Even if the 9/11 OS is 100 Percent True, there STILL Could Have Been a Conspiracy

I've never been sold on any version of 9/11, though I think most of the OS is probably true. Maybe all of it is true.

But that doesn't mean there wasn't a homegrown conspiracy. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t ultimately an inside job.

Here's is my reasoning. There have been many plots for terroristic attacks against the USA, but most were discovered and thwarted.

But let's say you were an American and you wanted a horrific terrorist plan to succeed against your own country. How could this be accomplished yet seem to be coming from overseas? Several different ways.

Scenario 1. You learn about some terrorists who dream about flying planes into buildings to kill as many as possible. They need two things to develop this plan. Money and secrecy. They need to stay under the radar in a country where these things are routinely discovered before they can ever be carried out. So they need somebody with deep enough pockets to finance them and they need someone who knows the CIA, FBI and maybe NSA well enough to stay one step ahead. Somebody with experience and/or connections within these agencies.

That's it. Technically, this could be one guy. ONE GUY! It probably wasn't a single individual, but a small group of powerful people with the right connections could do it easily. It didn’t cost that much to pull off 9/11. Tuition for flying school, airplane tickets, someone to teach them how to actually gain control the plane, maybe living expenses, maybe a reward for their next of kin but that’s it. Definitely less than a million dollars; maybe less than 100 thousand. So the deep pockets are no big deal. And you’d only have to contact the mastermind. And you could send a devoted underling to do that.

Staying a step ahead of the intelligence agencies would be more challenging. But if someone in the group knew a lot about how they operated – that alone might be enough. But if you had moles in the right position within the agencies they could tell you what the agency knew, if anything, about the plot and/or what the agency was focusing on with respect to terroristic threats. Even better, if you had someone fairly high up the ladder in an agency, you might be able to nip any threat of investigation in the bud. The FBI, CIA and NSA DO NOT have unlimited manpower and resources. They have to make decisions all the time about what to focus on and how much in terms of manpower and resources will be devoted to that particular investigation.

This could all be coordinated by a small, dedicated tightly-knit group. And if the group had money, they could hide direct involvement by paying intermediaries through secret accounts, or cash. They might not ever actually meet these intermediaries or the mastermind. It certainly is very plausible

Scenario 2: You have an idea for a horrific terrorist attack, but no terrorists. You need to recruit them. You need to teach them exactly how to go about things. Again, you wouldn't have to get personally involved really. You could find someone in the radical Mulsim world who you knew had coordinated terrorist attacks in the past. Give that person the money, tell them what you want to do terrorism-wise and the way to go about it.

Again, it would only require a handful of people –powerful people with the right connections—to nurture the project and make it come to fruition.

The idea that a conspiracy like 9/11 is impossible because hundreds of people would have to know about it is ludicrous.

The thing is, you’d have to have a group of powerful Americans who wanted America to suffer a horrific terrorist attack. Who would do that?!

My best guess is some of the people connected the Project for a New American Century. After all it was they who lamented that American efforts to transform the Middle East were going slow:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

I realize I’m far from the first person to find that line, which appeared less than a year before 9/11 on a PNAC position paper about the Middle East, very suspicious.

I’m also troubled by this fact. Many PNAC members, Wolfowitz, Pearl, Cheney, Libby, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, were VERY closely aligned with the Bush Administration. And as many of you might remember, there were rumors Bush was going to attack Iraq before he’d even been sworn into office – these rumors were world-wide, not just in the US. They were dismissed as laughable by right wing pundits.

Maybe none of them were in any way involved. I wouldn’t be flabbergasted to find out they weren’t. But the suspicion for me has never gone away, especially in light of post 9/11 investigation, which they at first tried to prevent, then kept the scope and funding extremely limited when they couldn’t stop it. I guess I have never really believed that a plot as big spectacular as 9/11 could have remained under the radar unless the terrorists had American help. I know it’s possible, I just find it very, very unlikely.

I also find it unlikely anyone in this group will ever get caught. They’re smart enough to know not to have anything in their web surfing, e-mail, phone records, financial records, etc. linking them to the terrorists. They use cash. Or secret accounts with laundered money. They use intermediaries for any meetings they need to have with the terrorists – intermediaries who might not know exactly what was going on. They’ll probably never be caught because they know HOW people who get caught doing these things are discovered.

Of course, maybe it was just a terrorist group that got lucky. I realize that’s possible too.



[edit on 3-2-2010 by ClintK]

reply to post by ClintK


I see this phrase on ATS quite a bit....

"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor"

My best guess is some of the people connected the Project for a New American Century. After all it was they who lamented that American efforts to transform the Middle East were going slow.

My guess would be that you havent actually read the PNAC document you are trying to quote from. That phrase comes from a document that talks about reshaping the United States military for the next century.....NOT about transforming the Middle East.

The complete paragraph...(Chapter V, "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force)

"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and
industrial policy will shape the pace and
content of transformation as much as the
requirements of current missions. A
decision to suspend or terminate aircraft
carrier production, as recommended by this
report and as justified by the clear direction
of military technology, will cause great
upheaval. Likewise, systems entering
production today – the F-22 fighter, for
example – will be in service inventories for
decades to come. Wise management of this
process will consist in large measure of
figuring out the right moments to halt
production of current-paradigm weapons
and shift to radically new designs. The
expense associated with some programs can
make them roadblocks to the larger process
of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter
program, at a total of approximately $200
billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus,
this report advocates a two-stage process of
change – transition and transformation –
over the coming decades."

Here is the paragraph before it....

"Any serious effort at transformation
must occur within the larger framework of
U.S. national security strategy, military
missions and defense budgets. The United
States cannot
simply declare a
“strategic pause”
while
experimenting
with new
technologies and
operational
concepts. Nor
can it choose to
pursue a
transformation
strategy that
would decouple
American and
allied interests.
A transformation strategy that solely
pursued capabilities for projecting force
from the United States, for example, and
sacrificed forward basing and presence,
would be at odds with larger American
policy goals and would trouble American
allies."

www.newamericancentury.org...

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
My guess would be that you havent actually read the PNAC document you are trying to quote from. That phrase comes from a document that talks about reshaping the United States military for the next century.....NOT about transforming the Middle East.

What a crock. The same document specifically talks about securing resources and US interests abroad.

While maintaining
its combat role, the U.S. Army has acquired
new missions in the past decade – most
immediately, missions associated with
completing the task of creating a Europe
“whole and free” and defending American
interests in the Persian Gulf and Middle
East.

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”

www.newamericancentury.org...


Man, Swamp. You are really either intentionally burying your head in the sand, or there is a much darker motive for posting outright deceptions like insinuating PNAC had no desire to mess with the Middle East. I HOPE you are just suffering major cognitive dissonance at what process your country has been going through lately. I HOPE you didn't actually read the document in question and are just making stuff up based on what you WISH were true.



This is what the OP posted:

I realize I’m far from the first person to find that line, which appeared less than a year before 9/11 on a PNAC position paper about the Middle East, very suspicious.

It IS very suspicious. This is not the only example I've heard of our leaders, "neo cons" wanting to start a military campaign in the Middle East before 9/11 even happened. And PNAC saying we would need "a new Pearl Harbor" (only a year before 9/11) in order to meet their goals, and including the same people who would be in the executive administrations when 9/11 happened, IS suspicious. It is awfully damned coincidental that they got exactly what they wanted, not even a year into Bush's term, and having key positions on his staff and in other positions of political influence.

If you find yourself rejecting this information as soon as you read it, try to realize why you are doing this.

People are addicted to reinforcing their own beliefs. Especially when the incoming ideas are harmful to their sense of pride, which is often connected to the nationality/"patriotism." I am aware of this and so give every opportunity to consider new information, or the same information from a different perspective.

I have tried your way of thinking and I have tried the line of thinking that our own leaders are pushing this agenda, and I have to tell you that the view you share, is comparatively a hell of a lot weaker and has a lot less corroborating evidence than the idea that this stuff is being made to happen on purpose in order to keep us in the Middle East just like THEY TOLD YOU that they wanted.

The US has the power. The US has the means. The US has the motive.

Al Qaeda has no power. Al Qaeda has no means (to get FEMA in WTC7 the day before 9/11, for one small example). Al Qaeda has no motive that makes any damned sense, and no, "they hate our freedom" does not make any damned sense. Neither does it make sense to stir up a war with us like this when they are so comparatively weak.

If you don't have a boogey man, invent one. Then you have total control of the situation. Orwell predicted exactly this in 1984. "They" might have even borrowed the idea from him. Hell, it's historically known that Osama even served our agendas in the past during the Soviet War. The information is all there. What are NOT there, are your guts, to admit this to yourself.

[edit on 3-2-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


You continue the tradition of misrepresenting what that paper was about. Why am I not surprised?

You should try rereading the OP and the context he was claiming that statement was made in. Then try rereading the paper itself.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


I read virtually everything, and I mean everything that was on PNAC's site when it was up. It was terribly clear they wanted war with Iraq. Nobody could read their positions and deny that. The section I quoted was from Section V, called "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which argued for huge increases in military spending for what can only be described as imperialistic goals. THEY CLEARLY WANTED an incident that would incite the citizens to accept these increases as necessary nand they made it clear that, if it was up to them, they would have absolutely no restraint in removing Saddam Hussein from power.

Why don't you read their position paper on the middle east and Iraq? The conclusion is clear: use military force to impose our will in the Middle East. Not diplomacy. FORCE.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You continue the tradition of misrepresenting what that paper was about. Why am I not surprised?

Why am I not surprised you didn't respond to anything specific I posted from it?

While maintaining
its combat role, the U.S. Army has acquired
new missions in the past decade – most
immediately, missions associated with
completing the task of creating a Europe
“whole and free” and defending American
interests in the Persian Gulf and Middle
East.

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”

www.newamericancentury.org...


Hey did you see that link? IT GOES TO THE DOCUMENT ITSELF.

Why am I also not surprised that you are still IN DENIAL about what these guys are telling you flat-out, blatantly, right to your face?


What do you think defending American interests in the Persian Gulf and Middle East means?

[edit on 3-2-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by ClintK
I read virtually everything, and I mean everything that was on PNAC's site when it was up. It was terribly clear they wanted war with Iraq. Nobody could read their positions and deny that.

That's where you're wrong.

And that's why I have no faith in jingos ever being able to think beyond the blind flag-waving. I really sympathize with the people who took it upon themselves to argue politically with the Nazis in Germany or the Fascists in Italy, because now I know exactly what it is like. I think a lot of these people set their brains to auto-pilot and just pretend what they are reading says something else. And they think, "Ah, the internet is full of all kinds of crazy stuff so why should I have to think critically about anything I read there!" If they suffer through seeing all their other arguments are fallacious then they always at least have that last fallacy to fall back on. Or "Ohhh these aren't real people that I'm talking to! They don't go out in public or have jobs or vote or anything that matters! The world is only full of people like ME!"

The section I quoted was from Section V, called "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which argued for huge increases in military spending for what can only be described as imperialistic goals. THEY CLEARLY WANTED an incident that would incite the citizens to accept these increases as necessary nand they made it clear that, if it was up to them, they would have absolutely no restraint in removing Saddam Hussein from power.

Why don't you read their position paper on the middle east and Iraq? The conclusion is clear: use military force to impose our will in the Middle East. Not diplomacy. FORCE.

Maybe you should take some of these papers off their website and post those here, too.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I really sympathize with the people who took it upon themselves to argue politically with the Nazis in Germany or the Fascists in Italy, because now I know exactly what it is like.

Post of the year.

Really, you've made my day.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by ClintK
I read virtually everything, and I mean everything that was on PNAC's site when it was up. It was terribly clear they wanted war with Iraq. Nobody could read their positions and deny that.

That's where you're wrong.

First of all, I wasn't referring to the document on America's forces when I said it was clear they wanted to attack Iraq. That was made clear in another position paper PNAC wrote on the middle east.

Second, you've concentrated on a small thing in my OP and missed the thrust entirely. The point of the post was not that PNAC was behind 9/11. But that it is nonsense that any conspiracy would have to involve hundreds of people who all knew about it. I only threw in PNAC because they were the most likely known suspects. It was a very small subpoint in the post.

But for whatever reason, you decided to fixate and obsess on that missed the thrust of the thread in an effort to desperately defend PNAC. Pathetic.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Post of the year.

Really, you've made my day.

No problem, you and the rest make my day every day.


reply to post by ClintK


No need to lash out at me, brother. I said you were wrong about people being able to deny the obvious. We are both arguing with people who regularly deny the obvious. That was my point.

Btw I am not defending PNAC at all. I was genuinely suggesting you post other stuff from PNAC that illustrates their motives even where the "rebuilding defenses" paper doesn't. I completely understand they have been trying to go back to the Middle East, I even quoted where they said it themselves above.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Post of the year.

Really, you've made my day.

No problem, you and the rest make my day every day.


reply to post by ClintK

 

No need to lash out at me, brother. I said you were wrong about people being able to deny the obvious. We are both arguing with people who regularly deny the obvious. That was my point.

Btw I am not defending PNAC at all. I was genuinely suggesting you post other stuff from PNAC that illustrates their motives even where the "rebuilding defenses" paper doesn't. I completely understand they have been trying to go back to the Middle East, I even quoted where they said it themselves above.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by bsbray11]

Fair enough. Here are some PNAC papers on the Middle East:

www.newamericancentury.org...
Asserts we MUST take out Saddam Hussein and that it's almost certain he had a role in 9/11.

www.newamericancentury.org...
Wants the U.S. to attack somebody for the attack on the Cole. Very generally hawkish and encouraging a much more militant foreign policy by the US in the middle east,

www.newamericancentury.org...
Another Memo calling for the forceful removal of Saddam Hussein from power written 2 months before 9/11

www.newamericancentury.org...
Yet another.

www.newamericancentury.org...
Huge manifesto on using military force to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

www.newamericancentury.org...
Another kill-Sadam rant. Here's a quote:

"A year ago, Project directors William Kristol and Robert Kagan explicitly called for a ground campaign to oust Saddam in editorials for the New York Times (30 January 1998) and the Washington Post (26 February 1998). Writing in the Weekly Standard last February (2 February 1998), Kagan argued that "above all, only ground forces can remove Saddam and his regime from power and open the way for a new post-Saddam Iraq whose intentions can safely be assumed to be benign."

www.newamericancentury.org...
Another one arguing for American ground forces to solve the problem of Iraq.

www.newamericancentury.org...
This one is called "How to Attack Iraq"

www.newamericancentury.org...
Letter to then-President Clinton urging the use of military force to remove Saddam Hussein

www.newamericancentury.org...
Contemptuous of diplomacy toward Iraq, they want the military to do the talking.

www.newamericancentury.org...
This one is warmly titled "Bombing Isn't Enough." Here's a quote:

"If Mr. Clinton is serious about protecting us and our allies from Iraqi biological and chemical weapons, he will order ground forces to the gulf. Four heavy divisions and two airborne divisions are available for deployment. The President should act, and Congress should support him in the only policy that can succeed. "

www.newamericancentury.org...
Contains Paul Wolfowitz's statement before the House National Security Committee in 1998. It rails against the Clinton White House and, like all the others, calls for Saddam's removal.

www.newamericancentury.org...
Another PNAC memo on the Iraq situation. Contains this gem:

"Conservatives now agree that the only solution to the present Iraqi crisis is to remove Saddam from power. The sustained bombing campaign which the Clinton Administration has planned must be only the first step in a broad political-military strategy to accomplish that goal. As Senator Richard Lugar pointed out on Thursday, airstrikes alone “will not get the job done. And therefore, the planning really has to be for stages two, three, or four.”

There are more, and I didn't even get into the stuff on the Middle East. Most of these are PRE-9/11. But it's clear that if you read document after document the PNAC was absolutely hellbent on using military force in Iraq. Thwey were obsessed with Saddam Hussein.

But the PNAC were about more than the Middle East. They wanted American global domination backed up by significant increases in military spending and a clear willingness to use it.

"a new Pearl Harbor" would surely get the ball rolling on that.

Again, I'm not saying the PNAC was involved in 9/11. Only that it could have been a conspiracy among a few powerful, connected individuals and that, if it was, a group of neocons within the PNAC would be the most likely suspects.

After the 2000 elections, with so many neocons in the Bush Administration and both houses with a republican majority, if they were going to try to force the issue that was the time to the new Pearl Harbor. There was no guarantee republicans would retain control of both houses after the 2002 elections.

And I'm not trying to smear republicans with that remark, but it would have been much more difficult to get the increases in military spending and start the war with Iraq with democratic majorities.

And yes, I know we didn't actually launch Operation Shock and Awe until March of 2003, but Bush already had all the authority he needed from congress before the election. Besides, the republicans DID retain their majority in both houses anyway.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by ClintK]

reply to post by ClintK


Awesome post. That's at least enough to show they clearly have vested interests in the Middle East, and have had the whole time. Though Swampfox will probably still lie to himself about it anyway.

reply to post by ClintK


Nice thread and work sir

S@F

just a thought , maybe a thread on the PNAC itself, you may get more of the other members to add to it , not the usual 911 people.