The Real 9/11 Conspiracy, The Invention of Islamic Terrorism

reply to post by NGC2736


I do not know much, but what I do know I would like to share with you.
And I am happy to listen to all reasoned arguments.

On NORAD it would seem that the only way we can interpret the "do the orders still stand" comment is by the circumstances around it, as no clear reference is made to what the order was. The facts stand that no plane was shot down, and it is unlikely that they would have "missed", thus I must interpret the order to have been a stand down order. However I must admit that on first watching the Mineta clip I thought the opposite.

This link discusses the idea that the reason NORAD failed was due to other "Wargames" taking place on 9/11 which confused everyone. No one was sure if the new Hijacked planes were "real world or an exercise".
www.prisonplanet.com... - LINK

I am not sure if there is any evidence indicating that this was anything other than coincidence, but I'm sure people will have something to say about the massive nature of the coincidence.

On the Economic case, I read a fact in an Economics textbook which shocked me. Here is what it said:
"Also, because European post-tax energy prices have been 25 to 50 per cent higher than the US, the EU can produce a unit of GNP with less than 60 percent of the energy it requires the US."
Page 233, "Economics for Business" by Dermot McAleese
There is no reference to where these figures are obtained from.

So we know that it takes more than 40% more energy (which I'm *roughly* interpreting as Oil) for the US to produce a unit of GNP than it takes the EU.
This has to have a devastating effect on the US's competitiveness.

From this I have drawn an explanation of exactly why the US *appears* to be so Oil hungry, compared to Europeans.

This is just more background information, I am sure if researched properly there would be an Economic history similar in depth and insight to the OP.

reply to post by ErisDS


Please do research this. We all need to look at the facts, and we can only get those through research. I don't hold some patent on 9/11 research.

Research is the only way we can get past the strange and distorted landscape that 9/11 has made on all of us. We are a community out to deny ignorance. I have laid out just the back story, the foundation, as it were. Please, express your own research, coupled with hard facts and logic.

I look forward to hearing more.

Just a little disclaimer, in that I have no reference or link to verify the following, as this info is gleaned from intel info I had access to when I was in the Navy at the time, sorry!:

The Afghani gov't of the time in question was/were semi-allies with the Soviets, and were recieving arms and munitions from the same, along with negotiations going on for basing rights of Soviet assets on Afghani territory. This was because of the proximity of the two, at the time. For those of you too young to be 'in the world' or aware @ the time, the Soviets were having alot of unrest in the Soviet block of Eastern Europe and in the Arabic/Islamic countries to the south. Turkey was and is still an Allied country to the West; if you don't think so, remember WE have/had anti-aircraft 'n anti-balllistic missile assets based there, making the Soviet military VERY uncomfortable, and today we have an inked agreement with Turkey for the Joint Strike Fighter F-35!

Well needless to say, unless you need it and you might, we know how that situation panned out: The 'help' the Soviets sent was a full invasion of Afghanistan. They even helped to gov't there 'elect' a new president and cabinet, as well as 'allowing' them to elect a congress or parliament to pass laws n such.... What they ran into has already been mentioned by yourself. NOBODY has ever, in more than 3000 years, ever successfully invaded Afghanistan or Switzerland, for that matter, mostly because of the mountainous terrain and the fierce fighters therein.

Alongside this also, we were/are romancing/cajoling, whatever you wanna call it, the moslem/islamic/arabic nations of the area. So this situation was perfect for the pro-active CIA and warhawk military of this country to take advantage of, and they didn't even hesitate, not one lick. As a result of this, when the Soviets left their 'Vietnam', the Afghani gov't buddied up a bit more to us/the West. In every case I'm aware of, anytime we have negotiated a 'deal' with, the gov't in question has been repressive and 'we' the U.S. turned a 'blind-eye to the internal affairs' of these nations.... Is it any wonder the factions in Al Queda 'n radical Islam hate us? The restrictions you've probably heard of, No alcohol, sexual intermingling/prostitution etc. are basic to ISLAMIC belief, and here we are, with our protected contractors and the stupider military members doing exactly that. Gentlemen and gentleladies, I'm not saying that 'W', and 'LORD' Cheney, as doonesbury likes it, haven't blown the thing out of proportion, but even you have to admit, the western media sensationalize the facts and figures and actions of everybody and thing to SELL papers/media to the public. This info is out there the public realm, if you track far enough. Peace.

Originally posted by Nunny
You people absolutely DISGUST me!

HOW DARE YOU! I served 23+ years in the military and saw things and KNOW things that I can't mention.

SHAME ON YOU! I served those years for Americans who believed in their country. Not those of you who think we are as bad as or worse than the terrorists themselves!

SHAME ON YOU ALL!

Don't "sugar coat" it! How do you really feel ?

I am sure your noble in your convictions, but when you chose to use CIA standard operation phrases like: How dare you, or Shame on you, it has a tendency to invoke negative reactions from readers, that dismiss any quality points that you wish to express

So, let's see if I understand this.

The CIA and the Bush Administrations used the people involved in Al Qaeda to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan and then used them to attack us so we could have a war on terror against them?

Originally posted by NGC2736
NWRHINO, it always comes back to the whys. And the why is always tied to who gained and who lost in any given exchange.

Exactly, which group of people have benefited the most since 9-11-2001?

military industrial complex

Security firms

Oils research and development

Which groups of people has benefited the least?

Afghanistan

Iraq

Islamic organizations

US Citizens

Of course, This is only circumstantial evidence, but in court if the circumstances lead to only one result, then your guilty!

Originally posted by NWRHINO

Originally posted by NGC2736
NWRHINO, it always comes back to the whys. And the why is always tied to who gained and who lost in any given exchange.

Exactly, which group of people have benefited the most since 9-11-2001?

military industrial complex

Security firms

Oils research and development

Which groups of people has benefited the least?

Afghanistan

Iraq

Islamic organizations

US Citizens

Of course, This is only circumstantial evidence, but in court if the circumstances lead to only one result, then your guilty!

If the CIA was really behind all this, they why did the Plame/Wilson Affair happen to try and discredit the Bush Administration?

reply to post by Nunny


nunny,
the oil companies and corporations like halliburton have taken over our gov't.
The only reason the US is in the middle east to begin with going back to at least 1982 is to potect oil interests. All you have to ask yourself to test that idea is "why isn't america involved in the African civil wars ?"

A truley patriotic gov't would have done what Brasil and the Netherlands did after the oil shortage of '73, develop alternative fuel sources to be independent of mid east oil

I never meant to imply OBL and the like are innocent in this, just pointing out what they said their motivation was behind the attacks

reply to post by pcygnii


I really love the opinion of those on the ground. Ever since my days in the military, I put a lot more trust in what the average aware soldier is thinking, than what any politician later says. Mostly troops don't need to spin anything, all they do is wonder what means what. And the average American soldier is a lot brighter and more honest than any politician alive.

Now for those readers that have followed this thread so far, compare this poster with the rabid attack of "nunny" a page or so ago. Reach your own conclusions on the difference and why.

pcygnii, thank you for your input "from the scene" so to speak.

reply to post by CharlesMartel

The CIA and the Bush Administrations used the people involved in Al Qaeda to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan and then used them to attack us so we could have a war on terror against them?

I don't think this is very far wide of the mark.

The 'war on terror' is far from focussed on al Qaeda. The principle 'human' targets thus far have been the Taliban, Saddam and his Ba'athist regime and, more latterly, Ahmadinejad's Iran.

The 'real' war is, in my view, the battle for resources and the geopolitical shenanigans necessary to ensure access to them.

The so-called 'war on terror' is a misnomer, intended to disguise its true purpose.

Originally posted by CharlesMartel
So, let's see if I understand this.

The CIA and the Bush Administrations used the people involved in Al Qaeda to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan and then used them to attack us so we could have a war on terror against them?

I doubt it was as cut and dried as you so starkly put it. And it is yet to be determined who did the using of who. Nor are we clear on the why. But basically, that is what happened. We, through the actions of the CIA and our political leadership, built a war machine called Al Qeada, and in due time, for whatever reason, this group "turned" on us, and attacked.

The question in the minds of many people must be, when did OBL and the rest stop being CIA assets and become rouge threats? Or is OBL still tied to this agency with it's history of dishonorable actions? And IF there were ongoing ties, who controled the action?

reply to post by NWRHINO


Your list is very compelling. Yet it is my hope that the evidence can be bundled tighter to show exactly who is the most likely candidates for being in control of the outcome of 9/11.

reply to post by CharlesMartel


Look at your daily news. How many times do you hear of one person in a group turning states evidence to convict the rest? or trying to blackmail the others? or simply flexing their muscle to gain leverage? There is no honor among thieves, or politicians. They'll stab each other in the back as quick as they'll kiss a baby. They keep each other in check by removing a pawn, or even a bishop, now and then. It seems to be a mad scramble at the top of the food chain to assert power.

Originally posted by scrapple
....(Pentagon plane)....10 miles out (of DC)!!!
...."orders still stand?" the staffer asks
Nothing's changed - Dick quips

SO, either Norad asked to down the Pentagon plane
....and missed, (see order #1 above)

OR, They are being called off. (order #2 still stands)

U think they missed

Well heres something I would like to put if you are putting something like that.

1. "The plane is getting closer to the D.C. area, still want it down?"

The staffer hoped that Cheney may change his mind about shooting it down. Perhaps its just an innocent plane veering in the wrong direction which would bother the staffer. Think about it.




The interviewer seems to be hoping that the U.S. didn't shoot down the plane. Cause it contradicts the stand down order as people assumed.


[edit on 14-11-2007 by deltaboy]

reply to post by deltaboy


As I said before, there are both ways to see this exchange. Until we know the order, and who it originated with, it is information without context. When we invent context, except as a mental exercise, we run the risk of error.

Originally posted by deltaboy

Perhaps its just an innocent plane veering in the wrong direction which would bother the staffer. Think about it.

Sure no problem,

Cheney/Mineta statements show there was an existing order (shoot / no-shoot) covering flight 77.

The staffer’s actions show they had it on radar 50 miles, 3O miles, etc etc.....

Option (A)

The government:

- Had a ‘shoot’ order established at that time, YET the entire air defense system was incapable of knocking a wide body out of the sky as it lumbered back to DC, loitering past the white house, Congress, Pentagon etc. etc.

And as you suggest above the military didn’t want to execute an order, so was asking dick every few miles if he would change his mind…..


Option (B)

Cheney was ‘barking’ to enforce a ‘wait and see policy’?

- Regarding a stray wide body on radar being closely watched by dick’s command post, - ½ hour after every man, woman and child saw commercial jets strike the towers in nyc, a plane with no active transponder, no radio contact with ATC, - after commercial traffic had been ordered to emergency land, and with NORAD fighters in the air.

“Yes the orders still stand”, we will watch this “innocent” plane ........ride its way on in to DC for its unscheduled landing at Dulles, …err, ok it missed that airport, maybe its going to land at Reagan now,….err, its turning again, ....sorry Rummy.





[edit on 14-11-2007 by scrapple]

[edit on 14-11-2007 by scrapple]

reply to post by NGC2736


Sorry the above is off topic, but it cant go unchallenged IMO.

Again are you familiar with Al Qaeda "the base" in reference to "The Data Base" - a 80's banking computer system which allowed early email and financial transactions around the ME.

We are possibly being told to fear/fight a war against a data base - which actaully, is probably good advice.

reply to post by scrapple


No, I don't see you as being too far off topic here, we are discussing events prior to the actual 9/11 event. And discussing the players and entities involved at that time.

Please expand on your line of reasoning.

reply to post by NGC2736


I agree its all intertwined, planes, buildings, orders etc, and important .

However, I am more intrigued by a subtle if real “the data-base” verses “the-base” Al Qaeda derivation. This link is admittedly a poor resource but it is what brought the idea to my attention, as to how our new Enemy possibly got its name.

thetruthseeker.co.uk...

reply to post by scrapple


It seems possible that the group we call Al Qeada, is using this earlier name as a play on words, and to further the idea of Arab unity. Still, a rose by any other name....

It is interesting that your source ties this earlier "base"to economic interests. There are always economic interests.