Far-Fetched????

Originally posted by iandavis
They could've simply killed 3000 of us by releasing a nerve agent at an NBA game, then fabricating the recovery of a couple of suicide terrorists that are later linked to Saddam. In fact, a plot as simple as that would've sold war justification far better than 911. To think they would go to all the trouble of hijacking jets, blowing up skyscrapers, kidnapping people, recruiting hundreds of people to join in on the cover-up, etc, etc, is crazy and not believable even for a bad movie.

That wouldn't have benefitted the appropriate parties.

Also, they had no "in's" in the sports arena world. It be alot more difficult to get the amount of nerve agent into a football/baseball/basketball arena needed to dose a large crowd. They couldn't neccessaily set up a scud launcher a couple miles from the arena with missles filled with chemicals. Besides, they wanted to save the best (white phosphorus) for the Iraqi civilians.

Tyranny quote>"That wouldn't have benefitted the appropriate parties."

Why not? Of course it would......don't be silly!

Tyranny quote: "Also, they had no "in's" in the sports arena world".

Listen to how stupid you sound! This elaborate group of yours was able to recruit 100's of loyal tight lipped politician's and media people, then find their "ins" into the WTC and the a major airline, but to find their "in" into a crowded arena during a sports or concert event would be to difficult? Come on!! HAHAHAHAHA! You screwy goofball! Between sporting events and concerts, there are 1000's of opportunies across the country where a chemical or bio agent could be dumped on people easily!

Tryanny quote>"It be alot more difficult to get the amount of nerve agent into a football/baseball/basketball arena needed to dose a large crowd".

You know about chemical weapons and amounts? Don't think so! Though it is true that Saddam only had basic forms of the primative Mustard and Sarin gas, our government (along with Russia) have serious serious chemical nerve, choking and hemoraging agents. Some so devastatingly dangerous, we have no safe way of disposing them. A 12 oz can of our most dangerous KNOWN nerve agent, VX gas, could wipe out several city blocks killing thousands. I'm sure it would do quite a job in a sports arena.

If this government entity you speak of planted explosives all over the WTC, don't you think they could've snuk in several janitors to spray all the buildings with small pox? Come on!

there seems no Net etiquette left in this forum, and no moderator intervention anymore, we feel free to use your phraseology :

You, Iandavis, you (quote)"blabbering goofball (/quote), when do you start reading instead of spewing endless dribble, and try to counter my arguments for a solid proof of planted explosives in WTC 1, 2 and 7 ?
Proof based on the years long publicized scientific writings of 2 government funded US institutions, NIST and LDEO.

Originally posted by iandavis
Listen to how stupid you sound!

Come on!! HAHAHAHAHA! You screwy goofball!

Sp stands for Super Troll.

In fact, a plot as simple as that would've sold war justification far better than 911

How do you substantiate this claim? The collapse of the towers themselves was as dramatic as the loss of life that it caused. You wouldn't have the same dramatics from a simple nerve-gas release in a stadium.

And a GW lead government involved in a conspiracy? That guy can hardly form a sentence and people think he's behind some conspiracy to justify a war against Iraq? Ludicrious!

Still, these people aren't stupid.

Which is it?

steve quote>"How do you substantiate this claim? The collapse of the towers themselves was as dramatic as the loss of life that it caused. You wouldn't have the same dramatics from a simple nerve-gas release in a stadium".

The the 2 elements of the nerve gas scenario I described that would've sold the reason for invading Iraq far better than the WTC collapse are as follows:

1) The actual use of a WMD to kill several thousand of us.

2) Directly linking Saddam to it rather than Bin Laden.

Bush was trying to sell this war based on Saddam having WMD's and the intent to either use them directly or give them to terrorists....right? What better way to directly nail Saddam, and justify an invasion of Iraq, than to kill several thousand Americans with an actual WMD and then fabricate intelligence to show Iraq was responsible? This could've been pulled off with far less complication than the 911 conspiracy you guys keep harping on. Though I will concede that falling skyscrapers are more dramatic.

ok, I guess the catter stopped. In the end you can't really put the truth in somebody's mind as if it was some object or tool... they have to find it out for themselves, and what's most unfortunate is that not everybody can find the truth because.... "How often it is that a man rages denial of what his inner self is telling him?" lots of times.

[edit on 3-5-2007 by bartholomeo]

The the 2 elements of the nerve gas scenario I described that would've sold the reason for invading Iraq far better than the WTC collapse are as follows:

1) The actual use of a WMD to kill several thousand of us.

2) Directly linking Saddam to it rather than Bin Laden.

Bush was trying to sell this war based on Saddam having WMD's and the intent to either use them directly or give them to terrorists....right? What better way to directly nail Saddam, and justify an invasion of Iraq, than to kill several thousand Americans with an actual WMD and then fabricate intelligence to show Iraq was responsible? This could've been pulled off with far less complication than the 911 conspiracy you guys keep harping on. Though I will concede that falling skyscrapers are more dramatic.

Look at the timeline, Iraq was the secondary goal, Afghanistan was the first. Neither WMDs, nor Hussein, were even mentioned until we'd finished what we wanted to do in Afghanistan. How would a WMD attack tied to Hussein have got us into Afghanistan?

This is what I don't get: firstly, the destruction of the towers worked perfectly well. US forces were in Afghanistan and then Iraq very quickly, with very little (useful) opposition. So how could things have possibly worked any better?

How would a terrorist group have obtained WMDs within the US? Or how would they have got the WMDs into the country? The administration has enough questions to answer about how the terrorists allegedly responsible for 911 got into the country and were allowed to do what they did, how many more questions would be asked if WMDs were involved? It's not possible to stop every Middle Eastern person from entering the country, but it's sure as hell possible to stop every WMD from entering the country.

With the 911 attack that was initiated (as opposed to your suggested nerve gas attack) the only instruments involved were box-cutters. Something impossible to control. With your suggested attack, many more instruments are required - namely the gas itself and a distribution method. The more instruments that are needed, the harder it is for the government to explain how it was allowed to happen.

[edit on 3-5-2007 by TheStev]

theStev quote: "Look at the timeline, Iraq was the secondary goal, Afghanistan was the first."

But that doesn't make any sense! If Al Queda really wasn't involved and the neocons or whoever were the ones responsible, and the purpose was to to rally support for an Iraq invasion, then why go after Al Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan? It becomes an unnecessary invasion. Why not frame Saddam directly? Going into Afganistan creates no diversion for any purpose. It only complicates this supposed conspiracy.

theStev quote: "Neither WMDs, nor Hussein, were even mentioned until we'd finished what we wanted to do in Afghanistan".

So if Al Queda had nothing to do with 911, what exactly were we doing there? What were we wanting to do? Insure the world's heroin supply by protecting the opium poppys?

theStev quote: "How would a terrorist group have obtained WMDs within the US? Or how would they have got the WMDs into the country?"

A chemical or bio weapon can be carried in a container the size of a coffee can and put in a suitcase. It's been widely reported in the media that the CIA believes it's entirely possible that an AL Queda cell within the US already has a chemical or bio weapon. What would be far more difficult is smuggling in a nuke. Still, not out of the question. Again, it's been widely reported in the media that we are not able to check every shipping container hitting our ports.

theSteve quote: "it's sure as hell possible to stop every WMD from entering the country".

Come on now......you know you're dead wrong on this one.

Bottomline: If the conspiracy is about rally support to invade Iraq, it makes no sense to blame Al Queda and go after the Taliban in Afganistan.



[edit on 4-5-2007 by iandavis]

You obviously have not read the Art of War or "Rebuilding Americas Defenses"

The PNAC wants Afghanistan becauase:
1. It gives us strategic positioning on Iran, China, Russia where we can manuver with impunity.
2. they were a weak, easy target for #1.
3. They want an oil pipeline there like the Russians did.
4. It expands our "sphere of influence" in the region.

The PNAC wants Iraq because:
1. It gives us strategic positioning on Syria, Lebanon and Iran (get it, Iran is flanked).
2. We can use their resources against future enemies (position, oil)
3. They were a weak enemy (Art of War)
4. It expands our "sphere of Influence" in the region.
5. We can launch any maneuver or attack from there with impunity and without asking permission.

Art of War:
Take out your weakest enemies and use their positioning and resources to take your stronger enemies

PNAC:
Establish forward operating bases all over the planet for "quick strike" capabilities.

Establish a doctrine of preemptive striking on any country/area deemed to have "terrorists".

Establish FOBs in former Soviet Republics (done).

...

Read the two writings... the PNAC did.... wait, they wrote one.

With the SCO forming nicely, I think you are missing the big picture and who the true enemies of the PNAC are.

[edit on 4-5-2007 by Pootie]

Alright Pootie Tang, I'll address these one by one....

The PNAC wants Afghanistan becauase:

1. It gives us strategic positioning on Iran, China, Russia where we can manuver with impunity.

I concede this would make sense. But nothing is happening. There are no talks, negotiations, not even a whisper of any action to be taken as far as establishing a strategic military presence in Afganistan. I would think by now, we would've at least heard something. In addition, fat chance of anything like this getting through a democratic congress.

2. they were a weak, easy target for #1.

That's here nor there, there are a lot of easy targets in the world that are hostile to us.

3. They want an oil pipeline there like the Russians did.

Again, nothing is happening here. It takes years and years for this type of stuff to get congressional approval. The oil company lobbyists would be well at work by now on this idea, but they're not. I admit, I can easily see motivation for an oil pipeline. But if that were really the goal, then why isn't it coming together? Not one oil company has publically proposed the idea......why?

4. It expands our "sphere of influence" in the region.

Yeah OK.......I can see that. If I were running the show, I'd yank our troops out of Bagdad and station 50,000 of them in northern Kuwait along with some nukes. Then I would tell Iran if they try anything, they're toast. There's your sphere of influence. At the same time, I would be funding and giving all the tax incentives in the world, etc, to the right companies that can get us off oil. Horrible addiction.

Far-fetched, imo, is that NORAD and the FAA lost both Flights 93 and 77 from radar, and miracle of miracles, the SAME C-130 Air National Guard transport plane pilot saw 77 crash into the Pentagon, and 20 minutes later was flying over 93's crash site in Pennsylvania 2 minutes after 93's crash.

What are the odds that the same plane would happen to be at both crash sites within minutes of both crashes, over 100 miles apart?

And while you're caclulating these odds, factor in that the same pilot made a visual id of both 77 and 93 within seconds of their crashes when the rest of the U.S. air defense couldn't even see these planes on radar.

Now that's what I call far-fetched!

You're really reaching now Ian, you've set up a straw man that I didn't once refer to. You keep harping on this 'Why go after the Taliban in Afghanistan if the whole conspiracy was about going to war with Iraq'. Who said that was the whole conspiracy? Who has ever claimed that Afghanistan wasn't part of the intended goal?

Thanks Pootie for pointing out the PNAC reasons Afghanistan was important.

If I can respond to Ian's response to those points:

There are no talks, negotiations, not even a whisper of any action to be taken as far as establishing a strategic military presence in Afganistan

Um....hello...last time I checked American forces were still in Afghanistan. American military forces, present in Afghanistan. Unless they're there by accident, I think it's safe to say their presence is strategic.

That's here nor there, there are a lot of easy targets in the world that are hostile to us.

The point is not the world, if you read the full PNAC report you would see that the point is the Middle East. Perhaps you could name an Islamic country which is an easier target for invasion in the Middle East?

Again, nothing is happening here. It takes years and years for this type of stuff to get congressional approval.

Admittedly I'm not too well versed in the politics of these things, but why would a private commercial endeavour in a different country need to be approved by congress? Why would a private commercial endeavour need to be heavily publicised? What I'm saying is this: how do you know nothing is happening?

I'd yank our troops out of Bagdad and station 50,000 of them in northern Kuwait along with some nukes. Then I would tell Iran if they try anything, they're toast. There's your sphere of influence.

Well yes, that is a sphere of influence. But we're not talking about just having a sphere of influence. We're talking about increasing the sphere of influence. Kuwait aside, you can't deny that a military presence in Afghanistan doesn't increase the American sphere of influence in the region.

theSteve quote: "it's sure as hell possible to stop every WMD from entering the country".

Come on now......you know you're dead wrong on this one.

You're missing my point. The government is already suffering from attacks of claimed incompetence regarding these attacks. How much more incompetent would the government seem if they had not only allowed these men to carry out the attacks, but also allowed them to bring WMDs into the country which they then used in the attacks? You were claiming that your suggested nerve gas plan was more simple, when in fact it required more equipment and therefore was at least as complicated, if not more.

And given the culture of fear that has been generated post-911, I would take the CIA's claims of what Al Qaeda may be doing inside the US at the moment with a very large grain of salt.

EDIT: to fix dodgy quote tag.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by TheStev]

theStev.....at one time we had over 20,000 troops in Afghanistan, now there's about 12,000, that's not a presence. A military "presence" as in to effect influence and deter a potential invasion, etc, would involve a minmum of 50,000 ground troops and several mechanized divisions. Our current troop strength is sufficient enough to protect the key elements of the current government's infrastructure and to chase around Al Queda as we play hide and seek with Osama. It is true that Neo-cons would like to see a US presence in the middle east (and I'm not sure if that's a bad idea), but there's no evidence to suggest that the Bush administration caused 911 in an attempt to do this. There are so many other options available that are less costly and not so messy. For one, we could strong arm Kuwait and put a presence there. They'd probably welcome it actually. Same with Qater and Dubia. Now given the current situation, we may wind up staying over there for a while anyway. I just don't believe 911 was part of any plot to do this.

Also, no US business can do business with a foriegn government, or with any company owned or controlled by a foriegn government, without the approval of the US Department of Commerce. In addition, any applicable US government agencies overseeing effected industries must approve and sometimes inspect all foreign transactions. Example: the US Department of Agriculture will be involved if you intend on importing chickens from a poultry company in Thailand. Any transaction or business relationship that could effect US foreign policy, especially one of the magnitude of an oil pipeline, needs congressional and executive approval. Lobbyists go to work and sometimes spend years working on proposals the scope of major oil piplines in a foreign countries. It's no slam dunk and the media would be all over it. Routine stuff here really.

Bottomline on the poison gas sports arena scenario is simple. Any knucklehead can reason the point that there would've been so many less complicated plots available for implemntation. Flying remote control planes, blowing up skyscrapers and pentagons, recruiting thousands of notableable people to lie and conspire in a cover-up, fabricating passenger lists or making passengers and planes vanish.... all to provoke an invasion is ridiculous and makes no sense.


[edit on 8-5-2007 by iandavis]

nick7261.......I doubt the reliability of your information.

Originally posted by iandavis
nick7261.......I doubt the reliability of your information.

ian davis,

I doubt that you read the 9/11 Commission Report.

The C-130 that spotted Flight 77 go into the Pentagon is also the same C-130 that ID'ed Flight 93 on the ground within 2 minutes of it crashing, 20+ minutes later and 100+ miles away.

Combine that little tidbit of info with the fact that nobody in the U.S. air defense system was able to ID either 77 or 93 on radar and asked for visual help from the air, and you have something pretty far-fetched imo. A single C-130 pilot was able to spot 2 of the 4 hijacked planes just before they crashed and the rest of the U.S. military had no idea where these planes were.

Nick

PS You might want to try doing some research rather than just saying you doubt the reliability of my information.

now there's about 12,000, that's not a presence. A military "presence" as in to effect influence and deter a potential invasion, etc, would involve a minmum of 50,000 ground troops and several mechanized divisions.

Says who? A presence is a presence. And any presence, even one of only 10,000 troops, increases the sphere of influence. And besides, it's not like those 8000 troops were just sent home, they were just shifted to Iraq, which is still part of the US 'presence' in the region.

You require a minimum of 50,000 ground troops and several mechanized divisions to satisfy requirements for a 'military presence'? So I guess, with well over 100,000 troops in Iraq, it's safe to say that as a result of 911 the US now has an enormous military presence in the region.

Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan on Friday signed here a framework agreement for a US $ 3.2 billion gas pipeline project passing through the three countries.

Source

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the new president of Afghanistan, the one who signed this document - a document that would never have been signed under the rule of the newly isolated Taliban - just happened to have been a consultant for Unocal in the past.

It's no slam dunk and the media would be all over it.

This phrase is indicative of an attitude that is becoming more and more common both in the US and abroad. I call it the Church of Media. The creed goes a little something like this:

'Oh most holy corporate media, who bestows upon us all knowledge that is true and fit to know, continue to provide us with the most accurate and truthful information in existence. Keep us true to the belief that if you haven't told us of something, then either it does not exist, is not important to know, or both.'

Ok, needless to say I'm exaggerating to make a point, but you see what I'm saying. The attitude of 'If something were happening the media would tell us about it' is worrying to say the least. Given the past gross incompetencies exhibited by the media (and that's being generous - 'vast corruption driven by corporate interests' would be more accurate) I think that we should at least be very cautious and questioning about the mainstream media. What we should not do, is assume that something does not exist because the mainstream media haven't told us about it.

Flying remote control planes, blowing up skyscrapers and pentagons, recruiting thousands of notableable people to lie and conspire in a cover-up, fabricating passenger lists or making passengers and planes vanish

We're back to the straw men again I see. Did you miss my post where I clearly identified them as such? If we can ignore for a moment those lovely straw men that you seem so attached to setting up and knocking down. If we look at the plot as it is presented, it is fairly simple. Well, it's simple enough that a guy on dialysis living in a cave could put it together and a few guys with very limited technical ability and a couple of box-cutters.

It's strange, because you strike me as an Occam's razor type of person, but when you consider the possibility of 911 complicity, you stretch it out to vast unnecessary extremes. A more suspecting type might think you were intentionally blowing out the 911 complicity proposition to make it more easy to shoot down.

But I won't accuse you of that. What I will say is that for whatever reason, you have taken the most complicated explanation of 911 complicity, and compared it against the most simple example of a nerve-gas attack scenario. If I was to hypothesize, I could come up with a number of ways to over-complicate your nerve-gas scenario. If you're going to consider this scenario in the most simple of terms, then the only reasonable comparison is to consider 911 complicity in the most simple of terms. To me, that would mean Arab agents co-opted, brainwashed, or recruited, to carry out the attack.

In short, 911 as executed by Arab terrorist, but planned by others, is the most simple explanation of 911 complicity. If you want to use a simple scenario as a comparison, then this is what you should compare it again.

Want to try for another comparison of complication without the straw-men?

Edited to add source for quote.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by TheStev]

theStev,

Well first off, I never said that these countries and Unocal didn't want a pipeline, I just said that no US oil company is even close to starting such a project. I also do not believe 911 was purposely caused by neocons so they could build a pipeline among other things. It's no secret that the russians wanted to build that pipeline years ago. Obviously never happened. And your crazy if you think that the Wall Street Journal and CNBC wouldn't be all over a story like this. It's a huge story. I promise, the moment a Unocal lobbyist starts pitching a congressman, we'll all know. It has not happened yet.

You tell me....where's the pipeline? If that was part of the 911 plan, how come not one piece of pipe has been laid?

Bottomline on this pipeline thing: After 911, it became to risky. Once the Taliban was overthrown, Unocal knew the risk of building one with Al Queda and the Taliban all pissed off, would be too risky, so they didn't pursue it.

Originally posted by iandavis
Silly Tyranny.

Listen to how stupid you sound! This elaborate group of yours was able to recruit 100's of loyal tight lipped politician's and media people, then find their "ins" into the WTC and the a major airline, but to find their "in" into a crowded arena during a sports or concert event would be to difficult? Come on!! HAHAHAHAHA! You screwy goofball!

You know about chemical weapons and amounts? Don't think so!
A 12 oz can of our most dangerous KNOWN nerve agent, VX gas, could wipe out several city blocks killing thousands. I'm sure it would do quite a job in a sports arena.

If this government entity you speak of planted explosives all over the WTC, don't you think they could've snuk in several janitors to spray all the buildings with small pox? Come on!

Ian,

Wow. I like this approach of name calling. It's a great way of disproving someone's point. And much more effective, at that. I'm new to the game so forgive me if I'm not as professional at slandering someone as you are.

Who has VX nerve gas? The United States and possibly their allies. Why would they implicate themselves so foolishly as you've suggested.

I see your point with the chemical agents and all because you see so many suicide bombers with sarin strapped to their stomachs. And "terrorist" have never hijacked a plane. ever. silly me. I was being naive to think that the people in control of disinformation in the country couldn't compartmentalize a plan to the point that Mr. Pink wouldn't know what Mr. Brown was doing. Of course they would, cause they were hired by the same guy and they both have colors for last names. After all the CIA, FBI and NSA had their facts so aligned before the events of 9/11.

Sure, the "eloborate group of yours" could've snuck in and sprayed the arena with small pox, but how would the security company in charge benefit? They owner of the Arena? That person wouldn't collect insurance, but more than likely be subject to lawsuits. The world trade center was an event that could be replayed over and over and pushed from the mind easily. Even though horrific in consquence, it was not a messy or discusting event such as as attack with white phosphrus. Peoples wretched bodies would be broadcast all over the world and such events stick in peoples minds. The WTC attacks were designed to be easily dismissed, yet remember forever. Such chemical warefar would have left the public stark raving mad and 80% of people would still be scrutinizing the event that took place, rather than the 30% that still look at the WTCs with speculation. I know this sounds odd, but what are people more likely to remember for the rest of their lives, buildings collapsing or burnt and bloody men, women and children?

Sporting event. That's just ridiculous.

Do you really think about things before you post them?

[edit: removed slanderous remarks - sorry guys, I know I should have left them, but I'll try to reply with intelligent remarks rather than stupidity]

[edit on 9-5-2007 by tyranny22]

I just said that no US oil company is even close to starting such a project.

Is this coming from your intimate knowledge of the interior operations of US oil companies, or is this also based on the assumption that if anything noteworthy was happening the media would've told us about it?

Another flaw that occurs to me with your nerve-gas plan is the visuals. What could the media potentially show to drive the culture of fear using your nerve-gas attacks? An exterior wide-shot of the stadium with lots of people outside of it? Close-ups of people coughing up blood? People would be outraged and would label the shots too graphic. Did you ever see the documentary 911: The Falling Man? The reaction to such footage would have been the same.

How, other than with the collapse of the WTC towers, can you show the simultaneous deaths of 3000 odd people, without actually literally showing them dying?