Don't Need to Prove Inside Job, Negligence Will Do

Maybe it's time to think strategically about getting 9/11 justice. Proving that 9/11 was an inside job in a court of law is going to be extremely difficult. Proving that various elements of the government knew that an attack would happen and deliberately let it happen, could be much easier. Either way, it's still treason.

My current belief in what seems to be the most likely explanation for 9/11 is that it was a foreign intelligence operation (Mossad), designed to force the US into a clash of civilizations against Israel's enemies. If you read Webster Tarpley's book Synthetic Terror, you'll see that there is considerable circumstantial evidence that Bush was targeted for assassination the morning of 9/11 and threatened later in the day in a way that can't possibly be explained by a guy in a cave with a satellite phone. I'm no fan of Bush but he does look like a deer caught in the headlights at the school when he was told about the 2nd hit to the WTC. Since there is documented evidence that the US was warned by several foreign intelligence agencies of the impending attack, and clear evidence that NORAD was ordered to stand down and undisputed acknowledgement that Dick Cheney was put in charge of US Air Defense several months before 9/11, my money is on Cheney and various neocon supporters(wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc.) who learned about the impending attack and decided to let it happen to achieve their political agenda as outlined in the New American Century document. Who would have benefited from Bush's assassination? Cheney. Who was in a position to interfere with NORAD's normal interception procedures? Cheney. Who is the dominant personality of the neocons? Cheney. Since a lot of the Neocons are also jewish, is it possible that they were actually cooperating with Mossad? Sure. But proving that will be much harder than proving that they were either criminally negligent in not stopping the attacks or that they deliberately stood back and made sure that the attacks were sucessful. My guess is that if a concerted effort were made to bring some of the lesser actors to justice, like NORAD's Gen. Meyer, Michael Chertoff, Selikow, Silverstein, etc., that someone will spill his guts in return for immunity and that will bring the whole house of cards down. By the way, I'm not saying and I don't believe that the jewish people as a whole should be blaimed for 9/11. The vast majority are decent, honest, law-abiding and LOYAL individuals. It's the zionist minority that are pushing a political agenda (not a religious one). Some of the most ardent opponents of Zionism are jews including rabbis. Therefore being anti-zionist is NOT anti-semitic.

reply to post by Studenofhistory

my money is on Cheney and various neocon supporters(wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc.) who learned about the impending attack and decided to let it happen to achieve their political agenda as outlined in the New American Century document.

Sorry, but that just will not work.

Letting it happen cannot possibly explain the decoy aircraft flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo nor can it explain the deliberately staged light poles and the explosives going off at the Pentagon. Letting it happen cannot explain the multiple NORAD excercises simultaneous with the attack nor the exercise involving a simulated attack by aircraft on skyscrapers while an actual attack on skyscrapers was taking place.

Letting it happen cannot possibly explain the demolition of the WTC Towers with 5 ton pieces hurled in all directions, nor the demolition of WTC7. Letting it happen cannot explain the faked airline manifests nor the stolen identities of the pretend hijackers nor their training on US Military bases.

Letting it happen cannot explain the coverup of the stock market put-options on 9-11. Letting it happen cannot explain the strange choice of target by the alleged Flight 77 pilot by flying around the Pentagon to choose a hardened almost unpopulated almost impossible target on the opposite side.

Letting it happen cannot explain all the poorly faked Osama videos after he initially stated he had nothing to do with 9-11.

Letting it happen just does not fit the facts.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8fb19afbdf4f.jpg[/atsimg]



[edit on 5/23/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston

I don't disagree with anything you've said. I'm not saying that I believe they let it happen, only that I think it would be easier to prove in a court of law, that they knew about it in advance(regardless of whether they were warned or because they planned it that way) and that they deliberately did nothing to stop it, in fact made it easier for the attack to happen ie. NORAD's stand down.

It's the equivalent of convicting Al Capone of tax evasions because the authorities knew they'd have a much harder time of convicting him of his actual crimes. In this case, letting it happen would still be a horrendous crime considering that over 3,000 people died as a result.

reply to post by SPreston


I wish to clarify something I said in my original post. When I postulated the theory that Cheney and the Neocons 'let it happen' what I really meant was that they took action to make sure the attack actually succeeded. So in my mind, they 'made it happen' because if they had not taken the actions they did, the attack would likely have failed. I personally believe that the top members of the neocon group were in fact actively cooperating/following orders from the Zionists. But getting back to my main point is that those of us who want to see 9/11 justice should step back and recognize the difference between what we believe and what we can prove in a court of law. And if we can prove criminal negligence ie. they knew about it but just couldn't be bothered to stop it OR that they were warned about it and decided to actively facilitate it, which is treason, then that would be sufficient to put all the conspirators in the slammer were they belong.

reply to post by Studenofhistory


I'd be interested to hear what suggests Bush was a target of assassination. That's the first I've heard of that, though I already noticed he had been caught off guard by the 2nd impact and turned red as he sat around idly with the SS.

reply to post by bsbray11

Well according to Tarpley, who seems to know what he's talking about, a van carrying at least four men who looked like they were from the middle east, arrived at the resort where Bush was staying, early on the morning of Sept. 11th. They told the Secret Service agent at the gate that they had been granted a video interview with Bush by another SS agent who they named. The agent on duty refused to allow them entry into the resort and the van drove off, never to be seen again. Just three days earlier, one of the most powerful warlords in Afganistan was assassinated by an exploding video camera when he was also allegedly being interviewed.

Later in the morning, after Bush left the school, he wanted to fly back to DC but the Secret Service received an anonymous threat over secured communications channels that 'Angel is next' Angel was that day's code name for Air Force One. By using that codename and sending the threat over secured comm channels, Bush's bodyguards interpreted that to mean that whomever sent that message had also potentially broken the strategic nuclear command codes and could perhaps send missile launch orders to US forces which they would be unable to distinguish from real orders THAT's why air force one flew to the Air Force base that's also STRATCOM's HQ instead of DC because someone figured out that if Bush was there in person, then any incoming launch orders would obviously be bogus. But on the flight to that base, air force one was without any fighter escort when it was clear from the warning that the plane was at risk. Tarpley's conclusion is that the hacking of the US strategic communications net is way beyond the capability of Al qaeda and bin laden but not the Mossad. Apparently a lot of classified communications software used by the US was developed by israeli companies who may very well have built in backdoor access to those same systems.

Starred and Flagged this thread. It is refreshing to see and hear a new angle of the whole 9/11 thing.

What you are saying is very possible, and not to be discounted. I tend to believe Bush was merely a pawn and puppet, the real movers and shakers in the admin were Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, and Rove.

Of course, at the very least, if one accepts the official story, then there should have been a trial, and heads should have rolled, as the official story screams incompetence, dereliction of duty, negligence, and overall stupidity. After all, we know that they received a buttload of intelligence from foreign services, yet didn't do a damn thing, and they publicly lied about it in the first place.

Let's add obstruction of justice to the official story as well, and perjury under oath. If you look at their behavior during the 9/11 commission, well, it's self explanatory.

This lovely list of charges is simply for people who actually believe the official story in it's entirety. Those who doubt it, well, the charges would be alot worse and darker (homicide, treason, corruption, massive destruction of property, grand larceny, stock market cheating,assault with deadly weapons, kidnapping, attempted murder, burglary,...just for starters .

The assassination attempt or possible assassination attempt is a well documented one, and one that has been overlooked alot. And of course, the Israeli angle also is strong, given the men arrested in New York filming the disaster, Odigo's text warning to it's employees, and the Israeli spy rings that were busted.

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Yes indeed. You hit the nail on the head. I can't remember if this happened just before or just after 9/11 but the mainstream media reported that over 100 individuals with Israeli passports, had been arrested on suspicion of espionage. They were eventually released on orders from a Dept. of Justice official by the name of Michael Chertoff. If that name sounds familiar, it should. Up until recently, he was the Head Honcho of the Department of Homeland Gestapo, err sorry, Homeland Security and there are allegations on the web that he has dual US, Israeli citizenship. In case readers aren't aware of it, Obama's chief of staff, used to live in Israel and was in it's military for a while before emigrating to the US. I wonder if he still retains his Israeli citizenship too.

reply to post by Studenofhistory


Wow. I did not know that about Obama's COS...that indeed is fascinating. I think I will look up his name, see what hishistory and connections are. That's a very juicy little tidbit to snack on.

Hard right wing factions of the Israeli government and military had everything to gain from 9/11. The attacks assured we would go after the more troublesome of their enemies, and would also really stymie Mid east peace negotiations, as well as knock the more liberal and tolerant elements of the Israeli government and population down a few notches, bring more power to the ultra conservative/militant factions.

After all, many people still are unhappy about the USS Liberty investigation and conclusion.

Another angle to really look at too are the Saudis. I personally believe they are in on it as well. Bush had 29 pages of data for the 9/11 commision blacked out, most of it related to the Saudis. I believe the government is also in debt to the Saudis, mainly over oil currency. It is the Saudis who have been the ones responsible for keeping the dollar as oil currency for most of the Middle East. That is the great club they hold over our heads, and why administration after administration has been held in thrall to them, looking the other way when terrorist attacks have heavy Saudi connections.