The complicity of several foreign intelligence agencies would have been required

[dannyb]

Anyone who has read the 9/11 Commission Report (i.e. not Truthers) will know that sources from several foreign intelligence agencies are used. Were it an 'inside job', it would mean that the same intelligence agencies would have been in on it or, at the very least, have agreed to allow the Commission to falsify citation on their behalf.

 

[Edx]

Anyone who has read the 9/11 Commission Report (i.e. not Truthers) will know that sources from several foreign intelligence agencies are used. Were it an 'inside job', it would mean that the same intelligence agencies would have been in on it or, at the very least, have agreed to allow the Commission to falsify citation on their behalf.

Speaking of which, I like how truthers argue that there was lots of warnings of a terrorist attack from Al Qaeda by these countries, a group truthers say did not exist and that there was no attack. Then they also require all these other governments to be in on it as well, so what were the warnings about?

 

[IdiotWhacker]

Speaking of which, I like how truthers argue that there was lots of warnings of a terrorist attack from Al Qaeda by these countries, a group truthers say did not exist and that there was no attack. Then they also require all these other governments to be in on it as well, so what were the warnings about?

LIHOP and MIHOP they both disagree with each other.

 

[Plattso]

dannyb: Plenty of truthers have read the Commission Report.
I _think_ most of them agree that multiple state security groups were involved.
CIA, ISI, Mossad and whatever the Saudi creeps are called.
Naturally, the creeps are not going to tell the Commission about it.

Edx: Truthers don't generally claim that Al Qaeda did/does not exist, but that they are/were
American-CIA proxies and patsies. I know of no truther who maintains "there was no attack".
They don't require all those governments be in on it.
I suppose partly because of those warnings.

IdiotWhacker: LIHOP and MIHOP disagree only in level of conspirator's criminal responsibility.
Because these two HOPS exist does not invalidate the truther's overall argument.

Now, other ideas might invalidate the hell out of it. But not these.

 

[Tezro]

dannyb: Plenty of truthers have read the Commission Report.
I _think_ most of them agree that multiple state security groups were involved.
CIA, ISI, Mossad and whatever the Saudi creeps are called.
Naturally, the creeps are not going to tell the Commission about it.

Edx: Truthers don't generally claim that Al Qaeda did/does not exist, but that they are/were
American-CIA proxies and patsies. I know of no truther who maintains "there was no attack".
They don't require all those governments be in on it.
I suppose partly because of those warnings.

IdiotWhacker: LIHOP and MIHOP disagree only in level of conspirator's criminal responsibility.
Because these two HOPS exist does not invalidate the truther's overall argument.

Now, other ideas might invalidate the hell out of it. But not these.

Well, a big part of the problem here is that so few truthers are willing to describe their theory of what happened, and many of the versions of events which they do provide are contradictory/mutually exclusive. From my perspective, it seems that there is no broad agreement among truthers about what happened, only about the fact that the "official version" is untrue. So, it's hard to say what would or would not "invalidate the truther's argument", since quite frankly I don't have a clear idea of what that argument might be.

I think the point of OP stands, that the inclusion of intelligence from numerous foreign agencies (not just Mossad, ISI and Saudi sources) in the Commission report brings added credibility to the account, because those foreign agencies would protest at being falsely represented.

 

[Oystein]

...
IdiotWhacker: LIHOP and MIHOP disagree only in level of conspirator's criminal responsibility.
Because these two HOPS exist does not invalidate the truther's overall argument.

Now, other ideas might invalidate the hell out of it. But not these.

The gap or inconsitency between MIHOP and LIHOP is greater than the gap or inconsitency between LIHOP and the commonly accepted story. The latter two agree on just about everything, most notable that AQ terrorists did it on their own accord, crashed planes, and that this was enough to start all the fires, destroy all the buildings and kill all the people.

MIHOP is fundamentally different from LIHOP about the who and why - arguably the two most important aspects of a crime - and also differ wildly on certain major technical aspects, depending on the flavour of the "I" in "MIHOP". For example, most MIHOPers believe some or all of the towers were demolished by means in addition to plane crashes and fires; LIHOPers generally do not.

 

[dannyb]

dannyb: Plenty of truthers have read the Commission Report.
I _think_ most of them agree that multiple state security groups were involved.
CIA, ISI, Mossad and whatever the Saudi creeps are called.
Naturally, the creeps are not going to tell the Commission about it.

Edx: Truthers don't generally claim that Al Qaeda did/does not exist, but that they are/were
American-CIA proxies and patsies. I know of no truther who maintains "there was no attack".
They don't require all those governments be in on it.
I suppose partly because of those warnings.

IdiotWhacker: LIHOP and MIHOP disagree only in level of conspirator's criminal responsibility.
Because these two HOPS exist does not invalidate the truther's overall argument.

Now, other ideas might invalidate the hell out of it. But not these.

The trouble is, the more intelligence agencies you involve, the bigger your conspiracy becomes so as to be untenable. As I said in another thread, there is circumstantial evidence implicating the Saudi royals. If the 28-page redaction from Congress's Joint Enquiry is ever made public, it could be a game changer for American-Saudi relations.

It's a shame Truthers have disappeared into a fantasy world of remote controlled planes and bombs in buildings.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Anyone who has read the 9/11 Commission Report (i.e. not Truthers) will know that sources from several foreign intelligence agencies are used. Were it an 'inside job', it would mean that the same intelligence agencies would have been in on it or, at the very least, have agreed to allow the Commission to falsify citation on their behalf.

Why would this have to be the case?......I see no reason why one Intelligence service would not lie to another. If "they" could apparently fool most of the world apart from the amazingly sagacious twoofers how could they then not have fooled, say, the Mossad and MI6?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The gap or inconsitency between MIHOP and LIHOP is greater than the gap or inconsitency between LIHOP and the commonly accepted story. The latter two agree on just about everything, most notable that AQ terrorists did it on their own accord, crashed planes, and that this was enough to start all the fires, destroy all the buildings and kill all the people.

MIHOP is fundamentally different from LIHOP about the who and why - arguably the two most important aspects of a crime - and also differ wildly on certain major technical aspects, depending on the flavour of the "I" in "MIHOP". For example, most MIHOPers believe some or all of the towers were demolished by means in addition to plane crashes and fires; LIHOPers generally do not.

The "it" in MIHOP does not have to be anything more than a double agent within AQ............"they" would would know the weaknesses in US airline and air defense security and would have to do nothing more than suggest the plot and convince OBL that it would work.

But such a plot doesn't satisfy the required complexity for a CTer so never gets discussed.

 

[Plattso]

Oystein on MIHOP vs LIHOP: Hmmm, dang it. You're right about that.
I didn't think that through before I spoke. Obviously "Make It Happen" involving explosives
and space beams or whatever is a whole 'nother thing from sitting back/standing down.
My 911 CT-DB is a little rusty.

Tezro: Indeed, the truthers main point is that the Official Narrative is untrue, and that
that fact should warrant a real criminal investigation. Such an investigation might alleviate
the need for all this speculation and theorizing.

dannyb on big untenable conspiracies: It's hierarchical, top-down. And that IS their business,
after all. Remote control- I'm unsettled on that. Explosives- perfectly reasonable explanation
for the observed destruction.

sheeplesnshills: A single double-agent in Al Qaeda not necessary. OBL was CIA asset.
Not sure what you mean by CT-required complexity. It was a complex operation no matter
who did it. And truthers most certainly have discussed AQ and moles and patsies, etc.

 

[Oystein]

...
Tezro: Indeed, the truthers main point is that the Official Narrative is untrue, and that that fact should warrant a real criminal investigation. Such an investigation might alleviate the need for all this speculation and theorizing.

No Plenty of investigations have been done. Truthers dismiss them all. Why would you expect truthers to accept the outcome of any future investigation?
Doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results the next time, is a classic symptom of delusion.

...Explosives- perfectly reasonable explanation for the observed destruction.

No. Explosives that bring down large buildings go BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! just before collapse starts, and they are incredibly, awesomely, insanely loud. Hardly any witness outside of the buildings, and practically no sound recording device (video cams...) would have missed them.
There were no sounds of explosions consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with explosive demolition. Therefore, there was no eplosive demolition.

 

[000063]

Oystein on MIHOP vs LIHOP: Hmmm, dang it. You're right about that.
I didn't think that through before I spoke. Obviously "Make It Happen" involving explosives
and space beams or whatever is a whole 'nother thing from sitting back/standing down.
My 911 CT-DB is a little rusty.

Tezro: Indeed, the truthers main point is that the Official Narrative is untrue, and that
that fact should warrant a real criminal investigation. Such an investigation might alleviate
the need for all this speculation and theorizing.

But there have been several non-Gov't investigations, and they corroborate the OS. The only people Truthers trust to investigate is themselves.

dannyb on big untenable conspiracies: It's hierarchical, top-down. And that IS their business,
after all. Remote control- I'm unsettled on that.

Let me settle you; they would be extremely unreliable in a steel-framed building even with line of sight.

Explosives- perfectly reasonable explanation
for the observed destruction.

Only if you ignore the lack of barotrauma to people in and around WTC 1 and 2, much less the fact that it would be audible over every camera and audio recording in Manhattan, and quite a few other things, yes.

sheeplesnshills: A single double-agent in Al Qaeda not necessary. OBL was CIA asset.

He may have worked with the CIA at some point in the distant past against the Soviets. The 80s. Since then, he had actively worked against the Great Satan, including pre-9/11 terrorist attacks.

Not sure what you mean by CT-required complexity. It was a complex operation no matter
who did it.

Adding US involvement makes it more complex, and more likely to be discovered. 911 was literally the biggest investigation in FBI history, unless they were in on it too.

And truthers most certainly have discussed AQ and moles and patsies, etc.

Affirming the consequent.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

No. Explosives that bring down large buildings go BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! just before collapse starts, and they are incredibly, awesomely, insanely loud. Hardly any witness outside of the buildings, and practically no sound recording device (video cams...) would have missed them.
There were no sounds of explosions consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with explosive demolition. Therefore, there was no eplosive demolition.

Well to be fair that is merely so that the fall of the building is controlled, I see no reason why that would be necessarily so on a fiendish "they" did it event on 911......of course there still would be one VERY loud bang instead!

 

[Edx]

Well to be fair that is merely so that the fall of the building is controlled, I see no reason why that would be necessarily so on a fiendish "they" did it event on 911......of course there still would be one VERY loud bang instead!

Ah but you forget, they claim WTC7's collapse was controlled. Perfectly symmetrically into its own footprint, remember?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

sheeplesnshills: A single double-agent in Al Qaeda not necessary. OBL was CIA asset.

Super! there you are. Thats all you need for MIHOP. Now prove it was the case in 2001.

Not sure what you mean by CT-required complexity. It was a complex operation no matter

Wrong, it was almost laughably simple. All the needed was four fanatical but intelligent people to to learn to fly well enough to crash a plane and 15 thugs who could obey simple instructions plus say $250K. If it wasn't so tragic the plot has a beautiful simplicity.
CTs always seems to require excess complexity. One guy couldn't shoot JFK, impact and fire is not enough to bring down a building, planes would just bounce off the pentagon or the ground etc etc.
The irony is this insistence on unnecessary complexity is the CT undoing as it can all be easily disproved by anyone with even a basic education (and sanity)

[/QUOTE]

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Ah but you forget, they claim WTC7's collapse was controlled. Perfectly symmetrically into its own footprint, remember?

they also claim all the columns MUST have been removed all at once over 8 floors

 

[Plattso]

000063: dannyb's "remote control" was about flying the planes.
(as if there were planes, ha ha) not the CD.

FBI biggest investigation- yes the one that culminated in "...no hard evidence
connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"

Affirming the consequent- sheeplenshills says a CTer does not discuss double-agent
AQ plot. I say they have. I don't get you. Is it because I added "moles and patsies"?
How is that A-the-C?


Oystein: You mean like the BANG BANG BANG BANG described by that firefighter in the famous
firehouse coffee sipping video? Let's see...Louie Caecchioli. Oh, wait. That's BOOM
BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM. Maybe that doesn't count.

Sheeplenshills: Hold on...(whisper, whisper)...multiple teams did shoot JFK.
Wait...now I'm getting a message from the Lizard Extraterrestrials....yes,
Building 7 WAS a controlled demolition.

So, that wraps that up. Case closed.

 

[Oystein]

Oystein: You mean like the BANG BANG BANG BANG described by that firefighter in the famous
firehouse coffee sipping video? Let's see...Louie Caecchioli. Oh, wait. That's BOOM
BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM. Maybe that doesn't count.

Well, first of yell, you are correct in away: BOOM would not correctly describe the sharp, cracking sound (indicative of high brisance) or high explosive cutting charges used for building demolition.

Secondly, Louie Caecchioli does not believe he said what you claim he said, Look, he even has his own website:
http://louiecacchioli.com/about.html
And this is the truth about what Louie Caecchioli meant:

On September 12, 2001, Louie was heading to the WTC site to dig for survivors after only three hours of sleep when he was approached by a reporter from People magazine. The reporter was interested in what Louie had experienced the day before.

In an effort to describe what he saw and heard, Louie mentioned that there were loud noises inside the North Tower that “sounded like bombs going off.” There was some confusion over what Louie had tried to explain and he was misquoted as having said: “We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the twenty-fourth-floor to get in position to evacuate civilians. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building.”

Conspiracy theorists then used that quote as proof that 9/11 was an “inside job.” Since then, Louie has repeatedly tried to set the record straight that he was misquoted. Louie even went so far as to cooperate with the editors of Popular Mechanics magazine and was interviewed for the book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts (Hearst, 2006).

I think you owe Louie an apology for dragging him through the mud once again.



ETA: There is an excerpt of Louie's book on his homepage. Somewhere, he literally writes "BAM! BAM! BAM! BAM! BAM! BAM! BAM! BAM! BAM!". Can you guess which sound this is describing? Explosives going off?


ETA2: About the explosion Louie heard inside the North Tower:

The time was 09:58 AM. Just as the elevator doors closed there was the sound of a massive explosion. The entire building shook violently as though there had been a mild earthquake

Can you guess what he heard?


ETA3: The first google-hit for "Louie Caecchioli" after his own webpage is the following:
http://911myths.com/html/quote_abuse.html
A thorough debunking of many quote-mines, starting with the abuse Louie had to take.
Why don't you use Google?



ETA4: If you are referring to this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64 notice the time when they heard the boom boom booms: Was it before or after the collapse began?
Remember, for this to be an explosive demolition, you have to hear explosions immediately before collapse begins. Did these firefighters describe the sounds of explosions immediately before collapse began? YES or NO? (Oh and by the way: I am sure noine of these gentlemen is Louie Caecchioli)

 

[000063]

000063: dannyb's "remote control" was about flying the planes.
(as if there were planes, ha ha) not the CD.....

Oh.

You're one of those.

I'll close the door on my way out.

 

[Jackanory]

Oystein on MIHOP vs LIHOP: Hmmm, dang it. You're right about that.
I didn't think that through before I spoke. Obviously "Make It Happen" involving explosives
and space beams or whatever is a whole 'nother thing from sitting back/standing down.
My 911 CT-DB is a little rusty.

Tezro: Indeed, the truthers main point is that the Official Narrative is untrue, and that
that fact should warrant a real criminal investigation. Such an investigation might alleviate
the need for all this speculation and theorizing.

dannyb on big untenable conspiracies: It's hierarchical, top-down. And that IS their business,
after all. Remote control- I'm unsettled on that. Explosives- perfectly reasonable explanation
for the observed destruction.

sheeplesnshills: A single double-agent in Al Qaeda not necessary. OBL was CIA asset.
Not sure what you mean by CT-required complexity. It was a complex operation no matter
who did it. And truthers most certainly have discussed AQ and moles and patsies, etc.

You forgot those who had 'forewarning' and those who where 'in on it'. Ya know.......the FBI forgot to tell the CIA. The CIA forgot to tell the FBI. The FBI fudged the investigation with no known chain of evidence etc. The CIA black ops guys forgot to turn the Themite to silent mode. Loads of loud bangs like bombs yet Jonesy boy produces silent paint chips. The hyjackers where Saudis yet the planes where either empty or all pasengers taken to Greenland. No planes, remote control planes, CGI planes........blah de blah blah.

Nothnng complex about flying aircraft into buildings and the ground. 19 terroists found it quite simple to do. Took advantage of a super power on it's home turf. Reality sucks but is often the answer. Nutjob conspiracies are much harder to master......as has been seen for 10 years.

Get another hobby.