Richard Clarke's 9/11 theory.

reply to post by ipsedixit


I don't understand how you just ignore all the information from '92-'01. Just saying they are a cover story is a pretty broad statement. Is it your contention that all the incidents that went on from like '95-'01 are just a cover story? I understand who is "allied" with whom here, but the information on Almihdhar, Alhazmi, Yousef, and KSM clearly shows the Saudi's involvement. We can also clearly see Pakistani involvement as well.

Richard Clarke isn't muddying the water to me, he is verifying what I already knew to be the case. I did find it interesting that Clarke says someone had to physically delete a cable though. I was under the assumption someone just didn't send one. It's his claim it's automatically done and to not be sent, has to have someone perform that action.

I hope you aren't lumping me in with Webster Tarpley because I don't know what his beliefs are. I know who he is, but I haven't read or watched anything on his views of 9/11. These are my beliefs from my reading and research. I believe an operation like 9/11 could be pulled off much in the same way Iran Contra was done. A small group of people from key positions coming together to achieve a goal. Perhaps to increase defense spending, or vastly increase our demand for foreign oil, or get us to fight enemies others may not have wanted to do themselves, or perhaps something else. 10 years later the world has changed. In the last 10 years we have seen huge profits for oil, banking, defense spending, security companies.

Originally posted by RomanMaroni
I believe an operation like 9/11 could be pulled off much in the same way Iran Contra was done. A small group of people from key positions coming together to achieve a goal. Perhaps to increase defense spending, or vastly increase our demand for foreign oil, or get us to fight enemies others may not have wanted to do themselves, or perhaps something else. 10 years later the world has changed. In the last 10 years we have seen huge profits for oil, banking, defense spending, security companies.

I agree. That is known as the MIHOP theory, "made it happen on purpose". That is the view of Alex Jones and of Webster Tarpley also.

One of the secrets of the practice of disinformation is to get close enough to the truth to be convincing without disclosing the part of the truth that would damage you.

The perps and others, who know what happened but may not have a tight active connection to the execution of the operation have reasons for disseminating disinformation. There are numerous and different reasons for doing this, depending upon the degree of one's involvment and the nature and purpose of one's aims.

I think Clarke is in the second group. The reason I think that is in my earlier posts.

These posts from another thread might make what I am saying clearer.

Richard Clarke knows this information, but he doesn't mention it and acts as if he is not aware of it's significance. That puts him in the category of a disseminator of disinformation, in my opinion. I don't know his motives for taking the position he does, but suffice it to say, Dr. Graham died trying to testify (in a deportation hearing) against the individual, through whom he obtained this information.

This information would have come out in court where it would be difficult to ignore. Richard Clarke is not going to make a mistake like that.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by ipsedixit
From the description attached to the video embedded below.

David Graham, a dentist from Louisiana, stumbled onto the path of three 9/11 hijackers 10 months before the attacks. Graham reported his encounter several times to the FBI but never heard back. In September 2006 he died under highly suspicious circumstances.

Two of the hijackers Graham met are the same two "potential double agents" referred to by Richard Clarke in the video interview embedded above, al Hazmi and Almihdhar.

In the video below Graham describes a conversation which took place in his presence which he "wasn't supposed to hear."

Graham tells about what he wasn't supposed to hear at the 3:00 minute mark of the clip.

The two "al Qaeda operatives" let slip in front of a total stranger, that they were connected to Osama bin Laden.

This was no slip. They were building a legend, a fake story about who they were. Just as General Ahmad was doing when he arranged for an al Qaeda operative to wire Mohammed Atta 100,000 dollars and thus create a credible connection between Atta and al Qaeda money. Al Qaeda money = Osama bin Laden (at that time).

The 9/11 insiders are still inside and they are still playing games with the public.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
This dentist, Graham, who was also a talk show host and an investigative reporter is one of the biggest heroes of the 9/11 story.

His story of how he met the two "hijackers" reeks of a set up. He is the perfect sort of individual to have come forward, after the attack had happened, and say, "I met two of those guys. They said they were connected to Osama bin Laden."

It would have suited the 9/11 perps perfectly to have this kind of corroberation of the official story appear from an innocent source like him.

Instead, he immediately upon suspecting a terrorist connection, took his story to the congressional authorities. That forced them to sit on it and obfuscate, or muddy the waters.

He began to realize that he was in deep water after the 9/11 attack when he realized that the two people he met were being connected to the attack by the authorities.

He then did a very prudent thing. He wrote a small book about what had happened to him and left a video will, setting forth the essence of his story.

That is the only reason we know that al Hazmi and Almihdhar were trying to make Graham believe they were connected to bin Laden and the only reason we know for sure that Congressional authorities knew who these people were, knew they represented themselves as connected to bin Laden and did nothing about them.

A fact that strongly suggests that 9/11 was an operation steered from within the Beltway.

Graham payed with his life for his heroism. Louisiana should name a freeway after him.

reply to post by ipsedixit
Well,I look forward to your thread.I think the technical side of the issue is just like a parlor game it keeps us looking elsewhere and away from asking "why?"

reply to post by mike dangerously


I'm just about to post Part 1 of my thread.

2.