Brooker on 9/11 conspiracies

[vimothy]

Wow -- David Shayler should really hook up with Icke:

"I am the messiah and hold the secret of eternal life," he starts excitedly. "It all came about quite suddenly.

"First I started meditating, then I learnt how to channel the "light", and the more research I did - into Freemasonry, the Knights Templar, Kabbalah - the more convinced I became that I was the Christ."

Jesus Christ? "No, Jesus of the New Testament is an archetype," he explains patiently. "His name derives from the 13th Name of God in Kabbalah, which helps activate the Messiah consciousness within us.

"I was, though, crucified with a crown of thorns and nails then incarnated as Astronges, a Jewish revolutionary put to death by the Romans at around the end of the last century BC ...It explained why in this life I had funny shaped wrists and ankles..."

Had? "Yes, look," he says, proffering his tanned arms. "They've pretty much corrected themselves now I've acknowledged the crucifixion - but there used to be big hollows where nails had been bashed in."​

 

[noel emits]

A few loose ends.

I was trying to make a point above about how assumptions that a 'conspiracy' involving elements in the US would necessarily have required large numbers of participants were unfounded. Quite the opposite in fact, I would suggest. So as a basis on which to dismiss the possibility out of hand it doesn't really stand up.

But a few other points were raised as a result so I'd just like to respond to those as I didn't have time earlier. Just to be clear, I'm not detailing a theory here, and I'm certainly not talking about 'controlled demolition' or any of that stuff.

But no-one's claiming that at all. Everyone know's bin Laden's the scion of a hugely wealthy, well-connected oil family (indeed, this is the subject of conspiracy theories in its own right) and has an enormous personal fortune.

The Bin Laden's links to the Bush family via the Carlyle group and al-Qaeda's early history as being funded by the US and trained by the CIA have perhaps justifiably been the subject of some curiosity and intrigue.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,738196,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1670089.stm
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/01-11-04/discussion.cgi.28.html

And in any case, the logistics of committing 9/11, considerable as they may have have been, pale in comparison to the degree of organisation and secrecy that the US government would have had to maintain in order to carry out the attack and get away with it

Not really, it would still be essentially the same act. It could even conceivably have required fewer participants if they had access to resources in the US.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021208-secure01.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

I think it's also pretty telling that not a single person, anonymously or otherwise, has acted as a whistle-blower for this supposed conspiracy.

That you know of.

http://www.madcowprod.com/mc4512004.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml
http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

Neither, as far as I'm aware, has any attempt been made to stop these fearless troofers who risk everything to spread the word by prining tee-shirts and putting videos up on YouTube.

As far as you are aware.

But then, most of the information that is loudly out there and easy for people to latch on to is of very little relevance or is downright disinformation. In the google age you don't necessarily need to shut people up, you just need to make sure there's enough noise out there. But then, some people who have approached certain areas of investigation, or started to speak about what they know, have indeed been threatened and warned off. Or worse, I mean - how would you know?

Bin Laden is very much the missing piece from 9/11 CTs.

Are you really saying that the role of Bin Laden is not considered by people who are concerned with investigating those events?

After all, think about it from his POV:

Hard to say what his POV is I think. ?

if he'd either been allowed to commit the attack by a complicit CIA/FBI

It's possible. It also depends I suppose on what you understand to be FBI/CIA.

or if he'd actually had nothing to do with it but had had the blame pinned on him,

I don't think he'd mind particularly to be honest. It would look good wouldn't it?

why would he play along with it and accept responsibility?

Why not? Of course it is very likely that he was indeed involved, but who knows in what capacity.

But then, did he accept responsibility? How do you know?

Surely he'd have said "Look, America, at what your own government does to you for its own selfish ends!" and then sat back and watched as the country destroyed itself in violent revolution?

Depends what he knows, and what his agenda and/or allegiances actually are. Maybe there was a deal - they don't seem to be at all interested in bringing the guy in.

But the other question is what are the sources for information / messages supposedly coming from Bin Laden? How can you trust these?

The only way around this is to claim that bin Laden is actually in on the conspiracy himself, that he is somehow the CIA's stooge, or paid-off fall man.

Or as a willing patsy?

Which is another problem with CTs in general: there is no limit to how high up the conspiracy goes, how general and all-encompassing 'They' are.

How does this follow? If a conspiracy goes high up it's not a problem with the theory!
But then there's no reason at all why this should have involved more than a very small number of people. And even then most of those wouldn't have to have known the full details.

 

[noel emits]

How much did the 'cave dwelling arabs' have to orchestrate, though?

The 'cave' bit came from official reports about al-Quaeda. Of course it's a characature. The hijackers were it seems living in Germany, the US and elsewhere for some time anyway.

Learn to fly a plane(roughly, without having to be able to do the difficult bits ie take off, land, or give people a safe and comfortable ride) and then get onto some planes with some weapons.

Doing even basic stuff in a large computer controlled passenger jet is very different to flying the light aircraft they were supposedly training on. Even then these guys were by most accounts pretty useless pilots. The maneuvres necessary to hit a low lying target like the Pentagon would have been far from trivial for any pilot. Not to mention how all the planes miraculously avoiding any intervention from the airforce for nearly two hours while they flew off course, broke contact with ATC, and flew over some of the most heavily protected airspace in the world. Not so easy.

It's not quite the same as rigging some of the largest and most densely used buildings in the world for a controlled demolition without any of the people who work in them or are responsible for their security noticing anything out of the ordinary, making a few hundred people disappear, faking up phone calls from those people to their loved ones accurately enough to fool everyone who knew them, flying a couple of things that look a great deal like 747s into the side of the buildings,

I don't think there's any need to suggest any of this was faked or rigged.

setting up fake evidence to point to the aforementioned arabs in caves

Some of the evidence may be real enough, what little there is of it. There's surprisingly little though, and much of what there is is kind of unlikely, cheesy even, you might say. The passport that somehow made it out of a burning plane and onto the top of a huge pile of rubble. The bag that got stuck at the airport containing a Quran and a 'how to fly a plane' book. The grainy video that was fortuitously found in a house in Afghanistan

(including videos where they take credit for it)

It's kind of irrelevant anyway but the one video where Bin Laden supposedly directly claims responsibility is of somewhat dubious validity and provenance.

and then rigging a series of internal enquiries,.

Which internal enquiries? The 9/11 commission report failed to provide a proper investigation. As I understand it the commission operated under a veto system whereby only items that could be unanimously agreed upon by all the commissioners would be included in the final report. On top of that it was agreed with the Whitehouse that only some of the commissioners would be able to see crucial internal documents and would also have to then clear with the Whitehouse what they disclosed to the commission. And who appointed these guys anyway?

all in order to invade a country which is basically pretty useless.

I don't think the oil pipeline and heroin money would be considered useless by those with access to them. Not to mention the huge sums that war makes for US arms manufacturers and contractors.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/oilwar1.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MCS306A.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml

Yet apparently the people who did all that couldn't be bothered to plant some WMDs to justify the subsequent invasion of a significantly more valuable country..

They didn't need to plant WMDs, obviously. It was just not necessary and would have been too risky. In fact that's quite telling about the limits of what any posited 'conspirators' could do. And again the big earner with Iraq has been the war itself, the longer it goes on the more money is made by the arms dealers and contracters. The long 'search' for WMDs only helped contribute to this.

Haha, indeed. It's amazing how much mileage they seem to get out of the fact that the towers fell straight down, rather than to one side. Well of course they fell straight down, that's how skyscrapers are designed to collapse, so as not to take any neighbouring buildings with them in the event of their destruction.

Skyscrapers are designed to collapse?

Let's consider the two putative 'conspiracies' here: the one organised by ObL to attack the WTC and Pentagon, and the rival one, i.e. it was an inside job by the US government.

I don't think the phrase 'inside job by the US government' is a very useful one. Although it might not be all that far off the truth.

They're two fundamentally different kinds of conspiracy (leaving aside the disparity between the number of conspirators each one would require)

Yes because there's absolutey no reason to assume there would be a huge difference in the number of people it would have required.

, in that the terrorists who committed 9/11 claimed responsibility

They did? I thought they were all supposed to be dead? Ah, but al-Qaeda claimed responsibility, allegedly. How do you know? What's the evidence? And what would this mean or prove, or more importantly, rule out, anyway?

- of course they did, that was the whole point, to give the Great Satan a bloody nose and let the world know that they, acting (so they'd like to think) on behalf on Islam, had struck the first blow in a global jihad.

That's how the story goes.

Whereas the people claiming it was an inside job are obviously not the people who actually did it.

True :slanted: But then as I've said, 'inside job' is a misleading phrase in this case I think.

Bin Laden claims his organisation committed the attacks, and the leaders of the US agree with him. On that note, they're in perfect accord. So there's a notable asymmetry between these two 'conspiracies'.

He does? They do? They are? There is? OK.

I get what you are saying but that assumes that governments are able to organise themselves in the same way as terrorists.

Perhaps not 'Governments' as such, but 'Intelligence agencies' or similar and aspects thereof often act almost exactly like terrorist cells and employ the very same 'compartmentalised' structures. There are elements of these organisations, or spawned from them, that answer to very few people, if anyone, and get their funding direct from the illegal drugs trade, off the books.

Plus it is entirely different organising an attack on foreigh soil than against your "own" people. Rightly or wrongly people object to one more than the other.

I think it depends on the mindset of the perps and whether they actually would consider regular American's to be 'their own' people, or would consider a sacrifice justified in order to achieve their aims. Even within 'normal' parameters it's not entirely without precedent in terms of things that have been considered by US forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Noam Chomsky says 'they'd have to be insane' - well yeah, and?

 

[droid]

Chomsky says they would have to be insane due to the enormous risk of being caught in such a scheme.

The American ruling classes may be capable of many things, but self sacrifice is not one of them. And why would they even need to go to such lengths anyway? They've dragged their country into military action on far flimsier pretexts in the past - the bombing of Lybia in 86, the invasion of Grenada, economic warfare and terror against Nicaragua...

I'm also curious as what this kind of theorising hopes to achieve, and how it hopes to achieve it. According to many of its proponents, 'proving' that 911 is an inside job would somehow change the world. I disagree. First of all, I think it would be almost impossible to prove without mass confessions or some previously unknown video or damning piece of physical evidence (not forthcoming), and secondly, even if it was somehow proven - what would happen? A few people would be sent to jail or death row, and business in the empire would continue as usual.

As you know, this is the main crux of the left anti-conspiracy argument. Its a waste of time that uses up resources and energy with no clear prospect of achieving anything. But then again (and this isn't directed at you btw), its far easier to wank off to loose change and feel superior to the idiots who buy the 'official' story than it is to actually organise politically and do something worthwhile isn't it?

 

[noel emits]

Chomsky says they would have to be insane due to the enormous risk of being caught in such a scheme.

It would depend what was at stake, or believed to be at stake.
In any case, let's say that if the speculation about false flag terrorism is correct then they have been employing terrorist organisations for a very long time with no serious consequences for themselves in terms of culpability. They still get away with it, it's business as usual.

The American ruling classes may be capable of many things,

Not Americans, globalists.

And why would they even need to go to such lengths anyway?

As everyone keeps saying, it was actually quite 'easy' in a sense, four planes - boom! But it was done this way for a number of reasons - it wasn't just about providing a pretext for wars or manufacturing consent for the removal of constitutional rights. Although of course this was exactly what the PNAC think tank had suggested was necessary to carry out their plans as dictated by the neo-conservative philosophy - a New Pearl Harbour. In addition I think it should also be understood as a psychological attack on the people - shock and awe.

And it covered a few other major bases as well - destroying, among other things, huge amounts of evidence pertaining to corporate fraud, including the Enron scandal, in the case of WTC7. Destroying accounts records detailing the $2.3 trillion dollars missing from defence spending budgets in the Pentagon. Who knows what else was conveniently buried?

In addition to this, almost as a bonus you have the projected outlay (at least in the 100s of $m) that would have been necessary for the legally required asbestos removal and refurbishments of the WTC complex, or even more in the case of demolition for redevelopment, being turned instead into massive insurance payouts.

I'm also curious as what this kind of theorising hopes to achieve, and how it hopes to achieve it.

I understand asking this question but in a sense it really is quite disingenuous, if not dangerous. If people have reason to think they have been lied to and cheated, and indeed far worse, in such a major way then they absolutely have a right, a duty even, to demand and look for truth and justice. That should be a matter of principle if nothing else.

We are still living with the consequences of these events so understanding them is important if we are to understand what is happening politically in the present. Especially of course if you have reason to think that the official story is a crock and the official investigation a sham.

In many instances people are concerned with this because they believe it points to a globalist fascist agenda beyond the left's usual understanding of the systemic machinations of 'corporate capitalism'.

If this is the case then it is obviously of tremendous importance that people can understand the meaning and intent behind these acts and similar, especially if and when the next ones occur.

According to many of its proponents, 'proving' that 911 is an inside job would somehow change the world. I disagree.

Of course this is perfectly healthy and sounds like the call for revolution from every generation as it comes into some political consciousness. But it's not about proving an 'inside job', it is about keeping open the question of what exactly did happen because that has not been adequately explained or demonstrated and the whole thing is highly suspect still.

First of all, I think it would be almost impossible to prove without mass confessions or some previously unknown video or damning piece of physical evidence (not forthcoming), and secondly, even if it was somehow proven - what would happen? A few people would be sent to jail or death row, and business in the empire would continue as usual.

It's not so much about proving something, it's about trying to find out what that something is. And saying that business would carry on as usual is no reason to stop looking for truth and justice (and the American way). And maybe the problem isn't as big as all that after all - the world would be a significantly better place if even just a few, and there aren't that many, of these people are brought to task. And who knows what a real investigation would uncover?

As you know, this is the main crux of the left anti-conspiracy argument. Its a waste of time that uses up resources and energy with no clear prospect of achieving anything. But then again (and this isn't directed at you btw), its far easier to wank off to loose change and feel superior to the idiots who buy the 'official' story than it is to actually organise politically and do something worthwhile isn't it?

Remember that a good number of those people, as you imply, would not have been politically mobilised anyway. In the mean time I think, as do many others, that the actualities behind these events are of significance in uncovering the vast corruption, indeed evil, that has made itself at home in the heart of western power. It's not only systematic, these people have names.

And these are different times - in an information war awareness is the key. If you are to organise politically you have to first know what exactly it is you are organising against. And these things are by no means mutually exclusive anyway.

Incidentally, Loose Change was done by a couple of over excitable and slightly naive kids but I think their intentions were good. Unfortunately by not checking their facts too carefully and jumping to too many premature conclusions they didn't do themselves or efforts at looking at the truth behind those events too many favours in the eyes of some.

If anyone is at all interested I think this recent German film is a much better effort: http://www.videocommunity.com/pc/pc/display/7167 (they should really lock off the comments section though )

 

[luka]

im so impressed with noels performance on this thread....
i wouldn't exaclty say im suprised at the lack of imagination and brains displayed by everyone else but its disappointing none the less

 

[droid]

It would depend what was at stake, or believed to be at stake.
In any case, let's say that if the speculation about false flag terrorism is correct then they have been employing terrorist organisations for a very long time with no serious consequences for themselves in terms of culpability. They still get away with it, it's business as usual.

Unless of course it goes wrong, everyone is caught and they spill the beans. I am glad to see that we've moved on from remote controlled planes though.

Not Americans, globalists.

Are we talking Bilderberg here? i dont know what you mean by this.

And it covered a few other major bases as well - destroying, among other things, huge amounts of evidence pertaining to corporate fraud, including the Enron scandal, in the case of WTC7. Destroying accounts records detailing the $2.3 trillion dollars missing from defence spending budgets in the Pentagon. Who knows what else was conveniently buried?

Who knows if that stuff was conveniently buried? Is there solid evidence to say that it was?

In addition to this, almost as a bonus you have the projected outlay (at least in the 100s of $m) that would have been necessary for the legally required asbestos removal and refurbishments of the WTC complex, or even more in the case of demolition for redevelopment, being turned instead into massive insurance payouts.

Hmmm... insurance fraud posing as international terrorism...

I understand asking this question but in a sense it really is quite disingenuous, if not dangerous. If people have reason to think they have been lied to and cheated, and indeed far worse, in such a major way then they absolutely have a right, a duty even, to demand and look for truth and justice. That should be a matter of principle if nothing else.

They were lied to and cheated about every foreign policy adventure in US history. they are being lied to and cheated about Irag and projections of US power as we speak. Difference is they could actually do something about it.

We are still living with the consequences of these events so understanding them is important if we are to understand what is happening politically in the present. Especially of course if you have reason to think that the official story is a crock and the official investigation a sham.

Understanding the repercussions and the manipulations of the public are far more vital than understanding the event IMO.

In many instances people are concerned with this because they believe it points to a globalist fascist agenda beyond the left's usual understanding of the systemic machinations of 'corporate capitalism'.

A globalist fascist agenda aligned to the UN's takeover of America? New world order style?

Sorry to be glib, but the kind of language you're using bring Alex Jones to mind

Of course this is perfectly healthy and sounds like the call for revolution from every generation as it comes into some political consciousness. But it's not about proving an 'inside job', it is about keeping open the question of what exactly did happen because that has not been adequately explained or demonstrated and the whole thing is highly suspect still.

Perhaps not for you, but I think for many 'truthers' it is about exposing the 'cancer' at the heart of the American government. Because if they root out all the bad apples then the US will be back to its usual beautiful freedom and democracy loving self. Theres a real element of narcissism there as well.

Remember that a good number of those people, as you imply, would not have been politically mobilised anyway. In the mean time I think, as do many others, that the actualities behind these events are of significance in uncovering the vast corruption, indeed evil, that has made itself at home in the heart of western power. It's not only systematic, these people have names.

True. But this guarantees that they will never pursue political goals outside a very narrow field, and if they do, they will never be taken seriously.

Incidentally, Loose Change was done by a couple of over excitable and slightly naive kids but I think their intentions were good. Unfortunately by not checking their facts too carefully and jumping to too many premature conclusions they didn't do themselves or efforts at looking at the truth behind those events too many favours in the eyes of some.

Oh come on, its a total joke.

If anyone is at all interested I think this recent German film is a much better effort: http://www.videocommunity.com/pc/pc/display/7167 (they should really lock off the comments section though )

Will check it out.

 

[vimothy]

The 'cave' bit came from official reports about al-Quaeda. Of course it's a characature. The hijackers were it seems living in Germany, the US and elsewhere for some time anyway.

Bin Laden & co had camps in the mountains in Afghanistan (and this not only according to "official" sources, e.g. Wright, Bergen, etc). So in fact, it's not that much of a caricature. However, key hijackers lived and planned the attack in Hamburg.

Not to mention how all the planes miraculously avoiding any intervention from the airforce for nearly two hours while they flew off course, broke contact with ATC, and flew over some of the most heavily protected airspace in the world. Not so easy.

Not so easy now, after the fact. If people had been able to conceive of and expect a 9/11 style attack before it happened, it wouldn't have happened. A different method would have been chosen.

I don't think there's any need to suggest any of this was faked or rigged.

Me neither -- but then, I'm not. As far as 9/11 CTs go, I thought that the suggestion that the Twin Towers were rigged with explosives to make them fall straight down was fairly common. Thus it seemingly requires (as a bare minimum) 1, the rigging of the Twin Towers with enough explosives to successfully collapse them, 2, extensive planning (though I guess this could be done via computer modelling from the VP's office), 3, massive and secret interagency cooperation and 4, trained pilots who are both psychotically commited to the "mission" (mass murder) and suicidal. All of which, while not impossible, does seem pretty implausible.

It's kind of irrelevant anyway but the one video where Bin Laden supposedly directly claims responsibility is of somewhat dubious validity and provenance.

It's fucking not irrelevant and you should provide evidence for statements of such massive importance.

Given this (dubious, IMHO) "fact", why do people like Peter Bergen, someone who probably knows more about Bin Laden than anyone else in the world, seem to think that Bin Laden claimed responsibility? How come the 9/11 commission, the largest criminal investigation in history, also found that Bin Laden was responsible?

Which internal enquiries?

Er, the internal inquiry that you go on to describe. Your theory that the conspiracy need not be large by necessity is betrayed by your own argument throughout this post: faking videos of OBL, rigging huge criminal investigations, actioning PNAC plans, creating favourable conditions for corporations to steal oil, etc -- it all points to a large footoprint operation involving not just lots of different people, but also lots of different organisations and bureaucracies.

I don't think the oil pipeline and heroin money would be considered useless by those with access to them.

Who profits, in this case, exactly? And if it's not simply the US, does that imply an international conspiracy at the state level? Because it should do, according to your logic...

Not to mention the huge sums that war makes for US arms manufacturers and contractors.

Arms manufaturers make huge sums of money anyway. And do the people who supply the army with drinking water and KFCs really have that much say? Isn't the conspiracy large enough at this point?

They didn't need to plant WMDs, obviously.

It would have kept the in office, though. Right? I mean, if they'd just convinced a reeling and angry American polity on some other grounds, the Reps, oil magnates and the gun manufacturers could be looking forward to another term, AND the casus belli would still hold -- the US could be justifiably in Iraq for longer, increasing the return for the masters of war.

It was just not necessary and would have been too risky.

I'd be interested to hear you expand on the qualitative difference in risk and return between planting WMDs in Iraq and flying huge passenger planes into the Twin Towers.

And again the big earner with Iraq has been the war itself, the longer it goes on the more money is made by the arms dealers and contracters.

So the conspirators also planned/planned for the insurgency? Do you think that they are actively trying to block political reconcilliation? How does this square with the improved security situation in Iraq and the changed strategy of MNF-I?

The long 'search' for WMDs only helped contribute to this.

Surely if the goal is protracted conflict in Iraq, the search for WMDs has made little difference in either direction.

I don't think the phrase 'inside job by the US government' is a very useful one. Although it might not be all that far off the truth.

Say what you mean.

Yes because there's absolutey no reason to assume there would be a huge difference in the number of people it would have required.

Simply not true -- self-evidently so, I'd argue.

• Al Qaeda = small terrorist network
• "US Government" = massive, multi-agency egregore with orders of magnitude more employees

But I would like to see an explanation for why exactly you believe it to be the case that there is no necessary difference in the number of people needed to carry out 9/11 if it were an "inside job".

[more to follow...]

 

[Mr. Tea]

Noel, you keep skirting around this phrase "inside job" without committing yourself one way or the other. Whoever we think planned and carried out the attacks, I'm sure we can all agree SOMEONE did it. So if you disagree with the 'official story' that it was a group of Islamic fundamentalists, based in Germany and the US and coordinated from Afghanistan by ObL, then who - in *your* opinion - was it?

As far as I can see there are three main options here:

* it really was carried out by al-Qa'eda as claimed, but with some degree of cooperation (or at least a culpable lack of opposition) from one or more 'intelligence' agency within the US government;
* it was orchestrated by some arm of the US government and blamed on Islamist terrorists (some of whom were somehow found to act as 'patsies', 'stooges' or whatever - never mind how or why);
* it was the work of some global organisation or body greater in scope than even the US government, of which bin Laden and co are, wittingly or not, merely a smaller part.

Or is there some further option I've missed out?

Or have I misconstrued you entirely, and you're not saying "so-and-so did it", you're merely "pointing out that there are holes in the official story" by saying " are there?" and "was there?" after anything I say about the whole affair, as if this by itself counts as conclusive evidence for a monstrous (yet undefined) conspiracy?

 

[Chuu]

If anyone is at all interested I think this recent German film is a much better effort: http://www.videocommunity.com/pc/pc/display/7167 (they should really lock off the comments section though )

Thanks for this, quite a riveting watch, it's definitely a coherent and extensive proponent of the "why we should still be asking questions" camp. Loving the footage of Rodriguez the janitor talking to Look North BBC News Leeds... if anyone's going to find out what happened it's them.

My position is that I don't really know what happened and would like to find out, does this make me a de facto conspiracy theorist because I don't "buy" the official answers to questions like why air defense was so shoddy? Also I give weight to a lot of the coincidental matters of fact such as the groups using WTC7 and the benefits that destroying that building would have for them.

This is the problem no?, that anyone who doesn't believe the end all answer is in the 9/11 Commission Report gets lumped into the troofers bucket leaving no room for people who are just not satisfied with the official story, isn't this why Noel had initial grievance with Brooker piece?

 

[vimothy]

As everyone keeps saying, it was actually quite 'easy' in a sense, four planes - boom! But it was done this way for a number of reasons - it wasn't just about providing a pretext for wars or manufacturing consent for the removal of constitutional rights. Although of course this was exactly what the PNAC think tank had suggested was necessary to carry out their plans as dictated by the neo-conservative philosophy - a New Pearl Harbour. In addition I think it should also be understood as a psychological attack on the people - shock and awe.

And it covered a few other major bases as well - destroying, among other things, huge amounts of evidence pertaining to corporate fraud, including the Enron scandal, in the case of WTC7. Destroying accounts records detailing the $2.3 trillion dollars missing from defence spending budgets in the Pentagon. Who knows what else was conveniently buried?

In addition to this, almost as a bonus you have the projected outlay (at least in the 100s of $m) that would have been necessary for the legally required asbestos removal and refurbishments of the WTC complex, or even more in the case of demolition for redevelopment, being turned instead into massive insurance payouts.

Ok, let's just review where we are for a second. We've gone from "that 9/11 CTs are absurd is a truism not worrthy of newspaper space", to doubt, speculation, to the bald statements of fact above in 5 short pages.

"it was done this way for a number of reasons"

According to Noel, 9/11 was committed by shadowy US intelligence agencies at the behest of a global conspiracy of Republicans, heads of state, arms dealers, the Carlylse Group, army contractors, oil companies, neoconservative think tanks, fraudulent corporations, the Pentagon and the owners of the WTC. Together, they chose the method of 9/11 to provide a pretext for wars in the mid east, the denial of constitutional rights, a psychological attack on the people and the fulfillment of the neoconservative philosophy.

 

[noel emits]

Believe or think what you like of course, this isn't about winning arguments. We could probably go round in circles for ever debating points and terms.
Maybe I'll come back on a few things where people have misunderstood what I've said (and there are quite a few) or attributed words and POVs to me erroneously.
I have my ideas and I've presented a few suggestions, if you think I'm making absolute statements of fact then forgive me - it gets tedious finding innumerable ways to say 'it is possible that' etc.

Its a waste of time that uses up resources and energy with no clear prospect of achieving anything.

In this case I must agree with you.

Vimothy - just this quickly as your misreading of me seems to have provoked swearing -

It's fucking not irrelevant and you should provide evidence for statements of such massive importance.

I say it's not particularly relevant to say whether Bin Laden claims responsibility or not. Ultimately it doesn't mean much one way or the other as far proving whether he did it and/or ruling out involvement of other parties or agendas.

Oh and this -

I'd be interested to hear you expand on the qualitative difference in risk and return between planting WMDs in Iraq and flying huge passenger planes into the Twin Towers.

Risky because I think leaving WMDs lying around in enemy territory probably wouldn't be considered strategically sensible.

 

[noel emits]

Bin Laden & co had camps in the mountains in Afghanistan (and this not only according to "official" sources, e.g. Wright, Bergen, etc). So in fact, it's not that much of a caricature. However, key hijackers lived and planned the attack in Hamburg.

Yes, I just mention it to clarify that when I used that particular shorthand I was quoting, and also because of things like this up thread -

The 911 cultists always use the "cave dwelling arabs" description, often with an even more racist slant.

the racism in the idea that them ay-rabs are a bunch of cave-dwellers incapable of doing anythings as technically demanding as hijacking a plane and crashing it,

Hopefully we can get past it now.

Not so easy now, after the fact. If people had been able to conceive of and expect a 9/11 style attack before it happened, it wouldn't have happened. A different method would have been chosen.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

 

[vimothy]

Believe or think what you like of course, this isn't about winning arguments. We could probably go round in circles for ever debating points and terms.

Agreed

I have my ideas and I've presented a few suggestions, if you think I'm making absolute statements of fact then forgive me - it gets tedious finding innumerable ways to say 'it is possible that' etc.

Hmm, you seemed pretty sure a couple of posts back. Of course, it is possible that 9/11 was commited by US intelligence, possibly at the behest of arms dealers, army contactors et al. Lots of things are possible. This could all be a computer simulation and no one really dies anyway. That something is possible doesn't really take us in one direction or another.

I say it's not particularly relevant to say whether Bin Laden claims responsibility or not. Ultimately it doesn't mean much one way or the other as far proving whether he did it and/or ruling out involvement of other parties or agendas.

That Bin Laden claims responsibility doesn't prove that he did it, of course, but saying that it's not relevant is being obviously blinkered. If you've already decided that he didn't do it and that the CIA/Mossad/CFR/(replace with organisation of your choice) was responsible, then you can discount everything that Bin Laden says.

Risky because I think leaving WMDs lying around in enemy territory probably wouldn't be considered strategically sensible.

Yeah, but we're talking about Iraq. It's not necessary to leave top-flight weapon systems lying around, just the generic liquid propellant third world crap that the ultra-modern US forces could chew through in a matter of minutes. Hell, given the feelings of the Pentagon and top rank US generals (itching for the Fulda Gap they never had), that they didn't is a bit strange.

 

[noel emits]

Noel, you keep skirting around this phrase "inside job" without committing yourself one way or the other.

What, is this like football now? I think it's a misleading term though - inside what? Not the broader US government really, but that might be what springs to mind.

Unless of course it goes wrong, everyone is caught and they spill the beans.

Terrorist cells / intelligence agencies / mercenaries / crime syndicates operate on a need-to-know basis. Operatives don't necessarily know who they are working for or why. So there's never that much in the way of beans to spill as far as implicating anyone else goes. Not to mention threats / blackmail etc. But who would believe it anyway? And maybe people were caught, how would you know? If it was terrorism related they would immediately be referred to the specialist agencies dealing with that. In the case of 'jihadists' maybe we could look at Bin Laden in terms of someone like Charles Manson - a manipulator. Maybe, or maybe he has been used himself.

Hmm, you seemed pretty sure a couple of posts back. Of course, it is possible that 9/11 was commited by US intelligence, possibly at the behest of arms dealers, army contactors et al. Lots of things are possible.

You know I was responding to droid's question 'why would they go to such lengths?' Well here are some reasons not covered by the single issue of Iraq.

As for this 'at the behest of' business - I don't know, that's an inference you've drawn, I wouldn't characterise it like that. Also talking about a globalist agenda doesn't necessarily imply a 'global conspiracy' as such. Conspiracy is such a misleading term anyway - how about manipulacy?

 

[vimothy]

As for this 'at the behest of' business - I don't know, that's an inference you've drawn, I wouldn't characterise it like that. Also talking about a globalist agenda doesn't necessarily imply a 'global conspiracy' as such. Conspiracy is such a misleading term anyway - how about manipulacy?

I don't think it's an inference -- it seems to be the basis of your argument. Whoever did it, did it so that X, Y or Z corporation could make money out of a protracted war on terrorism.

Do the corporate beneficiaries also have terror-cell-like structures?

 

[noel emits]

Understanding the repercussions and the manipulations of the public are far more vital than understanding the event IMO.

That's important for sure. I don't think the two things are completely separate though.

Perhaps not for you, but I think for many 'truthers' it is about exposing the 'cancer' at the heart of the American government. Because if they root out all the bad apples then the US will be back to its usual beautiful freedom and democracy loving self. Theres a real element of narcissism there as well.

Maybe, I don't know. I think it's mostly down to the idealism I was talking about. I don't see what's so wrong about that anyway. Obviously there are all sorts... But I don't really understand this sort of diss.

True. But this guarantees that they will never pursue political goals outside a very narrow field, and if they do, they will never be taken seriously.

Oh, not really. What do you care anyway? Can't people decide what they are concerned about? Is it just about being taken seriously?

 

[noel emits]

I don't think it's an inference -- it seems to be the basis of your argument. Whoever did it, did it so that X, Y or Z corporation could make money out of a protracted war on terrorism.

No, it's not. You have inferred that. But what you say above isn't the same as saying 'at the behest of' anyway.

According to Noel...

And I would prefer it if you didn't try and speak for me.

I think it is meaningful to talk about 'behind the scenes' dealings, interests and agendas, but not necessarily along the lines of the dots you are drawing there.

 

[noel emits]

My position is that I don't really know what happened and would like to find out, does this make me a de facto conspiracy theorist because I don't "buy" the official answers to questions like why air defense was so shoddy?

Yeah, and that's it - I don't think the onus is on you or me to say what happened in detail, even though some people may have their doubts and there may be a big pile of circumstantial evidence pointing at something else.

This is the problem no?, that anyone who doesn't believe the end all answer is in the 9/11 Commission Report gets lumped into the troofers bucket leaving no room for people who are just not satisfied with the official story, isn't this why Noel had initial grievance with Brooker piece?

I guess so!

 

[noel emits]

Do the corporate beneficiaries also have terror-cell-like structures?

I know that's a facetious question ('terror-cell'!) but anyway.