9/11: Cover For A Coup D'Etat?

[MinM]

9/11: Cover For A Coup D'Etat?

With any crime it is imperative to look at who benefited or Cui Bono for those familiar with Latin and there have been many beneficiaries of 9/11, first and foremost there is the by now infamous Project For The New American Century, a policy organization for global/full spectrum U.S. military dominance whose members and contributors are a who’s who of fifth columnist fascist filth including none other than Richard B. Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

The PNAC’s reference to the need for a “New Pearl Harbor” to allow for their plans to be implemented should have been ample circumstantial evidence for major players to be subpoenaed and put under oath in front of the Kean-Hamilton Commission but any questioning of this most blatantly arrogant statement was as absent from the report as the collapse of WTC 7 or what Sibel Edmonds may have stumbled upon while translating communications while she was employed by the FBI...

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Lots of mistakes in just that little quote.

For one, PNAC is a defunct organization.

Second, their plans as outlined in the document talking about the "new Pearl Harbor" haven't been carried out at all.

Third, the document didn't express a "need" for a new Pearl Harbor. It only stated that the plans for reorganizing the military would not be recognized as necessary very quickly absent some event like a new Pearl Harbor. There IS a difference.

[seemslikeadream]

5. Not defunct

morphed

[Anarcho-Socialist]

2. the coup d'etat happened in November-December 2000

Also Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld aren't fascists. They're neocons, and neoconservativism is an ugly ideology in its own right.

[Echo In Light]

3. Thanks for posting!

[sofa king]

4. If you want to see how they kept it, just take a look at August/September, 2005.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1001
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20070412_31
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2005/101005faketerror.htm
http://culhavoc.blogsome.com/post-911-war-games-and-terror-drills
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2005/09/wolff200509

What do those links mean? Hell if I know. But it sure is interesting that it all came down at just about the time that Congress was threatening to start some real oversight.

I think that in September, 2005, the White House sent a message to everyone listening, including the press and Congress, a message that the gangsters in charge weren't planning on leaving anytime soon, for any reason, and people would get hurt if someone tried to make them leave. I think they positioned themselves to knock over the whole damned government if people didn't back the hell off, and I think they were planning on using those 300,000 protesters in DC as hostages--or as ready-made victims of a false-flag attack.

So why didn't the Bush Administration pull the trigger on martial law in 2005? Because everyone did back the hell off, from Patrick Fitzgerald to Harry Reid. And as it's too late to stop them now, they're going to get away with everything--and just wait until we all start finding out what "everything" means.

But that's just my crazy conspiracy theory.

[seemslikeadream]

6. They can't hide from the international community

and if they are not taken care of here they will be elsewhere


WATCH THIS VIDEO
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7538928033951992310&q=Philippe+Sands%2C&ei=5Ko9SJDzIaDk4AL5473bAw&hl=en


WATCH THIS VIDEO
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3072133300490125416&q=philippe+sands&ei=cYwjSO2dCou05AKRt63CAQ&hl=en



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=15&entry_id=26803
A Guardian news article about Carter's Hay Festival appearance notes that, in his chat with Sands, he "left an intriguing hint that George Bush might even face prosecution on war-crimes charges once he office. When pressed by Philippe Sands...on Bush's recent admission that he had authorized interrogation procedures widely seen as amounting to torture, Carter replied that he was sure Bush would be able to live a peaceful, 'productive life - in our country'" after he leaves the White House. Sands later said that he had "understood that to be 'clear confirmation' that<,> while Bush would face no challenge in his own country, 'what happened outside the country was another matter entirely.'

[CJCRANE]

8. Violence creates a power vacuum

which the opportunist must be ready to seize.

The neocons had all their ducks in a row on 9/11 and they pulled off their plan fairly successfully.

However my guess is that if they try the same shit again the outcome will be much less predictable. If they try to declare martial law it's possible that the military will just push Bush-Cheney aside (because what's the point of having civilian leaders of a military govt?).

[sofa king]

9. I largely agree.

Among other things, there's enough unrest in the lower officer ranks that the military itself might not be able to deliver on any guarantees. There are plenty of idealists inside who would see what's up and fight it or fail to participate.

But I do think that's how they slipped the noose in 2005: by scaring the ever lovin' crap out of everyone who was paying attention. In response, society and government have seen fit to neutralize, rather than prosecute, punish and avenge. Perhaps that is to our credit... for now, but it only makes the next time that much easier.

They may go away for awhile. But they'll be back again, and it will be even easier next time.

[CJCRANE]

7. It was a coup or counter-revolution

designed to nullify the Constitution and seize power.

The hijackers were the mercernaries who provided the violence to achieve that aim. United 93 didn't reach its target though.