9/11, THE CASE FOR TRUTH: Part 1; The Build up to September 11th 2001

reply to post by kiwifoot

read your post. Thanks for taking the time to lay it out rather than just drop the pieces on the table.
The September 11 attacks really started two days before with the assassination of the Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, brother of current (I think he's still Foreign Minister) Afghan foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah. A noble man still reverred to this day Ahmad Shah Masoud was the first tower to be destroyed, the twin towers and wtc 7 came later.
?But why? best guess is Masoud wasn't willing to go along with a lot of Afghans already knew about six months before the attack. view youtube speech by peace activist Graeme MacQueen who was in Afghanistan months prior to attacks.
www.youtube.com...

I think the build up to 9/11 is where most of our answers are found. There's not a whole lot of debate in the information being posted. There were attempts to derail by shifting the discussion to the WTC's where the thread go on an on for 4 years and still be saying the same things. It's the build up that helps to understand the full picture of what 9/11 actually was and points toward people and groups that have a history of being around behind the scenes of world events. The information I have posted shows how just a few people within the CIA are capable of aiding terrorists. Even if you claim incompetence, it still shows that someone could deliberately help and then claim incompetence. "I knew of man named Nawaf and a man last name Alhazmi, but I didn't realize it was the same person and never even thought about that possibility" or "We knew Al-Aqaeda agents were coming to the Philippines, but we lost them even though they were staying at the same hotel we were bugging Al-Aqaeda agents ... agents involved in the Cole bombing (who got away) ... But we never thought of that and we lost them ... oh and we knew they had US passports but we didn't bother to notify the FBI and decided no "reasonable suspicion" to watch list them" ... Is this incompetence? These are CIA members. I am under the understanding these are highly educated highly trained individuals. Incompetence at this level? Or were they deliberately thrown off or shut off? Couldn't just one man send them a lot of correct info and then throw in a little something to keep them behind? Just far enough behind to allow them to do what they need to do there, and move on ... always one step ahead. Then when they guys stayed one step ahead and got into the US, the FBI had to start from scratch because they weren't notified of anything. And I posted information showing one man stopped that whole process of notifying the FBI.. We have 2 hijackers (really 3 because the inability to put Nawaf and Alhamzi would have gotten Salem Alhazmi) who were on the terrorist "radar" since the late 80's, but able to overcome the CIA, ISI, NSA, FBI, and the entire military industrial complex. And you know the Mossad was well aware of these 2.

We have FBI agents saying they were trying to alert people of these hijackers here and were stopped and/or put on other cases. We have John O'Neill quitting the CIA due to frustration of being stonewalled concerning Al-Quaeda and Osama Bin Laden.

I think the problem in discussing these things with people is when you say "CIA" they just assume you mean the entire CIA. Same with when us say US Government people hear that as the entire government. To get a real grasp of what happened on 9/11, we have to go back to the late 70's and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. That's where it really all starts. Now certain members involved in the US cause during the Soviet Afghan war go back to some of the most heinous operations executed by the CIA. Then we have to understand Iran-Contra. It was Iran-Contra that shows us all how certain individuals within the government can form a little coalition with other key elements and execute conspiracies. For people who will say for a 9/11 conspiracy too many people would be involved or someone would have talked, they need look no further than Iran-Contra to realize their understanding is lacking. We got a glimpse into some serious behind the scenes power. And even then, it didn't get exposed. Only the players get exposed.

Please watch this video. It really is necessary. video.google.com...#

reply to post by RomanMaroni
Just watched the doc I think what some in the 9/11 movement imply that the Enterprise may have had a hand in 9/11 but won't say it openly due to the reverence that many people have for Ronald Reagan.Again and again we see the same people pop up in the events surrounding the build up.The "boys" have profited nicely from 9/11 and the wars.Did you catch what Bill Moyers was saying about the Secret Gov killing JFK RomanMaroni?

reply to post by mike dangerously


First, I have to make a correction to my previous post. John O'Neill quit the FBI not the CIA. Apparently a mind to finger information transfer problem on my behalf . . I apologize.

Mike are you referring to the part where Moyers is talking about the CIA using the Mafia, and deciding assassinating foreign leaders was ok. He says questions about Kennedy still linger and most of "us" dismiss them, but you can't help but wonder after you realize the things the CIA had done and were planning to do. He says, "Once we decide anything goes, anything can come home to haunt us." I believe Moyers makes a true statement, and the US decided anything goes years before the Kennedy assassination.

We definitely decided anything goes in the Middle East at least as far back as August 19 1953 when our CIA led a coup detat overthrew democratically elected leader of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh. We go to war with a military dictator in Saddam Hussein in Iraq to spread democracy, but we support and give aid to a military dictator to Musharaff in Pakistan.

We know the Mujahadeen was trained, funded and armed by the CIA. We know Al-Qaeda comes from the Mujahdeen. Therefore, Al-Qaeda was trained and armed by the CIA. The ISI is created with the CIA as its model and works closely with the CIA. We know some Al-Qaeda figures are also agents of the ISI. The ISI installs the Taliban in Afghanistan with full knowledge of the CIA (it wasn't secret). Congressman Jim McDermott says the US put the Taliban in and funded them. It seems to me the CIA, ISI, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban are all intertwined.

So the CIA trained Al-Qaeda/ Saudi Citizen/ ISI agents, with the help of the Taliban, are responsible for 9/11. Is this part of us "deciding anything goes"? Or is this the resulting "anything can home to haunt us"?

Originally posted by RomanMaroni
reply to post by mike dangerously

 

First, I have to make a correction to my previous post. John O'Neill quit the FBI not the CIA. Apparently a mind to finger information transfer problem on my behalf . . I apologize.

Mike are you referring to the part where Moyers is talking about the CIA using the Mafia, and deciding assassinating foreign leaders was ok. He says questions about Kennedy still linger and most of "us" dismiss them, but you can't help but wonder after you realize the things the CIA had done and were planning to do. He says, "Once we decide anything goes, anything can come home to haunt us." I believe Moyers makes a true statement, and the US decided anything goes years before the Kennedy assassination.

We definitely decided anything goes in the Middle East at least as far back as August 19 1953 when our CIA led a coup detat overthrew democratically elected leader of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh. We go to war with a military dictator in Saddam Hussein in Iraq to spread democracy, but we support and give aid to a military dictator to Musharaff in Pakistan.

We know the Mujahadeen was trained, funded and armed by the CIA. We know Al-Qaeda comes from the Mujahdeen. Therefore, Al-Qaeda was trained and armed by the CIA. The ISI is created with the CIA as its model and works closely with the CIA. We know some Al-Qaeda figures are also agents of the ISI. The ISI installs the Taliban in Afghanistan with full knowledge of the CIA (it wasn't secret). Congressman Jim McDermott says the US put the Taliban in and funded them. It seems to me the CIA, ISI, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban are all intertwined.

So the CIA trained Al-Qaeda/ Saudi Citizen/ ISI agents, with the help of the Taliban, are responsible for 9/11. Is this part of us "deciding anything goes"? Or is this the resulting "anything can home to haunt us"?

Moyers was right about the JFK assassination that was a result of anything goes remember JFK threatened them before and he fired Dulless with the CIA's mindset back then it's not hard to imagine what they decided to do in order to "protect." the national interest.I think 9/11 was a result of both anything goes and anything coming home to haunt us.Yes,the CIA ISI Al-Qeda and Taliban are connected they have been connected since the 70's the question I have is how does ALQAP (Al-Queda in the Arabian Peninsula fits into this? I believe Anwar Alawaki is a lackey and the recent bombing scare was more of a pys op then an false flag.

Originally posted by roboe
"Never mentioned again", except when they were mentioned 5 months later

By then the books had not just been cooked, they'd been flambéd until they were burnt to cinders, along with the budget analysts and accountants who had been working on them.

reply to post by kiwifoot


GREAT STUFF.

I'd like to add a couple of things.

1)As you probably know,Larry Silverstein had just recently won the lease to the World Trade Center.What you might not know is that the WTC was not a privately owned property before that.It was owned by the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey and built & paid for with taxpayer money.And who pushed to privatize it?The New York Neo-Cons,led by NY Gov. George Pataki & NJ Gov. Christine Todd Whitman (Who was appointed by Bush Jr. to head the Environmental Protection Agency in Jan.2001 & is famous for lying about the air at Ground Zero being safe to breathe).George Pataki & Larry Silverstein are long time friends.Pataki & Bush Jr are also close.Pataki heavily endorsed Bush for President.Pataki moved his office out of the World Trade Center just shortly before 9/11.

2)Bush nominated his longtime friend Joe Allbaugh to head FEMA on Jan 4th,2001 (Though his expertise was campaign management & he had ABSOLUTELY NO education or job experience in disaster management qualifying him for this post).He took office in February.In May,Bush announced that FEMA would expand it's responsibility to include government response to terrorist attacks,making them one of the most visible responders in the aftermath of 9/11.Though FEMA was in New York that day,Allbaugh was in Big Sky,Montana attending a conference (Lucky him.Could've got hurt or sick in New York).As the 9/11 attacks eventually led to a cabinet reorganization placing FEMA in the newly created Department of Homeland Security,Allbaugh elected to leave the agency. He made his resignation effective March 1, 2003, the date the reorganization was to take effect.His successor was Michael Brown, another Oklahoma native and an old friend (Of his & Bush's) from Republican state politics.

After leaving the government,Allbaugh capitalized on his ties with the Bush administration by going into private business ventures connected with Bush's policy objectives.He became one of several partners involved in New Bridge Strategies, a consulting firm to help clients "evaluate and take advantage of business opportunities in the Middle East following the conclusion of the US-led war in Iraq", and Diligence-Iraq, a security company providing protection for companies doing business there.Allbaugh also started his own firm.The Allbaugh Company is commonly described as a lobbying and consulting firm, although Joe Allbaugh himself says he only consults with clients on presenting their services to government agencies, and does not lobby the government directly for contracts.Major Allbaugh Company clients include The Shaw Group (Shaw is one of several companies who won contracts from FEMA who are represented by former FEMA head,Joe Allbaugh.Shaw has been awarded at least seven contracts to assist in the post-Katrina recovery [Totaling a worth of at least $340 Million])
and Halliburton (The main beneficiary of War on Terror funding) subsidiary KBR.Though no longer affiliated with FEMA, Allbaugh traveled to the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina to help coordinate private-sector support, according to his spokeswoman. His clients were among the first to win federal contracts to help with hurricane recovery:Shaw won a bid potentially worth $100 million to refurbish buildings and provide emergency housing, and KBR received $29.8 million from the Pentagon to rebuild Navy bases in Louisiana and Mississippi.On July 12, 2006, Emergent Biosolutions,maker of the Anthrax Vaccine under its former name BioPort,announced that Allbaugh joined the Board of Directors.

So in short,Bush made his buddy Joe head of FEMA & gave them oversight over terrorism sites just before 9/11.Joe would go on to make millions off of the War On Terror in the private sector.

reply to post by RomanMaroni


No offense man,not trying to be nasty,but you're way off if you still beleive there were hijackers & that Osama & Al-Qaeda did this.There were no hijackers at all.Get that out of your mind.The planes in NY were remote controlled,a plane flew OVER the Pentagon & kept goin as a missile or bomb went off & someone just dug a plane-shaped hole in Shanskville.I don't what the story is with these supposed hijackers,but they didn't do 9/11.My best bet is that these guys were ordinary people.Some were probably just regular passengers on the planes that hit the towers or WTC employees.Some probably just got on planes back to the Middle East and the govt just showed us footage of them at the airport (Remember,Arab people fly all over everyday.Footage of alot of Arab guys at an airport terminal on 9/11 proves nothing.).This might explain why when some of the hijackers were reported alive by the BBC,the govt said "Could be.We're not really sure of their identities".And a few,like Mohommad Atta,were probably put on payroll to go take flight lessons so the story would look more beleivable.They were probably shipped out of country on that controversial flight that the bin Laden's were on.

reply to post by youngdrodeau


No offense to you either young, but before you decide that I am "way off" and you are apparently way on, notice the difference between my posts and yours. Mine is verifiable facts reported by reputable sources. Your post is just your opinion with nothing to back it up except your imagination. If you try to back up your claims and build them into facts, you will see there is nothing to substantiate your ideas. My advice to you would be to explore every possibility and then stick to what's most plausible as determined by the facts you gather. When you decide to do that, you will get a better understanding and most likely will agree with me.

By dismissing information that is verifiable for your own opinions, you are doing nothing to further the truth. You are merely tossing out things that you can't prove.

Originally posted by youngdrodeau
reply to post by RomanMaroni

 

No offense man,not trying to be nasty,but you're way off if you still beleive there were hijackers & that Osama & Al-Qaeda did this.There were no hijackers at all.Get that out of your mind.The planes in NY were remote controlled,a plane flew OVER the Pentagon & kept goin as a missile or bomb went off & someone just dug a plane-shaped hole in Shanskville.I don't what the story is with these supposed hijackers,but they didn't do 9/11.My best bet is that these guys were ordinary people.Some were probably just regular passengers on the planes that hit the towers or WTC employees.Some probably just got on planes back to the Middle East and the govt just showed us footage of them at the airport (Remember,Arab people fly all over everyday.Footage of alot of Arab guys at an airport terminal on 9/11 proves nothing.).This might explain why when some of the hijackers were reported alive by the BBC,the govt said "Could be.We're not really sure of their identities".And a few,like Mohommad Atta,were probably put on payroll to go take flight lessons so the story would look more beleivable.They were probably shipped out of country on that controversial flight that the bin Laden's were on.

Can you prove anything you posted here? Just one thing? Try to stick to things that can be proven. Ideas are a characteristic of a great mind, but investigating 9/11 isn't about your ideas ... it's about understanding what happened. The build up to 9/11 is where the understanding has to start. This site has all the information you need: www.historycommons.org...

reply to post by RomanMaroni


Yes.I can prove what I'm saying through PLAUSIBILITY & FACTS.

The facts are that planes don't vaporize in a crash & that buildings don't symmetrically collapse at free fall speed due to fire and/or plane crashes.That is key.That is what I base my view of 9/11 being an inside job on & is in fact the only reason to suspect that it was an inside job.If the towers had not collapsed the way they did & Flights 77 & 93 had left any irrefutable evidence of having crashed,I would not question the OV.But that's not the case.

With that said,it is totally implausible that OBL & his minion's faked 9/11,but totally plausible that a consortium within the govt did.Therefore,it had to have been an inside job.BOTTOM LINE.THE END.

reply to post by youngdrodeau

The facts are that planes don't vaporize in a crash

No plane vaporized on 9/11/2001. Your hyperbole does not = fact.

& that buildings don't symmetrically collapse at free fall speed due to fire and/or plane crashes.

Again, your hyperbole does not = fact. Describing the collapse as symmetric does not make it so. Your declaration that a building cannot collapse after being subject to a plane crash and fire is simply a rendering of your own opinion. Nothing more.

That is key.

Yes it is.

That is what I base my view of 9/11 being an inside job on & is in fact the only reason to suspect that it was an inside job.If the towers had not collapsed the way they did & Flights 77 & 93 had left any irrefutable evidence of having crashed,I would not question the OV.But that's not the case.

Your "facts" are a direct product of your view.

Originally posted by youngdrodeau
reply to post by RomanMaroni

 

BOTTOM LINE.THE END.

This statement isn't exactly denying ignorance now is it. That sounds like a little kid that puts his fingers in his ears and says I can't hear you. Be open and you will get a better understanding of everything you dive into. Hooper refuted your post so I won't say it again. I think you really believe what you are saying but the problem is that just because you believe it doesn't make it true. Don't work backwards. There is no information that led you to your conclusion ... you reached your conclusion based on your ideas and opinions (and most likely the ideas weren't even yours to begin with), and now you are trying to make it true without any evidence to back it up. That's not the right way to go about it. In your post, you don't even prove the faulty information you are putting out.

The good thing is that you are here at ATS. If you look around this forum, you will see that your ideas have been discussed here for 9 or 10 years, and yet no one has proven anything. So for you to step in and say you have proof is borderline absurd. I appreciate your research, but I recommend looking into things regarding 9/11 that are provable. You can't prove the planes vaporizing, the collapses, Flight 93, whatever happened at the Pentagon .. the information is incomplete. However, you can prove collusion with the hijackers, the ISI, the CIA, the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, Mujahedeen, Al-Qaeda .... and this is where you (we all) will get a better understanding of 9/11. It also makes it a lot easier to recognize the lies and who was telling them.