Was Bush Regime complicit in 9/11 attack?

[RaftPeople]

I think most of your are forgetting a key fact that really lends credibility to trumpsahead’s position:

The government’s ability to masterfully execute a conspiracy was clearly established with the fake moon landing.

[Bryan_Ekers]

The landing was indeed fake, but the U.S. government had already used Area 51 technology to build secret moonbases and this is where the passengers of the hijacked flights are now.

[HubZilla]

@Shodan

Watergate is a good example. Even a petty burglary couldn’t be successfully covered up.

Imagine a huge conspiracy like would be necessary to bing off 9/11. The chances of keeping it covered up are indistinguishable from zero.

Regards,
Shodan

Or Area 51. Everyone and their cousin knows we store aliens and flying saucers there. And this is supposedly the most secure base in the US.

I want to know what’s going on in Areas One through Fifty. Maybe those are the guys who did 9/11?

[Public_Animal_No.9]

@Little_Nemo

No, the main targets were the battleships. The carriers were considered as secondary targets. It wasn’t until the war was actually fought that the admirals on both sides realized that carriers were now more important than battleships.

The real target should have been the oil tanks and repair facilities in Hawaii. But the Japanese military never really understood the idea of attacking logistics.

Per G.W. Prange, “At Dawn We Slept,” the primary Japanese planner for the Pearl Harbor attack stated that “The main objective of the attack should be U.S. carriers.” This comes from Prange’s interviews with Minoru Genda. The same book notes that the original plan was to destroy the U.S. Pacific Fleet, but as the plan was developed into something that could be carried out, the aircraft carriers became the primary target.

9/11 and Pearl Harbor have the same fundamental root reason - the defenders did not believe they could actually happen.

[Algorithm]

Sorry to follow up on my own post. Just wanted to add a little to one of my points, and provide some more evidence that there was not a controlled demolition.

@Algorithm

@trumpsahead

4. After 1 and 2 collapse, how were gigantic beams protruding from basement cut on 35 degree angles just like a demolition would have done?

Deconstruction workers cut those beams to dispose of them. They were cleaning up the disaster site. In one of the previous threads we covered this, and someone linked a video actually showing a worker cutting through one of the beams.

Here’s a video explaining the cuts in the columns. I’m not sure if that was the one I was thinking of or not, but the idea is the same.

Another video featuring Mark Loizeaux explaining what would be needed to rig a building like WTC7, and what the effects would be. Particularly interesting is what he says after 2:58, explaining that windows would be broken on all sides of surrounding buildings:

@Mark Loizeaux

…but I didn’t see windows broken on the backs of buildings - only where debris falling from the towers struck it…If explosives of the magnitude necessary to cut the columns in a big building were detonated, the windows all the way around would have been shattered. No way around it.

[KGS]

Enough of this talk about WTC & The Pentagon.

I wanna know what Bush had against that empty field in Pennsylvania!

[Little_Nemo]

Per G.W. Prange, “At Dawn We Slept,” the primary Japanese planner for the Pearl Harbor attack stated that “The main objective of the attack should be U.S. carriers.” This comes from Prange’s interviews with Minoru Genda. The same book notes that the original plan was to destroy the U.S. Pacific Fleet, but as the plan was developed into something that could be carried out, the aircraft carriers became the primary target.

First time I’ve heard that. And due to the fact Prange was interviewing Genda about his plans, I assume the interview occurred after the war. If so, Genda wouldn’t be the first military leader to “revise” his memory of what happened. By 1945, it was clear that carriers were more important than battleships. Genda might have been trying to claim he knew that back in 1941.

But in 1941, Japanese intelligence made it a point to verify that the battleships were in Pearl Harbor before launching their attack. They did not make any similar attempt to verify the carriers were present. Why would they have done it that way if the carriers were the primary target of the attack?

[mlees]

Both carriers and battleships were considered “capital” ships as early as 1922, and carriers were regulated by the Washington Naval Treaty along with battleships.

However, aircraft performance levels were somewhat poor until the late 30’s, and the threat they posed to the battleship was considered serious (vis-a-vis torpedoes), but not outside the bounds of educated risk taking.

Genda was one of the premier proponants proponents of Naval Air power in the 30’s, and it is not surprising that he would personally have rated the enemy carriers as THE priority target.

Admiral Nagumo (who commanded the PH strike force) was a battleship sailor, and Yamamoto (CINC Combined Fleet) was also a “big gun club” member:

Minoru Genda

@wiki

The Pearl Harbor attack plan which was ultimately utilized by Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was essentially the work of Genda, with important contributions by others. Yamamoto had become acquainted with Genda in 1933 when Genda served aboard the carrier Ryujo. Yamamoto initially conceived of a one-way attack on Pearl Harbor from 500 to 600 miles away. In his scheme, returning aircraft would ditch in the ocean off Oahu and the pilots would be picked up by destroyers and submarines. Yamamoto was focused on smashing the U.S. Pacific Fleet and sinking as many battleships as possible. Most Americans and Japanese still believed in early 1941 that battleships were the mightiest weapons of war. The sinking of one, or better yet, a number of these giant vessels would be an appalling blow, akin to a disaster of nature.

Yamamoto met with Genda in early February 1941 and presented his ideas to him for comment. Genda strongly disagreed with a one-way attack. Genda had previously considered an attack on Pearl Harbor in 1934 and he had discussed the possibility then with Takijiro Onishi. Genda emphasized to Yamamoto that “secrecy is the keynote and surprise the all-important factor.” Genda felt that the task was “difficult, but not impossible” and began working on the details of the plan. Genda was responsible for much of the training, especially in the new tactics of shallow-water torpedo use, effective use of level-bombing by tactical aircraft, and coordinating several aircraft carriers simultaneously.

[Fish]

By the time of Pearl Harbor, the value of air support was already well-proved in Europe, wasn’t it? The BEF was evacuated from Dunkirk in June 1940 under German aircraft fire; Crete was attacked May 1941 or so.

[Little_Nemo]

If Genda had been in charge of the Pearl Harbor attack maybe he would have made the carriers the primary targets. But Yamamoto and Nagumo were the ones in charge. The admirals in 1941 had been raised in the era of Tsushima and Jutland - the era of the dreadnought.

They might accept the idea, tactically, that an airplane could sink a battleship. But they would still be thinking, strategically, that the war was about sinking battleships. World War II would raise up a new generation of admirals who would ignore battleships and think the war was about sinking carriers.

[WF_Tomba]

I’ve just been reading that leaked draft report by the Inspector General in Iraq about how they screwed up the reconstruction before the war even began. The idea of these clowns pulling off the conspiracy of the century is preposterous.

Unless, of course, the complete failure of the post-invasion plan in Iraq was secretly orchestrated to convince people that they couldn’t have been behind 9/11 . . .

Yes, of course! Why didn’t I see it before? They destroyed the Twin Towers so they could get away with invading Iraq, and then they fucked up the Iraq invasion so they could get away with destroying the Towers! It’s brilliant! Open your eyes, people!

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@appleciders

This is why I hang out here. Can we do the Pentagon next?

Only if you don’t quote entire posts anymore. (Even though I just did ;))

[Cat_In_A_Top_Hat]

@flight

The Onion had a member of Al Quaeda on to talk about this.

Ha! That’s brilliant!

[Cat_In_A_Top_Hat]

@HubZilla

I want to know what’s going on in Areas One through Fifty. Maybe those are the guys who did 9/11?

I imagine Area 42 would hold The Answer.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Little_Nemo

They might accept the idea, tactically, that an airplane could sink a battleship. But they would still be thinking, strategically, that the war was about sinking battleships.

At Pearl Harbor, with airplanes, ironically.