Smoke screen? 9/11 AGAIN...

[geggy]

If the administration knew about the attacks, they could have looked like heroes by stopping the attacks. They could still use the threat of terrorism to further their political agenda (Patriot Act, war with Iraq, etc.), so there is no bonus in letting the attacks actually occur.

Isn't that what they've done in the foilings of terror plots to blow up NYC and Los Angeles in the past? Isn't that what homeland terror alert level is used for? What would be the point of implementing patriot act if 9/11 has been successfully prevented? Tool of fear has been proven to be far more effective than the hero scenrio. At the time of the 9/11 attack, the unimaginable has happened and it was proven to anyone that america can be vulnerble to the possiblilities of large scale terror acts. If the 9/11 plot was foiled and has made bush look like a hero, everyone will only forget and move on. Since 9/11 attack has forever etched the minds of the people, the bush administration are constantly exploiting the 3000 fallen and use it as a reminder to make it harder for us to question what they are doing.

The only reason why america is far worse off economically than it was during pre-9/11 is because of the uprising surge in corruption in the white house.

 

[geggy]

To suggest that bush knew about 9/11 and let it happen on purpose is to allow that the attacks occured exactly as planned.

snip

Isnt that why the FBI, the CIA and the military defense, the only superpower in the world, such as NORAD have "failed" in preventing the attack? Bush did nothing at the elementary school when told of the attack? Do you think that what they knew was coming would be a huge opportunity for them if they had allowed it to happen?

 

[realitybites]

Since 9/11 attack has forever etched the minds of the people, the bush administration are constantly exploiting the 3000 fallen and use it as a reminder to make it harder for us to question what they are doing.

Yeah... I mean just look at the poll numbers. Bush is obviously still riding high on this 9/11 thing. Loved by everyone, democrats and republicans alike. It's all worked out according to plan....

Question geggy. What do you think will happen in '08? Will Bush force legislation through to allow himself a 3rd term? How long do you expect he'll be riding this wave of popularity?

 

[DavidJames]

Yeah... I mean just look at the poll numbers. Bush is obviously still riding high on this 9/11 thing. Loved by everyone, democrats and republicans alike. It's all worked out according to plan....

Quick in and out again comment. IMHO w/o 9/11 Bush loses in 2004. He was able to use the soft on terrorism things to his best advantage. Back then even many reasonable people felt the war in Iraq was somehow part of the war on terror. Two years later, most of the reasonable people have woke up, leaving Bush with only the Republican faithful in his pocket.

This discussion is best suited for the politics forum, however.

 

[geggy]

Yeah... I mean just look at the poll numbers. Bush is obviously still riding high on this 9/11 thing. Loved by everyone, democrats and republicans alike. It's all worked out according to plan....

The reason why poll numbers are low is either because of their "incompetence" and "failure" or people are waking up...slowly...

Question geggy. What do you think will happen in '08? Will Bush force legislation through to allow himself a 3rd term? How long do you expect he'll be riding this wave of popularity?

They will simply cut and run and continue to profit from the mess they've created in the middle east while leaving the responsiblity to the next president.

 

[Anti-sophist]

So I mean, do you have any proof that they knew about it and let it happen on purpose? Or are you just guessing?

 

[uk_dave]

Isnt that why the FBI, the CIA and the military defense, the only superpower in the world, such as NORAD have "failed" in preventing the attack? Bush did nothing at the elementary school when told of the attack? Do you think that what they knew was coming would be a huge opportunity for them if they had allowed it to happen?

What I am saying is that 9/11 was a chaotic event with no guarantees of 'success' for the terrorists and no guarantees of 'acceptable' levels of civilian and military casualties for the implicated administration.

The stakes were too high for this to have been a "we know it's gonna happen so we're gonna let it because we may benefit" scenario.

 

[Shrinker]

The reason why poll numbers are low is either because of their "incompetence" and "failure" or people are waking up...slowly...

If by 'waking up' you mean 'being subjected to a relentless barage of lies, distortions, junk science and innuendo, and lacking the time, inclination, or wit to see through it' you might be right. Many people here would like to see Bush pay politically for the things that he has actually done, but if you're completely lacking in principles I guess a baseless smear campaign works just as well.

 

[Brainster]

I think the best response to the LIHOP crowd is the same as the response to the MIHOP crowd: Why did the attack have to be so big? Suppose just one tower had been hit that morning, and subsequently collapsed. Would anybody say "Oh, that's not sufficient cause for the Patriot Act and Afghanistan or Iraq?" Well, yes, but it would be the same people who said it after both towers were hit as well as the Pentagon. The Patriot Act would still have passed 99-1, the Taliban and Saddam would have been overthrown. Indeed suppose the government had shot down Flights 175 and 77; wouldn't the people be more supportive of the President, knowing that he had saved many lives on the ground?

This is why I say the conspiracy theories are all reverse-engineered; because they make no sense if you look at them head on. It is only when you walk them backwards that the conspiracy theory seems to hold together.

 

[Abooga]

So I mean, do you have any proof that they knew about it and let it happen on purpose? Or are you just guessing?

If you´re asking me... I was just guessing, I guess. I have no special information. I just wanted to see other people´s opinions about it. Obviously. From a general perspective.

 

[Ersby]

When faced with a terrorist attack, CTers tend to say the govt Made or Let It Happen. When a news story breaks of a foiled terrorist attack, they say it is a False Flag operation, designed to heighten fear in the population and allow them to further infringe on human rights.

As far as their concerned, any outcome supports their theory.

 

[MG1962]

Similarly, if Roosevelt had really known about the attack on Pearl Harbor, he would have scrambled our planes, beat back the attack, and looked like a hero. That would work much better than letting us get clobbered. And we would still be at war with Japan.

In reality the US had very little to combat the attack with. The Japanese were extremely concerned about being ambushed by the Americans, and went to great lengths, even on the morning of the attack, to confirm that suprise was complete.

FDR made a politcal error by moving the fleet to Pearl. Rather than a deterrent he hoped for, it created a target to good to resisit.

On the other hand, the base at Pearl probably would have been hit, fleet or no fleet. I hate to think what the political ramifications for FDR would have been if a state of the union had been left undefended, in the face of an obvious threat.

 

[stateofgrace]

Besides the rising cost of oil price, what about the massive increase in military spending that benefits the military industrial complex such as KBR and it's subsidiaries? The unprecedented power for bush and his administration? Boost of profit in arms trafficking for the Carlyle/Binladen Group in which hw bush and tony blair are co-chairpersons of? There are so much more in ways that many people have benefited from the attack

Geggy have you any idea how much the attacks of 911 cost the US?

No neither have many people but it is extremely high. The World TRADE centers were destroyed, they housed many financial institutes. Entire networks that were in place to do business transactions were wiped out. The airlines were grounded for days and airline transport was disrupted for many months to come. The stock market and financial markets nose dived, wiping millions off share values. Depending on where you read some people put the cost of the actual attack as high as $95bn.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,786326,00.html
http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%3D154989%26M%3D50011,00.html

Add to this cost of the Afghanistan Champaign, the Iraq war and improvements in homeland security. This as been put at $386 billion since 2001.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06885t.pdf

Do you honestly see revenue from an oil pipe line matching this? Some shady military deal raking it all back in.

It has cost the US close to $500 billion. Can you show me the end result of all this expenditure please? Show me this masive revenue the US has gained by the investment of $500 billion.

This is just the US; heaven only knows how high the figure would be if you were to look at the losses suffered by Americas allies as well.

 

[Nero]

Boost of profit in arms trafficking for the Carlyle/Binladen Group in which hw bush and tony blair are co-chairpersons of?

Geggy,

I don't get involved with thr 911 CT stuff, better people than me, and all that. But re your comment above, I may of course be wrong, but I'd be very surprised if Tony Blair is a co-chairperson of the Carlyle Group? Can you offer substantive proof?

Or were you making a joke?

Thanks

 

[gumboot]

The "Bush is connected to OBL" thing is BS. And a bit boring.

Here's the thing...

On the one hand - the Bush family, with significant political position in the US, and significant links to the oil industry.

On the other hand, the Bin Laden clan - a very important family in Saudi Arabia.

Now.

Saudi Arabia has lots of oil. So there's link one from the Bin Ladens to the Bushes.

While a particular Bush was President, the US happened to fight a war in the Middle East, and they based themselves in Saudi Arabia.

So there's ANOTHER significant link from the Bin Ladens to the Bushes.

What does this have to do with OBL? Nothing. And that's why all this is so stupid.

The Bin Laden clan is enormous. Connections to SOME does not mean connections to ALL - especially when those in question have been disowned by their family.

Oh sure, members of the family will still have a fondness, no doubt they keep in contact, no doubt their "disownership" isn't as solid as they'd have us believe. OBL wasn't exactly the first Bin Laden to get stuck into Terrorism.

But it's a staggering jump of logic to go from "The Bushes have connections to some Bin Ladens, and those Bin Ladens don't necessarily hate Osama" to "The Bushes are mates with Osama".

Indeed, it's pretty obvious Osama frikken HATES the Bushes - since it was George Bush Snr who he believe sulled the holy land and set him on his crazy crusade.

-Gumboot

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well, the Pearl Harbour theory proponents usually say that at that time the US citizens had no interest in engaging in a world war, even in the leaders realised it was a necessary thing to do. So they had to let P.H. happen to make a big impression in people and start the war. (Thank f*uck for that, by the way.) Even if they could have come accross as heroes avoideng the attack, that wouldn´t have accomplished the desired effect. Perhaps.

Does not compute, sorry! Yes, FDR wanted an excuse to enter the war, nobody ever made a secret of that. He advocated entering the war, quite openly. They were treating the Japanese negotiaters, who were in Washington right at the time, like dirt. And yes, maybe they wanted the Japanese to fire the first shot (most politicians who plan on starting a war want that). But there is absolutely no reason, if they knew where and when the attack was coming, that they should not have tried to make it as costly for the Japanese as they could. I won't derail this thread, but I have studied the Pearl Harbour incident, and they could have made the Japanese pay dearly. They would not need a single US casualty as an excuse for declaring war, because just after the attack, the Japanese declared war (what else could they do, in the circumstances?).

Same as 9/11. A dismantelled terrorist plot wouldn´t have been quite as impressive.

Yet later, Iraq was invaded based on (false as it turned out) reports of wmds.

But overall, i agree with you guys, it´s quite far-fetched. I just don´t like dismissing conspiracy theories offhand, just because they are conspiracy theories. Some are probably true.

None of us do. We reject them when they seem far-fetched.

Hans

 

[geggy]

Geggy,

I don't get involved with thr 911 CT stuff, better people than me, and all that. But re your comment above, I may of course be wrong, but I'd be very surprised if Tony Blair is a co-chairperson of the Carlyle Group? Can you offer substantive proof?

Or were you making a joke?

Thanks

Excuse me, it's not tony blair, it's john major. I'm terrible with names, so forgive me.

Of course the bush administration had received warnings that bin laden was planning to strike the US otherwise how would they have had named bin laden as the prime suspect within 4 hours of the attack?

 

[Retrograde]

So to allow a terrorist plot such as 9/11 to go ahead means you have to have an awful lot of faith that the terrorists are actually able to complete their missions without all planes crashing in the middle of nowhere, or even worse without an even greater amount of damage and loss of life being caused.

What if the second plane in new york had crashed into the street?
What if the pentagon plane had hit towards the centre of the complex?

Crashing a plane into mid-town Manhattan or even nearby New Jersey would likely result in many, many casualties and extensive property damage, which IMHO would be just as effective as hitting the tower, in terms of instilling fear, uncertainty and doubt. I don't know about hitting the center of the Pentagon. BTW, my own speculation is that the Capitol building - out by itself on the highest point in D.C. - was the intended target and Hanjour either missed it or couldn't control the plane well enough so he looked for the first big target - it's hard not to spot the Pentagon from the air.

I think the terrorist acts took bush and his admin by surprise, despite the warnings which, with 20/20 hindsight, we can all now see.

As much as I can't stand the guy, I have to agree.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

In reality the US had very little to combat the attack with. The Japanese were extremely concerned about being ambushed by the Americans, and went to great lengths, even on the morning of the attack, to confirm that suprise was complete.

FDR made a politcal error by moving the fleet to Pearl. Rather than a deterrent he hoped for, it created a target to good to resisit.

On the other hand, the base at Pearl probably would have been hit, fleet or no fleet. I hate to think what the political ramifications for FDR would have been if a state of the union had been left undefended, in the face of an obvious threat.

actually hawaii wasnt a state yet during WW2

as far as pearl harbor LIHOP, i agree there was no need to let the attack happen if he knew about it, or at the very least not leave so much of the fleet there open to attack (i believe only the carrier group was at sea at the time) an act of war is an act of war, no matter what japan did it would have demanded a response

as far as 9/11 goes, a completely prevented terror attack wouldnt have been as effective, however if the all planes were shot down after being hijacked it would still be the worst terror atack in US history, and would have served bush's needs...although there would be the argument that nothing bad would have happened to the passengers had the flights not been shot down...so i dont know

....not sure whos ideas i just supported there, lol

 

[Nero]

Excuse me, it's not tony blair, it's john major. I'm terrible with names, so forgive me.?

Geggy,

Sorry for picking you up on such a minor point, but your original assertion that Tony Blair was/is a chairperson for the Carlyle Group, and then your subsequent excuse that you got the name wrong really needs to be challenged.

As well you know, a lot of the CT modus operandi is built around picking up on seemingly minor and/or overlooked pieces of "evidence" and ten stringing these together to create a coherent story that isn't necessarily visible to us all.

Whilst a large number of the more seemingly outlandish claims that are made to support the CT stance I am not in a position to challenge, what I can challenge is basic fact.

So the facts are:

* John Major was the British Prime Minister who lost his postion to Tony Blair in 1997 (Note four years prior to 911)
* You stated that Tony Blair was/is a chairperson for the Caryle Group (WRONG), and was able to gain some personal benefit from 911.

So Geggy, to my point, if you are not able to get even these small and very verifiable claims correct how can I be expected to belief some of your claims I cannot verify?

I'm terrible with names, so forgive me.?

I believe you want others to believe your claims, how is this possible when in reality it is not merely names that you are not very good with but basic facts.

I don't expect you'll answer to this, I realise I have none of the kudos of Gravy et..al., but a short reply would be very much appreciated.

Thanks

Nero