTIL

(Let it happen due to incompetent leadership)

Nonetheless, the very fact that it did happen forces it to be one of the three:

It was allowed to happen, It was made to happen, or this administration's just sucks that much.

[bpilgrim]

133. that fails to explain SOP

on the day of the attacks and the cover up that continues to this day.

for me the catostrophically contagious total breakdown of all of our responce mechanisisms including the SS who should have wisked him away after the second plane and should NOT have gone to the school in the FIRST PLACE after they knew what was going on and all the WARNINGS they had received during the summer is to hard for me to swallow unless someone gave the stand down order :shrug:

anyways i just want the TRUTH.

peace

[quinnox]

3. I have a question

I read an article about a french book saying there wasn't really a plane that crashed into the Pentagon.

Are there any eyewitness reports that saw a plane crash into there?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. yes, there are many eyewitnesses to the plane crashing into the Pentagon

I talked to one of them personally about a week afterwards. The book you are referring to is the disinfo I believe, to discredit the other French author's allegations of prior knowledge.

[quinnox]

5. ok, thanks

n/t

[Sterling]

7. John Judge

A leading 9-11 skeptic says there was. He says he knows eyewitnesses. I tend to find Judge credible.

[slaveplanet]

82. Better listen to this-

http://www.spitfirelist.com/KBI.html

before you put to much faith in mr. Judge....He is Personna non grata to the Brussell heirs...

[maggrwaggr]

8. there was also video from a security camera

which plainly shows something very large and plane-like (although blurred) smashing into the Pentagon.

[Silverhair]

24. There is video of the plane crashing into the Pentagon. And

the flight data recorder was recovered, as well as a LOT of aircraft wreckage. None of that will convince the tinfoil hat crowd. They will just claim that it was a really throught cover-up.

[yowzayowzayowza]

68. Is that the data recorder...

that was blank? Not damaged but BLANK, from the aircraft flown by a "pilot" who couldn't even fly well enough rent a Cessna yet completed maneuvers professional ATCs confused with those of a fighter plane? ...the pilot who chose to hit the newly reinforced 80 foot high wall rather than the 29 acre roof?

I certainly do not want to believe ?IHOP; but this administration's lack of transparancey BEGS to be relentlessly smeared on MANY issues. Like it or not.

[Silverhair]

90. I can address someof those issues easily.

Not being able to rent a cessna. Simple - you have to be able to land and take off. These guys had concentrated on the inflight stuff only. And there is software that gives excellent simulations of just about any plane that you want, and on home computers at that. So aquiring inflight skills isn't that big a deal. The hard part of flight skills is the transition phase - take off & landing, especially landing.

Hitting the wall - easy. Even WWII kamakize pilots, who were barely trained at all, were able to hit ships (moving targets), mostly Gearing & Fletcher class destroyers, which are waaaaay smaller targets than the non-moving pentagon. Practice with the simulation software can give that skill.

Confusing the ATC guy - easy to do. They are trained to help airliners follow prescribed flight paths - "highways in the air". If something isn't in the highway, and is moving at jet speeds, they will naturally think that it is the military doing something. Doesn't require anything fancy at all.

Blank flight data recorder - Here is a link: http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/investigation.terrorism/
Here is the relevent paragraph:
"FBI Director Robert Mueller said Friday investigators have recovered some information from the flight data recorder from American Airlines Flight 77, the hijacked jet that slammed into the Pentagon. "
So it wan't blank.

Of course, being a CTer, you will either deny those facts, or will incorporate them into your belief system as proof of the depth of the cover up. You will not change your religion.

[yowzayowzayowza]

107. My Bad.

IIRC, it was the voice recorder that was blank though not damaged.

The "Kamakize" pilots aimed for the larger flight deck not the hull. That supports my point.

The tewwowist had problems beyond takeoff and landing:

http://www.newsday.com/ny-usflight232380680sep23.story

However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172.

Professional ATCs readily recognize the flight characteristics of all aircraft:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/2020_011024_atc_feature.html

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien.

Of course, being a RDer (Reality Deny-er), you will simply gloss over these facts and will incorporate further ignorance into your belief system. You will not change your religion. I'm really getting tired of this "CT" name-calling.

[Silverhair]

113. You should learn something about what you talk about.

The voice recorder was damaged.

You appear not to know the difference between an aircraft carrier and a destroyer. During the kamakize attacks more destroyers were hit and sunk or damaged than any other type of warship. Destroyers don't have flight decks. Yes, there were some hits on the carriers. In fact there is a famous film clip from the time of a kamakize hitting a carrier. I think it was the Ben Franklin. I'm not going to do the research to look it up. But they were few as very few kamakizes got that far. Most of them attacked the first ships they saw, and those were the destroyers that form the outer ring of a carrier task forces defense. Gearing & Fletcher class destroyers are rather small and fast moving. Your point is founded on ignorance.


Yes, he did have trouble landing the Cessna 172. He concentrated on learning inflight contol on the simulators, of the craft he would actually be piloting. There is a marked difference in the handling of the two types of craft.


Have you ever looked, personally at an ATC radar presentation? I have, live, in the room. In any unfamiliar situation, your first reaction is to fall back on your training. Their training is air safety, and deconflicting the airways. (Avoiding air collisions.)So a jet flying at jet speeds, not in the lanes, and making a moderately tight turn, would look to them, at first inspection, like something military.

I base my conclusion on facts, not CT fantasies.

[yowzayowzayowza]

116. Smear, smear, smear.

Regardless the target, the kamakize strategy was to push the yoke over and dive into the vessel. Your smear is irrevelent.

That he had trouble landing the Cessna does not change the fact that he had trouble controlling the aircaft at all. Your comment is nonresponsive.

"So a jet flying at jet speeds, not in the lanes, and making a moderately tight turn, would look to them, at first inspection, like something military." There was more to their observations than that... Stop pulling $417 out of your @$$ and read the testimony.

On edit, voice recorder info: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/12/archive/main311011.shtml

Federal sources said the Pentagon crash black boxes were taken to the National Transportation Safety Bureau lab where a quick readout was attempted. But preliminary information shows there is nothing that appears to be useful on the cockpit voice tape. The tape appears to be blank or erased.

[number6]

120. poor video and very little wreckage

...

[Sterling]

6. Quick response

1. Why not, they most likely knew that the attack would be on the mostly empty side of the pentagon which the "terrorists" went to great pains to "hit". It is also likely that very few if any people knew every detail of the plot. This applies to ? 2 as well.

2. Most likely anyone with the goods on PNAC re 9-11 that could be comprimised is dead. Or would be if it was an issue. There have been "whistle blowers" who have come forward with what pieces they know about. Bottom line is when you control the media the military and the Government you can get away with almost anything. Just look at how things are spun by a willing media when Bushco is caught red handed.

The risk of getting caught is probably considered minimal by any plotters and worth it anyway. The stakes are VERY high.

3. Precedent. read about opperation northwoods and the long history of criminal deeds perpetrated by our government. I feel it is safe to assume from your questions that you need to learn more about the subject before you have a valid oppinion.

Lucky for you that you have come to the right place. There are a lot of smart people here who have devoted a lot of time to studies of this nature.

[durutti]

14. Quick response to your quick response.

1. Why not, they most likely knew that the attack would be on the mostly empty side of the pentagon which the "terrorists" went to great pains to "hit".

Evidence?

It is also likely that very few if any people knew every detail of the plot. This applies to ? 2 as well.

Then you really can't blame anyone, can you? If they didn't know every detail, then how could anyone orchestrate the plot? Wouldn't that require a real Machiavelli?

And if they didn't know every detail of the plot, then why would they let it happen on purpose? Surely, if terrorists were going to attack the United States, then government officials would plausibly be targeted. Wouldn't they fear for their own lives?

he risk of getting caught is probably considered minimal by any plotters and worth it anyway. The stakes are VERY high.

Huh? If they got caught, they could be executed. If they didn't, they'd be slightly wealthier than they were in the first place.

[kixot]

9. Ok, let me give it a try...

1.

a. The Pentagon is HUGE.
b. Who says they were in on it?
c. Who says they weren't considered expendable?

2. The Mafia has preventative measures for potential snitches, you think rogue cell of the government wouldn't? Funny how perfectly normal people commit suicide sometimes...

3. Who do you mean by "the government"? If you mean the desk clerk at the White House then you're probably right. If you mean a small, elite group of high ranking officials and high power executives with economic/social engineering intents bent on manipulating mass awareness into creating a working slave-class of consumers unaware of the backroom deals dictating international policy at the expense of profit for a gleeful few and their minions - then I think you may have a more believable situation.

[durutti]

18. Response

a. The Pentagon is HUGE.
b. Who says they were in on it?
c. Who says they weren't considered expendable?

It's hard to believe that they're psychologically capable of doing such a thing. And everyone says they were in it. I've never heard anyone say anything different.

2. The Mafia has preventative measures for potential snitches, you think rogue cell of the government wouldn't? Funny how perfectly normal people commit suicide sometimes...

There are leaks all the time. That would be a huge body count...

[kixot]

42. response to response

It's hard to believe that they're psychologically capable of doing such a thing. And everyone says they were in it. I've never heard anyone say anything different.

I'm afraid there are a great many things in this world that you will unquestionably find hard to believe when it relies on what you think a person is CAPABLE of doing. And if everyone says Shari and Lamb Chop were in on it would you rivet that to your impression of the conspiracy? Wake up. If it's a conspiracy it matters squat what "everyone says". Doesn't matter what you've heard different or not, not every leaping lord is a wiseman.

There are leaks all the time. That would be a huge body count...

This assumes that there is a large pool for that body count to pull from. If orders are given with ulterior or misleading intent only the one giving the orders knows. And, yes, there have been a number of suspicious "suicides" in the last couple of years.

Every talk to an ex-CIA? I have. Many are watched for life for what they know and are approached occasionally - could be on the street, could be on the beach in in the Carribean - and reminded to keep quiet about what to keep quiet about.

[seventhson]

12. The Historical Precedent is the Reichstag Fire in Germany

The German legislature was burned down to justify Hitler's acquisition of powers and to eviscerate their Constitution.

The Bushes financed Hitler and the Nazi party dooming 100's of Thousands of Americans to their deaths in WWII.

The precedent for the Bush family killing or aiding and abetting the killing of many thousands of Americans on 9-11 is their treasonous complicity with Hitler and the nazi party in WWII: 400,000+ Americans dead. Not to mention the Jews and all the other deaths they helped finance.

That is all the evidence I need. But there is more: Zbigniew Brzezinski (a Rockefeller strategist and Sec. of State under Carter, who was selected by David Rockefeller to be our President after the repubs flubbed with Nixon and Ford) outlined the thesis that a Pearl Harbor type of attack was needed on the US to get the American people to go along with and pay for a global war to consolidate "our" global hegemony.

It is Northwoods/Reichstag revisited. 9-11 that is. It was a solid plan and so far it has worked.

[durutti]

35. Oh, please...

The German legislature was burned down to justify Hitler's acquisition of powers and to eviscerate their Constitution.

Not all historians agree that the Reichstag fire was actually started by the Nazis.

The Bushes financed Hitler and the Nazi party dooming 100's of Thousands of Americans to their deaths in WWII.

And Jimmy Carter financed Suharto in Indonesia, killing tens of thousands of civilians, and Truman dropped atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Financing the killing of foreigners in a distant land is tolerable to these people; killing Americans civilians is not. Read Milgram's Obedience to Authority.

That is all the evidence I need. But there is more: Zbigniew Brzezinski (a Rockefeller strategist and Sec. of State under Carter, who was selected by David Rockefeller to be our President after the repubs flubbed with Nixon and Ford) outlined the thesis that a Pearl Harbor type of attack was needed on the US to get the American people to go along with and pay for a global war to consolidate "our" global hegemony.

You're right on this point. But it proves nothing.

[Occulus]

122. Untrue.

See my other post. The precedent for this is the Tuskeegee Experiment. They have no problem killing off a few civilians in order to get what they want.

[Cleita]

13. I'm not a LIHOPer but I do believe that it happened because

of their failed policies. After the first WTO attack in Clinton's administration, the White House took security measures to reduce the chances that millenium attacks would happen. Terrorists were intercepted and stopped at the Canadian border in one instance. In the early days of the Bush administration the arrogant need to undo anything that Clinton had done caused the Bush White House to reduce security at borders, airports and other venues.

Intelligence also was discarded and not even read. The Hart-Rudman act was given to the WH, a plan for a homeland security because of the possible threats that wasn't even looked at. This White House's policies left us as sitting ducks.

I think they wanted an incident to scare us and lead us into war so they made it easy to happen, but I don't think they imagined the magnitude of what did happen.

[Stephanie]

15. All you need to know for LIHOP is that they looked the other way

They knew there would be hijackings. It's not necessary for LIHOP that they knew the hijacked planes would be crashed into buildings, let alone which buildings. They had warnings, and their only response was to get Bush & Cheney out of town for a month. It's a crime of omission - it's what they DIDN'T do. Condi admitted in that press conference that they expected "conventional" hijackings. Why didn't they warn the airlines? Why wasn't NORAD alerted? If they expected conventional hijackings and did nothing, that's enough, that's LIHOP.

[rumguy]

16. that's the the kind of LIHOP

I find most plausible...

[Stephanie]

21. Yes. It's obvious. They got themselves out of harm's way.

But what did they do for us? Cowards. Traitors.

www.msnbc.com/news/907379.asp?0cv=KA01

The Secrets of September 11
The White House is battling to keep a report on the terror attacks secret. Does the 2004 election have anything to do with it?

April 30 — Even as White House political aides plot a 2004 campaign plan designed to capitalize on the emotions and issues raised by the September 11 terror attacks, administration officials are waging a behind-the-scenes battle to restrict public disclosure of key events relating to the attacks.

<snip>Some sources who have read the still-secret congressional report say some sections would not play quite so neatly into White House plans. One portion deals extensively with the stream of U.S. intelligence-agency reports in the summer of 2001 suggesting that Al Qaeda was planning an upcoming attack against the United States—and implicitly raises questions about how Bush and his top aides responded. One such CIA briefing, in July 2001, was particularly chilling and prophetic. It predicted that Osama bin Laden was about to launch a terrorist strike “in the coming weeks,” the congressional investigators found. The intelligence briefing went on to say: “The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.”

The substance of that intelligence report was first disclosed at a public hearing last September by staff director Hill. But at the last minute, Hill was blocked from saying precisely who within the Bush White House got the briefing when CIA director Tenet classified the names of the recipients. (One source says the recipients of the briefing included Bush himself.) As a result, Hill was only able to say the briefing was given to “senior government officials.”


www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A15957-2001
Summer Spinning
To GOP, Vacation Boosted Bush Agenda; To Democrats, Voters See a Shirk Ethic
Aug 29, <2001>

<snip>The White House had announced that Bush would stay at his 1,600-acre ranch in Crawford from Aug. 4 through Labor Day on Sept. 3, a 31-day stretch that would have broken a modern record for a presidential vacation, held by Richard M. Nixon for a 30-day trip to San Clemente, Calif., in 1969. News reports played up the record, and a Gallup Poll found that 55 percent of respondents thought Bush's vacation was too long.

The length of the trip revived old questions about Bush's work ethic, and the poll and the news coverage caused consternation in the White House. Aides said they had planned an ambitious schedule for Bush as long ago as late June, but reporters were not told about it, even after they landed here. The White House, suddenly defensive, took every opportunity to show Bush on the go and even created a "Western White House" logo for the briefing room at Crawford Elementary School. Bush revealed that his ranch had new video conferencing equipment for keeping in touch with his national security team.

www.jacksonholenews.com/Archives/NewsArchive/2001/010815-News.html
News story - Aug. 15, 2001
A Working Vacation
Vice President Cheney plans to fish, travel during month-long valley sojourn.
By Angus M. Thuermer Jr.

Vice President Dick Cheney took time off from his month-long working vacation Monday to outline his plans for August in Jackson Hole and to reflect on "an amazing year."

Cheney, who will live at his Teton Pines home about six miles west of Jackson until Labor Day, defended his energy policy, supported a local decision to limit drilling around the Gros Ventre Wilderness, recalled a life of service in Washington and said his health problems are not affecting his ability to fish for trout on his favorite Western waters.

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml
Ashcroft Flying High
WASHINGTON, July 26, 2001

(CBS) Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart.

In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.

"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.

[rumguy]

32. I want to know what the "threat assesment"

was that kept ashy off of public airliners

[Solomon]

108. And don't forget that in July of that year Bush attended an

international summit in Italy. Because there were specific threats to hijack a plan and crash it into the building where the summit was held, Italian air defenses were on alert and the air space protected during that time.

It stretches the imagination to believe what Condi Rice said after 9-11, i.e. that they had no idea the planes would be used to crash into buildings. This statement to me is the key. She kept saying that they thought it would be a traditional hijacking. I can see a scenario where the participants in the conspiracy thought they would let a "traditional hijacking" occur, and since the perpetrators were only armed with box cutters, they would recover and storm the planes, capturing the perpetrators with little death involved. Big Heroes! Then we would ratchet up the fear by pointing out all the other terrorist plans that these "hijackers" were engaged in.

Now these participants can't come out and admit that they shit their pants when instead of the hijackings they thought would occur, the planes smashed into the buildings. They must remain silent, even if they weren't part of the real conspiracy. As I said, many participants don't know what role they are really playing in this shit.

The key to conspiracy on the scale of 9-11 is for the master conspiracist to work things where the other participants don't really know they are participating in a conspiracy. Everyone, even people like Rumsfeld, is only on a need to know basis. The "hijackers" may have been guys hired by us who thought they were working for Al Qaeda. It's no doubt a murky world where hardly anyone knows who they are really working for.

As to the Pentagon, the poster here dismisses the problem of flying a 747 or 757 into the pentagon at such a low angle after executing a tight 270 degree turn at low altitude. Not something you can learn on computer simulators or peddle pusher school. Sure taking off is easy, anyone can do it. Landing is hard as hell and the crash into the pentagon took more precision than merely landing a plane. Also I 've read that on board computer systems will not let you fly that low at that speed without automatically lifting its flaps. Something did indeed hit the pentagon, but I don't believe it was a 747 or 757.

Also, all the plane debris around the pentagon the poster spoke of is a myth. Since none was shown on the few pictures we saw, people were saying it all "evaporated" in the crash. You can't have it both ways. Why all the talk about planes "evaporating" if there was so much debris at the pentagon?

Since the planes flying into the WTC was so shocking to the psyche, that's all they had to show us to get us to believe anything. They won't show us clear pictures of the plane flying into the pentagon, which I believe is under 24 hour surveillance. They just keep showing that WTC hit and that's all you need to know.

I believe that people on the level of the conspiracists don't have the same kind of emotions that the average person has. For example, if they really believed that what they were doing was for the ultimate good of america, or to save america, then I don't think they would hesitate to sacrifice 3,000 lives. Just like I truly believe that the Warren Commission did what they did to stop a potential nuclear war involving Russia. Doesn't matter whether it truly could have led to war, only that the participants believed it.

I'm clearly on the let it happen on purpose side. And to be honest, at this level, I see no appreciable difference between let in happen and made it happen. The perpetrators were shown the doors and the doors were left open. How did the perpetrators know that the air defense system would stand down? I believe the defenses were ordered to stand down so some cowboy wouldn't interfere with the plan for the "traditional hijacking". After all, we wouldn't want some brave cowboy to mess up the game plan.

As to Richard Meyers, no one knows where the hell he was and that bothers me to this day. He did absolutely nothing despite the fact that he was head of NORAD. He got promoted right away now didn't he?

If there were no LIHOP, then why all the fight to keep everything a secret?

[Timefortruth]

27. And why wasn't the Air Force on alert?

Or at least able to get jets in the air in a respectable amount of time? They weren't ready because a choice was made that whatever was being planned needed to happen.

If you want to be sure that they knew something was up check out the pathetic answer to the question of why Ashcroft stopped flying commercial airliners shortly before 9/11. When he stopped he said it was due to a threat, later he said that the threat mentioned was against him alone.

Ya think Janet Reno had any personal threats? Ashcroft's answer was nonsense and says all anyone needs to know.

[rumguy]

30. they were able to get jets up in the air

when Payne Stewart's private jet went off course...and this was in the heartland...you'd figure the East coast of all areas would be the most readied for an attack...

[Silverhair]

46. No, with the end of the cold war, we markedly reduced our

alert status. It takes money to keep a high alert posture, and the military had suffered in that aspect for several years.

[Stephanie]

48. In the face of all those warnings, anyone else wd have increased the alert

That's the question. They were warned. They did nothing.

[Silverhair]

95. Incompetence does not mean there was a LIHOP, it means

there was stupidity. There is a difference.

[Solomon]

109. Silverhair. I generally agree with and enjoy your posts, but on this one

the old "asleep at the switch" or "incompetence" angle you promote surprises me.

Washington, D.C. IS the nation's capital, and the pentagon IS the military nerve center of the so-called greatest nation on earth. We spend billions upon billions on defense and intelligence and you say we cut spending on "alert" etc. I'm sorry bro, but even if you cut spending, you wouldn't cut it to the point where the nation's capital is absolutely defenseless. That dog won't hunt. And to shove it off on incompetence, well, I got some swamp land to sell you. It's an excellent buy.

If it's incompetence, why weren't there mass scale firings? After all, it would have been an easy thing for Bush to blame it on Clinton and his left over appointees. Instead, the people who looked the other way got promoted.

I'm sorry, I'm just so sick of the "they were caught off-guard" bullshit and "they were incompetent". Within an hour of 9-11, there was Rummy calling for us to blame it on Iraq.

[Silverhair]

135. Thank you for the kind complement. On this one, then we shall

agree to disagree.

[rumguy]

49. the payne stewart incident was in 98 (I think)

long after the cold war ended...and air force jets responded to that and flew alongside the private jet and were even able to look inside it and see the people passed out...

they probably would have shot it down if it looked like it was going to crash into a city, instead it crashed in a field

[screembloodymurder]

132. I guess we did cause

they had two hours to put a plane in the air and didn't. It doesn't matter if it's MIHOP, LIHOP or incompetency, they are doing everything they can to squash the investigation.

[durutti]

37. Illogical

Any terrorist attack would be just as likely to target them as to target public sites. They wouldn't just look the other way because it could be their lives on the line.

[rumguy]

38. maybe they expected it to be regular garden variety

high-jackings...that wouldn't have put their lives in danger...

[Stephanie]

47. They got out of TOWN

They headed to Crawford and Jackson. They made sure their lives WEREN'T on the line. Just everybody else's.

[TomNickell]

77. No that's not LIHOP....

The 'crime of omission' is well established.

The conspiracist claim is that there were overt actions that aided the terrorists--FBI knew the details but deliberately did not act; Air Force could have intercepted planes, but deliberately did not.

[DemExpat]

98. I can go for the conspriacy of omission too.....

But about NORAD - how do THEY analyze what happened, or failed to happen, that day?

DemEx

[number6]

123. good point.

....

[DUreader]

20. LOL .. Not the Sacred American Govt... They would never harm civilians

HA HA HA HA

[pansypoo53219]

34. yeah

tell that to the tuskegee syphilus vics and agent orange vics. ect ect ect.

[nolabels]

44. That is funny......................

I have a question for LIHOP's, who was elected and who are the people that occupy the US federal Executive branch?

Officials Say Classified 9/11 Material Is 'Damning' | L.A. Times
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=48074

At last 9/11 Truth Gets a Day in Court
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=69827

Flight 93 Families Dispute FBI's Theory
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=57653

Kissinger & BCCI spells BUSH & 9-11
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=377323

WT7 Collapse Caught on Video ---------------------------MPEG PART 2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=219680

[leftofthedial]

33. tough?

1. Rumsfeld was about a mile away from the crash on the opposite side of the building (and it is a HUGE building), inside a bunker underneath the Pentagon. A direct hit nuke on the Pentagon and Rummie was still in the safest place in DC. Plus, Rummie is the sideshow clown for this corrupt cabal. Expendable.

2. First, those involved don't leak.They have trillions of dollars, ideological zealousness and unlimited power at stake. Second, if there was a leak, the leaker's family would all disappear and the most expensive media smear campaign in the history of the earth would immediately discredit the leaker (see Scott Ritter, see Al Gore, see Bill Clinton). Third, it didn't take that many people to pull it off.

3. American foreign policy has put American civilians in harms way for our entire history--even before the Revolution. From the then Northwest Frontier during the French and Indian Wars, to American citizens living in Germany during the early days of WWII, to unwitting civilian guinea pigs during nuclear testing in the 50's and 60's, to American civilians in Central America during Reagan's illegal wars of the 1980's, our gummint views us as expendable.

Those are not the tought quesitons about LIHOP

[durutti]

41. Disappearances?

1. Rumsfeld was about a mile away from the crash on the opposite side of the building (and it is a HUGE building), inside a bunker underneath the Pentagon. A direct hit nuke on the Pentagon and Rummie was still in the safest place in DC. Plus, Rummie is the sideshow clown for this corrupt cabal. Expendable.

O.K., I can buy this explanation.

2. First, those involved don't leak.They have trillions of dollars, ideological zealousness and unlimited power at stake. Second, if there was a leak, the leaker's family would all disappear and the most expensive media smear campaign in the history of the earth would immediately discredit the leaker (see Scott Ritter, see Al Gore, see Bill Clinton). Third, it didn't take that many people to pull it off.

Leaks are routine. They happen all the time. Yet here aren't mass disappearances...

Gore and Clinton didn't leak anything. They just pissed off a bunch of people.

Scott Ritter didn't leak anything, either. He just made claims that seemed to contradict what he'd said years earlier (though now I believe he was telling the truth).

[Silverhair]

40. The attempt is futile.

Mo matter what evidence that you present to a conspiracy theorist, (CTist) they will simply weave it into the fabric of the fantasy and make it part of the proof of the CT. A CT is not logical, it is very much like a religion. Look how fast some CTists have been to claim the Mickael Jackson's arrest was part of a conspiracy by Bush. They are also claiming that the DC sniper was a CIA operative, and that McVeigh wasn't executed because he was a CIA spook too. I read one CT here that even thinks MJ is a CIA operative.

Notice how they always bring up the Riechstag fire, as if an action by pre-WWII Nazis proved anything today. By their logic, Bill killed Joe 80 years ago, therefore Jim killed Frank today.

I do not understand what purpose their religion serves in their lives, but I have learned to leave it alone.

[The Magistrate]

43. It Does This, Sir

It builds self-esteem, by allowing a self-conception as one possessed of secrets denied to ordinary mortals, and known only to the initiated elect.

It comforts sensibilities terrified by the random whimsey of this chaotic universe; even a malicious and all encompassing plan is a more comforting thought than realizing Murphy and Glitch really are in charge.

It excuses inertia and inaction, for if all is directed by an all-powerful and infallible cabal, surely there is nothing to be done, and thus no reason to organize, and do real work, as this will surely fail, extinguished by the conspirators.

[rumguy]

51. some of these are just questions that need answering

I don't necessarily believe LIHOP - but can't definetaly rule it out either as the govt. has hardly investigated it at all....it's scared to...I believe more money was spent investigating what happened to the break up of the shuttle over TX recently than has been spent investigating security breaches that occurred on 9/11 and the yr.s before...

actually I pretty much doubt LIHOP, but I need some questions answered by my govt.

[bpilgrim]

74. yeah, it's all in our heads...

there are no conspiracies and never had been... we are all on an ego trip.

yeah, that expalins EVERYTHING like SOP, wtc7, plans to attack afghanistan and iraq beforehand, the SECRET energy policy, kissinger heading up the investigation, PNAC, patriot act, all the secrecy, etc.

remember perl harbor? turns out that not only did we know it was comming but we prodded it along.

not to mention many other of our wars started with LIES we would never believe our GOV could do such a thing.

please, pretty weak rebuttal if you ask me to out of hand dismiss anyone who points out quite REASONABLY that our gov might be involved.

well it is in a LOT of folks heads around the world and it is only growing.

explain what happened to wtc7 to start please...
http://globalfreepress.net/911/wt7/flash_8fps/wtc7.8fps.swf

i just want the truth and so far we are far from it but i am certainly willing to look at it... if you got some.

:hi:

peace

[The Magistrate]

75. On This Matter, My Friend

We are unlikely to ever see quite eye to eye. Still, if we all agreed, the place would be a damned dreary bore, eh?

Be well, Sir! Always a pleasure to see you around the place.

[starroute]

103. We have lived in a climate of helplessness for 40 years

I grew up in the 50's and the 60's, and the expectation I and my contemporaries had was that we would grow up to do great things, would get our hands on the levers of power, and would make a real difference in the world.

That expectation died gradually during the long, painful decade between Kennedy's assassination and the 1972 presidential election. It was replaced by a sense of general helplessness, a pervasive feeling that things were only going to get worse and that there was nothing we could do about it.

The root of this helplessness is a perception that history is dominated, on one hand, by random events and lone crazies and, on the other, by a generalized climate of greed and incompetence. That there is no one to blame, no one to point to as responsible, no point of attack at which to start straightening things out.

I hate that perception. It has trashed everything I looked forward to and took joy in the expectation of being part of as I was growing up, and it has blighted my adult years and made them less productive and less fulfilling that they should have been. (And I think most of my fellow-boomers would say the same.)

In this climate of general frustration and aimlessness, the conspiracy theorists are the only ones with a coherent alternative -- the only ones who seem able to insist that we are not helpless, that we have very real and specific enemies, and that if we can identify them and take action against them, we will start to move forward again. Whether they're right or wrong on the specifics, that attitude seems to me psychologically far healthier.

The meta-theory behind all the particular conspiracy theories, as I see it, is the notion that at the dawn of the 20th century, the world was truly headed for the bright future glimpsed in the utopian novels of the time -- a future characterized by a democratic global society, economic security for all, and an abundance of technological marvels. And that all the appalling events which have derailed that future, starting with World War I and the rise of fascism, were brought about by rich, powerful men who did not want to accept the loss of power that such a society would bring.

I don't know if that meta-theory is true or not. But I think I could make a pretty good case for it, just drawing on public records and documented statements. (And with references to science fiction stories and rock lyrics thrown in for illumination.)

Within the context of that theory, what really matters is that the Neocons *wanted* something like 9/11 to happen, and they got it.

Drawing exact connections is difficult, and the chain of causality by which the Neocons got their Pearl Harbor may be far more subtle and indirect than either MIHOP or LIHOP would acknowledge. There are certain stories which are mythically true without being factually accurate, and LIHOP might fall into that category.

But I do believe that, at this point, it is far more useful and positive to think in terms of LIHOP than to slip back into the nobody-to-blame mindset. LIHOP points the finger at the real villains and focuses our attention on the attitudes and policies which have got us into our current mess. And that is essential if we are ever to get out of it.

[The Magistrate]

138. That 'Meta Theory' Is Not True, Ma'am

All twentieth century history does indeed come out of the Great War, but that did not by any means de-rail a steady advance towards utopia. Its outbreak and most of its course, as well, provides a text-book illustration of blunder, and un-intended consequence, as the principal engine of history.

[leftofthedial]

45. or how about this?

No matter what evidence that you present to an anti-conspiracy theorist,
(ACTist) they will simply weave it into the fabric of the fantasy and make
it part of the proof that no CT exists.


Any reasonable person knows there never has been a conspiracy in the history of our species. It is simply illogical to conceive that two or more people could EVER plan to commit a crime together. EVERY conspiracy would always result in one of the conspirators leaking and then the whole house of cards would come crashing down. Ergo, conspiracies CANNOT happen.

I say just ignore the conspiracy theorists because they obviously are delusional. And no one would ever repat an act that was successful. Joe robbed a bank on Tuesday, which is total proof that Frank did not rob a bank on Friday (never mind that we have witnesses who song Frank go in the bank wearing a ski mask and then run away a few minutes later.

Ostrich. Head. Sand.

[Silverhair]

50. Very poor logic, but then, it is a type of religion.

You are trying to argue that because some comspiracies have indeed existed, therefore ALL the CTs are true, no matter how hairbrained and illogical. The proof of one conspiracy, or even several, does not constitue proof of any other conspiracies.

[bobbyboucher]

54. Hmmm, sounds remarkably similar

to your "DC sniper" and "MJ CIA agent" strawmen blather a couple posts up. Eerily similar in fact. Are you suggesting that all conspiracy theories be lumped together? Sure sounds like it. If so, isn't this post sort of hypocritical?

If you don't believe that there are a whole boatload of questions that need answering regarding 9/11 then that's fine. If that's how you deal, whatev.

I have a lot of questions.

As for conspiracy theories being a religion, nice try. Goes well with your gaudy "Conspiracy Theory Buster" hat. Now go ahead and roll out the some tired cliche'. That would be perfect.

[nolabels]

57. I bet King George of England said some of the same things.........

about the colonists, when they decided to throw the tea in the bay. They said screw you Georgie boy, we are going on revolt. The poor fool must have thought he had all of them wrapped around his little finger. Of course that was no conspiracy either, I'm sure.

The effing US historians would just put on the ledgers that they were being Patriotic. While on the kings side, it would just be penciled in as a business loss.

That is the problem so many times with some people. They dislike the words because it means nobody is really in control, and then they become disagreeable. They jump on it want to debate everybody and tell them how their language and culture is supposed to work instead of what they see with their own eyes

The weight of the evidence seems to be against the people that say everything was normal and it happened as it should have all along.

On edit: sorry for the poor writing skills, and grammer, but if more lumps that were trained and employed to be journalists would be doing their job, ah forget it..............

[Solomon]

112. No no no. It is you who are trying to debunk conspiracy by

pointing to something that was not a conspiracy as though no conspiracies ever existed. That is faulty logic.

[Solomon]

111. You know. Just because some people believe there's a

conspiracy behind everything, doesn't mean that a particular conspiracy didn't happen. You use the nuts the discount the whole idea.

First of all let's make matters very very clear. You obviously believe the story that Bin Laden was behind the attacks, despite the fact that he denied it and our government publicized a fake tape of him taking credit for it. But the point is this, if you believed that Bin Laden was behind it, then we can all agree, in as much as Bin Laden did not actually fly the planes in to the buildings, that it was INDEED A CONSPIRACY. Right? That fact is undeniable. It was a conspiracy. So all this talk about people thinking everything is a "conspiracy" is irrelevant.

If you want to make your position clear, you should refer to what you call "conspiracy", as "government conspiracy" or some other term to distinguish it from the plane fact of conspiracy, which it obviously had to be.

Americans are sooo damn naive. We have nooooo problem studying the conspiracies and assasinations etc of the nations of europe over the centuries, even Rome, but somehow, Americans could never engage in such skull duggery. It amazes me to no end. How did we get to be so perfect in the world? What a myth. Ranks up there with the good guys in the white hats.

[durutti]

52. All LIHOPers Read This FAQ

http://www.zmag.org/content/Instructionals/shalalbcon.cfm

[rumguy]

53. doesn't change the fact the shocking negligence occurred...

so shocking that it raises doubts...

[durutti]

58. Negligence, sure...

And the Bushies should be held accountable for it. And of course none of this stuff justifies the "war on terrorism". But conspiracy theory hurts the case, for a great number of reasons.

And that's the point. Whether Bush knew or not is IRRELEVENT. It draws peoples' attention away from the real issues.

[Stephanie]

62. DELIBERATE negligence

And are you seriously saying that it doesn't matter whether Bush knew?

By deriding "conspiracy theories" you are playing right into the hands of Karl Rove. The constant repetition of the phrase "conspiracy theory" to dismiss legitimate, unanswered questions is the same old Rove tactic. They used it in Florida. "The votes have been COUNTED and COUNTED and COUNTED AGAIN." Well sure, but we still don't know the total.

You need to distinguish between those red herring "conspiracy theories" in the article you posted, and the very real questions that deserve answers. There is a disinformation campaign underway designed to lump everything together, so the average reader will throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Just ask yourself this: if Bush has nothing to hide, then WHY has he done everything in his power to censor reports, not turn over documents, even prevent an investigation in the first place? If the pResident has nothing to hide, why is he hiding???

[durutti]

67. As I said in another thread...

The administration's stonewalling is just a likely concealing incompetence as complicity.

[The Magistrate]

69. Incompetence, Mr. Durruti, Is The Raw Material Of History

"Never attribute to malice what stupidity will suffice to explain."

[rman]

118. don't attribute, rather seek evidence

Provided there indeed is fire where now appears to be smoke,
eventually circumstantial evidence will mount to a point where to many people have suspicions for things to remain covered up. Then investigations will start, outside of the control of the conspirators.

[The Magistrate]

139. Our Standards Of Evidence, Sir, Are Likely To Differ Somewhat....

[rman]

146. that wouldn't surprise me

attributing certainly is not my idea of providing evidence.

[FlaGranny]

124. And, is that not a conspiracy? A conspiracy to hide incompetence.

Just call me "doubting Thomas" I guess. I have doubted much about our government since the day JFK was assassinated. The poster summarized it correctly above. In the 50's and early 60's before the assassination, we had a sense that everything was going to be okay. Things were on the road to improvement. We were going to be able to make the world better. We had optimism for the future. Since then, this has been ripped from us by events that have gotten us to where we are now. Who has benefitted from where we are now? Who has lost? Logically, has every event in the past 40 years accidentally led us to where we are now - or has some group been instrumental with a push here and a shove there to get us here? You might call it strategy, but I find it very much a conspiracy because of the criminal, secretive, underhanded, and misleading methods employed.

While certainly not EVERYTHING has been a conspiracy, I feel that to discount the possibility is nothing less than foolish. An "everything is only a coincidence" theory is just not justified. How are we to believe anything from our government when they have obviously lied about so much?

About 911, I am inclined to believe that it was "negligent homicide." People sometimes go to jail for negligent homicide.

[Silverhair]

134. Yes, there was definately some really serious bungling going on

and a cover up of that blundering. But that is not the same as a LIHOP.

[bpilgrim]

136. right now it is within the realm of possibility

due to the MASSIVE breakdown of SOP right throught to the SS not whisking * out of class

all the warnings recieved at the highest levels before hand

how we reacted afterwards

the secret energy deals

PNAC

no investigator worth their salt would exclude the admin from the relm of suspision with all we now know.

surely most reasonable folks would agree with that.

peace

[FlaGranny]

142. Not the same, but close.

It's not like they had no idea such a thing could happen. They did absolutely nothing with the information the Clinton administration supplied them with. Negligence. Not too long ago in this area, a man was sent to prison for his negligence in causing a fatal accident. The man did not set out that morning to kill someone, but his (criminal) negligence caused another to die, and he did time for it.

If, instead of ignoring the situation, bush had put resources into antiterrorism efforts, 9/11 may have been prevented. But, even if it were not prevented, at least we would know that he tried. Right now, ports, power plants, and other targets are sitting ducks and the resources have not been provided to protect them. Instead, he puts our resources into attacking Iraq. When one of these unprotected facilities is hit (I'm certain the administration is aware of the threat), and nothing has been done to prevent it, is that letting it happen or purpose, or just criminal negligence? I see don't see a lot of difference.

[bobbyboucher]

55. Stop labeling people, it's tiresome.

Read your own propaganda, I've seen enough to know there's some crooked shit going on.

[durutti]

59. LOL

That's right. I work for the CIA.

[nolabels]

66. This assumes that it's all planed out, One thing that is not noticed...

That it would take only a handful of people ont the top to pull it off with MIHOP or LIHOP. All kinds of things could have went on. As a mater fact they still do. To say they are being truthfull about 9/11 when they have been so wrong (lying about Iraq, afganistan and endless other things) begs the question Why do they lie? Also when and why should anybody believe anything that comes out of DC.

[Timefortruth]

99. That link is nonsense.

It dismisses all theories as preposterous because many are. Common sense dictates that there is more to 9/11 then the public knows, but if you believe that you are included in the same group who think space aliens did it.

There are credible, worthwhile issues that are not addressed at all just because most people don’t know to ask them, or because they don’t care.

[Stephanie]

56. Check it out - Cleland's off the Committee!

How very conveeeenient.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20031123-091108-4750r.htm
New job takes Cleland off 9/11 panel

WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 (UPI) -- Former Sen. Max Cleland, a Democrat, has been nominated by President Bush to serve on the board of the Export-Import Bank.

As a result he will have to leave the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

The statutes governing the panel, formally known as The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, bar anyone who holds a federal job like being on the Ex-Im Board.

Cleland has been one of the more outspoken members of the commission,
accusing the administration of delaying access to vital documents in an effort to run out the clock on its investigation. The panel, which started work at the beginning of the year, must submit its report by a congressionally mandated deadline of May 27, 2004.

Commission spokesman Al Felzenberg told United Press International that Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle will nominate Cleland's replacement.

[Darranar]

60. Lots of others come to mind...

but the main reason I'm skeptical about LIHOP is that mistakes happen. Human failure and human stupidity is responsible for a whole lot of othe horrible things that have gone on and are going on in our world. How can you say that this was any different?

The Bush Administration is certainly capable of doing such a thing for their own gain. I do not dispute that; the past few years have proven it. However, that they could have does not mean that they did.

[msmcghee]

61. LIHOP doesn't mean . .

. that they knew exactly what was going to happen. I believe they were aware that some major attack was imminent. They may have had some indication of the nature of the attack - but probably pulled off any investigators (I think there is documented evidence of them pulling the FBI off).

They did this because they reasoned that an attack that actually kills Americans would make their "Plan for the New American Century" - a slam dunk - which is also irrefutably documented.

Granted, I am speculating that they had an indication that something big was going to happen. But to believe otherwise, you have to believe that they just were not reading or believeing their daily intelligence briefings. We haven't seen those yet - maybe we'll never see them - but that just adds to the liklihood that they did LIHOP.

[Octafish]

63. AG Ashcroft ordered to stop flying commercial in July 2001.

The reason was someone was worried about airline safety. Why didn't Bush and the cabal warn the airports, the airlines and the flying public? My GUESS is he didn't want to. What's yours? Here's the article:

ASHCROFT FLYING HIGH

July 26, 2001 (CBS) — Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart.

In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.

"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.

A senior official at the CIA said he was unaware of specific threats against any Cabinet member, and Ashcroft himself, in a speech in California, seemed unsure of the nature of the threat.

CONTINUED...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml

[EV1Ltimm]

64. fair enough.

but...

Do you honestly think that someone who is willing to do anything to gain power wouldn't be willing to do anything to maintain it?

[knight_of_the_star]

65. My crack at it

1. It is entirely possible that AFTER the little intell briefing in August of that year Rumsfeld ordered NORAD and/or the FAA to report ANYTHING they thought was suspicious either to him or Cheney, like something that they would scramble aircraft for in case of emergency. If that is the case, then as soon as things started to go funky, even if Bushy baby was in harms way they would have been able to figureo ut an excuse to get him OUT of the way and make sure that anyone that the PNAC needed would be in a place that was safe and secure (relatively anyway) without rousing undue suspiscion or panic.

2. I'm willing to bet that if a leak occured that BushCo simply made sure that unless someone fairly high up leaked info that it wouldn't matter. They probably made sure that if ANYONE had ANYTHING that could be problematic that they wouldn't have enough info for it to be harmful. Like the CIA leaking that they were giving out warnings, well, we all know how good their rep was BEFORE 9/11 (see Pakistan and India). That and they also made sure that the info would be such that it would be easy for the media to "ignore" it.

3. With this government threatening to use nukes in Iraq, I am willing to believe that they WOULD kill American civilians to get what they wanted. That and when you look at how the regime has been acting since 9/11 and you look at the PNAC, those people are the utterly ruthless kind of individuals that would do whatever it took to gain and keep power. The infamous memo stating that we would need a "Pearl Harbour" to get the people to our agenda hints that they would have no problem letting a massive attack such as 9/11 happen to further their agenda.

[DoYouEverWonder]

70. Bu$h, Rumsfeld and Myers failure to react

First of all, Myers was not in the Pentagon on 9-11, he was walking into Max Cleland's office and saw the first report of the WTC being hit. Despite the fact that he knew a plane had hit the first tower, he stayed in Cleland's office until just after the Pentagon got hit and only then did he react to the national emergency.

Rumsfeld was in a very secure bunker in a meeting with Paul Wolfowitz and others. Victoria Clark informed them that the first tower had been hit. They continued with their meeting and did nothing until the Pentagon was hit.

Bu$h was on his way to Booker Elementary. When he arrived he acknowleged that he had heard about the first tower. He continued on with his scheduled event. Andrew Card informed him that the second tower had been hit while he was reading with a group of second graders. Bu$h continued with the reading lesson for at least 10 minutes and then went to prepare a statement about the WTC attack.

So out of the three people who should have responded immediately to an obvious national emergency, all of them chose to ignore the situation until after the Pentagon was hit. Keep in mind that all three of these men should have been notified within minutes of 4 passenger jets going off the grid that a major event was underway. And even if they weren't notified then, they all admit to being notified of the first plane hitting the WTC. But despite these facts they did nothing. Despite the fact that they knew that 1000's of Americans were dying at that very moment, they did nothing. The only thing they did do, was to sit back and let the events take their course.

If this isn't a classic case of LIHOP, then our senior command is so incredibly stupid they're a danger to the planet. Either way they need to be removed from power and should be awaiting trail for the crimes they committed on 9-11.

[rumguy]

71. good explanation

and then couple that with the inordinately long amount of time it took for them to get fighters up...

[DoYouEverWonder]

72. Fighters were up

they were just never given any orders to respond to the event. Myers admitted this in his testimony at his confirmation hearing.

[rumguy]

73. I think they were given orders to head towards the towers

but it was like way to late...yah what I mean is that they were never directed there...not that they weren't up...

[fujiyama]

80. I remember...

his appearance at the school vividly, and my first thought was "Oh shit this idiot's in charge?"

It's very strange that after the first tower was hit, he showed so little interest (I just remember that dumb look on his face), and it took so many minutes after the second, to actually do something. I mean, my first reaction would be some emotion, some shock, something. I would have expected them to wheel in a damn TV set right that minute...Wouldn't the other teachers and people in that room be interested in something like that?

After all, I was in my room that morning, and then my mom said "this is strange...a plane hit the WTC". The first thing I did was go and turn on the TV and see what the hell had happened. And I think it was pretty clear to anyone after the second plane hit that this was one of the most significant and horrific days this nation had ever faced.

To me this doesn't necessarily mean they knew EXACTLY what would happen, but it shows a real callousness in not taking immediate action. I simply cannot understand why he wasn't informed immediately after the first plane crashed and cleared out of the room. That first crash itself should have rung a lot of bells. Hell, I remember thinking terrorism was a possibility before the second confirmed it.

It's obvious that there were enough signals beforehand to beef up security drastically. After all they took the precautions themselves (Ashcroft not flying the commercial jets is one indication they knew something would happen). The ignored whistle blower FBI agent, the whole talk of flight training, the Hart Rudman commision and report, the massive amounts of money transferred from the ME. I think this was enough information to stop it beforehand.

I'm not so willing to believe they knew the Pentagon wasa target. I really don't think they would "sacrifice" any members in the administration.

But, with what information that's available, and their actions otherwise, it is blatantly obvious they were criminally negligent. I guess you could call that LIHOP.

[TomNickell]

76. Yeah, When will construction of that pipeline start????

You know, the one across Afghanistan that was supposed to be the motive for 9/11. So they could attack the Taliban.

But they really wanted to attack Iraq, so they planted evidence that Saudi's did the hijackings.

And then they attacked Iraq, but they frigged that up so bad there may be no way out and S. Hussein keeps giving them the finger.

So maybe they should go back and build that pipeline after all.

[rumguy]

78. That pipeline could happen...

but the motives ascribed under the LIHOP theory are more complex than just a pipeline...

[The Magistrate]

79. That Thing Will Never Be Built, Sir

It has never been anything more than a pipe dream....

[Dogmudgeon]

84. A brief note on The Pipeline and oil

Talk about conspiracies!

The amount of oil under the Central Asian tectonic plate(s) is far less than we have been assuming. I remember that as recently as 2002, corporate petrologists were saying that there was potentially over 1 trillion barrels of oil under Iraq and the Caspian Basin; it is now quietly turning out that their estimates were off by an order of magnitude; I have not seen any recent report placing the reserve at over 300 bln barrels. And keep in mind that only 25% of that is cheaply exploitable, and a full 50% requires more energy to get to than the energy value from the oil itself.

The oil under Afghanistan is said to be negligable.

I would otherwise provide complete cites, but I'm writing this as a footnote. In my own "conspiracy theory", I look at the Bush-al-Qaeda-Oil-PNAC axis as a poorly-assembled rabble of rich looters and maniacs trying to make hay from the impending drastic changes in the world economic situation.

It does deserve its own thread ... several of them a week ...

--bkl

[slaveplanet]

86. + what is there

Has a very high sulfur content....very difficult to refine, what they really want is the Venezuelan crude...practically gasoline in the ground.

the Opium business on the otherhand, is moving along swimmingly.

[Dogmudgeon]

87. This could become a driving force

Imagine the effect of $90/barrel oil, $8/gallon gasoline and $20/MBTU natural gas on the world economy. By 2030, we'll be burning old tires if we have to. Those prices are my wild-assed-guesstimates based on the oil depletion curves generated by Hubbert, Ivanhoe, and Laherrere.

Now 2030 is still 25 years away, but 25 years ago, I was starting college. 1978 still has some immediacy for me. So 2030 is not so far away after all. Burning high-sulfur oil will not raise any of the environmental concerns of global warming, since I am convinced that in 25 years, the climate will be well on its way back to an ice age as a reaction to the current warming, and so many people in the USA will be reduced to hardscrabble poverty that staying warm will overrule any argument against poisoned air.

The free ride is over.

The most abundant hydrocarbon resource on this planet is in the form of the so-called Heavy Hydrocarbons like shale oil, heavy crude, and natural bitumen. There is about 5-8 trillion barrels of recoverable HH. But there are problems with the heavy hydrocarbons -- first, they are difficult to process without a large energy expenditure for the superhot steam required to "crack" them out of the rock, so they currently can not be profitably or economically extracted on a large scale.

Second, northern Canada has the lion's share of the HH. Great news, right? All we have to do is to invade Canada. That, and find a cheap way to heat pressurized water to 700F in the middle of an increasingly difficult area.

You know, all that Afghani opium could come in mighty handy under such conditions.

But I'm hijacking this thread again. Bad, bad BKL!

--bkl

[The Magistrate]

140. Venezuelan Crude, Sir

Is damned near tar. Do, please, look again.

[slaveplanet]

141. "Zuata sweet"

Is not tar. The eastern fIelds are very valuable. But they of course, are no Iraq.

Upgrader will produce approximately 180,000 bpd of a very high quality light, sweet crude oil named “Zuata Sweet”. It will have a 30 – 32 oAPI, and a sulfur content of 0.12 wt%.

[The Magistrate]

143. A Small Portion Of The Out-Put, Sir

The thickness of the oil is the reason there was such a wide expectation it would take a tremendous amount of time to restore production after the strike cum coup recently against Col. Chavez.

[bpilgrim]

85. one of them unknown, knowns getting in the way...

damn terrorist!

maybe not everything is going according to plan?

or maybe it is...

many thought we wouldn't go into iraq, how do you know where we are going next?

they say they have sixty countries on their list... whos to say saudi ain't on it? no one has seen the list or have you?

THEY say they are going to redraw the map in the ME and bring democracy there... is not saudi part of the ME?

and are you denying that they aint trying to build pipelines :shrug:

:crazy:

peace

[bpilgrim]

94. Saudi Arabia cannot stay a family-owned business

Jim Oberwetter, the Texas oil executive nominated by President Bush to be the new U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, reportedly hopes to promote religious and political freedoms in that kingdom. Good luck.

Few countries are more tightly controlled than Saudi Arabia. The royal family chooses to run the place, which sits on approximately 25 percent of the world's available oil reserves, virtually as a family-owned business.

Relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia have deteriorated since the terrorists attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, partly because of strong evidence that members of the royal family are covertly financing al-Qaida in its war against the West. The country is the birthplace of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 9/11 hijackers. In financing al-Qaida terrorist operations against the United States and other Western nations, the Saudis hoped to keep the terrorists from striking them.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/2247657

peace

[Dogmudgeon]

83. Conspiracy Theory phobia

Conspiracy Theory phobia is absolute nonsense.

As wacky as some of the conspiracy theories may be, the idea that conspiracies do not exist is complete bunk. A significant number of the people who have been convicted of a felony have also faced conspiracy chrages; why is it so illogical, irrational, and contemptible that the powerful and well-connected also conspire? And even as wacky as some of the conspiracy theories may be, they have frequently been the only ones to press issues that have been written off with a smug giggle and a cocktail-party bon mot.

While conspiracy theorists have been publically psychoanalyzed (usually to their detriment, for the enhancement of the public "rep" of the mock analyst), the anti-conspiracy-theorists have seldom gotten the same scrutiny. There's two big reasons why conspiracy theories are mocked these days. From the side of the powerful, there is the motivation to cover their guilty, lying asses. And from the hipsters, there's the need to prove to the world that they are Superior Thinkers who have taken the full measure of the conspiracy theorists and have found them wanting.

There are, however, excellent rebuttals to be made against any particular theory, and that's the strength of democratic public argument. My concern is that intimidation-through-ridicule has become a staple of our social world, and serves only to keep people in line, no matter what "line" has been chosen -- and whether it is a Party Line, or a line or adult peer-pressure.

I agree, the existence of Grand Conspiracies is highly unlikely. Yes, there is too much motivation for any single member of a Grand Cabal to have a change of heart, or to sell out. No, the Jews are not trying to brainwash us and steal our money, the CFR is not trying to force Socialism on the world, and the Royal Family is not trying to bring about a new dark ages so they can sell dope. Still, it does not argue against other conspiracies, formally constituted or not.

On the other other hand, I'll look at anybody's wild-assed guess. And it hurts who ... ?

The conspiracy to dive a handful of passenger jets into the WTC and Pentagon is well-established. The "official" view is that it was a plan of opportunity, audaciously executed by al-Qaeda. The views that are mocked in the press range from the very well-supported to the completely lunatic. But it seems to be one of those Iron Laws of Mass Media that the theories getting the most press are the ones that are easiest to mock. The Commentariat doesn't quite set their chosen goats up for Straw Man treatment, but the result comes close.

I maintain that there is an over-all agenda to destroy conspiracy theorizing by ridicule. No additional, complex conspiracy need be invoked, as social pressure does the heavy lifting. My personal contention is that the Powerful want cover, while the Hip want peace of mind.

And they deserve neither.

--bkl

[JackRiddler]

88. Hope this isn't too redundant...

1. Myers wasn't at the Pentagon. Rummy (even noting that he IS expendable, anyone might turn up as "collateral damage") was in his bunker, on the opposite side from the attack. Amazingly, the plane did a 270-degree turn to hit the side of the building that was just renovated and reinforced against terrorist attack with extra steel columns and blast-proof windows. Most of the offices there were still empty. Most of those killed were construction and helipad workers. Damn, what a poor shot for the hijackers. What's significant here is that one could interpret this as an effort to minimize the casualties.

Why didn't they target the (front) side known to contain the JCS offices?

2. Remember, no one who has the WHOLE picture (i.e., is among the select masterminds/facilitators who can give a complete picture of how the plot was pulled off) is likely to leak - only people with partial pictures.

What are Cleland's and Graham's revelations, if not tantamount to leaks? And note: How did the media react? With a veil of silence. Where is the incentive to leak, when the leaker knows he may be risking his life and credibility? See what happened to McKinney (not a leak, since she didn't have the inside dope like Cleland and Graham do, but she DID pose the valid questions and look what happened to her!) Contrary to Hollywood movies, whistleblowers do not get rewarded.

What did it mean when Bush tried to appoint Kissinger to lead the Commission? What does it mean now, when Bush bribes Cleland to LEAVE the commission. Are these not tantamount to confessions that Bush is hiding something ATROCIOUS?

Leaks to really count must be high-level and comprehensive. There have been a few lower-level leaks. Colleen Rowley was even on the cover of TIME as one of the Whistleblowers/Persons of the Years, and her 13-page letter to Mueller on FBI failure to follow up on warnings clearly implies obstruction, not incompetence. The FBI officer responsible for blocking the investigations, Frasca, was promoted.

Col. Ken McClellan (I believe) said five hijackers were known to have trained with the U.S. military. He was made to EAT those words a week later. Van Romero of the New Mexico terrorism center (a government contractor) said the buildings were hit by controlled demolition. He retracted 10 days later, under pressure.

Steve Butler of the Monterrey Defense Language Institute (apparently attended by 3 of the alleged hijackers) wrote he was convinced Bush had foreknowledge. He was given an early retirement and almost court-martialed. ATCs around the Northeast have been placed under gag orders, at penalty of losing their jobs.

Jim Hatfield was the first to report on a plane-crash-into-Bush's-location story in July 2001, and to claim this leak originated with the CIA. He "committed suicide" two weeks later.

John O'Neill would have apparently been running around screaming about the Saudi connection, too bad he was killed on 9/11.

So what happens after 9/11? Myers gets promoted. Frasca gets promoted. Sliney who was handling the FAA - NORAD contact gets promoted. Rowley is no longer with the FBI. None of the responsible ATCs have ever spoken out except for Danielle O'Brien, who was TROTTED out. The Commissioner who complains the loudest, Cleland, is bribed/blackmailed off the Commission.

Do you begin to see a pattern here? Why should I assume incompetence or malice? I WANT THE FACTS, NOT EXCUSES BASED ON CLEVER QUOTES. When all the documents have been thrown open - when all the physical evidence has been opened to independent scrutiny - when the commission takes public testimony under oath and asks the REAL open questions of 9/11 - then we can debate incompetence or malice. Until then, I DEMAND DISCLOSURE!

Read this:

3. Gimme a break. Please. Review MK-ULTRA, Project Artichoke, COINTELPRO, the known history of radiation experiments on civilians and military alike, the history of LSD, CIA-Drugs, Contra-cocaine, germ warfare experiments on both military and civilians (New York subway in 1967), the whole history of wars (no problem having 57,000 Americans knocked off in Vietnam now, was there), the history of atomic bomb testing (all those nice white Republican MORMONS who died and never got a straight story from their government)... to say nothing of all the protection given to corporations for many DECADES in matters like the effects of tobacco and a variety of other drugs and environmental poisons... you can't be serious here! Of course they have TARGETED Americans before. And 9/11 (like many of the examples above) did not even require them to TARGET; they merely had to write off a certain number of New Yorkers (primarily non-white working class non-republican people) as EXPENDABLE. That is a BIG difference!

[slaveplanet]

89. MIHOP- all the way

end of story

[goforit]

102. Here here!!!!!...............MIHOP and nothing less.

And a sloppy job at best.

[agincourt]

91. You have to judge

the administration by it's religous roots, as there is a motive for the murder of 3000 besides just greed. For biblical fundamentalists, like those who rule this country through the GOP, abortion is literally the holocaust. They firmly believe that abortion literally seconds after conception is murder. To kill a mere 3000 to alter the political landscape, so there is no abortion, they would find that acceptable. They would be preventing a genocide of the unborn that they feel takes many times the lives of 9-11. Conservatives are always really keen on making people feel pain to teach them a lesson. Will we ever have all the physical proof of LIHOP? Most likely not , but we do know that the powers that be could justify LIHOP to teach people a moral lesson, at least in their own world.

[slaveplanet]

93. Then again...

they could be Luciferians...

Performing a ritual sacrifice...

[DemExpat]

96. My husband rejects all conspiracy theories.....says its gross bungling,

negligence too perhaps.
He has a point, too, because his reasoning is that so many people would have to know about such a sequence of orders, plans, of events, that SOMEONE would leak it out....

:shrug:

DemEx

[Silverhair]

97. Your husband is right. n/t

[JackRiddler]

100. Well, gee...

My WIFE is a math teacher and she says it was an inside job. Her reasoning is that it's impossible to have so many coincidences go the same way and produce exactly the result the State would have wanted to see in the first place.

My SISTER-IN-LAW is a historian. She says this kind of thing is normal, it's been done for as long as we have records of history, and the people of the country victimized by its rulers always have trouble believing it and always prefer to blame a foreign enemy.

Her COUSIN is a consultant, and she says that it's easy to compartmentalize the operation so that very few lower-level people know what it's actually about, in the same way that middle management rarely understands the overall workings of a corporation.

Guess that settles it, eh? Got any other irrelevant relatives?

[DemExpat]

104. Well, golly, your relatives sure must settle THAT issue!

:eyes:

DemEx

[Solomon]

117. I'm in agreement with your wife. As I said earlier on this thread, for

some reason americans think that that unlike Rome and Europe, conspiracies don't happen in america. Not all the participants know that they are a part of it. And of course the most negligent participants, are the people themselves for buying all the horsehit.

We have no problem studying how Richard III probably killed those two little princes, and Mary's plot to usurp Elizabeth, or all the heirs to the rulership of rome being bumped off. I could go on and on. Somehow, we've been taught that we are immune to such machinations. Its incredible to me.

[JackRiddler]

127. confession

well, actually, I just made all that up about my relatives. Just ribbing the other poster (gently! I swear) about citing "my husband" as her authority...

[DemExpat]

129. Hey, I mentioned where? that he was my authority!

:evilgrin:

If you made that all up to prove a point, I'm really motivated to believe what you have to say!
Jeesh....

DemEx

[Beam Me Up]

106. If that is true...

then WHY:


1) has the * administration worked so diligently to thwart any thorough investigation of the many many mysterious events of 9/11?

2) has the * administration under-funded and stonewalled what little investigation has been allowed?

3) has no disciplinary action been taken against those whose responsibility it is to defend our nation?

4) have such completely NOT CREDIBLE stories (such as: jet fuel can melt thick steel and fires can cause the collapse of steel and concrete buildings ) been presented as FACT and TRUTH to the American people?



Let me give one small, concrete example. On the morning of 9/11, before entering Booker Elementry, * knew that one plane had hit the WTC. Ordinary citizens such as ourselves were stunned with this news but the so called President of the United States wasn't. He continued on with his important business of entering an elementary school to listen to children "in a reading program that works." Consider that at this time although most of us did not know that other planes had also been hijacked, the FAA and the military DID know, which means that the Secret Service and others close to * must have known as well. IF those whose duty it is to protect the safety of the President did NOT know, then right here is the first breakdown of responsibility and accountability.

But lets continue. * continues on with his day, saying in response to the reporter who asked if he knew what was going on in NY that he'd have something more to say about it later. Right.

The next thing that happens is that, while sitting in the classroom, *'s secretary, Mr. Card, comes and whispers in his ear, and, purportedly, tells him that a second plane has hit the WTC and that "America is under attack." Nevertheless, * continues to sit there listening to the children read for at least another 15 to 20 minutes. WHY?

No, really, think about this. The United States of America "is under attack" and the President is sitting in a publicly known, disclosed location in an elementary school. Airliners are being hijacked and used as BOMBS by unknown assailants and the President remains in a DISCLOSED location only minutes from an international air port. He doesn't excuse himself due to urgent matters that need his immediate, Presidential attention. He isn't WHISKED away by the Secret Service to an UNDISCLOSED location for his (not to mention that of the children's) own safety. No, he is ALLOWED to sit there. WHY?

Do you or your husband believe that if the Secret Service thought for one second that * was in danger they would ALLOW him to remain in a public and DISCLOSED location? These are the men who are trained to throw themselves in front of bullets if necessary. They are not only his immediate body guards, but a whole network of information connected directly to the military. Now, given the purported CHAOS of the situation--that is, we are told no one understood exactly what was going on--except that "America is under attack"--HOW COULD THEY KNOWN * WAS NOT IN ANY IMMEDIATE DANGER?

Go on, how could they have known that?

The answer is very simple. They were told by their superiors that * was in no danger, that they need take no further action to guarantee his safety.

Now. How did THEY know that?

The answer is the one no one wants to believe. No one wants to believe that an extreme right wing faction of the military-industrial complex was not only willing, but able, to STAGE an attack on the United States that would have the DESIRED RESULT on the American people of a) terrorizing them and b) making them more easily manipulated into SUPPORTING and PAYING FOR (with blood and money) an "endless war" against "terrorism"--which is, in reality, an excuse to STRATEGICAL place our military directly in the center of the middle east.

I understand that no one wants to believe this and I understand why. As terrifying as the thought of foreign terrorists are--how much MORE terrifying is it to even begin to think that in high positions of our military, industry and government there are traitors who would sacrifice the lives of THOUSANDS of US citizens to advance an empirical agenda.

The "attack on America" could have at the very least been thwarted if not stopped in advance. It wasn't. That is a fact.Bungling and negligence can not account for it. No thorough investigation has been allowed. There has been no accountability, no disciplinary action taken. We, the American people who have paid and continue to pay a great price, can only speculate why. Whatever the truth may be, the * administration's account is simply NOT CREDIBLE.

[DemExpat]

110. I certainly agree that the administration's account is not credible...

and I personally feel that 9/11 is a crime of omission.

The classroom scene also boggles my mind....

But it also seems unreasonable to believe that the large number of people who might have known about the evil plans to let it happen, or make it happen, or the people whose normal procedures were thwarted at the time, would not come forward and speak out too. Or the family and friends of those who might have known - surely someone would hear something fishy while having intimate talks with the people involved....someone having that drink too many...someone talking in their sleep...
These men are not living in isolation - someone would get a clue or two eventually...

DemEx

[Beam Me Up]

121. unreasonable to believe?

First, you seem to think "large numbers of people" would have to know what was going down. That is not the case. It would take maybe a dozen or so who knew the big picture. Everyone else would only know a little and a very limited amount. Most of them, like you and I, wouldn't want to believe the worst--and therefore wouldn't WANT to try and piece the whole thing together.

Second, we see what happens when people--remember the FBI agents who came forward a year or so ago--do confront the lie. Most would not command as much attention from the media as these FBI agents, but even THEY had difficulty getting the word out: something is not right with this picture. There are many ways to intimidate someone who might think he or she 'knows' something. Blackmail, threats to job security, physical safety, the safety of one's loved ones, etc.

Consider that if you did, indeed, KNOW something that was significant enough to warrant media attention, a) you'd have to have actual evidence and, b) you'd have to find some outlet for this information while at the same time guaranteeing your own safety and those you love. When you are dealing with a criminal enterprise that can pull something of THIS SCALE off, clearly you are not dealing with anything ordinary.

I mean, I truly do believe this whole thing is a CRIMINAL conspiracy. These people are beyond anything you and I can imagine! They have the wealth and the power to create a colossal deception, murder 3,000 people--actually make their deaths a media SPECTACLE!--and GET AWAY WITH IT.

If you *knew* something you would know what you would be up against if you came forward. Besides--would YOU believe them? If not, then, right there is the most obvious reason why anyone who might want to come forward wouldn't. If they couldn't reach the average American who is wiling to believe in a certain level of corruption--but not treasonous criminal conspiracy--then who WOULD believe, no matter WHAT evidence they had?

Beyond that I'll just point out that ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE WORLD IS RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF US. Steel and concrete buildings do not collapse as a result of fires. They just don't. It defies the laws of physics. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough under ANY circumstances. Boeings can not hit the Pentagon AT GROUND LEVEL and LEAVE NO TRACE of themselves afterward. Again, this is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

If we can't grasp THAT, then what hope does any whistle blower have?

[ozone_man]

144. 2a.) Assign HK to investigate 911.

I find it difficult to believe that it was just negligence. I suppose it's possible, but too many things like the stand down orders, etc.

[rman]

115. so what does he think of Watergate, Iran-contra?

At some point those were "just conspiracy theories".
Then it turned out to be conspiracy.
The theories were proven to be correct; conspiracies do exist.

Leaking may expose a conspiracy, but then the conspiracy does exist untill such time that there is sufficient leaking. Do i have a point there or what?


"Conspiracy Theory phobia

As wacky as some of the conspiracy theories may be, the idea that conspiracies do not exist is complete bunk. A significant number of the people who have been convicted of a felony have also faced conspiracy chrages; why is it so illogical, irrational, and contemptible that the powerful and well-connected also conspire?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=783238&mesg_id=784958&page=

[DemExpat]

128. He's moderate, avoids extremes .......sees all governments,

all parties involved in not so democratic practices, i.e. manipulation of info and events for power gain.

So one could say he sees conspiracy as 'normal' political and business practice, so nothing to blame on one party, or one government.
He does not condone it, but sees it as engrained since the beginning of time. Perhaps he's a cynic.....
Or just realistic.
We bash heads quite often too, BTW! :-)

DemEx

[goforit]

101. Is this why ya have only 602?........You haven't been around to see proof.

Yep.......keep living in delusional land like the freepers do.

[veganwitch]

105. answers and some questions

1. the pentagon's pretty big, i'm sure rummy wasn't too worried, plus, ever hear of plausible deniability?

2. very true, but when you control the media, IF there is a leak, you can ensure that it gets virtually no coverage and that the leaker is portrayed as a conspiracy kook.

3. check Operation Northwoods. A plan devised by the Pentagon to kill American citizens, blame it on Cuba and invade. It was presented to Kennedy who rejected it, too bad he didn't try the fucks for treason.

Some questions for you.

1. Who warned Willie Brown not to fly on 9/11?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL
Was is Condi Rice?
http://www.sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/08/1634286.php

2. What if there was a leak already? Colleen Rowley's memo says that the pre-9/11 investigation 'deliberatly undercut' (memo sect. 6)
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html#2)
I notice that phrase didn't get much play in the media. It's funny but 'deliberatly undercut' sounds alot like LIHOP to me.

3. Info on Operation Northwoods
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

Does this idea still seem that far-fetched to you?

[nolabels]

145. Just an observation, but does it seem plausible they would need.....

something to hit the pentagon to throw a few more people off. If what the poster above said is true about what they were doing to the pentagon at the time, it does make sense they could have done it that way.

That proverbial Red Herring at work?

It turns things up side down, meaning instead of asking what happened to the military and Air Force. The question would get lost because people would be saying and thinking that its headquarters were attacked. The ruse would be plausible

Any body know anything about something like this or have a link on such an angle.

[leesa]

114. They were very carefully posted on the opposite side.

Are you kidding about not killing civlians??? Why do you think they are pulling out all stops to prevent the leak?? They are certain they have bought the entire press and government. You are WAY behind in your reading young Republican.

[Occulus]

119. "Such a thing is unprecedented, as far as I know."

go Google 'tuskeegee +experiment +syphilis' and see what you get.

This is particularly disturbing:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html

I will never trust our government after learning about this. Never, ever, ever.

[number6]

125. my view ...

1. there both dumb-asses

2. "The whole thing would blow up in their faces"
what are cover-ups for....

3. yes, I beleive there are some people in our government
that wouldn't hesitate to target civilians anywhere.

[patdem]

126. Here is a link to another DU discussion re Complicity and the link

to which the discussion refers: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php

and the link to the post being discussed: http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=19

I find it VERY COMPELLING...if it is coincidence..then that is a greater leap of faith than conspiracy...check it out!

[nofurylike]

130. can't even read it. why bother answering?

i've so rarely seen anyone here say, "oh yeah. i didn't think about that. i see your point." and has anyone EVER about LIHOP, once convinced otherwise?

if anyone needs to be convinced the u.s. commits atrocities against its own, go to what it's admitted. then at least the 'it couldn't possibly happen here' thing might stop being the basis of these arguements.

i probably shouldn't get into this fray, but i am so aggravated today after watching the shrub parade in B-dad...uh airport.


peace

*edited to add crucial word *airport*

[9215]

131. Title of topic is misleading

These aren't "tough" questions at all. :boring:


The size of a lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell big ones.
Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf


An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation, we must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland.

Sounds like it came straight from Bush, no? Well, it's not. It's from Adolf Hitler, on the creation of the Gestapo in Nazi Germany... http://www.newswithviews.com/brownfield/brownfield29.htm


Now I'm gonna eats a turkey bird!

[Q]

147. "The best conspiracy theory is one that can't be proven"

- That's the wonderful thing about conspiracy theories for conspirators: people are programmed NOT to believe them.