Oh, and, since I like this little anecdote: The RAW quote comes from one of his discussions on something he called “Operation Doublecross”. Needless to say, such an operation never existed. But then again, one thing that RAW does a lot of the time is tell you not to believe him, setting up another neat little Strange Loop: “I propegate Strange Loops.”
Depends on who “they” is.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff “recommend that the proposed memorandum be forwarded as a preliminary submission suitable for planning purposes.”
Yeah I know they make lots of plans that never get past that stage.
If they (JCoS) were unwilling, why recommend a planning phase?
Do “they” make plans for things they are unwilling to do?
“While the foregoing premise can be utilized at the present time it will continue to hold good only as long as there can be reasonable certainty that US military intervention in Cuba would not directly involve the Soviet Union. There is as yet no bilateral mutual support agreement binding the USSR to the defense of Cuba, Cuba has not yet become a member of the Warsaw Pact, nor have the Soviets established Soviet bases in Cuba in the pattern of US bases in Western Europe. Therefore, since time appears to be an important factor in resolution of the Cuba problem, all projects are suggested within the time frame of the next few months.”
The memorandum is dated 13 March 1962, and in late July Soviet ships were en-route to Cuba, then comes the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Kinda throws a big monkey wrench in the plan (exactly the one the JCoS were worried about).
IMHO the JCoS were willing to do “something”, what that would have been is another ?
I don’t think Kennedy would have gone through with any of it, but Johnson, or Nixon?
You are coming to the conspiracy party a little late.
I have a friend with the Arlington Police. He was in the Pentagon in the days oafter the attack and saw pieces of things that were obviously part of an aircraft.
Those dodgy bastards rigged the missile with actual airplane parts to throw us off the trail!
This is the part that always gets me. The premise, as I understand it, is that the government (or a small group of neocons who’ve hijacked it) carried out the 9/11 attacks because they needed a “Pearl Harbor type event” in order to carry out PNAC’s plans.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that this was such a plot. They managed through whatever means, to fly two jumbo jets into the twin towers. They take control (at least temporarily) of a third jet but the passengers rebel and it crashes in Pennsylvania. Now, as far as I know, nobody disputes that planes (rather than missiles) hit the towers, there’s simply too many eyewitnesses. Likewise for the Pennsylvania crash; eyewitnesses and debris on the ground.
So they obviously had the means to fly large aircraft into buildings. But they then greatly complicated the plan by instead using a missile against the Pentagon. I don’t know the logistics of doing this but it seems like they would have to involve a lot more people and potentially have eyewitnesses to whatever aircraft, or ground vehicle, or whatever, fired that missile.
Why would they do this? 
Why complicate things and leave potential loose ends when they could instead simply fly a fourth aircraft into the building like they did with the others. It makes no sense!
You do realize that the author of that particular article is Ben Chertoff, the cousin of Michael Chertoff, the chief of Homeland Security, right? Just something to consider…
You think that makes no sense? Have you come across the idea that the twin towers were actually brought down with explosives? I dare you to make that tentative assumption and then try to come up with possible motivations.
Apaches can be armed with air to air stingers but generally are not. I have never seen one and I was in an apache unit. That was a while ago but I don’t think things are that much different. One thing I do know, the army does not keep ammo with their equipment outside of a war zone. The guards will have small arms but the apaches will not have thier hellfires or stingers (unlikely) near them ready to load. Last time I checked the only place you can test fire ATAS is in NTC Ft Irwin California. I doubt if there are any stingers in Pennsylvania. Certainly not ready to load at a moments notice.
Why would they fake 9/11 when the easiest way to accomplish what happened was exactly what was reported? What would be easier than convincing some people to take flight lessons, hijack some planes, and fly them into buildings, that would look like that?
The point where there could be a conspiracy is not in the details of how those buildings were destroyed, it would be in how it came to be that the resources were invested to create people who wanted to hijack a plane and crash it into a building. What power structure is ultimately responsible for that? This is the point of flexibility that is the greatest unknown.
cough saudi arabia cough
Purely speculative, but how about we rephrase that: “a large part of the torso of one of the hijackers, including clothing and a passport in a pocket, was found some distance from the crash site, apparently having been propelled completely through the building and freefalling some distance from the towers.” Doesn’t seem miraculous to me - at 600mph, he was in a good place to outrun the fireball.
How do you explain the fact that WTC #7 basically imploded and collapsed at 5:30 PM that evening, despite only a few small fires inside? There is no precedent for a large building to fall due to fire, and this building fell from the middle-outward, with dust coming from below and the external shell landing on top, just like a demolition.
Oh, and there was no coverage of this at all despite the fact that it is on video, and the “investigation” yielded no clue as to why this building fell.
Similarly, the twin towers both fell in about 9 seconds which is about the time it would take for a brick to fall unimpeded by wind, air, or structure. How can such a huge foot building collapse inward from the roof and meet no resistance on the way down?
I have no answers, but am sure we do not know all the government knows about the events that transpired that day.
Exactly. This is what I was trying to say in my previous post but you put it much more clearly and succinctly. Arguing about supposed inconsistencies in how buildings fell etc., just strikes me as silly.
An antimatter Bigfoot was catapulted in from Toronto.
I mean, I know it’s unlikely, but prove it didn’t happen.
well, i think we can all (or at least a majority) agree that it the government DID hit the plane over pennsylvania with a missile, that was the proper call.
so, given that, why do you think the government would deny it?
i’d think it’s to start the hero myth of the crew of the plane that took over the terrorists…a better idea would be that they thought that americans would frown upon their logic.
we should start some whacked out conspiracy theory threads. that would be fun.
WTC 7 was damaged, rather significantly, by falling debris from the towers, and burned steadily for hours with no firefighters available to tend to it. The fire ate away at the already compromised structure until catastrophic failure.
If you have evidence of something else, present it.
Flight 93 (Shanksville)
The timeline has people on the ground speaking to the Hero-victims hear accounts of them laying plans and actually beginning to re-taking the plane. Within minutes the plane crashed.
The FBI has allowed the families of the 93 Hero-victims to listen to the cockpit recordings. No one really doubts that the folks were in the cockpit – we can hear the Hijackers screaming in confusion and praying. To get to shoot downs and government cover-ups we have to have an almost simultaneous mystery US plane hitting the cockpit at that moment. It just isn’t where the evidence would take reasonable people
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...0,2369725.story
Flight 77 (Pentagon)
If you don’t believe documentaries you won’t believe me.
But here are some people who were there.
On 9-11 D.C. local news was all about the Pentagon – you needed cable for more than a few minutes an hour on the WTC. Within hours of the crash there were many faces on TV recounting the plane, which crossed a busy Washington Traffic artery at rush hour - slam into the Pentagon.
FWIW (and I know not much if you are convinced otherwise) I know folks that heard the Plane – they wouldn’t lie to me and were close enough not to be mistaken.
**
WTC Passport**
So the Powers that BeTM blow up the WTC….
And then torch a patsy’s passport and drop it in the street? Does that make any sense at all? We know who these guys were, as they used their real names to get on the planes – what purpose could possibly be served by such a ludicrous and dangerous maneuver?
Our central office at 140 West Street (aka the Barclay-Vesey Building) had huge gaping holes punched into it from debris from the falling WTC towers. Photos online here. Looking at those photos, it’s not hard to understand how WTC7 was an eventual lost cause.
understood, but if you watch its “fall” on video, it is a perfect collapse akin to a demolition. it is not as if it fell askew, if the side facing the towers fell first, or if it somehow collapsed in stages. this was not the case, and for that the 9/11 Commission had not one single theory or explanation.
NISt is presently working on the analysis of what exactly happened to WTC7. But when you conisder that it was on fire for almost 7 hours at a low point in the structre (flors 8-10 IIRC). A fast collpase is not out of the realm of reason.
The FEMA report notes that there were signs of collapse some 30 seconds before the ‘visible’ collapse.
From a conspiracy standpoint, why would someone need to blow-up WTC7? Is not the loss of the two main towers enough? Do the 9/11 conpsiracy theorists actually think that someone in the higher ups of the US government was actually saying “The two big buildings aren’t enough…better wire up one of the smaller ones for demolition as well.”?
Its seems that most structural engineers, civil engineers and demolition experts don’t really have much of a problem with how it collapsed. The complaints seem to mostly come from self-appointed experts.
Buildings don’t collapse that way because of some special effect of demolition, they collapse that way because the primary force acting on them is gravity. One of the tricks of controlled demolition is to get building to fall down on purpose in the same way they do all by themselves by accident.