Reinvestigating 9/11

lanugo

von Verfall erzittern
With the 10th anniversary of 9/11 coming up, it is important to resist the attempts of the corporate media to perpetuate and consolidate the official version of the events - which, if you look at it carefully, turns out to be the greatest conspiracy theory of all - and to remain mindful of the many inconsistencies and implausibilities therein that have been uncovered by scrupulous and scientifically-minded researchers.

Some of the facts pointing to the falsehood of the official narrative include:

  • Insider trading on the stock market in the weeks before 9/11 involving the massive purchase of so called "put options" - i.e. bets - on the soon-to-be occurring price losses of precisely the airlines whose planes were hi-jacked as well as companies with major branches in the WTC. Stock market experts are on record saying that this couldn't possibly have been coincidence. Rather, there must have been foreknowledge of what was to happen in the inner circles of the financial world.
  • 9/11 commission members publicly speaking out about considering to press "obstruction of justice" charges against NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) for withholding information on the exact reasons of the non-appearance of interception jets after contact was lost with the hi-jacked planes (the interception of airliners is a pretty regular occurrence, happening up to 150 times annually, but not on 9/11)
  • The Pentagon, situated in the centre of the most sensitive airspace in the world that has major anti-aircraft defence capabilities, being successfully targeted in a jetliner kamikaze manoeuvre of the most difficult kind by a pilot who, his former instructor says, couldn't even navigate a small propeller plane.
  • Physical evidence showing hat WTC7 (which was not even mentioned the 9/11 commission report) collapsed at free-fall speed, implying that there was no material resistance below the falling floors. This can only be achieved by controlled demolition.
  • A professor of nano-chemistry at the University of Copenhagen discovering residue of military-grade explosive in the debris of the WTC.
  • etc. pp.

If these points have made you think, this piece should be a good primer for further research.

Everyone else dismissing these facts as "conspiracy theory" - do you really know for certain what the truth is or do you simply believe what you're told?

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer
 

craner

Beast of Burden
Just to be clear, then, could you give a narrative of how this plot you envisage was formed, developed and enacted? Who these traders worked for, and why? Who was actually convinced to go into WTC7 and rig it with explosives on behalf of the conspirators? What exactly was driven into the Pentagon and what all that AA debris strewn around the site was? Who convinced all of these witnesses to lie, and to what end? And how this enormous US paramilitary conspiracy was kept secret for so long?
 

hucks

Your Message Here
everything in this post has been debunked.

There were stories at the time that Al Qaeda had made loads of money shorting parts of the market, such as Ianugo mentions above. Were they also debunked?

Edit: this was a good thread. Also the last sighting of Noel Limits, iircc
 
Last edited:

craner

Beast of Burden
But he didn't say al-Qaeda, he said "inner circles of the financial world" -- and I was just wondering who they could possibly be. Did they work for Lehman Brothers? Did they also try to engineer a so-called "Global Financial Meltdown" to cover their tracks?
 

hucks

Your Message Here
But he didn't say al-Qaeda, he said "inner circles of the financial world" -- and I was just wondering who they could possibly be. Did they work for Lehman Brothers? Did they also try to engineer a so-called "Global Financial Meltdown" to cover their tracks?

Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean that. I was just curious. Also it's a possible explanation for his first point.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
Regardless of the truth of any of the evidence put forward (which seesm to be typical conspiracy theory stuff), what I don't get is what the unthinkable part of such a conspiracy would be. Governments on a daily basis show little to no concern for whether their subjects live or die - the health system in America is obv the prime example here.

Obviously such a conspiracy would be massively audacious practically, as the people who died would presumably have recourse to the law in a way that poor people don't (plus the Pentagon attack woudl be slightly odd), but morally I think it would be pretty much consistent with a lot of extant policies. The idea that a government has any proper, enforceable duty of care to its citizens is against all evidence.

So killing a few people to start a war seems totally plausible and non-problematic - it's just the people that they did kill would seem to be an absurd way of going about it.
 
Last edited:

craner

Beast of Burden
So killing a few people to start a war seems totally plausible and non-problematic

No it doesn't, certainly not in this case -- engaging large numbers of civilian and military personnel in a covert plot to murder non-combatant civilians working for eminent multi-national banks and corporations as well as the central node of the state military apparatus, and doing so by destroying four large passenger jets full of people with mobile phones and wide-ranging public connections and reputations is self-evidantly insane, and has absolutely no correlation to a lack of public health care provision. And the plot was obviously designed to kill thousands of people, not a few. This is before you even consider the fact that on September 10th, 2001 the US administration had no plans to start a war in Afghanistan or Iraq, let alone any plots to provide a pretext -- and that really is a fact.
 

lanugo

von Verfall erzittern
Just to be clear, then, could you give a narrative of how this plot you envisage was formed, developed and enacted? Who these traders worked for, and why? Who was actually convinced to go into WTC7 and rig it with explosives on behalf of the conspirators? What exactly was driven into the Pentagon and what all that AA debris strewn around the site was? Who convinced all of these witnesses to lie, and to what end? And how this enormous US paramilitary conspiracy was kept secret for so long?

My guess is that it was pulled off by a P2-style consortium of intelligence forces, military hardliners, neocon hawks and private industry interests (arms, finance), for the sole purpose of garnering the support in the general public for perpetual war in muslim countries. In one of their policy papers the aptly named neocon think tank "Project for the New American Century" (members include Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld) even makes reference to a "new Pearl Harbor" type event that would be needed to facilitate the process of political transformation sought by that group.

How would such an operation be financed? Maybe the 2,3 trillion $ missing from the Pentagon budget, as was announced by Donald Rumsfeld on 10th September 2001, could have something to do with it? Until today, this money remains unaccounted for.

Regarding the precise nature of the Pentagon hit, I never said that it wasn't an AA airplane that crashed into it. I merely questioned the capability of an amateur pilot to fly unnoticed into the most sensitive zone of the Washington DC airspace and have the approach angle and everything right to steer it into the rather flat structure that is the Pentagon. When pressed, I'd say that it was a remote-controlled jet.

Who the henchmen were that rigged the WTC7 I cannot tell you. But if you find people who torture and kill in the name of democracy surely some should be willing to blow up a building? As to the "witnesses" and their commitment to lie - wouldn't it be more accurate to refer to everyone in the know as accomplices. And every criminal mind knows that the most enduring vow of silence comes from complicity.

everything in this post has been debunked.

This statement is simply incorrect. Quite to the contrary, The government-backed NIST's (National Institute of Standards and Technology) account of the WTC7's collapse was debunked by a highschool physics teacher (!) who demonstrated, using a sophisticated computer model, that the building did go down at free-fall speed. If you have evidence disproving this, please point me towards it.

Likewise, the insider trading issue hasn't been debunked, either. If anything, it has been obfuscated by the SEC by actually destroying investigation records pertaining to pre 9/11 short selling. Again, I kindly ask you to direct me to a source which "debunks" this point.

So killing a few people to start a war seems totally plausible and non-problematic - it's just the people that they did kill would seem to be an absurd way of going about it.

An absurd way of going about it? An ingenious way: the horror of the images is never-ceasing.

engaging large numbers of civilian and military personnel in a covert plot to murder non-combatant civilians working for eminent multi-national banks and corporations as well as the central node of the state military apparatus, and doing so by destroying four large passenger jets full of people with mobile phones and wide-ranging public connections and reputations is self-evidantly insane

Well, the US government already toyed with the idea a couple of decades ago:

Operation Northwoods
 

craner

Beast of Burden
The PNAC was not an executive force. It amounted to a statement and a website. You're getting lost in think tank land and chasing shadows there. Same with the Northwoods thing, a proposal by secret service agents and backed by a Joint Chief (notably in the rabid post-Cold War staff) is a very different thing from actual covert action or policy, like the Iranian coup or Bay of Pigs.

You'll notice Northwoods never happened. It's very similar to a plot proposed during the 2004 Ukraine election by a few hardliners in the Kuchma regime, who wanted to set off some bombs on the streets of Kiev to fabrictae a State of Emergency, and so steal a non-election. The reason it didn't happen was because the SBU and the Russian fixers involved, guys who'd tried to kill the oppiosition leader don't forget, balked at such an extreme, sick and insane idea. You could say the Bologna bombing is a precedent, but that was a genuine neo-fascist plot; nor did it have the logistical scale of 9/11.

How would it be possible in a town like Washington, policy wonk think tank land that bred the PNAC, to keep such an enormous secret, involving so many accomplices?

What was their motivation, these hundreds of accomplices?
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
No it doesn't, certainly not in this case -- engaging large numbers of civilian and military personnel in a covert plot to murder non-combatant civilians working for eminent multi-national banks and corporations as well as the central node of the state military apparatus, and doing so by destroying four large passenger jets full of people with mobile phones and wide-ranging public connections and reputations is self-evidantly insane, and has absolutely no correlation to a lack of public health care provision. And the plot was obviously designed to kill thousands of people, not a few. This is before you even consider the fact that on September 10th, 2001 the US administration had no plans to start a war in Afghanistan or Iraq, let alone any plots to provide a pretext -- and that really is a fact.

But I'm in agreement with what you're saying - that had 9/11 been a 'conspiracy', the way of going about it/risk factor was clincially insane. My point was rather that 'democratic' governments care not a jot more for their subjects' well-being than 'regime' governments, and logically, why would they? Only difference is that regimes can act with greater impunity. 9/11 was obv not a conspiracy, cos no-one could be quite that bad at planning, but could it get away with it easily, of course the US state would have had no objection to mass murder, its own citizens or not. It's hardly an entity guided by any moral compass whatsoever. The idea (not one you were supporting, but in reference to general opinion) that the US state is any different in principle from, say, the Libyan state under Gaddafi, is baffling. It just has more powerful subjects/citizens. But still manages to have 3 per cent of its adult population in the correctional justice system, all the same.

There's not a correlation to public health care as such: I was just making the point that economic violence is as bad as physical, hand-on-gun violence. Which obv we're seeing in the UK right now - the Tories have blood on their hands, however they choose to make people's lives unbearable.

As to war in Afghanistan and Iraq - I think politics is largely governed more by broad ideological opportunism than specific 'plans'. True it might be that there were no blueprints to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, but as an imperialist power with a vast military capacity, the US would ideologically not be averse to taking whatever opportunity came along, particularly wrt such strategically and economically valuable countries.


Edit: I think the 'conspiracy' quesiton is a bit of a red herring, anyway. The US government has acted over decades in such a way in its foreign policy as to make it unthinkable that it did not give serious credence to the possibility of an attack such as 9/11. It was a matter of when rather than if counterhegemonic forces of whatever kind would strike back on US soil - unless they really believed the 'end of history' line, and I can't believe anyone in policy would be quite that stupid.

Evil through not giving a shit about human life is far more common than evil involving nefarious, '24' style planning to end human life.
 
Last edited:

craner

Beast of Burden
Until today, this money remains unaccounted for.

I have to say, I'd never heard of this before, and the Youtube link hardly clarifies matters, and I have no idea, either, if it is an accurate figure based on documents and paperwork, or some typical, contextual Rumsfeldian hyperbole. One thing I do know about Rumsfeld on September 10th, when he made the speech in that video, is that he was involved in a bitter and protracted struggle with the Pentagon bureaucracy; they were desperately trying to maintain their enormous and wasteful budgets, and he was vigorously trying to slash them. This dynamic was part of the unfolding military catastrophes that overtook Iraq and then Afghanistan; basically, in those theaters, he lost his light-footprint argument. He was buried by the Surge as much as Jim Baker. But if it is true, and $3.2 trillion was "lost" or wasted at the Pentagon (over what period of time?) -- then how, exactly, was it spent on the 9/11 plot? Where are the money trails? Who was paid what and through which channels? Did it go on massive wages for all these hundreds of accomplices working for the P2-style Consortium?

When pressed, I'd say that it was a remote-controlled jet.

I don't think you're serious about this stuff, to be honest. You really believe in it, do you? You're not convincing enough. Padraig was better at this sort of thing.
 

Sectionfive

bandwagon house
Regardless of the event.

The climate of fear has been milked to maxim effect. It's still working out quite well for a lot of interests.
 

lanugo

von Verfall erzittern
I don't think you're serious about this stuff, to be honest. You really believe in it, do you? You're not convincing enough.

Say, they used a refurbished passenger aircraft equipped with transplanted remote control technology from high-end drone systems.

Is this idea so much more outlandish than the official narrative where, unnoticed by the most powerful intelligence services in the world, a gang of Arab students cooks up the greatest terrorist attack in history, actually manages to get through all the security checks without any hassle, then, using nothing but box cutters, succesfully hi-jacks four airliners that are subsequently manoeuvred through a totally unprotected national airspace, and eventually crashed into America's most iconic edifices, including the one building that is probably the most closely-guarded structure on the planet?

Oh, and while training for this stunt our crew of grimly determined Islamist terrorists is reportedly having a good time in Florida going to strip bars and doing coke.

Quite a story, isn't it?

This is before you even consider the fact that on September 10th, 2001 the US administration had no plans to start a war in Afghanistan or Iraq, let alone any plots to provide a pretext -- and that really is a fact.

Is it? Four-star general Wesley Clark relates in this speech that as early as 1991 the US administration was planning on attacking precisely these countries as well as Libya (!), Syria, Jemen and Somalia:



And now I'd like to pose a question to you, craner: If the events arrived out of the blue for the US authorities, on what basis were they able to announce, just hours after the attacks had taken place, that they had been conducted by "Al-qaida" and masterminded by Bin Laden? How did they know this? Did they have intelligence proving this connection and, if so, shouldn't that very intelligence have led to the prevention of the attacks in the first place?
 
Last edited:

craner

Beast of Burden
Well, yes and yes. As soon as the CIA looked at the passenger lists of the hijacked jet planes, case officers recognized names. They knew about some of these guys, had been monitoring them; the revelation of this largely wrecked the reputation of the CIA in the States. They also got intelligence from the Saudis and Germans pretty quickly. George Tenet then overcompensated for their total failure to protect US interests by exaggerating Iraqi WMD evidence to suit Bush Administrations war plans. And so on.

If it was a plan, it was a fucking stupid plan. Why invade Afghanistan? What good was that?

Why didn't they plan to implicate Hezbollah, already infamous for attacking American interests outside of the Middle East and organizationally stronger and larger in 2001? Then they could've invaded the Bekaa valley to destroy them, toppled Assad and occupied Syria thereby taking control of Lebanon, propping up a puppet Christian/Druze coalition with Ariel Sharon and the IDF. On the border of Iraq they could have supplied Kurds and Shi'ites with arms to slowly subvert the Ba'athists and prepared themselves for an attack on Iran to wipe out the traces of Hezbollah and neutralize the Iranian WMD programme, which they would have by then collected evidence on. And all this would've started with the backing and support of the UN and NATO, in all probability.

That would've been a plan worth destroying the World Trade Center, Pentagon and White House for.
 

slowtrain

Well-known member
Useless post, but just thought I'd like to say I'm enjoying this thread.

I am doing a paper on conspiracy theories at the moment and this is all very interesting.
 

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
Why didn't they plan to implicate Hezbollah, already infamous for attacking American interests outside of the Middle East and organizationally stronger and larger in 2001? Then they could've invaded the Bekaa valley to destroy them, toppled Assad and occupied Syria thereby taking control of Lebanon, propping up a puppet Christian/Druze coalition with Ariel Sharon and the IDF. On the border of Iraq they could have supplied Kurds and Shi'ites with arms to slowly subvert the Ba'athists and prepared themselves for an attack on Iran to wipe out the traces of Hezbollah and neutralize the Iranian WMD programme, which they would have by then collected evidence on. And all this would've started with the backing and support of the UN and NATO, in all probability.
You should go on some sort of Neocon Dragons' Den with that.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
Is this idea so much more outlandish than the official narrative where, unnoticed by the most powerful intelligence services in the world, a gang of Arab students cooks up the greatest terrorist attack in history, actually manages to get through all the security checks without any hassle, then, using nothing but box cutters, succesfully hi-jacks four airliners that are subsequently manoeuvred through a totally unprotected national airspace, and eventually crashed into America's most iconic edifices, including the one building that is probably the most closely-guarded structure on the planet?

The thing is, that isn't very outlandish at all; "a gang of Arab students" makes them sound like a bunch of Four Lions-like buffoons, when at least one of them seems to have been of superior competence and commitment, and was superbly well-connected to the al-Qaeda hiearchy. But also, the small, mundane, cellular nature and details of the plot would increase its chances of success, I would suggest; as well as its time-scale and large, almost unlimited funds from bin Laden cash.

Internal flight security in the States was notoriously lax; air traffic control monitors awash with hundreds of dots and paths, a green soup on the morning of 9/11; USAF fighter jets anything but primed or prepared to immediately enage full passenger jets on early morning flights. You say that the Pentagon is the most closely-guarded structure on the planet (and who knows if that is strictly true) but there certainly was not 24hr airborne fighter patrols around the perimeter or unsheathed missiles waiting to knock out incoming Boeings in 2001, nor is there now. There's not much anybody can do about an enormous unheralded jet flying at any building, I would wager; even a missile would need to be aimed, or a heat-seeking one somewhere close by, waiting; regardless of the levels of permission needed to destroy civilian planes, an unprecedented request painfully allowed by Cheney.

These assumptions are like the myth of CIA omniscience, but when it's not subcontracting work to P2-style Consortiums, the CIA is just a corporation staffed by professionals who seek and sell raw intelligence right or wrong.

American airspace was largely unprotected; even if it had been, it would still be a push to prepare F-16s to immediately eliminate hijacked airliners full of civilians flying into buildings.
 
Top