Sometime In New York City: Bush, bin Laden, and 9-11

[H2O Man]

SomeTime In New York City: Bush, bin Laden, & 9-11

(1) Introduction

In recent weeks, the Plame Threads have begun to explore a number of theories about political events that are not directly related to the Plame Grand Jury Investigation. Several do have connections with Weapons of Mass Destruction, international and multinational business interests, and members of the Bush 2 Administration.

Some members of the Plame "think tank" have concluded that they have conclusive proof that the Bush Administration was actively involved in the 9-11 attacks on the United States. This is a theory that enjoys wide-spread popularity among the far-left wing of the democratic party, as well as associated leftist political groups.

I believe that the theory, while worthy of examination, is weak in many areas. I think that it can be demonstrated that Usama bin Laden directed the 9-11 attacks against the United States. I do not think that this theory excuses the Bush Administration for any of the criminal and immoral actions that they have taken, nor does it diminish the extent of their lying and stealing from the American public as they prosecute a savage war in Iraq.

On the first Plame Thread, I encouraged readers to make a close examination of all facts involved in a given case. At that time, we were discussing the Plame exposure by two senior White House officials. I used the JFK murder as another example. In each of those cases, an accurate opinion could not be reached without examining all available evidence. In the case of the 9-11 investigation, the "think tank" had not examined Usama bin Laden in any meaningful way.

They had not considered his politics, his religion, his past military experience, or his place in the tangled web of characters and interests in the information they had uncovered. In fact, the most detailed discussion of bin Laden referenced the possibility that there were "fake" bin Laden(s) in the tapes released after 9-11.

There is, however, a tremendous amount of information available on Usama bin Laden. This paper will examine some of that evidence in the historical context of his Islamist world-view. It is not an attempt to find his fingerprints at "ground zero." Rather, it is an examination in the style of L. Fletcher Prouty's study of the circumstances surrounding the crime of 11-22.


(2) Sources

This paper is based in part on information from Yossef Bodansky's 1999 book, "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America."Bodansky is an internationally renowned military analyst, and the director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventioal Warfare. He has served as a senior consultant to both the US Department of Defense, and Department of State.

Bodansky is also a right-wing republican. I do not rely upon any of his political values in this paper. I only use one example of his opinion, and that because it supports the democratic party's stance on bin Laden and terrorism. However, Bodansky has mastered the art of gathering intelligence: he uses a wide range of sources, including numerous Islamic ans Islamist journals.

Again, Mr. Bodansky's opinions and beliefs are not a factor in this paper. Instead, I trust the reader to examine the facts presented here, and decide what value to place upon them.

I have also used a couple other sources, which are noted in the paper. Finally, the brief history of "Islam" which follows is admittedly sparse. It comes entirely from this author's memory, which is limited at best. I am confident that other DU members can add numerous other important points that can help us study the wisdom and beauty of the Islamic religion, and the culture that is connected with it. I note that my admiration for Islam ranks with that which I have for the other religions and spiritual practices of the human family.

Yet, just as the Bush Administration represents a rigid and violent branch of Christianity, the Islamists are the extremists of the rigid and violent branch of Islam.


(3) A Brief History of Islamic Culture

In order to understand Usama bin Laden, it is necessary to understand Islamic culture. Most American people have a limited knowledge of the religion of Islam. They may know that the Muslim faith is based upon the teachings of the Prophet Mohammad, "the Praised One." And they may know that the sacred texts of the Muslim faith are the Koran. Yet for far too many non-Muslim Americans, the word "Islam" is associated closely with the Nation of Islam (aka the Black Muslims), and the culture has been "defined" by the distorted views expressed by the fundamentalist Christian ministers.

Before the start of the Islamic faith, the "middle east" or Arab world was divided into a number of historically significant "empires." The Persian Empire, for example, included modern-day Iran. The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Mesopotamian Empires included most of modern Iraq. Around the 7th century, and the birth of the Islamic culture, the resource-rich "cradle of civilization" would grow in influence on the African, Asian, and European continents. Of extreme importance was the unification of the Semitic tribes of the modern Saudi Arabia.

Most Americans are aware that from the end of the 11th century until the 13th century, there were a series of brutal wars between Christians and Muslims, known as the Crusades. There were a total of nine separate "religious" wars, which actually defined the control of the region's economy, because like all "holy wars," the wealth from natural resources was a primary goal.

Weakened by the wars, and reduced in wealth by the loss of control of their natural resources, the Muslim world would fall victim to future invasions. Iran would be invaded by the Turks, and then by Genghis Khan, then the Tamerlanes, and would eventually become part of the Safavid dynasty. Iraq would become part of the Ottoman Empire, although sections of it would retain a significant degree of local control.

In the second half of the 19th century, the "industrial revolution" in Europe and the United States created a huge demand for oil. While many countries were able to produce some oil, it was discovered that the Middle East had the largest supplies of oil on earth. As described in "Farewell America," this resulted in European and American attempts to exploit the natural resource supply of the Middle East.

By the end of World War 1, these interests had divided the Ottoman Empire and other nation-states into a series of "colonized" countries such as Iraq. These had "nothing to do with the character or aspirations of the indeginious population," and "imposed new and alien ruling elites" such as the "royal families" on the Islamic population. (Bodansky; pg xii)


(4) Islamic Identity

Bodansky notes that Muslims have traditionally identified themselves in two ways that are not fully appreciated by Western culture: {a} supranational -- meaning Pan Islamism, or the Muslim Nation; and {b} subnational -- signifying "blood" relations, or family, extended family, clan, and tribe. These concepts of self-identification are as "foreign" to most Americans as is the identification system used by traditional Native Americans.

The extent to which these ancient traditions of identification are still firmly valued is evidence, for example, by Usama bin Laden's reference to the United States and great Britain as "the Crusadors." And while he may represent an extremist viewpoint in regard to "Crusadors and Jews" as the traditional and current "enemies of Islam," most Muslims hold firm to the old traditions of identification. Thus, there is a recognition of a "family" relationship between moderate and the more extreme Muslims that is not fully appreciated by many Americans, including our political leaders.


(5) Wars of Liberation

For the sake of this paper, we will examine the post-WW1 history of Iran to illustrate trends in the Middle East. With the support of the USA, Reza Shah Pahlavi "founded" the Pahlavi dynasty, which eventually was ruled by his infamous son, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. He was disposed by fundamentalists after an intense struggle in the late 1970s, and exiled Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took control of Iran.

Ayatollah Khomeini represented a movement that would purge all "non-funamentalist" influences. This included the libraries, universities, and the media. It is interesting to note that in many ways, this was identical to the expressed goals of the fundamentalist Christians in the Bush 2 Administration.

Saudi Arabia is ruled by the "royal family," and Iraq was long ruled by the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein. Both deviated from Islamic culture to the extent that they did business with European counties and the United States. Thus, in Iraq, a fundamentalist Ayatollah, Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr taught that "The world as it is today is how others (non-Muslims) shaped it. We have two choices: either to accept it with submission, which means letting Islam die, or to destroy it, so that we can construct the world as Islam requires." (Bodansky; pg xiv) Iraq, which had received significant aide from the USSR, and later from the USA, was lead by the sociopath Saddam Hussein, who had Ayatollah al-Sadr executed.


(6) The Tangled Web of Deceit

During the Reagan and Bush 1 Administration(s), the American public was told that: {1} the Iranians were our enemy; {2}that Saddam was our friend; {3} that America sold weapons to our enemies in Iran for the good of our country; and {4} that Saddam had become our enemy by using the weapons we sold him when he was our friend.

The public was also aware that our country not only officially was supporting the resistance fighters in Afghanistan, who were fighting Soviet troops, but had a pretty good idea that the CIA and other government agencies were helping -- either directly or indirectly -- to train and arm the Afghan rebels.

One of the strengths of earlier Plame Indictment threads was the uncovering of the extent our government, and especially the business community that has become the unelected government in America, has engaged in wide-spread investments, trade, and sales with virtually every nation and subnational Islamic group. This includes the segment known as the Islamists, which are the most radical fundamentalists of Muslims, and which include virtually all of the "terrorist groups" that Americans are concerned about today.

The list of individuals, businesses, agencies, and nation-states involved is lengthy and complex. It includes, not surprisingly, the United States, England, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and numerous other countries. Thus, it involves the business and intelligence communities from all of those countries. It also includes "opposition groups" in many countries, as well as fragments from the old Soviet Union. It includes patriots and psychopaths; people with a code of honor, and people who would betray any trust for financial gain; legal and illegal transactions; the most dangerous weapons and the most deadly drugs. It includes individuals with shifting allegiances, and loose-knit alliances of groups that do not fit the Western definition of "nation-states."

This highly complex series of relationships and shifting linkages weaves an intricate web of deceit and deception. The Plame Thread investigators have indeed done an fascinating job of identifying an array of shady characters with over-lapping interests who have betrayed our country. I believe that this research and investigation has brought into sharp focus many of the vile, treasonous snakes who have committed the most serious of crimes.

Yet I also am concerned that it has taken an unfocused look at 9-11. Much like DA Jim Garrison's "think tank" was able to identify that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, but became unfocused when they became caught up in the web of deceit -- which happens to include several of the same characters, business interests, and agencies as the Plame web does -- I was concerned that the Plame team was experiencing a similar situation.

Most notably, the Garrison crew began to mistake connections between groups and individuals with complicity. It takes an objective, well-trained investigator to make the distinction between the two. Hence, while a person could find "connections" that "prove" OJ did not murder Ron and Nicole, and that "prove" a vast police conspiracy against poor OJ, it simply is not true. Even if Mark Fuhrman was a bad cop, and was connected with the case, he was simply not complicate in a conspiracy to frame an innocent man in that case.

Likewise, with the JFK case, the giant web allows for even an intelligent investigator to conclude that a huge number of people were involved in the plot to kill Kennedy. The less gifted continue, for example, to say they have "proof" that LBJ was part of the consipracy. But he wasn't: though he was connected to both JFK and the Texas oil interests, he was not guilty of complicity in the assasssination. There is likewise a huge difference between saying the CIA killed Kennedy, and saying the people who killed Kennedy had connections with the CIA.

In an effort to reduce the likelihood of confusing connections with complicity, I suggested using Col. Prouty/ Man X's method of asking "why?" and "who benefits?" One person noted that it was her belief that the time to ask why had passed, and that "who, when, and where" were the questions of the day. Perhaps the irony was not intended, as the investigation had yet to consider Usama bin Laden. I suggested one book, which the "who, when & where" person said was authored by a person she disliked. I would suggest that "critical thinking" goes beyond reacting to the personality of an author.

Rather, to untangle a web of deceit, an investigator/researcher must have the objectivity to examine a wide range of sources of information. And it is simply a weak "investigation" into 9-11 that would ignore Usama bin Laden. In order for a DU investigation/research project to be taken seriously in other forums, it needs to address glaring weaknesses.


(7) Usama bin Laden

It is important to remember that the most credible members of the democratic leadership believed that Usama bin Laden was a threat to American interests in the 1990s. In fact, we know that when the Bush administration took office in 2001, the Clinton administration stressed the dangers that bin Laden posed to the United States.

A wide range of sources, including both democrats and republicans, has documented that the Clinton administration took significant steps in dealing with Usama bin Laden. These sources include General Wesley Clark; Richard Clarke; Al Gore; Michael Moore; and Al Franken. A fascinating study of Clinton's actions, for example, in Franken's book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," chapters 15 and 22. Thus we have a situation where either men like Clark, Clarke, Gore, Moore, and Franken believe that President Clinton recognized Usama bin Laden as a serious enemy of the United States, or they are among Franken's "lying liars."

Thus, it is worth our effort to take a close look at Usama bin Laden. Most Americans are aware that he came from a wealthy Saudi family. His father was a successful businessman, who enjoyed great wealth and political power in the Arab world. Usama was well-educated, yet was a rather non-descript sibling in a large Muslim family, until he joined the resistance in Afghanistan. He would later say that a day in Afghanistan was equal to 1,000 days of praying in a mosque as far as understanding Islam.

Those familiar with Usama bin Laden, including both his friends and enemies, mark this period as when Usama evolved from a mere participant in the "holy war" to his becoming one of the more important leaders in the extremist Islamist movement.

As an Islamist, bin Laden had a hatred for Israel. And though he had been connected with American assistance to the Afghanistan rebels, the USA's support of Israel reduced any chance of a cooperative relationship between Usama bin Laden and the United States. But, again, the tangled web of deceit produces numerous incidents where business transactions, almost exclusively through a third party, occured. These involve almost all of the interests on the tangled web, leading some to mistake connections for complicity.

Many Americans know that bin Laden inherited $300 million from his father. Those who seek to diminish his significance point out that this fortune "disappeared" as evidence that he did not have the resources to carry out "holy war." This is simply not true. Usama bin Laden is sophisticated enough to protect his resources by investing in areas where the money is not "seen." This is obviously one of the areas where researchers find a significant "over-lap" with the illegal investments (weapons and drugs) with other Islamic countries, as well as the United States and several European nations.

When the United States led the Gulf War against Iraq, it created a serious turning point in the relations between the United States and Usama bin Laden's Islamist movement. It is accurate to say that the leaders of both Iraq and Kuwait were by definition alien to the Islamist belief system. It is interesting to note that at the time of the Gulf War, the sociopathic Saddam Hussein attempted to identify his leadership with the Islamist cause. The Bush 2 administration would use meager connections as "proof" of an implied complicity in 9-11

Perhaps no single action in the Gulf War was as symbolic a threat to Islamists as the stationing of American troops in the holy cities in Saudi Arabia. This would lead to a well-documented rise in tensions and escalation in violent between the Islamists and those bin Laden identified as the "Crusadors and Jews." By 1994, after Islamists helped to evict "the Great Satan" from the Horn of Africa, the Clinton administration recognized Usama bin Laden as an intense figure who had gained a "hands on" control of a significant number of Islamist activities around the world. From the shadows of the Islamic Nation, he had become a global figure.


(8) 1998

By 1998, the Clinton Administration was aware that Usama bin Laden had issued a series of "fatwas," or religious decrees, which urged Islamists to engage in a holy war against the United States' interests, as well as those of England, and Israel. Bin Laden and his associates were being supported by what the Clinton administration identified as "terrorist sponsoring states," including Iran, Sudan, and Pakistan. Usama bin Laden was recognized as having influence throughout a global network of Islamic extremists.

The series of fatwas made clear that bin Laden was not encouraging his followers to engage in open warfare with the "Crusadors." Rather, he urged tactics which we view as "terrorism." This series of decrees, which is recognized by bin Laden's friend and foes as being his messages, cover a wide number of topics, including killing "innocents." While military and business interests were the primary targets, civilian deaths were acceptable.

US intelligence was aware that Usama bin Laden and others involved in the Islamist organizations had the tacit support of moderate Muslim officials from the supranational Islamic World. These included officials from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. There were "friendly" Arab nations with business, intelligence, and military connections to the United States that were clearly sharing information with the Islamists. Again, this is the extremely complicated and entangled web of deceit.

As the world tensions grew, the escalation in violence included the bombing of the Khobar Towers and the downing of TWA 800. The Clinton administration was convinced that Usama bin Laden was complicate in the bombing of towers, and downing of a jet-liner. DU readers may begin to see a connection with bombing towers, downing airliners, and the first attack on the Twin Towers in New York City.

Aware of his status an an target of American forces, (thanks to Pakistani and other sources), bin Laden found sanctuary in Afghanistan. While it is beyond the scope of this paper to examine the travels of Usama bin Laden during this period, other investigations appear to confirm reports that both US and British intelligence had targeted him. Hence, he found remote hiding places in desolate areas in the mountains of Afghanistan. Among the series of caves he would hide in, he had escape routes to Pakistan and to Iran. The most famous of these hide-outs was at a place called Tora Boora.

A U.K.- based journal, al-Quds al-Arabi, ran a highly complimentary article about bin Laden's "eagles' nest." He wrote that "the mujahideen around the man belong to most Arab states ... They hold high scientific degrees: doctors, engineers, teachers ...." He also reported that they had anti-aircraft guns, tanks, armored vehicles, rocket-launchers, computers, communications equipment, and generators in the system of caves.

Bin Laden's messages to the Muslim World, which were reported extensively in the Arab press, expressed a growing frustration that the United States and England were not taking the hint: "the bombings of Riyadh and al-Khobar were a clear indication for the crusading forces to correct (their) grave mistake, and for them to depart before it is too late, and before the battle begins in earnest." ((Bodansky; page 199)

On 8-7-98, the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed. The American response, as reported by President Clinton on television on 8-20, was a cruise missle attack on targets in Afghanistan and Tanzania. "Our targot was terror. Our mission was clear: to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated and funded by Usama bin Laden, perhaps the preeminent organizer and financer of international terrorism in the world today."

On 8-23, Secretary of Defense William Cohen told reporters that the US "would not regret" the death of Usama bin Laden in a future US strike.


(9) A Terror Warning

In mid-December, Ausaf, an Islamist paper in Pakistan, reported that an ISI official had leaked that US Assistant Secretery of State Karl Inderfurth had threatened a bombing campaign on Afghanistan "like that on Iraq," unless Afghanistan did not meet a 1-15-99 deadline to extradite Usama bin Laden. The article stated that bin Laden "has become a big challenge for the US. .... and it is trying to get rid of a perpetual threat at any cost." The article claimed the threat to Afghanistan was part of a growing US effort to destroy Islam.

A week later, there was a major summit in Qandahar, which included Taliban leaders, bin Laden, senior ISI officials, and representatives of other Islamist groups. After this meeting, the Taliban began to publicly distance itself from Usama bin Laden.

Bin Laden held a series of interviews with Arab and Pakistani papers, and with Western electronic medias. Ayman al-Zawahiri also participated in these "press conferences." They were held in a tent in the Helmand Valley, which is the center of poppy production. Usama bin Laden repeated several themes: that he was not responsible for all the recent terrorist actions, but he supported them; that WMDs were "admissible in the struggle" against the west, but that he didn't have them; and that after strikes against Iraq in August, it was the "urgent obligation" of Muslims to engage in jihad.

Bodansky notes: "A close look at the Arab text of bin Laden's replies shows deep thought and fine, precise phrasing aimed to influence his Muslim audience. Although bin Laden was also anxious to get his message across to the West, the objective there was to issue a veiled threat, not to convince." (page 367)

And at that point, Usama bin Laden disappeared from the site of American intelligence.


(10) Bush, bin Laden, and 9-11

We know that the United States had planned a bombing campaign against Afghanistan since 1998-99, in order to strike at bin Laden. Reliable sources from Richard Clarke to Bob Woodward have indicated that the Bush administration had plans to invade Iraq from virtually the first days they took office. The combined plan would eliminate the identified leader of the Islamist terrorists, provide an American base outside of the unstable Saudi Arabian site, and provide for increased American investments in the Middle East. And, of course, President Bush had similar unrealistic plans to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In the summer of 2001, we know that the relaxed and vacationing president got a report that predicted that bin Laden was planning to strike within the United States. There has been some public confusion as to why President Bush seemed undisturbed by this information. As this paper makes clear, it was because he was aware of a plan being put in motion to have a bombing campaign in Afghanistan, and to invade Iraq. And that is why he was so unconcerned.

Bin Laden was aware of the plans to bomb Afghanistan and invade Iraq. The supranational Muslims Nation's members in the Pakistani and Saudi Arabian intelligence community had warned him. The attack on the United States was a pre-emptive strike that combined many of the tactics that had been used in earlier attacks.

The tensions between the democrats and republicans at the "9-11 Commission" hearings were not unlike those between the Kennedy and Nixon camps during the 1960 debates. Kennedy, who had been briefed about the Eisenhower Administration's plans to deal with Cuba, made political hay by taking a stronger "anti-Cuba" stance than a furious Nixon, who could not make an open comment. Likewise, there are numerous democratic officials who are aware of the role George W. Bush played in 9-11: he was arrogant, pompous, and he totally underestimated the threat to America. Although top democrats are not openly able to discuss the details, I can say that Michael Moore's movie "F 9-11" is the most credible and accurate description of what happened. His portrayal of George Bush as incompetent to be the president is shared by most democrats in high places.


(11) Conclusions

A- George W. Bush is incompetent to be president.

B- President Bush and his administration were connected to the massive web of deceit which produced 9-11. However, "connected" should not be confused with "complicity."

C- There were already plans to bomb Afghanistan and to invade Iraq. The administration did not need an excuse to do either.

D- The administration would not have attacked it's own economic nucleus (the Twin Towers) or damaged the Pentagon, both of which harmed their interests. The theories that they "gained" by insurance reflect a lack of understanding of basic economics.

E- The administration would not have "gained" by shooting a plane down in rural Pennsylvania. If they had planned to hit the White House, they would not abort the plan.

F- The United States Military stopped what would have been a significantly larger attack on 9-11 by grounding (almost) all planes.

G- Few Americans understand the full implications of this administration's reaction to the 9-11 attack. In fact, few in the congress realized that the administration had virtually suspended the constitutional democracy, and that our nation was being run by the "shadow government." The leader of America for the three months that followed 9-11 lived in a cave; his name is Dick Cheney. This was a response to an outside attack, not part of a grand scheme to justify a war against Afghanistan.

H- Usama bin Laden believed that his strike would do more than prevent the attack on Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. He believed that he was ordained to destroy the Evil Empire. He believed he would destroy the American economy, and damage the military to a degree that would make a US response impossible.

Neither George W. Bush or Usama bin Laden should be underestimated. Nor should they be over-estimated. They are both the sons of wealth, who belong to extremist branches of two major world religions. Both believe that they have been choosen by a divine plan to create a political system that represents God's will on earth. Both are willing to kill thousands of innocent people as part of divine plan. And both underestimated the other. The world pays the price for their divine stupidity.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. If you want to see what Bush & CO. "gained" from 9/11

Think about:

Political Capital (Bush's numbers were in the toilet)
Patriot Act
Raiding the US treasury

[BlueEyedSon]

19. Thanks for replying to my non-financial gains of 9/11

[H2O Man]

48. okay, let's see:

(1) I'm not sure that the polls are showing any significant long-term benefit for the president. But even if 9-11 caused him to be popular with 70% of the voting public right through re-election, it wouldn't be proof that he took part in the crime. It would definitely show that he capitalized on human suffering, though.

(2) The Patriot Act: this is an interesting point, and probably the strongest of the three. Yet, again, it indicates he capitalized on a tragedy, not that he committed the crime. In my opinion -- and this is obviously speculation -- the administration had the ability to pass a patriot act without 9-11. The congress showed in the 2000 election that it was not able to play the role that the US Constitution demands in protecting the public's rights and welfare. I think that our Senate is as pathetic a group as could be found in America. And the House has willingly allowed the White House to steal its mandate to investigate that which is in the national interest.

(3) Money: Yes, they raided the treasury. But, my friend, they had been stealing from the public all along. Read RFK Jr's "Crimes Against Nature." Each of the points you make are addressed, interestingly, in a book on the environment. So it seems that while the administration is guilty of the three charges you mention, these are not dependant upon 9-11.

[BlueEyedSon]

51. Bush got an instant demonstrable bump in approval from 9/11

even if it was temporary.

I wasn't suggesting that the fact there were "gains" to be had by Bush & Co implies LIHOP/MIHOP - just that there were gains, even if as you suggest, they were not (directly) financial.

[H2O Man]

52. okay, sure

You point(s) are well-taken .... but the gain in popularity was insignificant in the world of politics. One of the points that I'm trying to make in my paper is that the rest of the world does not move at the rapid speed the United States does. Few Americans think in terms of a hundred years, yet we are in a struggle with a culture that sees things in terms of over a thousand years.

The public has been trained by the mass media to see most news stories of any consequence as having a very short shelf-life.( And I clearly am not saying this applies to the DU membership.) But the discussion of Iraq tends to stop to discuss the governor of NJ's sex life. The Plame case has not gotten a fraction of the attention that the Kobe case has. The environment has faded as an issue for the cable mediia, because the public needs to be fed the new Scott Peterson tape.

Look at American meal time: far fewer families share two or even one meal a day. Why? Too busy. Often far beyond their control, because both parents are working one or more jobs. The family meal is of far more significance to our cultural cohesiveness than many think. Fast food in front of the tv is very common.

At the same time, not everyone in our culture operates on this same time-table. Many of my posts have dealt with the work of Wolfowitz, and the plans to make the United States the lone super power for the foreseeable future. There are long-term plans, including military-industrial, that are in place, and are not much dependant on who is president. The plan to invade Iraq had taken root by 1992, and though Clinton had not adopted it, was going to happen as soon as the republicans gained control. They did not need 9-11 or any popularity boost.

Again, your points are well-taken, and very valid. If I were going to argue the other side of the coin, I would use the same basic thoughts that you have.

[BlueEyedSon]

57. I am curious to hear your probable scenario(s) for the invasion

of Iraq, in lieu of a "new Pearl Harbor" (i.e. 9/11). Yes I have read the relevant PDF rants on the PNAC site.

I would argue that there is NO WAY that Bush could have gotten his war on within his 4 year term without a NPH.

I will go ruminate on your comment about 100 year time horizons....thx.

[H2O Man]

59. Good question.

First, I would say that you are taking one position in a discussion ... or even a debate ... but not an argument. We're on the same side of the big issues, though we have different views on some details.

I'd note that our country has never needed a reason to invade another country. We invaded Grenada, because a Canadian company that used some Cuban labor was building an airport. That airport was smaller than one close to me, that serves a town of less than 5,000 people. But the country was assured that this airport posed an immediate threat to our country.

I think we invaded Panama without having to blow up buildings in either NYC or Washington, DC.

The administration planned to invade Iraq. It was one of the reasons that the republicans had to put Bush in office, even though he clearly lost the election. I think there is reason to believe that the administration thought an invasion of Iraq would be a swift and easy military campaign, with relatively little resistance. Remember the expectation of the happy crowds greeting us with flowers and warm fuzzy hugs? Mission Accomplished?

My guess -- and this is just a guess -- is that there was an effort afoot to sneak some yellow cake uranium into Iraq. I suspect that there were administration officials who really believed that the uranium had been "delivered" before 9-11 ..... and that they were shocked later when they found they had been double-crossed.

Our MI and CI are good, but they were taken. In the past four years, they've been compromised. Of course, that can be viewed as a great point for your position, too. And I'm sure you'll remind me of that! (grin)

[BlueEyedSon]

61. I was just pitching you a softball, you have obviously thought about

this stuff way more than me.

[Hoping4Change]

2. Very interesting overview but I have two problem with what you

write, first that "Bush seemed undisturbed by this information. As this paper makes clear, it was because he was aware of a plan being put in motion to have a bombing campaign in Afghanistan, and to invade Iraq." and second that that Bob Woodward is a relible source.


With regard to the first point, Clarke at no point said that plans were in the works to bomb Afganistan. His aggravation with the Admin was that they had plans only to deal with Saddam and there was nothing on the table to deal with OBL despite the fact that peole were running around with their hair on fire.


I am actually astounded that you are exhonerating Bush's passivity in the summer of '01 on the basis of some presumed knowledge he had of some supposed plan. If there were some plan that gave Bush such a sense of ease why didn't anyone tell the people like Clarke and Tenet about the plans?

[H2O Man]

3. No, Clarke said that

Bush was planning to attack Iraq; the plan to bomb Afghanistan was made in 1998, as discussed in the article.

I'm guessing that men like Richard Clarke know a great deal that they have not included in their books and public presentations. Matter of fact, they have to have their publications "okayed" because they do know things that aren't public knowledge.

My article does not defend Bush. I think that while the Clinton administration did not do a perfect job, they are far more competent than any of the past three republican administrations at fighting "terrorism." There is not a single thing that the bush administration has done that I believe is positive. But that does not mean that every bad thing that has occured on earth since they took office is their fault. There are other bad people who happen to resemble bush & co who do bad things.

[Hoping4Change]

5. My understanding of Clarke's position is that he did state that

the Clinton admin was active in pursuing OBL and had plans in place to bomb Afganistan but his frustration was that the entire Bush admin discounted the threat AQ posed.

For instance by the time the Bush admin was in office they had CIA confirmation that AQ bombed the Cole, confirnation that was not available to Clinton. Despite the confirmation of AQ's guilt Bush did nothing to avenge the Cole bombing and CLarke testified to that. There was no plan on table to continue the Clintons's admintration's active campaign against AQ. That is the bloody travesty of 911. The Bush admin blew off the warnings about AQ because they were obsessed with Iraq.


As for your statement that "men like Richard Clarke know a great deal that included in their books and public presentations." That completely undercuts your entire argument becuae you are concocting an excuse out of tin air simply to support your erroneous contention that the Bush admin had plans to bomb Afganistan.

[H2O Man]

7. You'd need to read my paper......

...... but thanks for your opinion.

[Hoping4Change]

9. I read your entire paper. This brush off speaks volumes about

your acedemic creditials (er, lack thereof). If you are going to present "a paper" you should be willing to back up your statements. There is nothing in your paper that backs up your assertion that the Bush administration had plans to bomb Afganistration and despite that you concoct an excuse for Bush's inexcusable passivity on 911.

[H2O Man]

11. I'm not giving you a brush off.

If you read the paper, you may have noted that the plan to bomb Afghanistan was formed in 1998. Because it didn't happen at the exact time -- because bin Laden had "disappeared" -- does not mean the plan was discarded. If you are interested in reading more, please read the book by Bodansky, and then we'll talk.

I'd note that I believe there are other possibilities as to why Bush sat like a bump on a log on 9-11. You are convinced that iot could only be because he was a part of the attack. I accord you the right to that belief. I think it reflects a narrow way of thinking.

My paper in no way is an excuse for bush. I merely believe that he is guilty of things that are different than you do in regard to 9-11. Yet if we reviewed every other attribute about him or his administration, we would probably agree on 99%. I view this administration as fascist. But I don't believe they are in control of all events on earth.

*** on edit: I do mean it when I say thanks. I'm not concerned if you feel very differently about 9-11. I think you're wrong, but that's not an attempt to insult you.

[Hoping4Change]

14. I did not state that Bush had prior knowledge of the attack and

have never suscribed to that belief. I take issue that you, like people who believe Bush knew about the attack, are guuilty of filling in the blanks.

It is not for us to imagine why Bush sat mute. Unrelently pressure should be put on Bush to explain his non action. It's not just sitting dazed and frozen, he also has to account why he lingered to take photos.


Frankly I think people who contend that Bush knew are letting him off the hook. They in effect are playing into repuke hands. Instead of demanding a full accounting they insert a conspiracy theory into the blanks. People who have questions about Bush get brushed off as cranks and Bush is let off the hook.

As to Bodanksy. Although I respect him as a terror expert he was not in the Adminstration. CLarke who was in the Administration has testified that plans initated by Clinton in 1998 were not in play when Bush took office. The failure to react to the Cole bombing once the CIA identified the perpetrators, the fact that Clarke was demoted when Bush took office, the blatant disregard of warnings in the summer of '01 all point to the fact that this adminstration was not interested in AQ.

[H2O Man]

17. Two things:

(1) I think it is for us to decide why Bush sat like a bump on a log. I do not think that public pressure would get him to tell the truth. I am convinced that he lacks the moral capacity to tell the public the truth.

(2) Our goal should be to win the November election, and then pressure the correct officials and agencies to prosecute for any crimes committed by this administration's officials.

I think that the major error the public makes is in thinking the administration is "in control" of so many things, including 9-11. They are actually out of control. Iraq is out of control. The economy is out of control. The environmental damage being done by industry is out of control. Is the administration capitalizing on the lack of control? Of course.

[Old and In the Way]

28. I believe that Condi told us on Meet The Press that Bush had an

Executive Order to start a ar with the Taliban. It was awaiting his return from Florida to sign it.

Now, that's a wee bit odd, isn't it? On what grounds, without 9/11, would Bush rally the US to go into Afghanistan? I don't recall any belligerent actions for which such a justification would be acceptable to the American public. And he wasn't exactly, Mr. Popularity on 9/10 either. He was tanking in the polls.

As far as Clarke goes, Afghanistan may have been off-limits to him...I think they wanted that pipeline built and I'm not sure if they were keeping Clarke "out of the loop" on purpose.

But getting troops into the ME was priority 1. Why? They could have gone after UBL with drones and/or cruise missles...but Bush pulled these assets out of the region well before 9/11?

I think the plan was always about Iraq...the truth can be found in the Secret Energy Meetings that Cheney was conducting. I'll bet they were figuring how to get troops into Iraq to secure the oil and divvy up amongst their Big Oil friends.

[Old and In the Way]

4. You lost me on this-

F- The United States Military stopped what would have been a significantly larger attack on 9-11 by grounding (almost) all planes.


Where'd you get the info? Did we ground planes and capture more hijackers?

You haven't really explained how our $400BB/year military lets the Pentagon get hit with a 50+ minute heads up.

[H2O Man]

8. I'll answer your third point:

If we extend your logic, if there is a bank robbery in a city with an expensive police force, there's no need to investigate it. It had to be the mayor. There's no other explanation!

[Minstrel Boy]

13. To extend your bank robbery metaphor:

The standing order for preventing a bank robbery was changed just three months before the heist, so officers could no longer direct the getaway car to pull over without the authority of the chief of police.

At the very moment of the robbery, authorities were conducting confusing, multiple simulations of bank robberies which drew police away from the actual scene of the crime, significantly impeding emergency response.

When police finally did respond, they were sent from a distant station, while police next to the bank were told to remain at their desks.

The criminal mastermind formerly worked on contract for the city, and his brothers are business associates of the mayor and his family.

The brother of the city's mayor owned the company which provided electronic security for the bank which was robbed.

Many nearby communities provided urgent, specific warnings to the city's authorities that the robbery was about to happen.

Numerous whistleblowers within the police and city government claim their investigations into an impending robbery were perversely thwarted.

A police informant working undercover tapes an official of another city's force saying "See that bank? It's getting robbed." When he takes his warning to his own force, they seem decidedly uninterested in his information.

The chief of that other city's force was meeting with the mayor's senior staff at the time of the robbery, and is later discovered to have provided funding to the thieves.

Prominent supporters of the mayor were known to have mused that a big heist might be needed to accelerate the changes to the city they desired to see.

The mayor initially balks at an investigation of the robbery, then underfunds it and stonewalls it, and refuses to appear before it on his own.

Shall I continue?

[H2O Man]

15. Sure. Please do.

Why aren't people like Michael Moore reporting all this information you have? Why do people like Wes Clark think Usama bin Laden did it, if there's such proof? Probably part of the big conspiracy, eh?

[H2O Man]

16. Kristen Breitweiser is on C-SPAN2

I'm sure you know who she is. Most people that watch her seem to be favorably impressed. She uses logic and reason to support her belief that "politics and policy" kept the US intelligence agencies from doing their job properly. She's investigated the 9-11 attacks very closely. But what she's saying isn't even close to what your saying. Bet she was part of the plot.

[stickdog]

30. Kristen Breitweiser suspects LIHOP.

She just knows that she needs to keep her questions pointed and curb her speculative accusations.

Basically, we have a 9/11 Commission that DIDN'T answer ANY of the biggest questions we have concerning the events of 9/11. And we have an administration that was 100% against ANY investigation at all.

So why the cover up if there was no crime? Would any other nation allow 3,000 of its citizens to get murdered without demanding a full, impartial and immediate investigation? Would any other nation accept an investigation that fails to assign a shred of accountability or responsibility to a single individual?

Has ANYBODY ever been fired or even demoted due to the incredible failures on 9/11? If so, who? If not, why not?

[Old and In the Way]

35. None, fired or demoted...but some promoted.

Richard Meyers....he was in command of the Pentagon that day, but was AWOL in Max Cleland's office during the attack.

Don Frasca at FBI stuffed critical information on the terrorists from a number of field offices...he got promoted and a raise.

Of course, Geore Tenet...no promotion, but no firing either. He was wrong on Iraq, too....but this administration kept him. I've wondered why Bush never fired Tenet after 9/11. He was a Clinton appointee and it would have been an easy way to transfer blame to that administration. That didn't happen...Why?

Bush's opposition to the 9/11 commission is the thing that really bugs me. What an opportunity to be a President! If anyone else was President, they'd be screaming holy hell for an investigation to figure out what the hell happened and where it went wrong...were there moles in our government? Were there traitors working for the enemy? Who was the enemy? They fought, underfunded, and stonewalled the creation of the commission. Bush picks people who were already compromised. And Bush wouldn't appear publically, under oath.

Something really stinks here.

[H2O Man]

39. I've never endorsed the 9-11 Commission.

I think it was appointed to overlook the truth. On other threads concerning the Plame case, I've noted that our constitutional democracy calls for the House of Representatives to handle investigations of national significance. I think the 9-11 Commission, like the Warren Commission, represent the efforts of presidents trying to avoid the congressional investigation that might uncover the truth.

Please do not misunderstand me, or my reason for posting: I believe the bush administration represents the American flower of fascism. I'm not okay with anything they do. However, I believe there are other forces on earth that hate what bush represents, and threaten our safety as a result. My article speaks of history, and empires tend to have a history of being attacked by tribal peoples. If I am correct, we have even more reason to elect Kerry and other democrats in November, and prosecute those from this administration for their actual crimes.

[Old and In the Way]

41. Sadly, a Republican Congress rolled over and failed us in

seeking truth and justice for the 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11/01. These same cowards had no problems spending $70MM to investigate a busted land deal, filegate, travelgate, and consensual sex of our last popularly elected President...but somehow lost their appetite to understand what really happened on 9/11/01. They are the true cowards in this sad chapter of American history.

[H2O Man]

42. I think that this is one ofthe most

powerful images in Moore's movie "F 9-11" when we see the black representatives begging the senate for just one person to have the decency to allow them to do their duty. I think there are a few decent Representatives, and a couple okay Senators. But we need to begin to elect a different type of person ......

[Old and In the Way]

43. Absolutely.

Perhaps, one of the silver linings in the Bush selection is the new energy of the Democratic Party. Hopefully, we are witnessing a new generation of Democrats who are re-energized by the overt fascism and criminal behaviour of this administration and who are willing to get involved and take back this country. Perhaps we'll even see a new progressive/liberal agenda that will be every inch as radical as the Right's tact has been...only predisposed towards the benefit of all Americans, not just a narrow, wealthy few.

[H2O Man]

44. I think in November

we'll fire the most incompetent of those, Mr. Bush.

My opinion is that Ms. Breitweiser is one of the most articulate voices in our country, and is able to say exactly what is on her mind. And she says that "politics and policy" kept the government agencies from doing their jobs. She spoke today about the threat of the Islamists, as well as other global enemies of the United States. I'll take her word for what she really thinks.

[stickdog]

47. Or you could just write her like I did.

And then you'd find out that she suspects LIHOP. Yes, she's intelligently and sanely agnostic about it. But she doesn't rule it out. Nor should anyone else, IMHO, unless they have some sort of evidence that I've never been privvy to.

Inside jobs are always easier. The PNACers had (at least nearly) as good and as public a motive as Bin Laden -- plus better means and opportunity.

Just think about the official story of Flight 93, for example.

The hijackers knew they were delayed for 45 minutes at the gate. So:

1) Why did they wait until going past Cleveland to turn the plane around?

2) Why did they let passengers make cell phone and airphone calls, knowing they'd find out the hijacking was a suicide mission?

3) Even if there was some bizarre reason for the hijackers to delay the way they took control of the plane, why fly right past Pittsburgh -- where there were plenty of large targets -- more than an hour after you were scheduled to hit DC or wherever? I mean, how did these hijackers KNOW that NORAD would stand down? Wouldn't they assume that they'd only have a 30-45 minute window after the first plane hit in which to strike? I mean, the passengers all know what's going on with the other three planes, but the hijackers -- who are ostensibly in control -- don't?

The only way it adds up is if the flight paths were somehow preprogrammed in the planes' autopilot computers. Then it all makes sense -- the USAF/NORAD stand down for as long as possible, everybody staring at their navels between 9:05 and 9:45, the FAA's supposedly insanely negligent nonresponse -- all because of the all-too-common inefficiency of our airports fouling up the best laid plans.

Note that both Bush and Myers are first class boobs, so I highly doubt that either was "in on it." Also note that the natural response of any American invested in and making a good living off of "the system" is to protect the system -- especially in times of crisis. Finally, note that if someone in our executive/mil/intel branch was trying to cover up guilt, what could be more "perfect" cover than Bush reading to little kids and the "hijackers" targeting the Pentagon?

Remember the Maine.

Remember the Lusitania.

Remember Pearl Harbor.

Remember the Gulf of Tonkin.

Remember Operation Northwoods.

Once again, nothing is proven by this line of speculation. AFAIAC, I'd much rather believe Bin Laden did it, and I'm still hoping to be convinced of this someday. But right now I remain uneasily agnostic about the issue of US insider (or even Saudi, Pakistani or Israeli intel) complicity. And just as with the issue of God's existence, I can't help but feel that open minded agnosticism is the most rational way to approach any subject concerning which so many questions are unanswered and so many of the presented "answers" merely raise new questions.

[H2O Man]

49. An open mind is a good thing.

Any time two people think just alike, it means only one is thinking. I do not mean to imply that there is no reason to suspect some influences in America. But I do think it is silly to try to "solve" 9-11 without considering bin Laden. I think that it does the conversation well to look at the Islamist context.

[Old and In the Way]

63. 93's long delay was quite an odd detail, no?

Had it gone off as scheduled, all of the planes would have had take-off times that were very tight. And I have to wonder about what 77 was doing-

<>

That jag in the flight route looks mighty strange, almost as if there was a delaying tactic being employed. Was it waiting for 93 to take off? Again, does this look like a flying route that terrorists would take? The pilot doesn't seem too worried about the element of surprise. Another thing -> the broken line represents when the terrorist turned the transponder off...but it was obviously still on when it did that jag. Was the AA pilots still in control? Wouldn't ATC being jumping all over this anomoly in 77's flight plan??? Combined that with Hans Hanjour's inability to fly a Cessna, but was able to make a 270 degree 7,000 foot turn, dropping the plane almost perfectly into the one section of the Pentagon that could handle the crash, it's stretch's the limit's of credulity. I've set my MS Flight Simulator up to try this attack scenario. 15/20 of the time I stress the airframe in mid-air, 4/20 times I miss the Pentagon, 1/20 I manage to get it close to the building. Hans was one lucky pilot.

If 93 goes off on time, I believe all planes complete their missions by 9:30. Hmmmmm.

[Minstrel Boy]

18. Why do people think differently than I do?

Is that what you're asking? Why would you?

Not everyone has had a Paranoid Shift. That's not my fault. Believe me, I try.

[H2O Man]

21. I see.

I think that it is reasonable for people to suspect this administration is guilty of committing any crime. I believe they are as capable of killing innocent people for financial gain as any devils in human history. My goal is not to remove an ounce of guilt that their actions' demand.

However, after looking into it for years, I do not think the administration participated in 9-11 in an active sense. And, while there is certainly some evidence that can -- and does -- give us reason to pause and reconsider that possibility ..... I just don't think the evidence supports it.

Certainly I am a minority on DU, though I think others likely believe much as I do, or somewhere between your opinion and mine. My goal in posting this is not to be popular or have people compliment me or agree. I am no more concerned if someone says I a total ass, or a genius. I would like to believe that I might make a few intelligent people stop and think. And perhaps discuss and even debate this issue.

[stickdog]

26. It's called a "limited hangout." I'm sure you've heard of it.

And you don't have to be "in on it" to realize that:

1) there's enough dirt there to get the full effect you want, and

2) speculating further without hard evidence -- no matter how logical your speculations -- will get you branded as a tinfoil covered nutcase.

[coeur_de_lion]

20. H2O and Minstrel Boy --

I have to say I can find merit in both arguments. I have followed H2O's logic on many other subjects and have a great deal of respect for his opinion. Personally I have always believed as H2O does -- that * & Co. were incompetent in their response to 9/11, and then they capitalized on the fear it created. But they did not in fact organize the attack.

However, good friends of mine, whose opinion I also respect, believe as you do, Minstrel Boy. That there is too much evidence that the mayor robbed the bank. In the spring of 2001 Ashcroft stopped flying commercial airlines, the military seemed to "stand down" and not react. They were conducting military exercises at MacDill on 9/11, just a short drive from where the President was reading "My Pet Goat." Those exercises were purportedly simulations of an attack like the one on the WTC.

I don't really know what to believe. Can someone explain why all of those things happened? When my friend first told me about this theory I scoffed. Now I don't know.

We don't know if the * administration orchestrated the 9/11 attacks -- yet there is compelling theory that says he did. I guess the important thing for us is this. This man is so corrupt, so vile, so dishonest, that we actually know he would be capable of something like this. It's like I once told my sister when she suspected her husband was cheating. "It is almost irrelevant whether he is actually cheating -- the important thing is, you trust him so little that you suspect him of it. That is the issue that you need to examine." They are divorced now! And he *was* cheating.

[H2O Man]

22. Well, look at that!

You're always causing trouble!

[coeur_de_lion]

23. trouble is my middle name n/t

[Old and In the Way]

25. What if there was a middle ground?

Maybe they thought they knew what was going to happen, but the "players got played"? Seems that there was a plan to go into Afghanistan, the Executive Orders were on Bush's desk awaiting his signature. It's also apparent that the intel from CIA/FBI and our allies was being stuffed at a level where this administration had plausible deniability. I recall, shortly after 9/11, a post was made here that referenced to a CNN story of CIA assets inside Al Qaeda. That story has disappeared. Remember, Poppy was once head of CIA and, coincidentally, spent the evening of 9/10 at the WH with Dick Cheney.

What if this administration was getting their own privately sourced intel on the AQ plan for 9/11? That they thought it would be a hi-jacking, perhaps? It would have been a made for TV event and, with luck, a minimal loss of life would occur. It would still provide a justification for moving into Afghanistan and positioning of the troops for the eventual Iran invasion, too (see Cheney secret energy meetings for that warplan).

What if they thought they knew the plan, but were fed bogus intel? The part about flying into buildings? Condi said they never expected planes to fly into buildings...nobody asked her if they expected a hi-jacking. That would also explain Dimson's completely bizarre behaviour in the classroom...and the need to be out of the public eye while a new cover story was developed.

[H2O Man]

29. Could be .....

I think that bush looked like a guy who was scared shitless, and knew he was in over his head.

It's an interesting study in human behavior, though, when people are determined that it had to be the administration, no matter what. The possibility of another bogey man from a cave in Afghanistan simply can't be processed ..... because it just has to be the big and all-powerful substitute parent who has total control. The world is safer then, just like for a kid. And that is what a significant part of this debate is about.

[stickdog]

32. You've proven to me that Bin Laden had motive.

But why were Goss & Graham both meeting with the ISI chief who supposedly supplied the means?

And how in the hell did NORAD and the entire US air defense give these bozos with box cutters a 100 minute window of opportunity?

[H2O Man]

These are serious issues.....

and I certainly do not have all the answers. I think that because of the immoral and criminal nature of the bush administration, that there will be more examples of ugly connections between them and other participants in the tangled web of deceit. Yet connections alone are not complicity.

[stickdog]

45. Yes. Which is why I always say "either they knew it or they blew it."

Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers, the FBI, the CIA and the NSA have admitted such an egregious level of incompetence that it naturally makes one wonder what they're trying to cover up above and beyond that:

1) even more horrendously embarrassing and inexcusable levels of incompetence,

2) the fact that they got played by folks they assumed were more benign/less capable than these (quite possibly unwitting) accomplices turned to be,

or

3) some level of pure complicity in the mass murder fellow Americans, either LIHOP or MIHOP.

[H2O Man]

50. I think it's a combination

of #1 and #2. While our MI and CI might be better than anyone else's, it might be that some of our beast fiend's from the middle east decided it was time to teach the big guy a lesson. Certainly, the folks we trusted betrayed America. It would have been impossible for bin Laden to pull off 9-11 without Pakistani and Saudi assistance.

[Old and In the Way]

38. Goss, nominated for CIA director.............

The airports where the terrorists trained in Florida were in his district. Now if CIA was aware of them learning to fly there, I'd have thought Goss would be a bit concerned, seeing that this was happening in his backyard.

Re: NORAD...didn't some AF generals tell the 9/11 commission that the radar was pointed the wrong way? Is that like the dog eating your homework?

[coeur_de_lion]

36. You know what? I like that theory.

I always like a good compromise. I think it is very possible that you are right. I haven't followed the threads closely, but I know there are several schools of thought on DU, two of which go like this:

LIHOP -- Let It Happen On Purpose
MIHOP -- Made It Happen On Purpose

Your theory fits in with the LIHOP school of thought, with a twist. They let it happen, not knowing it would be as bad as it was. The screwers got screwed.

Yes, I believe I will adopt that one.

[stickdog]

46. Great post.

Tell me if any of these facts are even in dispute.

The standing order for preventing a bank robbery was changed just three months before the heist, so officers could no longer direct the getaway car to pull over without the authority of the chief of police.

Rumsfeld, who was mysteriously AWOL on the morning of 9/11, changed the rule for using fighters to intercept possible hijacks from SOP to requiring his OK. This is a new one for me, so I'm not sure how well documented this analysis is.

At the very moment of the robbery, authorities were conducting confusing, multiple simulations of bank robberies which drew police away from the actual scene of the crime, significantly impeding emergency response.

As reported by one of the authors of the limited hangout, Richard Clarke.

When police finally did respond, they were sent from a distant station, while police next to the bank were told to remain at their desks.

As reported by NORAD.

The criminal mastermind formerly worked on contract for the city, and his brothers are business associates of the mayor and his family.

The Bush/Bin Laden connection is not in dispute.

The brother of the city's mayor owned the company which provided electronic security for the bank which was robbed.

Not to mention the security for Dulles Airport, IIRC. Marvin Bush, IIRC. This is not in dispute either. And didn't some Israeli firm that supposedly vacated its WTC office before the strike on 9/11 have a security contract for Logan?

Many nearby communities provided urgent, specific warnings to the city's authorities that the robbery was about to happen.

An extremely well documented fact.

Numerous whistleblowers within the police and city government claim their investigations into an impending robbery were perversely thwarted.

Another extremely well documented fact. And the thwarters were often promoted while NOT ONE was penalized in any way.

A police informant working undercover tapes an official of another city's force saying "See that bank? It's getting robbed." When he takes his warning to his own force, they seem decidedly uninterested in his information.

Not in dispute as far as I know.

The chief of that other city's force was meeting with the mayor's senior staff at the time of the robbery, and is later discovered to have provided funding to the thieves.

Again, Goss and Graham (among others) were in fact meeting with Atta's bagman on 9/11. This is not in dispute as far as I know.

Prominent supporters of the mayor were known to have mused that a big heist might be needed to accelerate the changes to the city they desired to see.

PNAC is not in dispute. Wolfy's "new Pearl Harbor" quote is not in dispute.

The mayor initially balks at an investigation of the robbery, then underfunds it and stonewalls it, and refuses to appear before it on his own.

This is an understatement of what Bush and Cheney did to 9/11 families. Not in dispute.

So unless I'm mistaken, none of these analogies are in dispute. Nor are any particularly strained. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Of course, this stuff doesn't prove complicity, but it does make for a better circumstantial case than, say, Scott Peterson. And about 1000% better than Jose Padilla.

[Minstrel Boy]

56. Thanks for your annotations, stickdog.

Is simple arithmatic still taught in American schools? Do people know how to add it up?

But really, it's a paradigm issue. One either accepts that the system has been gravely criminalized, or one doesn't. If one doesn't, then the case for complicity is nonsense, and the facts supporting it rendered invisible.

[merh]

6. Thank you for sharing this perspective...

There has been a great deal of work put into this paper and I know you have read an awful lot on this subject so I find this paper very informative. I do appreciate the different perspective you have given to the subject. I must ask after reading your paper, do you think * is an intelligent member of the admin or simply a puppet? I can't tell, one minute I think he is an idiot and the next minute I believe he is the most evil, manipulative creature on the face of this earth. I would appreciate your opinion, knowing your background and how well read you are.

If it is not too bold of me, I would suggest that you add one thing to what you have written:

"11C- There were already plans to bomb Afghanistan and to invade Iraq. The administration did not need an excuse to do either<.> ', the administration simply capitalized on the tragedy of 9/11 to further their premeditated efforts to wage war.'

[H2O Man]

10. Okay....

I agree that the administration capitalized on the tragedy.

I do not think that Bush is "stupid." In the 2000 campaign, because the democrats lowered expectations, he was able to score points in the debates by doing only slightly poor in answering rehearsed questions.I think he is uninterested in many things that a president should be interested in, and on top of.

I think that he is vicious. I think he is cruel. I think he is a criminal. Those are the nicest things I can say about him.

Human beings are not as fully in control of events as they like to think. The need to believe that bush et al control the entire world is immature. Very few people exert control over historic trends, and even they do only for very brief moments.

[merh]

12. Part of me believes that * is just a pawn, sometimes he looks

so lost, even when he is "in control". Other times I see him as a very mean, evil man that is very calculated in his "ineptness", as if being pathetic garners him the sympathy support of his base.

I bet after Hurricane Charley * & his brother wish they controlled the entire world. JB's handling of Charley is going to be an issue they cannot run from. (imho)

[stickdog]

24. 1) Who made money off of the 9/11 put options?

2) Who is afraid of Sibel Edmonds' testimony and why?

3) Why couldn't NORAD, the USAF or even the damn Navy get a single fighter jet in the air to intercept a single hijack -- not even Flight 93 which crashed about an hour after the SECOND plane hit the WTC -- that morning? You do realize that on any given weekday morning you would expect to have literally dozens of fighter pilots already in the doing exercises off the coast? And what about all the "Vigilant" exercises that Clark describes were going on that day? Just another coincidence?

4) Why did Rumsfeld, General Myers and Bush all do nothing more than kill time between 9:05 EDT and 9:45 EDT that morning?

I have more, but those are the first four that come to mind.

[H2O Man]

34. Those are good qwuestions.

Again, I do not claim that I have the answers to every question. I wrote the paper after some others said they could "solve" 9-11 without considering Usama bin Laden's possible role.

The Sibel Edmonds question is certainly very important. I would like to know the answers to that set of questions. However, in and of itself, it strikes me as likely her testimony would show inadequate efforts on the part of different agencies, as well as the administration.

It is also likely that her information would unveal more connections between those agencies, the administration, and the tangled web of criminal interests I discussed. While these connections would likely expose those agencies and the administration as criminal in other areas, I'm doubting that she has anything that would show they have complicity in 9-11. Just my opinion.

[bpilgrim]

27. SOP

was CHANGED by this criminal cabal.

RADAR

their behavior reveals a great deal that day... they - even the ss - didn't react at all that horrid day when they knew what was going on + all the WARNINGS all summer loooong, isn't that bizarre?

wtc7 fell in it's own foot print even though it WASN'T hit by any airplanes.

no proper investigation was ever conducted into the crime scene.

no one has explained how those towers fell that day that stands up to science.


SQUASHING of Intel from the top frustrating MANY in the fbi and cia.

bandar bush

it fits our nations MO for going to war when the population doesn't want or see a need to.

it's happened before in history.

PNAC

TRIFECTA

and so on...

just color me skeptical. but there are many reasons to suspect this cabal and i still haven't read anything that ties up these loose ends.

peace

[H2O Man]

31. There will always be loose ends.

I certainly respect that other people can have well thought out opinions that differ than mine. Yet there are clearly people who would be very disappointed if Usama bin Laden did it, and bush had nothing to do with it.

Again, there are always loose ends, and often pieces of evidence that simply don't fit. Further, people do not control all events; events are often out-of-control ..... as bush is finding in Iraq today.

I respect those who consider all evidence, and come to a different decision. I wrote the paper in response to people saying they could "solve" 9-11 without considering if Usama bin Laden played ANY role.

[bpilgrim]

33. true

i am closer to lihop than mihop but i am certainly not convinced one way or the other about any theory regarding 911 cept that it is deadly serious and MUST be examined.

btw: thanks for your excellent post :toast:

peace

[Old and In the Way]

40. You miht want to check out www.cooperativeresearch.org

This has, without a doubt, the best researched and documented timeline on all things connected with 9/11. In particular, you might find "Escape From Afghanistan" quite an interesting read. We had Al Qaeda holed up in Tora Bora, but mysteriously, we allowed a safe passage out for a number of Pakistani fighters and AQ regulars. Supposedly, UBL escaped via helicopter into neighboring Pakistan. Why did Bush tells us, almost 6 months to the day of 9/11, that it didn't matter if we caught UBL or not....and whatever happened to Bush's vow to drain the financial swamps that supported international terror?

Too many unanswered questions to make any conclusions on what really happened 9/11/01.

[gandalf]

54. As well as the hypothesis of Chaim Kupferberg

Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11, Chaim Kupferberg

A very compelling and interesting read.

His hypothesis is that Bin Laden and his guys were set up in the course of a propaganda (marketing) strategy in the years preceding 9/11. In order to convincingly carry out a covert operation, you need some guys that can be used as the perpretators, the faces behind the operation, to convince the media and the public.

[H2O Man]

58. Interesting.

Thank you. Yours is exactly the type of response I had hoped for ... like several of the others on here, it is a thoughtful position that focuses on what forces were behind the scenes. I would rather have one well-thought post that disagrees with me, than a thousand shallow posts agreeing.

Yet the idea that bin Laden was used by more intelligent forces, while worth considering, implies that he was not smart enough or capable enough of attacking the empire on his own. That school of thought reflects a little cultural elitism. Throughout history, the empires are always attacked by the tribal fringes .... and while 98% of those attacks are thwarted, some always get through. Always. Because the tribal folks are just as smart and just as capable of using their resources to their full advantage.

If we flipped the theory, and said that the other side manipulated and used the over-confidence of the American forces, I suspect it would be more accurate.

Again, I thank you for your post. I recognize your contribution as just as valuable and though-out as my own. This is what a serious discussion should be.

[gandalf]

60. Bin Laden

Thank you for your kind response.

Even though extremely long, the article of Kupferberg is well worth reading, in my opinion. But, and he states that clearly, he is only presenting a hypothesis. This hypothesis is able to explain a lot of observed coincidences.

You wrote "the idea that bin Laden was used by more intelligent forces, while worth considering, implies that he was not smart enough or capable enough of attacking the empire on his own". That is not the only possible implication. Perhaps Bin Laden had really no intention to attack the US on such a scale as was done on 9/11. How can we know for sure that the threats he is supposed to have made were really made?

But the idea that he was not capable to carry out a 9/11-style attack is plausible as well. For being successful an awfully huge amount of coincidences were necessary, many of which are presented in Paul Thompson's timeline on www.complete911timeline.org (on the above-mentioned site www.cooperativeresearch).

[H2O Man]

62. He made threats to Islamist medias....

I think one of the weakest parts of the "bush was involved" school of thought -- and I'm not applying this to you -- is the extended "how do we know bin Laden really said ..." or "how do we know that's really bin Laden?"

Bin Laden held an extensive series of "press conferences" which are discussed in my paper. They were primarily with the Arab press that was sympathetic to his views. There were also European electronic media, which was present on the same day, in the same tent. Both the sympathetic Arab press and the unsympathetic European media reported Usama bin Laden saying the exact same thing. We can be just as sure that he said that he was declaring a holy war on the Crusadors as we can be sure that Bush has held press conferences to discuss a war on terrorism.

Some on the Plame threads proposed that there were "different bin Ladens" in different press releases. This is as silly as saying that Paul McCartney was killed in an auto accident in 1967, and replaced with a studio musician. If I were to say that I believed that bush has been replaced with a "double," or perhaps a talking blow-up doll, it really would be equally valid as saying that there are "fake" bin Ladens roaming the air waves.

Would our government distort, twist, misrepresent and lie about bin Laden's public statements? Yep. But when the western media and the Islamist media agree that he has declared war on the USA, I think we can conclude that is true.

Certainly, the fact that he declared war on the USA doesn't prove he did 9-11. But it makes him a suspect. Then, when it fits his m.o. to have followers hi-jack planes and blow up towers, it is an indicator that 9-11 was an outgrowth of his earlier tactics.

A person who declares war on the USA, and has a history of having planes hi-jacked, and who targets towers ..... deserves to be considered a suspect.

[gandalf]

68. You discussed one of my points

You are right that if he held his press conferences with different media outlets when he issued his threats, it is safe to assume that the threat was really issued by OBL. Regarding many of the dubious video tapes that came after 9/11, I am less convinced. But you are right that he can be regarded as a suspect.

But it is not sure, as far as I know, that he was indeed responsible for the USS Cole bombing or the first WTC attack. And we are neither sure if he was capable nor if he was planning a 9/11-like attack.

[H2O Man]

71. Yet the tapes and interviews

of him declaring holy war against the USA were made before 9-11, and both his supporters and enemies agree it was indeed him. One could say they don't believe it has been proven that George W. Bush is really himself .... yet that level of suspicion is a symptom of distorted thinking, not of Bush being someone else. It is the same with bin Laden. There is no reason that I am aware of to doubt that the tapes of bin Laden since 9-11 are not him, also. I think that is perhaps the weakest part of the "conspiracy" theory .... everything becomes part of the plot. Again, distorted thinking occures in groups as well as individuals. I have a paper I may put on basedon some of Eric Fromm's works about nations that suffer from distorted thinking.

There would be no reason to think that bin Laden is any less capable of planning and carrying out 9-11, except for a strange sense of nationalism ..... again, to think that he is less capable than say Dick Cheney is a weak point.

There have been several interesting and strong points on the conspiracy side. The fake and/or incompetent bin Laden ideas are not among them.

[DU GrovelBot]

37. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[H2O Man]

53. Good idea .....

My check will go out in the mail today. I figure if I contribute enough, you folks will have to listen to more of my nonsense. (grin)

[leesa]

55. Well, this is a real waste of space.

So you've swallowed the years of government propaganda against Muslims and OBL. So what? I wasted ten minutes reading this and no proofs of anything were presented. And your conclusion that Bush didn't care because they were drafting a war????? That's an excuse for inaction when your country is being attacked and you are in charge.

Utter crap.

[Beam Me Up]

64. The people behind 9/11 are not stupid. Arrogant, but not stupid.

H20man,

I am a grateful fan of your research and very well considered thought, especially as it has been presented on the Plame threads. I appreciate the long article that you've written and find it informative in relation to Mr. Bin Laden. Certainly if there were no Usamma Bin Laden someone on in Inteligence circles would have to invent one.

My question to you is, at what point does the theory (and it is a "conspiracy theory") that Usamma Bin Laden attacked the United States on 9/11 completely fall apart? We've been told repeatedly that this is the truth and yet a) little evidence has been made public to support this assertion and b) MUCH evidence is available that contradicts it. For example, if you look carefully at any of the pictorial evidence, the question of what hit the Pentagon on 9/11 is a very open one. It is very simple, either Flight 77, a Boeing 757, hit the Pentagon or it did not. If it did, then the "official story" is supported but if it did not, then clearly the "official story" is not even remotely credible. All one has to do is look at the high resolution images of the damage to the Pentagon taken by the DoD immediately following the event to conclude that although clearly something did strike the Pentagon there is little evidence that it was a 757. In fact, I want to say there is NO evidence it was a 757. The facade of the building is still in tact. The roof line, though stressed, is still straight. There is a penetration hole about 16' high and some lateral damage to the left and right of it spanning about 65'. And yet there is NO PLANE DEBRIS. None. Zero. Nada. We've been told that the intense heat of the impact 'vaporized' the plane on impact. On its face this claim is simply not credible but made even more so as it is evident that after the collapse of the first ring section, we can clearly see items such as books and computer monitors that were not even significantly damaged, much less "vaporized," in the immediate area of the impact.

I do not know what hit the Pentagon but I am as certain as I can be that whatever it was, it was not a 757. I highly recommend you look at this pictorial evidence youself. If a 757 did not hit the Pentagon, then whether Usamma Bin Laden was the "master mind" behind 9/11 becomes a truly MUTE POINT. We are in the arena of very deep National Security secrets here. Whatever threat Osamma may be -- and I am not saying he is not a threat -- we have to be willing to contemplate that what is really going on is far more convoluted than anything we would ever WANT to imagine.

[Old and In the Way]

65. How about that 12 foot exit hole in the 3rd ring?

Looks pretty well formed....was it an engine or the fusilage? Whatever it was, what happened to the mass? Should there be something roughly 12' in diameter filling that hole? I see a wheel, which is interesting as it apparently survives with the rubber intact, but I don't see any of anything else that explains the whole.

Seems to me that there must be pictures of evidence that conclusively shows parts of a 757 that would put this question to rest....but I haven't seen any.

[H2O Man]

66. If the pentagon was "hit"

with anything other than the plane, it would clearly be proof that 9-11 didn't happen as I believe. The problem is that a plane full of people went somewhere, right? If that plane didn't hit the pentagon, I'm curious where it went?

The damage to the building is an interesting point, and I am not trying to dismiss it ..... but from what I saw, I think that it seems pretty likely that a plane crashed into it. I am not claiming to have any background in reconstructing this type of accident scene .... it certainly is far different than the "magic bullet" theory that the JFK "Warren Commission" is based entirely upon, and which anyone who has shot a 200lb mammal knows is nonsense. And I'm a little suspect in anyone who would claim to be able to reconstruct the damage to the pentagon ....but I'm open to considering anything.

It also leaves the plane in PA. I do remember the morning of 9-11, I sat and flipped through from CNN to MSNBC to Fox ..... and I believe it was MSNBC (I'm not going to drive to an office to watch the tapes) and a reporter was on the White House lawn, amid panic, and asked a White House official about the 4th plane .... the official said it was 14 minutes away ..... and the reporter asked what was going to happen, and the official said "we have to shoot it down." Now that could have been CNN, I am not positive.... but it was never re-played. Like the initial films of the horror of people falling out the windows. But I remember that clearly. And it never made sense to me that if the US officials planned this, they would shoot down the plane.

I also think that the idea that the bush folks were controlling this has a big weakness in having to include far too many people. The airlines, the military, the Islamists, etc. Any "conspiracy" that takes that many people is not likely to remain secret.

[Old and In the Way]

67. I am more than happy to accept 77 hit the Pentagon.

I just would like to see conclusive pictorial evidence that could remove any doubt. I've seen lots of debris pulled out of the building, some sheet metal parts, a compressor fan, and a wheel...none of which jump out at me as conclusive proof. Surely, the Pentagon has the evidence, so why hasn't it been released to the public?

[gandalf]

69. Can conspiracies remain secret?

I asked this question some time ago here on GD.

I think they can work. It doesn't matter if someone talks, he can dismissed as an dissatified, angry, fired employee, as a conspiracy theorist. Look at Bilderberg. Regular meeting of very influential people, they admit that their circle is influential, even though it is not legitimate in a democratic sense. Yet it is still a secret, a thing for "conspiracy theorists", even if it involves a lot of people, even a lot of journalists.

[H2O Man]

72. One difference is

that you are talking about a group of people getting together, and keeping their meetings secret. The masons do that. It is not a conspiracy. It's a meeting.

[yodermon]

77. Take another look, H2O Man.

You must decide for yourself, with your own two eyes, if the following evidence supports the theory of a 757 hitting the Pentagon.
As Doyle said, When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

I apologize for the dimensions of these images, but the detail is quite necessary.

Note the intact windows immediately adjacent to the hole the "Boeing" made.




and a 3D composite image made from other photographs:



and the surveillance camera footage:

[Beam Me Up]

78. "it would clearly prove that 9/11 didn't happen as I believe."

The problem is that a plane full of people went somewhere, right? If that plane didn't hit the pentagon, I'm curious where it went?

I have no idea what happened to Flight 77 and the people who were on it. However, there is scant visible evidence that whatever happened to them happened at the Pentagon.

And I'm a little suspect in anyone who would claim to be able to reconstruct the damage to the pentagon ....but I'm open to considering anything.

Well, I do not want to become "suspect" to you. I will not pretend to be someone I'm not and I'll confess up-front that I know NOTHING about inspecting crime scenes of any sort, much less this. To me, in this instance, though, all that is needed is common sense and a willingness to think the problem through for one's self. That's really all I have going for me. I've looked at the photographic evidence and while it is obvious that some kind of small, winged object hit the Pentagon -- most likely a winged drone missile -- there is no evidence of a Boeing 757. This is not merely the "magic bullet" theory you alluded to; this is far more perverse: a "magic Boeing" theory.

The high resolution photographs I'm speaking of were on one of the DoD web sites after 9/11. They were taken by military personnel immediately on the scene after the event. I was very surprised to find them and when I looked at them closely I was utterly astounded. NO PLANE. NO PLANE DEBRIS. Yes, something hit the Pentagon, exploded and caused a lot of damage at ground level. But the 'imprint' of this something does not match the dimensions of a Boeing 757. It was something winged but smaller like a drone missile. Some witnesses at the Pentagon described seeing precisely that; but any reporting of them soon gave way to all those who saw what they were told was Flight 77. A drone would also explain the bizarre and extreme aerodynamics many witnesses have mentioned. A missile like this is designed to "disappear" on impact; it shatters into millions of small pieces leaving only the warhead in tact. If this "war head" is a bunker buster, then it has the capacity to penetrate many feet of concrete, even reinforced concrete. Totaled all together, there were NINE FEET OF SOLID REINFORCED CONCRETE between the 16' foot diameter impact hole at the outer edge of the Pentagon and the well defined 12' exit hole in ring C.

Boeing 757's, by contrast, are not made to penetrate reinforced concrete. Its sort of like the difference between throwing a dart and a tomato at a dart board. One of them will penetrate it, one of them will not. The nose of a Boeing 757 is probably not much stronger than the hood of your car (some, but not a lot). It is there to protect sensitive guidance equipment, not to penetrate anything. It isn't like our dart. Certainly it could penetrate a wall of glass with spans of metal; but 9 feet of reinforced concrete over a distance of 100+ feet? Think tomato.

Perhaps the well defined, 12' exit hole in ring C was made by one of the plane's engines (many have argued) and all I have to say is, well, if so, why haven't we been shown a picture of what remains of this obviously very heavy and solid engine? We've seen hundreds of pictures of all sorts of things, but not the one thing that would dispel mystery from all but the most skeptical mind. This, not to mention that the trajectories don't line up; it is more in line with whatever made the original impact hole.

Do we have pictures of a MISSILE at the Pentagon? No, we don't. But what we DO have is a picture of a group of men carrying a large, long, narrow object, pall bearer like, shrouded behind canvas, out of the Pentagon on their shoulders. What was it? We don't know.

. . .it never made sense to me that if the US officials planned this, they would shoot down the plane.

I don't understand your logic here and I'm not going to speculate about their fate, and I'm certainly not going to speculate about why "officials" who would plan the in-broad-daylight mass murder of thousands of inocent civilians to achieve several strategic aims both domestically and internationally would or would not do anything. Such persons are criminally insane monsters who would, obviously, DO ANYTHING THEY BELIEVE THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH. That is, anything they can get the FBI, the media, the DoJ and anyone else to cover up for them.

They have gotten away with rather a lot since 9/11. I believe you would agree with that.

I also think that the idea that the bush folks were controlling this has a big weakness in having to include far too many people. The airlines, the military, the Islamists, etc. Any "conspiracy" that takes that many people is not likely to remain secret.

If I am lying to you but you believe me then when you represent my lie to others, you do so quite convincingly as you yourself are convinced. If I have told you that others are going to kill you and you must kill them before they kill you and you do it, you don't do it because you are a part of my conspiracy, but because you believe you are in danger. Bin Laden, where does he get his ideas about what is and isn't real -- or what does or does not further his interests? Did SLA Field Martial Cinque actually believe he was committing a revolutionary act when he ordered the assasination of black School Board Superintendent Marcus Foster in the early 1970s? I think he was an insane victim of mind control, indoctrinated with a lot of left-wing militaristic rhetoric, let loose from a State run prison program to reek havoc upon society and give the new left a bad name. It worked. And nobody even thought there was anything 'odd' about it.

There is another possibility I will ask you to considered -- and that is that it isn't a secret at all. Everyone with sufficient intelligence and who wants to know knows what happened on 9/11: The United States of America was brutally attacked by covert operatives in service to a small, extremist faction within the US Military/Corporate/Government complex, using highly sophisticated and specially designed weapons for the purpose of staging a shocking spectacle that would terrorize and outrage the average American citizen. I assume many in Congress and government service know this. I assume many in the media know this. I assume most heads of state in foreign countries know this. And I assume all of them know better than to TALK about what they know. (A few actually have but they have gotten little press.)

Whoever controls your perception of reality controls you. You will define yourself and the trajectory of your life based upon what you believe to be true. I believe 9/11 is a form of social mind control. Not that it is simply being used in that way when its origins lie elsewhere. It has made us believe certain things are true. It has made us think a certain way about who we are and where we are in the world and what is actually going on around us. That is raw power.

Remember what Michael Moore quotes right at the end of ƒ° 9/11?

"... it does not matter if the war is not real. For when it is, victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, but it is meant to be continuous.'" (George Orwell, 1984)

"A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance, this new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or east Asia but to keep the very structure of society in tact."

No secret. No plane. No Terrorists. No war on terrorism.

It is said that when the end of the world comes, it will be FIRE this time. Someone once pointed out that LIES BURN UP WHEN MEN CEASE TO BELIEVE THEM. I put it differently to you: Lies burn up when men see them for what they are.

[H2O Man]

79. Very well-witten!

very well done!!! I like this a lot. However, it leaves out a very important part .... which, for sake of discussion, I will compare to the"grassy knoll" ..... when a crowd of people in the plaza ran up the knoll after the shooting of JFK ..... because of what they saw, heard, and smelled up on that knoll ..... which, in my opinion, was a fairly strong indicator that something occured up on that knoll.

Well, plenty of people watched the plane hit the pentagon. Any theory that says a plane didn't hit the pentagon would -- like the Warren Commission did the crowd on the knoll -- totally discount them. Or say that they just thought they saw a plane hit the pentagon.

I agree with the tone of your message. I respect it as very well written, and clearly thought out. But I still think that the crowd of people that saw a plane hit the pentagon, and the plane itself having to be somewhere, are pretty strong evidence that it hit the pentagon. But whenever you write something, I read it with an open mind, because you are a serious person.

[Beam Me Up]

80. Thank you! (smile)

H20man,

Unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to give your question a full response. However, a FULL response does exist on several different sites. For example there is this from http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/index.html I highly encourage you to look at some of this evidence -- at your leisure of course.:

Pentagon Strike Conclusions

Supported Conclusions about the Pentagon Strike

Given the complexity of evaluating the evidence of the Pentagon strike, a number of competing theories purporting have emerged to explain how the attack occurred. In order to better evaluate those theories we attempt to separate conclusions clearly supported by credible evidence from those theories, in order to avoid prejudicing the evaluation of the evidence.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/theories/index.html

The evidence of the Pentagon attack can be divided into 3 categories:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/index.html

• Photographs taken after the attack, showing debris inside and outside the building, and damage to the building and its surroundings
  


• Eyewitness accounts of the moments before, during, and after the attack
  


• Statements and artifacts from government sources
  

Of these, evidence in the first category is the most objective, while evidence in the the second requires careful evaluation and cross-comparison. Evidence in the third category is suspect given the possible role
of government actors in the attack. In particular, the five frames of Pentagon video appear to have been fabricated
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/videoframes.html
and are not used to derive the conclusions presented here.

Based on careful examination of photographic and eyewitness evidence, we have established three conclusions about the attack.

• The Pentagon was not struck by an intact 757.
  http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/no757impact.html


• The attack involved an explosive detonation.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/explosion.html


• An aircraft similar to a 757 approached the Pentagon.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/jetliner.html

[Dancing_Dave]

70. "Not an attempt to find his fingerprints at "ground zero."

If you don't "find Usama's fingerprints at Ground Zero"i.e. provide compelling scientific evidence from the scene of the crime proving Usama did it, you can't rationally maintain that Usama is guilty! People are innocent of a crime until proved guilty of it.

There's a tremendous amount of evidence out there for a real crime scene investigation, but you don't deal with it at all. Check out http://911research.wtc7.net

:think:

[H2O Man]

73. It's certainly true that in a short paper

I do not cover all evidence. I assume that few people dispute that two planes hit the trade towers. I'm not poarticularly interested in debating that with anyone who believes differently.

As far as your comment on finger prints and convicting people, I'm assuming you are young, and have no background in the history of law enforcement in the United States. There are thousands of convictions that have come without a single finger print. I'm open to debating the very serios issues that many people have brought up to indicate that there may well have been some involvement of US interests in 9-11. But what you have said needs work.

Let's keep a good discussion and debate going. Remember that rational people can disagree on this issue. But you need to work on what you are saying. What specifically about the ground zero do you think is most significant? How does that imply or indicate, to you, anything regarding who was behind 9-11? Do you see what I'm saying? You need to develop your thoughts.

[shraby]

74. The main thought that struck me at the time

of the event was how they found all the people involved in the hijackings so quickly. I had no thoughts of LIHOP OR MIHOP at all at the time, but still wondered about this fact.

If they (government) had no idea anything was going to happen (that's the original story line) then how did they find the perps so quick? Since most of them were Saudis, bin Laden was blamed right away. They not only had the names, but pictures of the perps, where they were, that some of them had been at Las Vegas playing for a few days, that money was transferred to Atta right before the hijackings (but not who collected the money and never mentioned what bank). Also if it was to pay Atta for services, Atta would have been in Maine at the time and couldn't use the money anyway if he was on one of those planes.

on edit: I realize bin Laden was capable but there are soooo many questions surrounding the event that aren't explained....

[H2O Man]

75. I'm not sure I understand one of your comments .....

.... regarding them "finding" the hi-jackers.

[Old and In the Way]

76. Within 24 hours of the attack, all 19 hijackers were ID.

Of course, those hijackers left all kinds of incriminating "evidence" that unraveled everything in 24 hours. Except of course, 7 of the 19 are still alive. I believe the FBI was in Bangor tracking dell cell phone purchases of some of the hi-jackers within 48 hours. How'd they break that? They were most likely monitoring their phone calls.

If you notice, precious little time was devoted to the events and details of 9/11....but lots of time was spent asking the question, what needs to be done to make sure another 9/11 never happens again?

I submit that, until you really know how 9/11 happened, the 'fix' is meaningless. What's changed? The same people in charge on 9/11 are still on the job (except Tenet).