To the Two Loons

The BBQ Pit
301

Well I guess you’ll just have to make up your own damn mind to believe me or not, now won’t you? It’s obvious to me that all of you, everyone one of you who has argued against the basic premise I am trying to explain to you (9/11 was an inside job), are ignorant of the deep politics of the world. You’re ignorant of some basic psychological principles and the elementary aspects of the art of deception and the great power game. This is why you believe it can’t be possible. You wouldn’t be asking all these questions if you cleared up your fundamental assumptions first, then the pieces would fall in place and you would many new questions. You have to be adept at solving puzzles.

Nevertheless, I will answer some of your questions as I promised to do a while ago.

Depends on where you float it. It is absurd to cite Northwoods as a refutation of existence of state-sponsored terror when it is exactly the opposite.

The motives of those involved are perfectly clear to me. You don’t understand because well…you just haven’t looked behind the whitewash enough yet.

I agree this is the biggest operation of its kind in history that I’m aware of, but they certainly could have pulled it off. They did. It’s only a matter of discovering what was deception and what wasn’t, who was involved and who wasn’t.

There are multiple prominent individuals publicly speaking out about it, but the masses will not hear them. No individuals directly involved have said anything because well…would you if you had any sense? You would be lynched by mobs.

This does not make any sense. This plan was used to invade Iraq, and Bin Laden was retained as an asset for future purposes, if he is still alive.

It’s only stupid to you because you don’t think big enough. Read the article in my last post if you want to learn about the Taliban. This decision to go into Afghanistan was made before 9/11, it wouldn’t have mattered what the Taliban said. They offered to turn him over to some other country.

Apparently in their minds, it was a good idea to potray him as a fearless, innocent leader by scheduling the classroom session for the time of attack.

Can you prove it? I don’t know if Bush’s Solicitor general even knew about the plot anyway, it wasn’t even necessary that Bush know the details. Plausible deniability.

Al Qaeda is a CIA creation and asset.

Not sure, maybe an easy way to get rid of evidence, leaseholder was in on the plot…many possibilites.

This would not have rivalled the psychological job done on America on 9/11 and the ensuing anthrax attacks.

BTW, remember you were told at first it was “Iraqi anthrax”. Later, amazingly, we find it is U.S. Military anthrax. And yet, did we bother to track down the source, which we easily could have done since the kind of anthrax is held under high security? No, no one has been identified as the source or held responsible. The anthrax part of the black op was the finishing touch, making every American with a mailbox shake in their boots in fear of the boogie man terrorists.

Nothing would have produced the feeling that we were at WAR than hitting the Pentagon itself. I don’t know about you but when I heard the Pentagon was under attack, it really added that special something to the events of the day. Henceforth, it was a “war on terror” or “long war” that someone else has started, not us…the war PNAC was hoping for. It was a self-inflicted wound with a purpose.

Oh no, the psychological value was very great, it was well worth it. I could not have thought of a better plan. First, draw the viewers to their screens by having the planes it. Now, the whole world is watching LIVE. Next, have the buildings fall down one at a time. I remember seeing it live. The live international audience reached and the psycholgical impact was greater than seeing footage of something that had happened in the past.

The evidence is at your fingertips, except for the physical evidence which has been melted down. You’ll have to ask an explosives expert on the exact rigging of the building. There was opporunity as well, since bomb-sniffing dogs had been removed and there were unusual powerdowns in at least one tower including workers in overalls who came in to “replace cabling”.

Read the article in my last post, it explains the basics where these apparent contradictions become seamless.

302

Hardly. We demand you back up all your blusterous conjecture with solid evidence. Why isn’t that obvious to you?

303

Well, our esteemed guest has resolutely ignored every attempt I’ve made to engage him, but what the heck, I’ll try one more time.

Mistah Sent, sir, you’ve mentioned really quite a lot about what you think didn’t happen on September 11, 2001, but you really haven’t ever said what you think did happen, at least not in any coherent manner. With that in mind, and just so we’re all clear on your arguments, would you kindly respond to the following questions (BTW, if there is anyone else here who disbelieves the official story, feel free to chime in):

  1. Boeing 767, tail number N344AA, flown into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. In your opinion, sir, true or false?

  2. B-767, tail number N612UA, flown into the South Tower of the WTC; true or false?

  3. B-757, tail number N644AA, flown into the Pentagon; true or false?

  4. B-757, tail number N591UA, crashed near Shanksville, PA; true or false?

  5. Assuming you answered “true” to all of the above, who was at the controls at the time of each crash: a) the pilot of record; b) a hijacker c) one or more flights was remotely-controlled in some way; d) none of the above?

  6. If you answered no to any of Q1-4, what caused the impact damage known to have occured at each crash site?

  7. Assuming there was a conspiracy to cover up the true nature of the 9/11 attacks, what was the minimum number of people necessary to establsih and maintain the cover-up: a) 1; b) 5; c) 50; d) 500 e) 5000?

  8. Assuming the above conspiracy existed, who do you believe was at its head? One or more names of actual people, please.

  9. (and last) You have already gone on record here as stating that you believe it was effectively impossible that the combination of impact and thermal effects from the post-crash fires at the WTC could have resulted in the collapse of both towers. What, sir, is your specific field of expertise that has allowed you to state this with such confidence?

I think once we hear some answers to these questions, the discussion may proceed much more efficiently.

304

Ah, I see on posting that Sent has more or less answered Q8 in a previous post. No matter, the rest still stand.

305

Yeah, right. They were removed. Which is why at least one of them died there in the attack.

306

Here’s your problem, El_Kabong. You are too fond of certainty. Basically, you are not comfortable with a situation where you don’t have an official story to cling to and you have to find the answers yourself, possibly never knowing for sure what happened and what didn’t.

Here are my answers, but they are only my opinion you see. I don’t need to have a complete narrative to understand that there was government involvement in this thing.

IMO, yes these planes or decoys of them actually hit the towers. I have some slight doubt regarding this due to the falsification of the impact hole graphics in the FEMA report, but I’m pretty sure 767s did hit.

Unsure, right now I am leaning towards not. There are many doubts here concerning the ability of the plane to even do this and the alleged punchout hole in the C ring. I think a plane crashed but possibily a smaller craft. So where is 77 if it didn’t crash there? Don’t know.

Unlikely, but possible. Even if all the alleged planes crashed in the alleged manner, still this would not rule out inside involvement.

IMO b in some cases, and c in some or all cases

[qutote]6. If you answered no to any of Q1-4, what caused the impact damage known to have occured at each crash site?
[/quote]

Even if I had answered no, other things could cause this damage, particularly from 77 and 93.

Most of the people that you get to cover things up for you do not need to know what they are doing or why, you create a pretext. I think likely those with full knowledge beforehand would somewhere between b and c, while those in the direct cover-up would be between c and d. Some others you can blackmail to cooperate, others you can covertly kill. This is just my guestimation.

The “head”? There are probably people with a lot of money who dreamed up the result they wanted, others who dreamed up the operation and the means and others who headed the actual operation. Cheney was at the center of the operation IMO.

Who me? Why I’m nobody, nobody at all.

307

I don’t make things up, this was reported the day after:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-nyaler122362178sep12,0,1255660.story

308

Such language! Have I cursed at you? Here’s why I don’t believe you: you are tossing out groundless assertions, thus tarnishing both the memories of those who died and the reputations of innocent individuals who had nothing to do with the attacks on September 11, 2001.

Quite a few of us who are arguing against your lunacy are very familiar with the world’s politics.

Really, now? And you are so informed of those principles based upon what education, what qualification? Do you happen to also be a psychologist?

We don’t believe your assertions are possible because they’re impossible. Unlike the comic book world, things that happen in the real word must obey the laws of physics.

This is the second time (at least) that you have basically asked everyone else to suspend their thinking process.

Or just gullible.

309

Sent, just for shits and giggles, I’ve taken the time to go back through both threads. You should be ashamed of yourself. For the amount of space you’ve consumed (starting at post #130 in the other thread), you’ve said very little. Basically, it boils down to three arguments.

The collapse of the WTC looks suspiciously like a controlled demolition. And there is videotape and eyewitness evidence of explosions prior to and during the collapse (allegedly) consistent with that suspicion.

The neocons benefited from the attacks because it enabled them to greatly increase government power. Suspiciously, they had predicted that it would take a Pearl Harbor like event to generate support for such an increase.

You’re a heck of a lot smarter than us skeptics, who have fallen for “the most sophisticated PSYOP (psychological operations) in history.”
Never mind that all these points have been crushingly refuted. You can’t necessarily be expected to recognize that. But, you should be able to see that those three points are extremely thin reeds on which to construct a thesis of such breathtaking implausibility (see my link above).

310

That’s all very well and good, but it doesn’t change the fact that dogs were there. That means any explosives brought in or in place ran the risk of discovery.

Just one more thing to the logistics of demolition I’m sure you, or any other conspiracy nutter never will be able to answer.

311

Obviously not the kind I’m talking about.

Well, straight dopers, I’ve done my time here. I’m off. You are good with arguing, I’ll give you that. Try to stop overestimating yourselves, and underestimating your opponents. Have fun.

312

Yes, we know. You are privy to the sooper-sekkrit underworld of world politics. KNowing that makes you feel so, so… special.

313

That’s probably because we stopped buying that cereal with the Captain Crypto Secret Decoder ring as a prize. I’m currently buying “Kon-Peu-Rost” (Frosted Flakes) because they have the neat Tony the Tiger watch in the box.

Spring break over?

You finally got one right!

What arguing? All we’ve been doing is asking you to provide the evidence to back up your assertions. From where I sit, you owe the families of over three thousand people an apology. You also owe an apology to the government and the airlines involved on a certain date.

What overstimating? What’s obvious is that your basic opinion of Science is that it’s no different than any other belief system. Sadly, you’ve never learned that Science is a process, not a belief. Looking over your posts and those addressed to you, all I’ve seen is people asking you to provide the Science behind your assertions and just bluster and falsehoods from you in reply.

314

OK so you are seriously suggesting this is what happened…

The evil conspiracy dudes, found out a way of arranging for Al Qiada hijackers (maybe with the help of some crazy hitech remote control device, not forgeting some devices installed in the ATC radar system to generate fake “blips”) to take over and crash AT LEAST 2 planes into the world trade center. They did this, completely flawlessly, without any knowledge of this leaking out, and without leaving any evidence(you have not presented ANY evidence for this).

BUT they don’t leave it at that. For some reason they think that will not be enough to scare the populous in to following they’re previously published master plan (which doesn’t EVEN mention Al Qiada). The don’t change the plot to make it match their master plan (something as simple and easy to fake as an intercept phone message from an Iraqi, Iranian or NK agent). They decide the BEST way to accomplish this is make absolutely, doubly sure that the WTC towers collape by sneaking agents into the World Trade Center, and in PLAIN view plant dozens of explosive devices, and then somehow arrange for them to be detonated AFTER the planes crash. Thus making the operation FAR FAR FAR harder to cover up, MUCH more complex and likely to fail. What if one of the terrorist groups had been in car crash, or had second thoughts, or one of the flights had been delayed, OR ANY of countless things beyond the control of the most all-encompassing conspiracy. These things would have meant only one, or neither, plane crashed and the other tower was left standing with the explosives were sitting there waiting to be recovered.

315

Don’t be so coy, Sent, you’ve already sprinkled a pretty good list throughout your posts, both here and in Great Debates.

FEMA
Controlled Demolition, Inc.
Larry Silverstein
“The media coverup”
Dick Cheney
The 9/11 Commission
The FBI
John Ashcroft
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
Scooter Libby
Porter Goss
The CIA
a handful of hijackers who might actually have been at the controls of the planes

They (and their lackeys) have all managed to keep the whole thing quiet. So far.

Following Kunilou’s First Rule of Conspiracies (i.e., somebody always talks), I wonder who will be the first person to crack. Will it be Scotter Libby, who’s facing trial for outing Valerie Plame? John Ashcroft, who’s no longer a part of the Administration?

I’m now ready to declare Kunilou’s Third Rule of Conspiracies. Just as I credit my father for Rule #1, I credit Deep Throat (aka Mark Felt – who eventually talked).

Follow the money!

316

You do know they added that in the movie, right? Not in the book. Not historical.

317

Well, then, it certainly fits in this thread!

318

kunilou,

What’s your second law of conspiracies?

319

Sent, thanks for answering. I mean that.

You are assuming facts about me that are not in evidence, just as you assume facts not in evidence about 9/11. At no point, I believe, have I stated that I accept every part of the official story on the 9/11 attacks, and in fact I have no personal investment in that story and do not feel compelled to support it in every detail. You, however, have proposed an explanation in which not only the motive for the attacks, but nearly every major detail of them is different, and I have no option but to question your explanation because much of the ‘evidence’ you have presented in support is erroneous, absurd or simply not evidence at all.

The attacks actually could have happened more or less as they did and still been a conspiracy if the type you believe existed, without all the ridiculous complications such as explosives in the WTC towers, or more importantly, the need to cause four or more commercial aircraft and hundreds of people, all known to exist with an adequate level of certainty, to simply disappear.

I’m sorry, but you do. Without a complete and coherent narrative, everything you have proposed here is essentially meaningless.

If you propose that decoys of the planes hit the towers, you must then explain what happened to the original planes, and their passengers and crew, where the decoys were obtained, and how how they in turn were flown into the towers, or your speculations are meaningless.

All right, so you don’t really believe that a commercial aircraft hit the Pentagon, but you admit you have no other likely explanation. Thank you.

Firstly, the planes are not alleged. There is simply no serious question that aircraft with the tail numbers I mentioned were on the civil register as of September 11, that they were in fact registered to American and United airlines, respectively, and that these planes are off the civil register and can no longer be found. It is therefore up to you to explain what has happened to these aircraft, if they were not crashed when and where they supposedly did. Also, once again, please offer a plausible explanation as where their crews and passengers are, as you have not yet done so.

Even ignoring all that, what was the purpose of the Shanksville event? You concede that this nefarious plot successfully managed the crashing of airliners (or something like an airliner) into buildings, but that in this case the objective of the plot was to NOT crash a plane into a building. Please explain.

I see. For the first part, what, other than a fanatic desire for the destruction of the US, would be an incentive for a hijacker to fly a plane at high speed into a building? To paraphrase a villain in a James Bond film after Bond calls him an anarchist, “and what do you believe in, Mr. Bond? Preservation of capital?”

For the rest, needlessly complex, don’t you think? You say one or more of the planes may have been hijacked, but the others were flown by remote control? How, in your mind, might this have been done? How were the planes seized from the airlines that operated them, without anyone noticing? If other planes were substituted, where did they come from? Who installed the gear that converted them to drones, and where was this accomplished? Who knowingly operated the remote-control gear and watched their monitors as they guided the planes into buildings packed with their own countrymen, and said nothing? Can you really sit at your keyboard and claim that any of this makes any kind of sense?

They could indeed; since you have proposed that something else did it, it is up to you to support your conclusions with facts. This you have not done to any great degree.

Bullshit; absolute stinking bullshit. You clearly haven’t a single clue what you are talking about. To use just one example, the conversion of a large jetliner into a remote-controlled drone is not a routine or simple act; large numbers of people would have been involved. Surely you are not contending that anyone involved would have worked on something like this and not recognized on September 11th that, hey, didn’t that plane flown into the WTC tower look like the one we installed the drone gear on, then painted up like an American airlines plane? Do you think someone is sitting out there somewhere saying,“Well, there are so many 767 drones around, it probably wasn’t the one we worked on?”

For the rest, please show your evidence that any one person, in any capacity, has been blackmailed or killed to cover up the supposed cover-up.

Fine. So far your sole actual evidence that Cheney, or any other specific member of the US presidential administration, orchestrated some sort of conspiracy regarding 9/11 is…nothing at all.

Exactly, and that is precisely why your claims are being questioned so closely. Now please stick to the facts, if you have any, and stop whinging mealy-mouthed, foggy platitudes about “deep politics”; it means nothing significant.

Whew, sorry for the length. I’m done here.

320

Something about “making pieces fit”.