My Big 9/11 Cuntspiracy Thread.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
They're not ridiculous.

He may go overboard with the whole "The BCE stole my lunch money" crap, but he's on the mark with the theory that this administration had prior knowledge of what was to occur, and that they are not being candid with the American people about what they knew, and they KNEW they could use it as their JUSTIFICATION for their long planned for overthrow and occupation of Iraq.


IRAQ HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH 9/11

dude, i'm sure there's plenty of evidence to show that the administration did not handle pre-9/11 intel, security, etc. well. but it's a HUGE leap (without ANY credible evidence) to say that they intentionally let it happen to further an unrelated goal. huge leap.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
dude, i'm sure there's plenty of evidence to show that the administration did not handle pre-9/11 intel, security, etc. well. but it's a HUGE leap (without ANY credible evidence) to say that they intentionally let it happen to further an unrelated goal. huge leap.

Yup, that's where I part ways with some of these guys.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
I don't have any problem with that, if it's all you're saying. I agree that Iraq is a stupid distraction, and I have believed that from day one.

The problem I have is when people continue to tout ridiculous theories such as the "BCE controlled demolition" theory and the "planes weren't hijacked by Arabs with boxcutters" theory and the "that wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon" theory and "the black box was never found, so it wasn't a commercial airline" theory, the "that wasn't Osama in that video, it was a BCE stooge" theory, etc. etc.

There HAVE been videos with OBL stand ins.....

Just as there are videos with SH stand ins.....

And I believe crazy arabs hijacked airliners with box cutters......

just as I believe Oswald fired from the 6th floor........

But neither acted alone, or without alot of help.......

Why am I suddenly posting like Pojo with sentences and too many periods.......?

LMAO

[Warham]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My Big 9/11 Cuntspiracy Thread.

Originally posted by LoungeMachine


And what were the domestic issues Chimpy was "worrying" about in 2001 again?

I dunno....a crappy economy after the recession would be good for starters?

Bush's 2000 platform was all about reducing taxes to get the economy going again, and that was his priority when he took office.

[Warham]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My Big 9/11 Cuntspiracy Thread.

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And this is true...

I've never seen WAR do anything but jump on the BBB/Lucky Wilbury bandwagon of myopic "Clinton let 'em get away" BS...

Well, he did...

Like I said, none of them did anything worth writing home about in regards to terrorism.

[diamondD]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
With all due respect FORD.......

You're pulling a Scottie McClellan here.....



However I fail to see how the Flt 93 tapes in any way shape or form clear BushCO from complicity in the 9/11 attacks.....


But I do need to score this little skirmish to D2


Soory, FORD

LOL The record's a lot like the record of the Harlem Globetrotters vs the Washington Generals. :D

[diamondD]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
I don't have any problem with that, if it's all you're saying. I agree that Iraq is a stupid distraction, and I have believed that from day one.

The problem I have is when people continue to tout ridiculous theories such as the "BCE controlled demolition" theory and the "planes weren't hijacked by Arabs with boxcutters" theory and the "that wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon" theory and "the black box was never found, so it wasn't a commercial airline" theory, the "that wasn't Osama in that video, it was a BCE stooge" theory, etc. etc.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to resolve the government's involvement. But I have heard enough of the "not the plane, no arab hijackers, passengers worked for the govt, etc BS" for so long, I was just interested in hearing how he was going to just dismiss these tapes as fakes without a fact in the world backing him up. It shatters a lot of the theories he's floated over the last 4-5 years about this stuff.

But remember FORD, people that don't pay attention to the facts are stupid. Your quote.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by diamondD
LOL The record's a lot like the record of the Harlem Globetrotters vs the Washington Generals. :D

Yeah, and you've still got a little confetti left on your shoulders, bro

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
I don't have any problem with that, if it's all you're saying. I agree that Iraq is a stupid distraction, and I have believed that from day one.

The problem I have is when people continue to tout ridiculous theories such as the "BCE controlled demolition" theory and the "planes weren't hijacked by Arabs with boxcutters" theory and the "that wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon" theory and "the black box was never found, so it wasn't a commercial airline" theory, the "that wasn't Osama in that video, it was a BCE stooge" theory, etc. etc.

The events of 9/11 happened as presented (for the most part), it's the inexcusable, unexplainable, lapses in logic prior to the attacks that this article questions...

Personally, I do not believe Bush and his Admin lackeys had the idea that a terrorist strike would be a suicide mission into the WTC, Pentagon, and a PA field...

They were probably thinking of something more along the lines of an incident mentioned in the article, the hijacking of a French airliner that was stormed by the French counter-terrorist GIGN teams... It was spectacular footage that had (mostly) a happy ending... I don't believe they actively encouraged it in any way, but I do believe they passively allowed it to happen in order to facilitate a "wake-up call."

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh




, but I do believe they passively allowed it to happen in order to facilitate a "wake-up call."

So do I.

And that, in and of itself is grounds for LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE FOR THE WHOLE GOD DAMN ADMINISTRATION.

Throw away the fucking key, and have the twins washed and brought to my tent.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by diamondD
Yeah, I wasn't trying to resolve the government's involvement. .

Am I reading this right.?

You feel there's a "government involvement" to resolve?

A voice of reason from the Right.

[Hardrock69]

Bush Defector To Demolish
911 Lies On May 6
4-18-6


The former top economist in Bush's Department of Labor, Morgan Reynolds, will speak out on the 9/11 inside job at the State Historical Society, University of Wisconsin-Madison on Saturday, May 6th. The film Loose Change will be shown, and refreshments served, starting at 1 p.m, and Reynolds will speak at 3:00 p.m.

Dr. Reynolds, who holds three U.W.-Madison degrees, and who is currently Professor of Economics at Texas A&M University, will present evidence that top Bush Administration officials orchestrated the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and the murder of almost 2,500 Americans, as a pretext for initiating their pre-planned "long war" in the Middle East.

"While more Americans doubt the 9/11 story every week, evidence abounds that many have a mental block against rational examination of the evidence about 9/11" writes Dr. Reynolds in a recent article. This mental block, he thinks, amounts to willful ignorance-not just about 9/11, but about history.

"Governments throughout history have provoked or staged attacks on their own people to serve the powers behind the throne ('the money power'), glorify themselves, engage in vast government spending, reward friends, exert domestic control, stimulate the juices of war, annex neighbors and pursue vast geostrategic rearrangements (the 'global domination project)" Reynolds asserts. He notes that every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on the "Operation Northwoods" plan to murder Americans in fake "Cuban terrorist" attacks in 1962. The planned Operation Northwoods murders of ordinary Americans in fake terrorist bombings and a fake "airliner shoot-down" would have involved hundreds of military and intelligence personnel. Yet the existence of Operation Northwoods was successfully kept secret from the American people for forty years until James Bamford revealed it in his book Body of Secrets, published in January 2002.

Though government officials have historically been able to successfully conceal their fake or arranged war-trigger attacks long enough to avoid being hanged for treason, Reynolds thinks the 9/11 cover-up has already unraveled. "Skepticism about conspiracy, small or large, is somewhat beside the point in the case of 9/11 because the official Osama-and-Nineteen-Young-Arabs (ONYA) conspiracy tale is so farcical and impossible. Nearly everyone in America has easy access to the internet and hundreds of websites expose the 9/11 fraud." (Morgan Reynolds, "Conspiracy and Closed Minds on 9/11": http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911 )

Reynolds argues that the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 were destroyed in a manner that can only be explained by controlled demolition with pre-planted explosives-which should not be surprising, since no steel framed high-rises have ever collapsed in the way the three World Trade Center buildings did for any other reason. In his article "Why Did the World Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?" Reynolds writes that among the many features of the WTC demolitions that suggest explosives, rather than jet-fuel fires, are:

1. Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.

2. The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were small.

3. WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.

4. WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams (pp. 68-9).

5. In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC lease-holder, recalled talking to the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 and said, ".maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.

6. FEMA, given the uninviting task of explaining the collapse of Building 7 with mention of demolition verboten admitted that the best it could come up with had "only a low probability of occurrence."

7. It's difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.

Professional demolition, by contrast, can explain all of these facts and more. Demolition means placing explosives throughout a building, and detonating them in sequence to weaken "the structure so it collapses or folds in upon itself". In conventional demolitions gravity does most of the work, although it probably did a minority on

9/11, so heavily were the towers honeycombed with explosives.

1. Each WTC building collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed (approximately 10 seconds or less).

2. Each building collapsed, for the most part, into its own footprint.

3. Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone (".workers can't even find concrete. 'It's all dust,' [the official] said").

4. Dust exploded horizontally for a couple hundred feet, as did debris, at the beginning of each tower's collapse.

5. Collapses were total, leaving none of the massive core columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air.

6. Salvage experts were amazed at how small the debris stacks were.

7. The steel beams and columns came down in sections under 30 feet long and had no signs of "softening"; there was little left but shorn sections of steel and a few bits of concrete.

8. Photos and videos of the collapses all show "demolition waves," meaning "confluent rows of small explosions" along floors (blast sequences).

9. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings.

10. Each collapse had detectable seismic vibrations suggestive of underground explosions, similar to the 2.3 earthquake magnitude from a demolition like the Seattle Kingdome (p. 108).

11. Each collapse produced molten steel identical to that generated by explosives, resulting in "hot spots" that persisted for months (the two hottest spots at WTC-2 and WTC-7 were approximately 1,350o F five days after being continuously flooded with water, a temperature high enough to melt aluminum (p. 70). ("Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?" by Morgan Reynolds: http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911 )

The apparent demolition of the three skyscrapers, and a perhaps inadvertent statement by heavily-insured WTC landlord Larry Silverstein that WTC-7 was "pulled" (slang for "demolished") can be viewed on many 9/11 truth DVDs and web-videos, including Loose Change, 9/11 Eyewitness, 9/11 and the American Empire, (Dr. David Griffin), and 9/11 Revisited (Dr. Steven Jones). Dr. Reynolds' articles on 9/11 and other matters can be found at http://nomoregames.net .
The videos, and further information about Dr. Reynolds' May 6th speech, are available from the event's sponsor, the Madison-based Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth:

http://mujca.com

[Nickdfresh]

Bump!

[Nickdfresh]

LIHOP

A nice overview on the LIHOP conspiracy school here.

Required reading:

This War on Terrorism is Bogus


The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination

Michael Meacher

Saturday September 6, 2003

http://www.guardian.co.uk The Guardian

Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war

against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws

light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit,

retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global

war against terrorism. Because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments

to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this

theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.



We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick

Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld’s

deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush’s younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney’s chief of staff).

The document, entitled Rebuilding America’s Defences, was written in September 2000 by the

neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).



The plan shows Bush’s cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not

Saddam Hussein was in power. It says “while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the im-

mediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends

the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”



The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said

the US must “discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even

aspiring to a larger regional or global role”. It refers to key allies such as the UK as “the most

effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership”. It describes peace-

keeping missions as “demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN”. It

says “even should Saddam pass from the scene”, US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will

remain permanently... as “Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has”. It

spotlights China for “regime change”, saying “it is time to increase the presence of American

forces in SE Asia”.



The document also calls for the creation of “US space forces” to dominate space, and the total

control of cyberspace to prevent “enemies” using the internet against the US. It also hints that

the US may consider developing biological weapons “that can target specific genotypes [and]

may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool”.



Finally - written a year before 9/11/2001 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous

regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a “worldwide command and control

system”. This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for

rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened

before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several

ways.



First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known

that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior

Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of

200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The

list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.



It had been known as early as 1996 there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes.

Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that “al-Qaida suicide bombers

could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of

the CIA, or the White House”.



Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former

head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly

issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for

training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001).

It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that

five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek,

September 15 2001).



Instructive leads prior to 9/11/01 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias

Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor

reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents

learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his

computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But

they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might

be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).



All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there was

such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than

8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter

plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews Air Force base, just 10 miles from

Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were

standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000

and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious

aircraft (Associated Press, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has

moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.



Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence?

Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so,

why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said:

“The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that

it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defense of incompetence.”



Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made to catch

Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan’s two Islamist parties

negotiated Bin Laden’s extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said,

significantly, that “casting our objectives too narrowly” risked “a premature collapse of the inter-

national effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured”. The US chairman of the joint

chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that “the goal has never been to get Bin Laden”

(Associated Press, April 5 2002). The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News

(December 19 2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US

Air Force complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times

over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not receive permission

quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence, all of which

comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined

war on terrorism.



The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint.

From this it seems that the so-called “war on terrorism” is being used largely as bogus cover for

achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when

he said to the Commons liaison committee: “To be truthful about it, there was no way we could

have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what

happened on September 11” (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to

obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find

evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine,

May 13 2002).



In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence

again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well

before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy

stated in April 2001 that “the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a

destabilizing influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East”. Submitted

to Vice-President Cheney’s energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an

unacceptable risk to the US, “military intervention” was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).



Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that

Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting

in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that “military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of

October”. Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in

Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields

in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean.

But, confronted with the Taliban’s refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them

“either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs” (Inter Press

Service, November 15 2001).



Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11/2001

attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already

been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives

reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December

7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached the

US fleet. The ensuing national outrage [of the attack, not the lack of warning] persuaded a reluctant

US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states

that the process of transforming the US into “tomorrow’s dominant force” is likely to be a long one in

the absence of “some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor”. The 9/11 attacks

allowed the US to press the “go” button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it

would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.



The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to

run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as

60% of the world’s oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export

capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s.



This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for both the US and the UK. The US,

which in 1990 produced domestically 57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only

39% of its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be facing “severe” gas

shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed that 70% of our electricity will come from gas

by 2020, and 90% of that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq has 110 trillion

cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.



A report from the commission on America’s national interests in July 2000 noted the most promising

new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on

Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via

Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through

Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron’s

beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India’s west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment

and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.



Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining world supplies of hydrocarbons,

and this may partly explain British participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive

of BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of war

(Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in

August 2002, it was said that “the UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already

jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts” with Libya (BBC Online,

August 10 2002).



The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the “global war on terrorism” has the hallmarks

of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world

hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole

project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for

British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our

own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a

radical change of course.


Link

Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003


Also see: "I Believe - A Truthout editorial...


mailto:meacherm@parliament.uk>meacherm@parliament. uk