So why is 9/11 as an inside job

[9215]

so unthinkable?

What is becoming increasing hard for the Public to ignore is we have a President who is willing to lie to take us to war for BFEE enrichment. Cheney's gaming of the Iraq sanctions to profit Halliburton, then his push for war though Iraq posed no threat to the US with, coincidently, Halliburton getting most of the rebuilding contracts, shows the profit motive at work. Then we have Poppy's Carlyle group also set to profit handsomely from war.
In the background we have the philosophical "imperatives" for war. We have numereous Bush officials as followers of the fascistic Straussian imperatives for "externalizing" the threat to the nation state as a means of maintaining political control--the end goal. Then we have the Straussian imperatives fed further with the "realpolitiks" of Brezizinski's "Grand Chessboard" and PNAC "imperatives" for the US to maintain its role as the sole superpower. These last two imperatives can only be fulfilled by taking control of the Caspian and Middle East regions with military force. All of it designed to hide the reason for almost all wars in modern times: to control resources.

But the fly in the buttermilk was the need to garner public support for imperial adventurism and suddenly we have 9/11 expertly timed to serve that purpose.

If Bush is willing to lie and let young people die in the Iraq war, then why is it to far fetched to think he would let other Americans die on 9/11?

[boobooday]

1. It becomes clear

That there is nothing they won't do to get what they want. And their stonewalling on the 9/11 commission doesn't make them look any LESS culpable.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[bobthedrummer]

10. 9/11 Commission is loaded with neo-conservatives investigating

themselves.

And when the good guys DO come up with leads they get quashed.
For example, here is a link that involves the Saudis {and goes back to BCCI}
FBI Shuts Down Investigation Into Saudi Terror Cell In Boston

"A software company called Ptech, founded by a Saudi financier placed on America's Terrorist List in October 2001, had access to the FAA's entire computer system for two years before the 9/11 attack."

http://www.madcowprod.com/

Ah yes, "9/11: The BCCI Connection"
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP310A.html

Or, "September 11th and the Bush Administration: Compelling Evidence for Complicity"
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4582.htm

LIHOP, another reason for ABB.

[ComerPerro]

2. Especially when you consider that at PNAC's site

They have a document that says that the only way such radical change in defense policy change could be accepted by the public and our allies would be a major catastrophic event, along the lines of Pearl Harbor.

[Virginian]

6. 9/11 was Dubya's Pearl Harbor

I read in a post on this site that Dubya wrote in his journal on that day that "Today was my Pearl Harbor".

Does anyone have the link?

[9215]

8. I would LOVE to have that quote!

[RedSock]

18. here is the quote

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42754-2002Jan26


Before going to sleep, Bush writes in his diary, The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today. ... We think it's Osama bin Laden." (Washington Post, 1/27/02)
http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/index.html

[9215]

19. Many thanks.

:)

[9215]

31. Kick

[DemLikr]

9. OH PLEASE! Like Shrub* keeps a journal! HAHAHAHAAHA n/t

[Virginian]

13. IMHO

I am not sure that it is true, I AM sure I read it on a post at this website or a link from this website.
I am hoping that the original author of that post or someone who remembers it will confirm with a link.

[Virginian]

20. Thank you RedSock for the link.

[I AM SPARTACUS]

21. ...some-kinda journal, id'n it? 2,500 dead, one-self-centered line...

[hang a left]

3. I' m down with that.

MIHOP.........no doubt.

[laura888]

4. It's looking more and more possible

there is just too much weirdness surrounding the 9/11 investigation. Any idiot would agree they're hiding something.

[Taeger]

5. Gross Negligence ...

Gross negligence is the only conclusion supported by the evidence thus far. I am suspicious about willingly letting our guard down.

One thing is certain, Bush has done little or nothing beyond Afghanistan to make our nation safer. He hasn't invested in first responders or border patrol. He hasn't made any SIGNIFICANT investment in air marshalls. In fact, he tried to cut them at one point.

The Bush administration is a simple shill for international corporations. That's all.

[9215]

7. Very good point. It is the Iraq war that is so telling

as to Bush's real motivations. He attacks a country that is irrelevant to the war on terrorism. This can mean 1) he and his adminstration made an honest mistake (very unlikely, or 2)that he doesn't care about terrorism because he controls the terrorists and, by way of implication the events of 9/11.

Bush is not bolstering defense against terrorism in other areas as you point out because he doesn't really believe Al Qaeda is a threat and that is because the BFEE controls Al Qaeda.

[JackRiddler]

11. What evidence?

There is no evidence. It's all under lock and seal.

The Commissioners aren't allowed to look at the White House documentary evidence.

Graham's congress panel was investigating the FBI (summer 2002) and next thing he knew they were demanding he and the other senators take lie detector tests.

The congressional inquiry report came out with 25 percent blacked out.

The FBI says they found a magic passport from an AA11 hijacker a few minutes after the plane hit the Tower, so you must believe it.

Blair/Tenet say they have evidence of Osama's masterminding 9/11 but they can'actually show it to you, so you must believe them.

At least three different Osamas have confessed on video.

No one has to testify in public under oath. Everyone who was in charge of the defense and investigation failures up to the day has been promoted.

The FBI says they know who did the suspected insider trading deals but it's okay because they're legit business people, so you don't need to know who it was.

You don't have evidence for or against the official story, the incompetence theory, the provocation theory, or inside job. All theories.

You have barely any evidence at all. Why don't you have any evidence?

[orwell]

14. Non-Op Co-Op

At the very least we have factual evidence that the Bush Regime is not cooperating with the investigation. This is especially odd in that they essentially hand picked the investigators. LIHOP and MIHOP aside, that in and of itself is inexcusable on National Security grounds and ample reason not to re-select.

O

[Taeger]

15. noncompliance

The noncompliance of the Bush administration does not make for POSITIVE evidence that Bush KNEW about the WTC, Pentagon, White House plot SPECIFICALLY.

It IS clear that they DID have warnings of attacks with planes. They could have fealt these warnings uncredible or minor in scope. After all, planes are hijacked all the time.

It could be Bush THOUGHT that something was going to happen but didn't realize the true scope. It could be that he WANTED it to happen and that was the reason for his lack of urgency on the morning of 9/11 (failure to scramble intercepting jets (standard policy)). But that's ALL conjecture.

Furthermore, I can't imagine a soul would be allowed to LIVE if they ratted any evidence of such a plot. A person willing to kill 3,000 Americans would have ZERO problem wacking one more. That too is conjecture, as reasonable as the logic is.

The only issue that REALLY hits the stink test is finding Atta's passport in the wreckage. There is NO WAY that a paper booklet could have survived that fireball whether it was in Attas pocket or in one of the FBI offices.

To me, this all makes for a MAJOR case of negligence. Any attempt to say that "Bush KNEW" about the 9/11 plot specifically will make you look looney.

From a strategy standpoint, It's best to push the negligence angle. MANY people will look at the SAME evidence as you do and come to the same conclusion. MANY MORE people will look at the evidence if you don't make it out to be an UBER conspiracy theory.

Deep down in my heart, I suspect and fear that Bush knew something was going to happen and LET it happen. His demeanor on 9/11 and gleefull proclomation of shooting a "trifecta" of national security threat is just too telling for me. But I cannot prove it. I CAN prove that the administration was downright incompetent. So I'll stick with that line.

I'll let the hearts and minds of others come to their own conclusion once they review the evidence. Bush's stall tactics on the 9/11 commission will be VERY telling. It will be a major campaign issue.

The Democrats WILL make the case that Bush failed to protect the nation. Wesley Clark has already made that charge and I doubt he will just "go away" during the campaign.

Bush will push himself as a wartime "security president". We will push back and point out that he FAILED to make the US secure before 9/11. He also FAILED to make the US secure AFTER 9/11. Instead of securing the nation, he capitalized on the tragedy in order to push his international and domestic agenda that helped rich people and major corporations.

He NEVER delivered the funding for first responders. He CUT funding for Air Marshalls. He failed to increase border patrol funding. He prematurely removed personell from Afghanistan to commit to the Iraq debacle.

Furthermore, Bush CUT funding for programs that let us buy up surplus Nuclear equipment from the former Soviet Union. I can think of no greater way of stopping proliferation than buying this stuff up and keeping it OFF the market.

Bush is a sham. But we should stick to the things that we can demonstrate without extreme conjecture.

[JackRiddler]

17. Things I can demonstrate without extreme conjecture...

Bipartisan version - since 9/11 and its coverup are hardly the work of one man - off the top of my head...

- In early 2001 the Afghanistan invasion was planned and prepared for an October launch, with force deployments underway on Sept. 9th, the day the plans were placed on Bush's desk.

- For saying Bush was hiding foreknowledge and "scamming America," ;Max Cleland was rewarded by Bush with a banking appointment. (Whatever other inducements were offered to get him to shut up, I leave up to you.)

- Bob Graham, who met with the ISI chief for breakfast on 9/11, somehow managed never to mention the Pakistani connection to 9/11 in the report.

- The families are attacking not just Bush but the Kean Commission as a whitewash.
http://www.911independentcommission.org

- At Ground Zero, about 20 percent of New Yorkers passing by the sign, "Bush Regime Engineered 9/11" express support. Most are just surprised at the idea and curious.

[JohnyCanuck]

12. Strauss's teaching

Strauss’s teaching incorporated much of Machiavelli’s. Significantly, his philosophy is unfriendly to democracy—even antagonistic. At the same time Strauss upheld the necessity for a national religion not because he favored religious practices, but because religion in his view is necessary in order to control the population. Since neo-conservatives influenced by Strauss are in control of the Bush administration, I have prepared a brief list that shows the radical unchristian basis of neo-conservatism. I am indebted to Shadia Drury’s book (Leo Strauss and the American Right) and published interviews for the following:

First: Strauss believed that a leader had to perpetually deceive the citizens he ruled.

Secondly: Those who lead must understand there is no morality, there is only the right of the superior to rule the inferior. (My emphasis /jc)

Thirdly: According to Drury, Religion “is the glue that holds society together.”<40> It is a handle by which the ruler can manipulate the masses. Any religion will do. Strauss is indifferent to them all.

Fourthly: “Secular society…is the worst possible thing,” because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, all of which encourage dissent and rebellion. As Drury sums it up: “You want a crowd that you can manipulate like putty.”<41>

Fifthly: “Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat; and following Machiavelli, he maintains that if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured.”<42> (my emphasis /jc)

Sixthly: “In Strauss’s view, the trouble with liberal society is that it dispenses with noble lies and pious frauds. It tries to found society on secular rational foundations.”

www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5646.htm

[9215]

16. That's why I'm an atheist/agnostic

Thanks for this info.

Amazing how blatant Strauss is. He really fleshes out the method of using religion to immobilize the minds of the masses and "might makes right", a perversion of Lincoln's principle: "Right Makes Might".

IMO Machiavelli is often misunderstood. I could be wrong here, but Machiavelli was merely writing a "description" of what it takes to be a "Prince" without lending a moral component. Most people don't realize that he organized an army to fight invaders of the Republic of Florence, the Medici. His army was annihilated. For some reason it is hard to imagine someone of ill will defending a Republic as he did. :shrug:

[alittlelark]

22. If you are concerned about the Machivellian aspects of the * admin.

please look through this incredibly well researched and annoted article
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_5160.shtml

If you are not a tin foil hatter, you especially need to read it!!!

[MI Cherie]

23. BushCo has exploited 9/11 ...

... almost as much as hiding & covering up evidence.

[MrSlayer]

24. It's not unthinkable, I believe it's true.

There are too many things that point to MIHOP. The eyewitness reports from the WTC floors that were directly impacted, which indicate the buildings should not have fallen. The Chimp's complete non-reaction to being told of a "surprise" attack. The video of it is compelling evidence to me. The PNAC manifesto (if you will) that expresses the "need" for such an attack to launch their plans. So many things point to it being an inside job, that the "official" story seems laughable.

[dbt]

25. Why people are having trouble accepting that 9/11 was an inside job:

The concept of President as Enemy Of The State is so new that most people simply cannot get their minds around it. The country is attacked, the people rally around their leader. That's been a safe course of action since Washington's time.

Surprise!

:freak:
dbt

[mopaul]

26. it's so obvious, but only a few 'nutballs' can see it

from the very first second, after the second plane smashed into tower two in prime time, i had decided. and since that very day, i've carried the nutball albatross around my neck. i quickly discovered that even the mere suggestion that 9-11 was an inside job, even the staunchest bush haters would instantly poo poo the idea totally.

then i'd ask, "why do you find it so impossible to believe?" and the answers trail off into vapor. it's like when a mother hears her son's been arrested for killing someone, she'll always say, "I know my son, he couldn't have killed anyone, it's just not like him."

come on non believers....at least let your mind try to accept the possiblity that members of our own government could have so little regard for life, and America's ideals, that they would not only 'allow' thousands to die to further their imperialist agenda, they would actually cause it to occur. at least TRY to consider it in your head. don't just turn off the idea and put up a mental wall, and REFUSE to see it. try it a little at a time, if it's just too much of a shock for your brain.

and please, non believers, we who think it's an inside job MAY BE WRONG. we may also be right. don't look down upon us lowly conspiracy theory nutcases. some of us may actually be onto something.

[Lost4words]

27. I thought mopaul was at a reprograming camp, great to see ya!

:hi:

[Must_B_Free]

34. it's real obvious when yoiu look at it like a detective

and start examining motives:

When you look at who gained what and who would have stood to gain from such a plan, it becomes more obvious

Tell me what good bin laden did for his cause from this. Tell me what possible benefit he could have conceived from this in the first place?

[9215]

28. Eerie similarities: Bush actions after 9/11 and Hitler's after Reichstag

Nazi Germany's War Hitler On Terror
<http://c0balt.com/resources/terror/terror.shtml>

Excerpt: Hitler used the 1933 burning of the Reichstag (Parliament) building by a deranged Dutchman to declare a “war on terrorism,” establish his legitimacy as a leader (even though he hadn’t won a majority in the previous election). “You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history,” he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. “This fire,” he said, his voice trembling with emotion, “is the beginning.”

He used the occasion - “a sign from God,” he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their “evil” deeds in their religion.

Two weeks later, the first prison for terrorists was built in Oranianberg, holding the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the nation’s flag was everywhere, even printed in newspapers suitable for display. Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation’s now-popular leader had pushed through legislation, in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it, that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus.

Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people’s homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism. To get his patriotic “Decree on the Protection of People and State” passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack on the Reichstag building was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained.

Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. Instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as The Fatherland. As hoped, people’s hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was “the” homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. more...

[historian]

29. white house stench

The moment chimp returned from his "vacation" in Texas and began to rant and rave about Hussein, the stench began to emerge from the White House. Was anyone expected to believe (apparently so) that Hussein was suddenly a world threat when he wasnt before 9/11?

[9215]

30. Senator Byrd's "Why Iraq, why now!" speech

is what I remember so clearly in the late summer of 2002. The sudden interest in Iraq as the enemy has now been proven to be utterly without merit.

[Octafish]

32. Oh yeah. Bush knew.

And the BFEE planned it.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG204A.html

[megatherium]

33. Never attribute to malice

that which can be explained by incompetence. (I think it was Arthur C. Clarke who said that.) But while I'm skeptical of LIHOP or MIHOP, they've worked to exploit those terrible events for all they're worth. This became became clear when our efforts in Afghanistan proved half-hearted at best, and they started talking about Iraq.

[rman]

35. "In politics, nothing happens by accident."

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."
It was US President Franklin D Roosevelt who said that.

J Edgar Hoover also said something interesting:
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists."

[9215]

36. That last quote by J. Edgar is my sig line

I actually have mixed feelings about J. Edgar.

[Capn Sunshine]

37. There's no way this was done without major help

from several governments, including ours. NO WAY.

[Capn Sunshine]

38. Case in point

In March 1999, German intelligence officials gave the Central Intelligence Agency the first name and telephone number of Marwan al-Shehhi, and asked the Americans to track him.

The name and phone number in the United Arab Emirates had been obtained by the Germans by monitoring the telephone of Mohamed Heidar Zammar, an Islamic militant in Hamburg who was closely linked to the important Qaeda plotters who ultimately mastermined the Sept. 11 attacks, German officials said.

After the Germans passed the information on to the C.I.A., they did not hear from the Americans about the matter until after Sept. 11, a senior German intelligence official said.

"There was no response" at the time, the official said. After receiving the tip, the C.I.A. decided that "Marwan" was probably an associate of Osama bin Laden, but never tracked him down, American officials say.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/politics/24TERR.html

[Useless in FL]

39. Aways believed that this admin was somehow behind this

As I watched the horrible events unfolding on TV I stayed glued to DU as well. I couldn't believe that the govt didn't intercept the flights, couldn't believe that the towers collapsed straight down without help and then could not believe how calmly shrub reacted to the news about the events. Finally, I cringed at the evasive flight path the commander in thief took to his hide out. It just seemed so patently planned.

In the weeks that followed these tragic events, as details emerged so did the theories about LIHOP and MIHOP. I believed LIHOP and probably MIHOP from the very beginning and the more I read, the more I am convinced. You know, it interesting to see how the tone has changed here at DU, where at first these theories were dismissed as "tin foil" theories, now at least many more people are open to discussing them pretty much without a lot of criticism.

[teknomanzer]

40. LIHOP and MIHOP cannot be believed...

To make such a shift in ones thinking is incomprehensible to the common person who has at least a scintilla of trust in our government and its leaders, or carries with them any amount faith in the rhetoric of indoctrination while growing up in the United states. The USA is the good country, the US was the Saviour of Europe in WWII, defended the world against the evils of Communism, provides aid and assistance to nations all over the world, and is the defender of democracy and human rights. That is the the story we are told from the beginning is it not?

And anyone who cares to mention that major financial figures in the USA supported the Nazi's before and during WWII, and made an attempt to remove Roosevelt in a coup will be dismissed as a crackpot. But this did happen. Anyone one who says we imported Nazi scum to help the US build the Military Industrial Complex is said to be wearing a tin foil hat, but that doesn't make it any less true. Anyone who might have said that the communist threat was being exaggerated so that the USA could continue feeding the MIC while expanding the empire was dubbed a Pinko, but as it turns out this also is true. Any one stating that the USA has supported and continues to support ruthless dictators who are anti-democratic and anti-human rights is said to be un-american and unpatriotic, yet what was said cannot be discounted. When some one said that the USA's foreign policy may have provoked the attack against the WTC they were labeled as "blame America first liberals." It is just so much easier to believe they hate us for our freedoms. If one dared to question the powers that be over the new War on Terrorism they became supporters and sympathizers of terrorists.

The bottom line is those who construct the official story will turn on those who would hold up a mirror to reflect reality to be dismissed and discounted as crackpots and haters. Is it no wonder the country has cannot shake itself from the dream, the illusion as it were, to become as I am... DISILLUSIONED.

I don't myself believe in MIHOP because I believe in the essential goodness of humanity. Allow me to expand on that. I am not saying that the Bush cabal isn't evil enough to hatch such a scheme, however I think that someone associated with them would have been disgusted at such a plan and made efforts to prevent such a horrible tragedy from happening even at the risk of their own lives. I don't believe that even this band of criminals would risk the sort of backlash such treason would bring. Operation North woods aside, only the most complete madman would risk a direct link between their own actions and the death of 3,000 citizens.

That is why LIHOP is so much more believable. LIHOP doesn't require action, and doesn't require the kind of secret conspiracy that would be revealed by someone with a conscience. It only requires that those in charge do nothing, nothing at all. Most of all it provides what every good CIA man know you need in such situations... PLAUSIBLE DENYABILITY.

My version of LIHOP is not quite the same as the more complex versions that have appeared on this board since that terrible day. I believe that PNAC is real and it is the policy being followed by this administration. I do believe that they indeed needed that Pearl Harbor event to begin putting that policy into place. But where I diverge from the rest is in this. The Masterminds of PNAC did not know specifically who, what, when and where such an attack would take place. What they did know was that if they left the mid-east with no peace resolution and indeed allowed the situation to further deteriorate, if they impeded investigations of certain people with links to terrorist, and if they simply didn't follow up intelligence concerning terrorist threats then something was bound to happen. They would do nothing. They could always blame it on someone else as incompetence. They rolled the dice. And bush won the Trifecta.

[Rolling Titanic]

41. That's pretty good...

its what I was thinking for a long time now. I don'teven think it was a gamble at all. They knew that people out there meant to do very serious harm, they just followed the method you laid out. It was a "sure thing" not a gamble.

[teknomanzer]

42. I say it was a gamble because...

even though the odds were in PNAC's favor there still existed the possibility that someone some where still doing their job might thwart a would be terrorist's plans. Even a rigged boxing match could fail for any number of reasons, but the possibility of such an outcome occurring would be small under certain conditions.

BushCo had the game rigged so the most likly outcome would serve them, but the occurrence was in no way absolutely guaranteed. Such is the nature of plausible denyablity. Hence the Bush comment about winning a trifecta.

[Junkdrawer]

43. Good essay - but I tend to go one step further...

I think a team of Saudi terrorists were allowed in to preform a coordinated hijacking that was to be the PNAC Pearl Harbor - but they double crossed their handlers and crashed the jets into key targets.

BTW: I was watching the Today show this morning and the GOP chairman dismissed the Bush AWOL scandal this way: If Bush was AWOL, that would be a felony. Accusing the President of committing a felony is absurd, ergo Bush couldn't have been AWOL.

[teknomanzer]

44. Remember...

its not a crime if you don't get caught.

[robertpaulsen]

45. Remember the flight manuals in the back seat of the car?

That was when I really smelled a rat. These terrorists spent months training in flight school and they bring their flight manuals with them to the scene of the crime. Why? Late night cramming before the exam?! I haven't seen such convincing evidence since Oswald left those three bullet shells neatly arranged in the Texas School Book Depository.

Are there any good books on this subject? I've seen some great articles linked to this post. It's only a matter of time before America wakes up, hopefully before it's too late.