no! I didn’t mean you were ignorant.
You probably know a lot, what I meant and didn’t say quite well, was you should read both sides of the issue, like, check out my link if you will.
You are not ignorant.
The people you mentioned? puppets.
I mean, my sig.
Oh come on. It wouldn’t have been THAT hard. The line would have gone something like this: “The Taliban, who everybody knows are a repressive, brutal, murderous government, are giving money and refuge to terrorists like Osama bin Laden, who we know is responsible for the USS Cole bombing and the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya.” Throw in some stuff about American strategic interests in the region. Given the fact that the Taliban made no secrets of their slaughter, it couldn’t have been THAT hard.
Again, some pretty bad work has been done here. For one, Bin Laden has made numerous public statements condemning Saddam Hussein. (I know, I know, the public ignored them, but why did he make them? It only encouraged the protestors. If he’d been involved with Saddam, the case for war against Iraq would’ve been MUCH stronger. Second, the CIA never gave Bush even a tiny bit of help with Iraq. Tenet contradicted the claimed Iraq-Al Qaeda connection numerous times. The most notable, I think, was Oct. 22 of last year. He piped down as the war approached, but he never said anything positive. The CIA was actually pitted against the Pentagon in the whole situation.
Like I said, he’d better get trotting. These days, when he releases new tapes - the last one was only a week or two ago - the public reacts with yawns. People think he’s crippled, dying, or dead. His scaryness continues to decrease unless there’s another attack on the US mainland. (Nobody cares about the orange alert crap either.) And even that could hurt the Bush bunch, as it would make the stuff they’ve done so far seem ineffective.
Question: Is the Bush Administration alone in creating this 9-11 conspiracy, or is Congress, the press, and other institutions also involved?
Another question - although I guess everybody knows this and I’m just a lunkhead - is “Who are the puppetmasters?”
By the way, Daniel Withrow, awesome RAW cite. 
I agree entirely with this (and I’m glad y’all liked the Robert Anton Wilson anti-conspiracy argument – I find it very compelling). Disagreeing with the idea that the US is behind this doesn’t mean I blindly believe my government: if the government tells me it’s raining, I look outside my window.
It does mean, however, that I understand a little bit of human psychology. If convincing evidence ever comes out that Bush is behind this, he and every person in the conspiracy can expect to be imprisoned, and they’ll be very lucky to be executed: otherwise, they will find the other prisoners not exactly holding them up as heroes. Given the huge numbers of people that would have to be involved in such a conspiracy, and the incredible scrutiny to which the attacks have been subjected, and the fact that they could achieve their purported nefarious ends through less risky tactics, it’s incredibly unlikely either that they’d do it in the first place, or that they would do it and not get thoroughly and incontrovertibly caught.
Daniel
Perhaps now would be a good time to go back and re-read the Illuminatus! Triology.
For a good time, try reading it all the way through in one session.
** vanilla ** wrote…
Uh huh. And why would * they* want to do that again? As for the Patriot Act, it’s a crock of doo-doo and wildly un-popular.
** akrako1 ** wrote…
My location is listed to the left, just under my user name, see when I read a news paper here, it doesn’t come from “media conspiracy head quarters”.
** akrako1 ** wrote…
There you go! You just said it yourself -** The administration has * used * ** I do not deny that, I however do not believe the administration * planed * the attacks.
** akrako1 ** wrote…
What minority is that? And why would * they * want to deport this minority, why not just round 'em all up and have em all put to sleep? Yeah, * they * can claim terrorists did it, hell it worked Soooo well with those missiles er… airplanes * they * threw at the WTC.
Right.
** akrako1 ** wrote…
Yeah, I heard about that pipeline theory all the way down here in South America - well? Where is it? The theory was BS then and its BS now. The invasion of Afghanistan was revenge, pure and simple. America was royally pissed off and it was going to make * somebody* pay for all that blood. The world can be a very base place sometimes, once in a while motives for big things are in fact that simple. Conspiracy minded people should just get used to the idea that the world is a dangerous place and things usually don’t have some secret, deep dark motive.
** akrako1 ** wrote…
Here we go again, the attacks were used as justification, but you still have not convinced me that the administration was responsible. Iraq was/is just another case of revenge, Bush junior lied through his teeth (a different tune each week) to justify going in there and finishing off what his daddy started. Remember the Baghdad hotel lobby with Bush Sr.'s face embedded in the floor for all to walk on?
** akrako1 ** wrote…
So this inept (oh BTW I agree with you 100% about the election and ineptness) went and murdered 3000 people in hopes that we would all look the other way when he said or did something stupid? Oh, and this inept guy managed to do this secretly.
** akrako1 ** wrote…
He didn’t need a “patriot act”, or cause a disaster to do this, he shut people up all the time, remember during his election campaign, any one who was opposed to him was relegated off to a “designated protest area” often blocks away from the campaign speech area, oh and the media’s cameras and microphones.
** akrako1 ** wrote…
Oh, I agree with you here but again I don’t think that 3000 people were killed because of this either. I think this is just a convent side effect of Bush Jr’s cleansing of Bush Sr’s name.
** akrako1 ** wrote…
Ahem, any site (like the one I commented on above)that just comes right out and says
does not exactly qualify as a credible source, in fact it qualifies the author a some one who is in serious need of a mental evaluation. Oh, but if you like please list your “100’s of cites”, I may find some of them enlightening, if not, the sheer entertainment value would be worth the bandwidth.
** akrako1 ** wrote…
I like this, and I question *every thing * the government does. Also, I was not attaacking YOU, I was attacking the notion that our government was (covertly) responsible for 9/11. I think any one who believes this is in serious denial about the world we live in and, also gives the government waaaayyy to much credit for being organized enough to pull it off so flawlessly.
** akrako1 ** wrote…
I checked that last site you listed and I got to admit it lists all its public sources and looks very credable to me, but after all this info washes down the pipe I think it only supports my Idea that the government is a bunch of disorganized bungling idiots. The fact that they had all this info and didn’t share it with each other OR take any of it seriously helps me make my point. I am still not convinced the government is responsible for the attacks.
** Marley23 ** wrote…
Don’t you *know *what’s going to happen? Bush will invoke his executive powers and declare presidential elections illeagle for national security reasons, making himself President for life, I read that on a web site, I did, yes siree - so it must be true.
** vanilla ** wrote…
[Pinky] What do you wanna do tonight Brain? [/Pinky]
[Brain] The same thing we do every night Pinky…[/Brain]
** Marley23 ** wrote…
me too!
This is exactly what I have been trying to say as well. Very well put.
Thanks, Janx.
Jeez, vanilla, I almost suggested the Illuminati in my last post as a joke. I read Illuminatus! when I was 15, but I figured out you weren’t supposed to take it literally.
9/11 Second-Anniversary Events in Germany and New York City Reveal Growing Strength, Credibility of Movement
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/091703_not_one_night.html
you don’t have to call it illuminati, call it whatever you want, its still there…
Then I choose to call it silly.
By the way - since that wasn’t my most substantive reply - do you have an answer to any of the questions I asked yesterday evening? If this has all been part of an orchestrated conspiracy, why all the obvious SNAFUs? Why has the Illuminati-controlled CIA contradicted Bush about Saddam’s connection with Al Qaeda? Why did the US inspectors today say that there’s no evidence Iraq had smallpox?? Why did Agent Bin Laden condemn Saddam and leave no evidence they worked together? Why does this grand conspiracy seem so inept?
I don’t know.
Just seemed like too many unanswered contradictions to me, from what I’ve read.
I could be wrong, you know.
Its not like I can affect the world’s goings-on anyway.
I so do love crackpot government conspiracy theroies! The people who make these things up must never have actually WORKED for the government. Do you actually think the government works with a “hive mind”? Do you know how many people would have to be “in” on these conspiracies for them to actually work? Give me a break!
I am expected to believe the same government who brought me such scandals as Watergate, Iran-Contra, Bill&Monica, GW DWI, are really behind such a wide reaching scheme? Dont you think this same hush-hush government would have kept a lid on Watergate? Dont you think if the President was such a HUGE power he would have squashed Monica before she ever uttered a word?
And akrako1 I admire your conviction, truly, and there is nothing wrong with trying to see both sides of any issue…but as with all things, moderation is the key here!! You are reading far to much, and not taking the time to truly analyze what it is your reading. Think on this; if the govt is truly so secretive…why the hell does anyone know about it?? Are you saying a govt that could pull of 9/11 for its own gain, would then be so stupid to leave enough clues for someone to come along and figure it out??
Which is more likely?:
A) Nineteen people working at the direction of a handful of others move to the US, take up residence, get a basic MS-Flight-Sim level of flight training, purchase tickets, hijack four cross-country flights (Which were supposed to be taken roughly simultaneously, but were not due to delays on the ground) with small bladed weapons, and crashed into three buildings and a stretch of open field, OR:
B) The US government took part in a plot to attack itself, involving a minimum action of hijacking four of its own airliners, crashing some of these while “disapearing” at least one, crashing a learjet (Or Global Hawk, or Tomahawk, they can’t make up their mind) into the Pentagon, a few dozen demolitions experts with several tons of explosives wiring offices on several floors of each WTC tower, dozens if not hundreds of support personel, and ALL of it done without a single one of them coming forward to reveal what happened, or even letting it slip?
What “contradictions” do you see? What do you think happened? Why do you think the logically consistant accepted explanation is not true?
I forgot to add, the complacency and/or assistance of at least some of the local air traffic controllers, NORAD, and several area Air Force bases. So we’re up to several hundred, more likely, several thousand, in very public, non-clandestine fields, all of whom must have the lack of morals to kill 3000 people without objecting about it afterwards, and who are smart enough to keep quiet about it afterward.
First of all, I don’t put the loss of 3,000 lives past Bush and his cabal. Life means nothing to them.
Dob - “Are you saying a govt that could pull of 9/11 for its own gain, would then be so stupid to leave enough clues for someone to come along and figure it out??”
You mention Iran/Contra, Watergate, etc, but then question why they’d leave clues… well, that’s what happened with your above mentioned ‘conspiracies’. Oh, though, once they’re “fact”, they’re not called ‘conspiracies’ anymore, but the truth. Don’t call 'em conspiracies or that tends to vindicate the conspiracy theorist. But, anyways, I digress… I’m sure they tried to cover their tracks, but aren’t infallible - hence why we’re even having this conversation. They can’t control foreign & independant press, so some honest reporting does get out.
I admit, there seems to be some question that that many people could be involved. But for my tastes, there are too many inconsistancies to buy the government line. For an example, let’s take one inconsistancy. How about Insider Trading immediately before 9/11? This was reported in the mainstream press immediately after the attacks, but was quickly quashed. If any of these reports contain truth, then we’re being lied to. Simple as that.
Here’s a quick link I found:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/10_09_01_krongard.html
Try searching on 9/11 and “insider trading” on Google. I got 28,100 hits. Try searching thru major media, and you won’t find any.
I don’t believe that all the conspiracy theories are correct. I only need one. This general concept applies to so many areas of the “investigation” of the attack. The 9/11 report’s highy censored nature indicates some kind of cover up - specifically including who gave assistance to the hijackers! Let’s see, another inconsistancy, how about this report that Bin Laden met with CIA officials in Dubai.
“Osama bin Laden reportedly arrived at Dubai Airport on July 4, 2001 from Quetta, Pakistan. During his 11-day stay in the American hospital, he was cared for by Dr. Terry Calloway, a kidney specialist, and was visited by several family members, dignitaries, a Saudi Prince, and two CIA agents.”
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Report%20bin%20Laden%20treated%20at%20US%20hospital%20--%20The%20Washington%20Times.htm
The CIA’s response:
"The CIA denied the claims. An American diplomat in France told reporters, “We’re just not commenting on any of that stuff. We can’t talk about meetings that may or may not have happened.” see the Infowars link above.
I don’t want to specifically debate the above point, but I’m using this as an example of a glaring inconsistancy that has been widely published in foreign press. If just ONE of the theories turns out to be true (explosives, remote controlled jets, obstructed FBI investigation, insider-trading, and the MANY MANY warning for foreign governments), then Bush et al is full of sh*t and is lying to us.
Lets take a brief look at the many warning from foreign nations about an imminent attack. Check out the following link:
There are TONS of warning from foreign governments and individuals from around the world - including heads of states! Remember Bush’s statement that we’d never expect they’d use airplanes as missles! there were specific warnings to that effect! Why would he lie? There has to be a cover up - and it’s not a cover up of their incompetency - it worked out too well for them. While I do have some doubt that the U.S. government directly planned the attacks, I have no doubt that they ignored specific warning, obstructed investigations that could have uncovered the plot, and profited from the death.
“His cabal” in this case including at lease a dozen or so explosives technicians, several civilian ATC opperators, and hundreds if not a few thousand Air Force personel in several dozen different locations and with no connection to eachother. None of these people are easy to replace temporarily or permanantly for such a role, nor are they likely to either go along with the murder of several thousand people, nor stay quiet about it afterward. The idea of a conspiracy in this scope goes against all reason.
The “insider trading” theories are weak. There’s no discussion of standard trends in the stock market to even indicate that this is anything unusual. Nor are there examples of the many losses that occured due to it. There isn’t even information on if this was many different people bidding, or a single individual. Just because someone makes or looses a lot of money on the stock market, a practice that pretty much resembles high-stake gambling, it doesn’t mean foul play was involved. You’ll have to do a LOT more than just point out that some people profited by it.
And it seems that this “one” you need seems to change depending on which ones have been shot down already. First you promote one; it’s shot down. Then you promote another; it’s shot down. You continue, and continue, still saying it’s a conspiracy, despite all the theories you bring up being shot down, and still claiming it must be so.
Unsubstantiated. The hospital says it never happened. There is no mention of any records of him being there, no evidence at all. And even if he was, there is no evidence that it has anything to do with the 9/11 attacks (In fact, the same specious logic was used to promote the idea that Sadam was behind the attacks, due to Iraq trying (and failing) to strike up an agreement with Al’Qaida).
Kind of funny. You’ll continue digging for any theory except the one that has overwhelming solid evidence backing it up.
I had read Debt of Honor sometime before 9/11, so I was familiar with the idea of using passenger planes as missiles. However, I did not expect it to actually happen. I doubt this was a lie so much as a simplification.
Explain. Why does there have to be a cover-up?
And again, if they managed to pull such a huge task off, involving thousands of people and huge amounts of evidence that had to be hidden, how come they’re so idiotically incompetent that they can’t even “find” a single artillery shell of anthrax in Iraq? It would be much simpler (Involving a half dozen people at the most), have significantly less evidence to hide, and would not involve the moral qualms of murdering thousands of their own citizens. Did the “big bad government” suddenly develop a belated sense of morals? “I know we killed 3000 people and are constantly lying about it, but it’s just wrong to frame an evil dictator by planting a chemical warhead in a warehouse…” Right.
The warnings were not specific to the point that they would notably help investigation. No firm details, just vague possibilities. There were, apparently, some discussion of the possibilities of hijackings. The idea of people using a plane as a missile was not unknown (See above). Still, even if there was a lack of action, that does not mean they encouraged it. They could have potentially been more alert in investigating possible attacks, but a failure to properly defend oneself is hardly reason to blame them for it. Blaming the victim is pretty reprehensible.
I would profit (monetarily) from my parents’ death. This neither means I want it to happen, nor that I would encourage it. If someone else murders them, it is not “proof” that I somehow had a hand in it. At most, it gives a reason to be investigated, but that is it.
I have yet to hear details of how they obstructed investigations that could have uncovered the plot. Though I should point out, the US Constitution obstructs many investigations that could have uncovered many terrorist plots. This does not make Washington, Jefferson, etc. complicent in modern terrorism and other criminal activity.