Welcome to the forum timmyg. You will find that all opinions here are tolerated, but if the opinions are simply that, just opinion, and nothing more, your views will be considered weak. If, however, you bring solid evidence to support your ideas, most here will take an honest look at it.
That said, here are my thoughts, on your thoughts...
thanks for the welcome everyone
If you're looking for a signed statement from dick cheney saying that elements of the administration were responsible for 9/11 then I'm afraid I don't have one.
Noone expects a signed statement from the perpetrator. It would be nice, and a bombshell, but since most here do not believe PNAC et all did the 9/1 attack, Noone here expects anything close.
Basically I think 9/11 was most probably organised by a small element of the US government, with many others either turning a blind eye or refusing to believe that such a thing could be possible. Possibly members of PNAC were involved. I don't have direct proof of this as I don't have access to classified documents and I don't have the authority to question the people who I think could be involved...
The PNAC paper is a paper about moving the defense of America into the 21st Century. This paper is often quoted for its infamous "Pearl Harbour" quote. The trouble with the quote, wrt 9/11 and the wars that have come since, is that the paper is quoted out of context.
The "Pearl Harbour" reference is relates to an event the PNAC group felt would be the only way that America would be open to a huge investiment into new and advanced Intelligent Defence Technologies. If you actually read the pages of the document that surround the quote you will see this. It was not referring to getting America into a war where they would simply produce thousands of the same old, cheap, unintelligent weapons, like they did in all other wars. This would be far from a great money making venture, compared to getting the american public behind Billions of investiments in NEW TECHNOLOGIES. If anything, the Afghan and Iraq Wars have hurt PNAC, as these battles are the biggest factor behind what will surely be the removal of the REPs as the majority in Congress and Senate, and in 2008 it will be the cause of the removal of BUSH/CHENEY/RUMSFELD from office.
But I find there to be too many co-incidences in the official story for it to be as simple as an isolated terrorist attack organised by bin laden.
This is a common argument I hear. If it were a single bombing involving a couple of rogue terrorists, using a single car bomb, at a single site, I would say, ya, maybe there are too many co-incidences. However, the more complex the event, in terms of multiple attacks at multiple locations, the more co-incidences one can expect to find. For this reason, I do not find the number of coincidences wrt 9/11 to be too many. Perhaps if you were to list off the specific "coincidences" that bother you, we could discuss them.
I think the PNAC rebuilding americas defence document carries weight in establishing that the neo-cons had a motive.
See above.
And the fact that an independent inquiry was only established due to pressure from the victims families, suspect individuals were appointed to head the enquiry (henry kissinger, Phillip D. Zelikow),
I always assumed that given the USG found out quickly who was responsible, and knew how it happened through swift immediate investigation, that they found no need to go into it further. You forget that most of the families, who wanted an investigation, did not want it because they suspected foul play on the behalf of the USG, but because (a) they wanted to know where the safety stops failed, where the building design failed, where the USG govts failed to protect.
Yes I agree, once it became apparent that there were "screw ups" within elements of the USG, like any govt, they clammed up, and resisted investigation. Is this a sign of covering up an inside job...far from it.
much evidence has been blocked or dismissed by the commission (in some cases destroyed by the pentagon.. ie. able danger) and that the self admitted purpose of the investigation was "not to assign blame to individuals for 9/11"... are a remarkable set of co-incidences if no one in the establishment had a hand in causing the events to happen.
You are working backwards from your assumption that there was an inside job, which is a flawed approach.
Look at the state of the nation when the committee was formed. Look at the reasons (as I listed above) that the families wanted the events investigated.
At the time that the committee was put together, it was to answer questions around safety concerns and possible failures of organizations of the USG. The purpose at that time was not to satisfy the questions or concerns of Conspiracy theorists. There was no outcry of foul play by anyone of significance, not the victim families, not the Democrats, noone. The mandate of the commission was based on the calls that were made for its set-up...end of story.
If people in the establishment did cause them to happen in some way, it makes perfect sense.
once again, if you back to the day, rather than taking in a 2006 conspiracy mindset, you will see the committee was set up for legitimate reasons, and fulfilled its mandate appropriately.
The weight of these co-incidences is backed up by another set of unusual events on the day which for me includes:
One at a time....
the incredible collapse of WTC7
So you think the hundreds of civil and structural engineers who work for NIST, and studied the WTC7 collapse are idiots, or wrong? The draft of their paper, which will be out soon, mentions a collapse mechanism that is explained completely by the event sof that day as the majority know them...debris, fires, and a unique building construct.
the Pakistani ISI wire transfer
ALL Reports of this, ALL, were based on one ANONYMOUS Indian intelligence report, that was then written about in the "Times of India". All other reports of this, including the WALL STREET JOURNAL report, were based on the "Times of India" report. To say that the "Times of India" and Indian Intelligence, would be a little bias, is a gross understatement. The report has never been independently corroborated.
This is just foolsihness. The original story was exaggerated or misspoken of to make the military look good. The final story, based on the tapes, indicates there was never an opportunity to bring down the planes, due to poor communications and the mayhem of the days events. I could go into exacts, but I will leave that for a set debate on that one point.
and contridictory blackbox/video data concerning flight 77,
There is no proof of contradictory data from the blackbox. JohnDoeX's Calculations etc..are flawed, as has been proven here, if you have a mind to look for it in one of the threads.
the passport falling out of the plane onto the street intact and handed to a police officer by an 'anonomous 30 year old male in a suit',
Well given it was found outside the immediate investigation perimeter, that would make sense. Why don't you ask Abby Scott about the papers etc.. that fell that day, and made the sky look like a ticker tape parade. You think that this evidence could not have survived? Prove it could not have survived.
curt weldons testimony that the able danger group had information on the hijackers that was deliberately isolated from other agencies,
No argument here about the antagonism between FBI and CIA, and others. Proves nothing but bad intelligence agencies.
the death of John O'Neil at the WTC on 9/11,
He started his job there 3 weeks before 9/11. Thousands of other people were in the buildings at the same time and survived. He was not one of the lucky ones...that is all.
the put options linked to Buzzy Crongards firm,
Show me the reference (I say this because I know it has been debunked but I cant remember the exact source right now)
Two other occasions in 2001 the put options were higher than they were in the days prior to 9/11, yet there was no attack then...why?
Bush's erie 'Let us not tolerate conspiracy theories concerning the events of 9/11' speech.
Using this, you are just embarrassing yourself. This was a speech from the president to the nation, trying to tell his people not to listen to the rediculous Shaite that was being spued by some.
and the record number of terror drills taking place that day(some involving hijacked jets) which caused confusion and slowed response times.
Wargames, yes there were. (1) Prove that it was a "record" number as you have stated. Also, show me stats that say that the number of games was unusual. How many time per year do each of the organizations who ran the drills do so (give me numbers for each organization that had such drills).
If all these events are innocent co-incidences then it really is the greatest most amazing series of co-incidences in history.
Just like the 9/11 attack was one of the most amazing, and tragic, events in history, yes timmyg, most of what you have spelled out are either just coincidences, or in most cases, simply misunderstood, misinterpreted, or just false.
I'm guessing you guys feel that this is inconclusive, and perhaps it is. It is my opinion and is probably influenced by my political thoughts and feelings on human rights and what I think the globalists are capable of. i'm not going to demand that you subscribe to my own beleifs. But I have to say that I think the belief that 9/11 was an isolated alkaeda attack, carried out with no foreknoweldge is one based on very weak evidence. I also think that to defend the position that 9/11 needs no further investigation is a decision of poor judgement, or corrupt intentions.
Now you are being a little personal. My intentions are not corrupt, nor are they poor in judgement. I have more proof, evidence, and expert opinion behind my views than any CT can claim.
As for foreknowledge, I believe the USG had knowledge that "an attack" was coming, and soon, but they did not know where or how. They were either too stupid, or too arrogant to heed the warnings, or the warnings were too vague to have anything done about them.
I hope I have helped clarify my thoughts on your thoughts.
TAM
