# To the Two Loons **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 9, 2006, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934 "2006-04-09T07:50:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/281 "2006-04-12T21:38:49Z")
> [@Sent](#): > > Do you know what a think tank is? Are you aware that PNAC, which came up with this plan, is a neoconservative think tank of which Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney became members in 1997? Did you or did you not say “whose signatories or contributing writers included Richard Cheney and other key figures of the Bush administration”? That was the list of people who wrote the document. Where’s Cheney, again? > [@](#): > > \*Either you’re not very bright, or you are trying to distort the reality of what happened here. That Joint Chiefs Insutruction played a pivitol role in allowing 9/11 to happen. > > Prior to this instruction: > > Field commanders had authority to shoot down commercial aircraft, and would have done so if a commercial aircraft was headed towards the Pentagon and orders were not forthcoming. > > After this instruction: > > All authority to shoot down the aircraft goes to Rumsfeld. Who does Rumsfeld answer to? That’s right, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. Rumsfeld hands over control to his boss Dick Cheney, who is in the situation room directing things. Therefore, Dick Cheney becomes effectively in control of our air defenses against these aircraft.\* The document you cite only gives control to Rumsfeld, who is very much in the same mold that Haig was. There is no way he’d give that up. > [@](#): > > _They aren’t supposed to collapse at all, or if they do, they are not supposed to collapse so quickly_ Cite? > [@](#): > > _with additional explosions in the basements and demolition charge pops, flashes and quibs going around the buildings._ > [@tomndebb](#): > > So nothing erupts from the window and no damage to the building is visible following the flash, so what kind of “explosions” do you think it might have been that failed to do any damage (or much of anything aside from appearing outside the wall)? > > Here is a suggestion: falling glass or sheets of wallboard or even paper falling from stories above, twisting as they fell so that at one point they happened to reflect light from the flames of the other building or catch a reflection off the windows of some other building. (Since the angle of incidence between the light source and the camera would have required a particular angle (out of the 129,600 angles available to an object twisting in space) the reflection was only visible for a brief moment as it fell. Given the numerous objects of various material falling from the building continuously throughout the event, several of them could easily have reflected some particular light source to the camera from different angles, then appeared to disappear as they no longer reflected the light. > > I have now provided an explanation that accounts for the appearance of the flashes while simultaneaously explaining why no windows erupted at the point of the flash and no damage is visible on the walls behind the flashes. My solution is actually more logical than yours and better supported by the evidence. > [@Sent (again)](#): > > _Have you bothered to read Rebuilding America’s Defenses? How can you dispute that every objective mentioned is on the way to being achieved as a result of 9/11?_ Even so, it still doesn’t make “the events of September 11, 2001 resulted in the enactment of the plans envisioned by the Project for the New American Century, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq planned previous to 2001” anything more than conjecture. You _are_ aware what “conjecture” is, yes? You are repeating a theory that was formed by speculation and has little (if any) hard evidence to back it up–the very definition of the word. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/282 "2006-04-12T21:48:03Z")
> [@Sent](#): > > Well when I have some spare 110-story buildings to crash 767s into, I’ll let you know. They aren’t supposed to collapse at all, or if they do, they are not supposed to collapse so quickly and with additional explosions in the basements and demolition charge pops, flashes and quibs going around the buildings. Clearly there was a hidden conspiracy to sink the _Titanic_, since its watertight compartments meant it wasn’t supposed to sink at all, or if it id, it wasn’t supposed to sink so quickly. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/283 "2006-04-12T22:07:07Z")
**Sent** every claim you post makes the conspiracy larger and larger. Your latest cast of characters has grown to include John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, the FBI and a think tank. The trail of evidence now includes ‘a significant 2000 document entitled entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”’ which lays out the rationale for the plan. The goal isn’t _just_ to install an oil pipeline in Afghanistan but _also_ to justify a huge increase in defense spending. The conspiracy _doesn’t_ shoot down a plane headed for the Pentagon (to cover the firing of a missile) but _does_ shoot down another plane headed for Washington. And equally important, this vast conspiracy had to have been put together either A) in less than nine months after the Bush inauguration or B) years earlier, during the Clinton administration (or perhaps even earlier???) and held together in complete secrecy long enough to implement the plan. Amazingly, despite the size and complexity of the conspiracy, despite the stolen identities, planted passports, falsified voice mail messages, tampered radar software, planting of exxplosives and a million other tiny little details, only a handful of people, working in cells, have full knowledge of their own little parts of the plan. And somehow it all fits together. While there are a few clues left after it’s all over, all the pieces came together. By the way, what’s your take on the Flight 93 transcripts released today. Real? Fake? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/284 "2006-04-12T22:07:49Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > > [@tomndebb](#): > > > > : > > b) How did 19 Arab hijackers get past security on four flights at three separate international airports with knives, box cutters, mace and bombs according to the 9/11 Commission report? > > Huh? Even after 9/11 it’s still ridiculously easy to get stuff past security if somoene is determined enough. I listened to a George Carlin routine from before 9/11 where he said that airport security was a joke because it was so easy to get knives on board. Before 9/11 I always carried my Swiss Army knife on planes, no problem. I suppose Carlin is part of the conspiracy. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/285 "2006-04-12T22:13:19Z")
> [@Sent](#): > > Do you know what a think tank is? Are you aware that PNAC, which came up with this plan, is a neoconservative think tank of which Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney became members in 1997? Except there is a well documented conflict between the Neo-Cons in the pentagon and the CIA (and state department). The idea the CIA would have blindly gone along with any crazy plot the Neo-cons came up with is ridiculous. The regime you portray as a monolythic evil enitity, is a nothing like that. Just like any government its made up of a set of fifedoms, with differening goals and objectives. > [@](#): > > They aren’t supposed to collapse at all, or if they do, they are not supposed to collapse so quickly and with additional explosions in the basements and demolition charge pops, flashes and quibs going around the buildings. OK I’ll post this again (It’s the same point I made on [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7292715#post7292715) thread). Common events (i.e. house fires, car crashes, etc) are reasonably well understood, rare catastrophic events (i.e large passenger planes hitting multistory buildings) are NOT. You CAN’T talk about what you would ‘expect’ to happen when a plane hits the WTC the same way you would about a heater catching fire in appartment. A good example of this is the 1987 King’s Cross Fire in which 31 people died. This fire in a London underground station was probably started by unlit match falling into an escalator. The fire did not appear to be dangerous, but suddenly flashed over, turning the escalator into a flame thrower and turning ticket hall into a furnace (over 1100F). The fire behaved in a completely unexpected and non-intuititive manner (laying down at the bottom of the escalator, moving horizontally rather than vertically). It took years of anaylsis and “tweaking” the computer model, (as well as a [completely new theory of fire behaviour](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_effect)) to explain the fire. Does this mean the King’s Cross Fire was a conspiracy too ? > [@sent](#): > > Have you bothered to read _Rebuilding America’s Defenses_? How can you dispute that every objective mentioned is on the way to being achieved as a result of 9/11? Read it and get back to me. They may have shamelessly used 9/11 as an excuse to acheive their aims. But it makes a VERY BAD ONE: If they have planned it why weren’t Iraqis, Iranian, and North Koreans on those planes ? Those are the boggy men they describe in RAD. Saudi Arabia is mentioned only as a ally(its links to terrorism are conveinently glossed over). Hell why were they planes at all ? Why didn’t they arrange for missile attack ? (and if there WAS a missile attack why did they hide it behind a hijacking). The pet project they promote above all others in RAD is the missile defence system, which is 10 billion dollar a year white elephant against guys with box-cutters. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/286 "2006-04-12T22:19:16Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > Except there is a well documented conflict between the Neo-Cons in the pentagon and the CIA (and state department). The idea the CIA would have blindly gone along with any crazy plot the Neo-cons came up with is ridiculous. The regime you portray as a monolythic evil enitity, is a nothing like that. Just like any government its made up of a set of fifedoms, with differening goals and objectives. And it’s virtually impossible to get them to cooperate in _anything_, let alone something that would be so _huge_ like 9/11. ---
**Author:** ![Sent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Sent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sent)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/287 "2006-04-12T22:28:13Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > Did you or did you not say “whose signatories or contributing writers included Richard Cheney and other key figures of the Bush administration”? Is there something amiss in your reading comprehension? I know I’ve been making some typos and editing mistakes here and there but this was very clear: > [@me](#): > > written by **a neoconservative think tank known as the Project for a New American Century, whose signatories or contributing writers included** Richard Cheney and other key figures of the Bush administration, > [@](#): > > That was the list of people who wrote the document. Where’s Cheney, again? Cheney is a signatory memeber of PNAC, see above. When Cheney and Bush get in office, Wolfowitz, Libby and others are rewarded with key positions. > [@](#): > > The document you cite only gives control to Rumsfeld, who is very much in the same mold that Haig was. There is no way he’d give that up. Surely there’s no reason to believe Rumsfeld would cooperate with Cheney. The whole point is that the field commanders wouldn’t have allowed this to happen, had the rules not been deliberately changed in June taking the power away from them and transferring it to Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush. > [@](#): > > You are repeating a theory that was formed by speculation and has little (if any) hard evidence to back it up–the very definition of the word. So your argument is that 9/11 did not result in the full enactment of international and domestic plans laid out in that document? ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/288 "2006-04-12T22:36:04Z")
> [@Sent](#): > > Is there something amiss in your reading comprehension? Not at all. You implied Cheney was involved in writing the document that you cited. > [@](#): > > _. The whole point is that the field commanders wouldn’t have allowed this to happen, had the rules not been deliberately changed in June taking the power away from them and transferring it to Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush._ Cite? > [@](#): > > _So your argument is that 9/11 did not result in the full enactment of international and domestic plans laid out in that document?_ Is there something amiss in _your_ reading comprehension? My argument is that you asserted something as fact when it clearly is nothing more than conjecture. Until you can provide solid evidence to support your “fact”, conjecture it will remain. You claim to be a skeptic? Either that’s a lie or you’re the worst example of a skeptic I’ve ever seen! ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/289 "2006-04-12T22:48:42Z")
> [@Sent](#): > > No, do you see your own? Really? You can’t see the total hypocrisy in your position? Anyone that agrees with your position you accept uncritically, and automatically. Anyone who disagrees with it, you go out of your way to invent motives for why they would deceive themselves or the public at large. You really can’t perceive the disconnect there? Your pet author there states that the actions of one of the planes was _flatly impossible_. That no plane, under any circumstances, could have performed the manouevers that plane is alleged to have performed. And yet, 99% of the other people in his field have no problem with this scenario. And this doesn’t phase you in the least? This actually makes _sense_ to you? At the very least, can you understand why the vast majority of rational adults are going to laugh at you when you postulate something like that? ---
**Author:** ![Sent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Sent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sent)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/290 "2006-04-12T22:57:40Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > Not at all. You implied Cheney was involved in writing the document that you cited. :smack: Work on your reading comprehension. Cheney is a signatory of PNAC. It is not necessary for everyone in PNAC to be a part of the conspiracy, but they support these objectives and as usual with every group there is an even more hawkish element that wants things done sooner. The hawkish elements of an already hawkish group are of the type who are willing to sacrafice some civilian lives if necessary. They are of the type who come up with plans like Northwoods. > [@](#): > > Cite? I’ve already linked you to that document which outlines this transfer of authority, don’t ask me to give you the same sources over and over. I don’t know what else I can do for you here if you cannot figure out that 2+2=4. > [@](#): > > Either that’s a lie or you’re the worst example of a skeptic I’ve ever seen! How can you call yourself a skeptic when you don’t understand the simplest concepts of deception? Your problem is that you underestimate your opponents. It’s not necessary for Bush to be a genius, or to even know any details of the plan in advance. > [@](#): > > Except there is a well documented conflict between the Neo-Cons in the pentagon and the CIA (and state department). The idea the CIA would have blindly gone along with any crazy plot the Neo-cons came up with is ridiculous. The regime you portray as a monolythic evil enitity, is a nothing like that. Just like any government its made up of a set of fifedoms, with differening goals and objectives. Are you joking? You really believe there’s no CIA involvement just because some elements of the CIA have clashed with the neocons at times? Tell me, as a Coincidence Theorist, do you believe in the Coincidence which says that there’s no relevance in the fact that Porter Goss was meeting with Atta’s Pakistani ISI financier on 9/11, that this was ignored by the 9/11 Commission, and that Goss was later chosen to head the CIA? ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/291 "2006-04-12T23:22:59Z")
> [@Sent](#): > > Are you joking? You really believe there’s no CIA involvement just because some elements of the CIA have clashed with the neocons at times? But they COULD not have kept it quiet… The conspiracy would have have to have been HUGE. And the CIA were the ones whose reputation was most tarnished by failing to prevent 9/11. > [@Sent](#): > > Tell me, as a Coincidence Theorist, do you believe in the Coincidence which says that there’s no relevance in the fact that Porter Goss was meeting with Atta’s Pakistani ISI financier on 9/11, that this was ignored by the 9/11 Commission, and that Goss was later chosen to head the CIA? I am well aware of that. Tell me, as a conspiracy theorist how does this support your theory ? Surely if he had advanced warning the LAST place he would be is talking to the Taliban’s main backers. PNAC does come across as a churchill-style “voice in the wilderness” warning of the dangers of Al Qiada while no-one would listen. “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” doesn’t mention Bin Laden, hardly mentions Afghanistan, and only mentions Pakistan in relation to balistic missiles, not their connection the Taliban and Al Qiada. Its answer to defending america are things like missile defence, nuclear superiority and U.S. Space Forces (yes **space** forces like starship troopers, great for attacking the insect homeworld, not so great at find a guy in a cave). This is the 21st century equivalent of the Maginot Line. This is the basic riduclousnes of your theory. The whole Neo-con establishment does not come off looking like great leaders, rising to the occasion to rescue the US at its gravest hour. They look like FOOLS. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/292 "2006-04-12T23:29:32Z")
Sent, Like Rick, I want to believe, really want to place my trust in you. There’s a small problem, though, which I would greatly appreciate your clearing away. You seem to know a lot about the conspiracy that came to fruition on September 11, 2001. You seem to know a lot more than “Joe Average” could possibly know. So, how about proving to me that you’re not part of that conspiracy. :rolleyes: On a serious note, you are making bald-faced false claims about quite a number of things. Unlike Tom, I don’t think you’re just stupid. I think you’re also an intentional liar. There’s no way I will believe any of your assertions without independent and credible sources. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/293 "2006-04-12T23:35:08Z")
> [@Sent](#): > > Indeed…it is a hydraulic press, I’ve used them as well. What the hey, I’m bored and have a few minutes to kill before the staff meeting this morning. So, Sent, what reason did you have to be using that hydraulic press? If you’re that familiar with the item in question, how did you confuse its pressing strength with its own weight? ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/294 "2006-04-12T23:43:26Z")
> [@Sent](#): > > So your argument is that 9/11 did not result in the full enactment of international and domestic plans laid out in that document? What’s the chicken and what’s the egg here? Are you saying that: A) A cabal came up with a wish list of what they’d like to have in the Defense budget, got a conservative think tank to **openly publish it** and then enacted an incredibly complex plot to get what they want; B) The cabal took advantage of something that happened to push their agenda for increased spending? Oh, and I see you’ve added Porter Goss to the list of _People Who Are In On It_. Just out of curiosity, was anyone in the Bush administration a clueless stooge who was manipulated by the PWAIOI? ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/295 "2006-04-12T23:47:44Z")
**Sent** , you’re a coward. [Top 15 Reasons Why the 9/11 Conspiracy is Absurd](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7268133&postcount=186). Do you have a reponse? And how can you have such an ossified opinion on the ultimate question, if these little ones trip you up so much? If and when you respond, remember **kunilou’s** second rule of conspiracies: the pieces have to fit together. ---
**Author:** ![Sent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Sent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sent)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/296 "2006-04-12T23:56:07Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > But they COULD not have kept it quiet… The conspiracy would have have to have been HUGE. Not as huge as you think. These are not the politics you read about in the New York Times or that you see on CBS news. These are “deep politics”. Read and learn. [http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/hiddenterror.html](http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/hiddenterror.html) > [@](#): > > I am well aware of that. Tell me, as a conspiracy theorist how does this support your theory ? Surely if he had advanced warning the LAST place he would be is talking to the Taliban’s main backers. :smack: It makes perfect sense if he is working _with_ them. > [@](#): > > “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” doesn’t mention Bin Laden, hardly mentions Afghanistan, and only mentions Pakistan in relation to balistic missiles, not their connection the Taliban and Al Qiada. Of course not. It is the “grand plan”, the overall strategic objective. Increase defense spending, increase militarization at home, find a catalyst for the “transformation” that will make America a mighty empire in the post-cold war era. We do know now that plans to invade Afghanistand and Iraq predated the attacks of 9/11. > [@](#): > > Its answer to defending america are things like missile defence, nuclear superiority and U.S. Space Forces (yes **space** forces like starship troopers, great for attacking the insect homeworld, not so great at find a guy in a cave). This is the 21st century equivalent of the Maginot Line. Mission accomplished. [http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/2006/ct20060407-12775.html](http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/2006/ct20060407-12775.html) > [@](#): > > The whole Neo-con establishment does not come off looking like great leaders, rising to the occasion to rescue the US at its gravest hour. They look like FOOLS. They did for a time, didn’t they, to the masses? Now although approval has dropped and maybe the long-term plan isn’t working as well as hoped, they still appear to be winning and the masses are none the wiser to their real activities. Who has been reprimanded, demoted, or terminated after the monumental “failures” of 9/11? Nobody! They all get pats on the back and promotions and other perks down the road even after they have moved on. They do essentially come out as the heroes leading the sheep in fear of the scary terrorists, if things start to go badly they need only mention “9/11” and the fear returns and they’ve got power again. Pavlov’s bells. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/297 "2006-04-12T23:58:51Z")
Sent, You are studiously avoiding the direct and important questions. What is your response to my question above? What is your response to PBear’s posting above? Why should we believe anything you say? ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/298 "2006-04-13T00:30:52Z")
[QUOTE=Sent] Not as huge as you think. These are not the politics you read about in the New York Times or that you see on CBS news. These are “deep politics”. Read and learn. > [@](#): > > [http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/hiddenterror.html](http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/hiddenterror.html) Thats a long rambling incorrherrent peice. How does it explain how such a huge a widespread conspiracy could be acheived without a huge number of conspirators. > [@](#): > > :smack: It makes perfect sense if he is working _with_ them. NO it DOESN’T. If he knew in advance that within weeks, as a result of those attacks, a incensed America would consider the Taliban their main enemy. WHY WOULD ARRANGE TO TALKING TO THE MAIN TALIBAN BACKERS ON THE MORNING OF 9/11. Any other time it would have gone unnoticed, but on the morning on 9/11, as the towers fell, it was bound to come to the attention of someone. When someone arranges a hit on their wife, they make sure they seen being as innocent as possible, on the other side of town, when the hit is carried out. > [@](#): > > Of course not. It is the “grand plan”, the overall strategic objective. So there are two explainations for this A - Synically using 9/11 to acheive what their “grand plan”. Even though those aims had nothing to do with 9/11, and would certainly not prevent it happening again. B - They planned 9/11 to acheive their grand plan. Again, why, if it is B why was the fit so bad. They had warned in advance of the dangers of Iran, Iraq, North Korea. Why were NONE of these invovled. We’ve seen how heavily invovled the Iraqi exiles were in Neo-con movement. How hard would it have been to fake real undeniable evidence of Saddam’s invovlement. > [@](#): > > They do essentially come out as the heroes leading the sheep in fear of the scary terrorists, I have three words to that “My Pet Goat”. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/299 "2006-04-13T00:45:00Z")
> [@Sent](#): > > I’ve already linked you to that document which outlines this transfer of authority, don’t ask me to give you the same sources over and over. You linked the document that transferred authority to Rumsfeld, yes. Where’s the proof that Rumsfeld gave up that authority? > [@](#): > > _How can you call yourself a skeptic when you don’t understand the simplest concepts of deception?_ I understand deception just fine. Hell, I believe that our government hasn’t been completely forthright in regards to what really happened in New Mexico in 1947! Do I believe that little green men crashed their flying saucer there? 'Course not–there is no solid evidence for that. There is also no solid evidence for the government’s story, just their say-so. In regards to 9/11, there is no solid evidence that the government staged the whole thing but there _is_ and continuing to assert such a scenario in the face of all the evidence to the contrary borders on the ludicrous. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934/300 "2006-04-13T00:48:23Z")
> [@Sent](#): > > Not as huge as you think. Arguing that the “conspiracy” involved no more than 15 guys, again? Ridiculous. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-the-two-loons/351934.md?page=16)