Not a huge conspiracy theorist but was thinking....

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

the terrorist are not stupid people and you would think if they were going to committ an act of terror on US soil that using a hijacked plane would be a bad idea. Anybody who has done their homework on the subject knows that a hijacked plane is easily detectable once it goes off course...transponders,communications with tower,ect...add to that the normal quick response of fighter planes and you can see that taking a hijacked plane that was suppose to go from Boston to LA and then try to sneak back to NY would NORMALLY be stopped easily. So did smart people(terrorist planners) not do their homework or were there no Arabs on the plane at all(Gov't inside job as some have suggested) or are there holes in my theory? I just don't believe smart people who have had plenty of time to work this out didn't think of the things I've put forth. You see what I'm getting at here...many theorist say that since no fighters went up that proves it was a conspiracy...gov't response: Fighters didn't go up because protocol had been changed 6 months before and people were confused,people couldn't be contacted yada,yada,yada....but my theory dismisses that since terrorist wouldn't know about changes in US policy or if they did why would they assume that we would bungle it....they would have expected fighters to be available and a quick response which makes the hijacking of a plane bound from BSTN to LA diverted to NY a very poorly conceived idea.

[havocmom]

1. OK, here is my problem with the official story: They found the passports

after a fire so hot it vaporized large amount of airplane. Seems pretty amazing, the passports of the 'terrorists' managed to make it through that inferno and tons of debris to be 'found' by investigators.

In the words of Deep Throat: "Follow the money." In other words, who made bundles since and because of 9-11?

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

4. I assume you are talking about the "put options" that took

place during the week leading up to 9/11....brokers had never seen anything like it,way way out of the norm there were so many of them placed. Somebody posted out here that those were finally claimed and 9/11 commision dismissed it as normal trading...I've never actually seen that in print,are you familar with story? If so got a link to anything discussing that specific topic(i.e. 9/11 comm. dismissing it)?

[havocmom]

10. No, actually. Talking about who is making $$ on war profiteering

Seems likely 9-11 was the 'Northwoods' that the junta needed to rev the masses up for war, war on anybody, just so there was a war to make everyone feel better. They needed an excuse to invade Iraq.

Put options? Hey, how about some of the operatives decided on a little retirement safety net?

No, big bucks were/are in the war biz. Look how much defense contractors are making. Look at how many billion$ are just sort of unaccounted for.

Never read of the options getting claimed, but doubt they would go begging long. Money buys a lot of cover my friend. But those options are probably chump change to the money to be made from the wars now and in the future from all the new enemies the junta has made for America. Hey, the end of the cold war must've been a real set back for some fine, upstanding merchants of death.

Now, no Congress Critter dare vote against any Defense Dept appropriation. Boy, have the war profiteers got a good gig going with all the 'terra' fear and real enemies they have created for us.

That is the money I am referring to.

Oh, and how much will the owners of the WTC make on new leases when the replacements buildings go up?

[amjsjc]

2. Only one way to stop a 757...

YOu shoot it down. Which would probably have been OK by the terrorists. After they'd stormed the airplanes the terrorists were going to be 'martyred' no matter what happened-- either the government would bring down the planes or the terrorists'd hit something with those airplanes; either way they accomplish their objective of getting a lot of Americans killed and dying for their cause in the process.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

6. That was the hole in my theory...thanks n/t

[napi21]

3. I think the terrorists KNEW it would be almost impossible for the

US military to shoot down a commercial jet! Think about it, di you really believe that would ever happen? I must tell you, if things had all really worked well, and jets had been scrambled to intercept the FIRST plan that hit the first tower, and actually shot it down, just what hearings would we be having today? What proof would there be that that shoot down was justified?

I believe this entire admin. dismissed the threat about Al Qaeda because Clinton told them it was a problem, and they hated him so much, they dismissed everything he said.

I also believe there was such a strong, but unrealistic, sense of security in this country, the defenses of the entire country were lax.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

7. You mean the living hijackers?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml

www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-092101probe.story

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

9. You seem to buy the gov't position, for the most part...

I don't want to get in a long drawn out discussion...time for bed..anyway appreciate your input, though I disagree with it.


EDIT; OOPS RESPONDED TO WRONG POST THIS WAS SUPPOSE TO BE FOR NAPI21...POST #3

[The Straight Story]

5. My Take

Someone hijacking a plane to crash it was not too damn bright to start with.

Their goal was killing people, hijacking a plane they thought would be shot down would accomplish that, just not get as many killed as crashing it into buildings. Either way they cause mass death.

There were a lot of people working and making decisions that day, and a lot of confusion (even in the news). That is not to say there was no conspiracy, that the US government had nothing to do with it, etc. Never accept carte blanche the government line on things, but in the same vein I can see this as being a cluster f*ck as people were uncertain with so many planes in the skies what all was going on and who to shoot down if anyone.

I will accept the base premise as presented for now, but will continue to look deeper for clues. If we accept that premise as presented there is still enough to warrant a change in power as so many did not perform the jobs they were hired to do. On top of that we have to examine the root causes as to why they would want to attack us, which still goes back to * and crew somewhere along the line. It does not give them a right to kill people who had nothing to do with the perceived ills they were addressing in their actions - two wrongs don't make a right.

In the end we must get more answers - if you or I do something the government will investigate the hell out of it and demand answers to everything they ask under oath, they need to do the same until we have all the answers we seek. If they reserve the right to imprison people and interrogate them for information, they damn well need to come before us and answer a lot more questions.

I will keep an open mind, I won't just accept any theory that comes along, but I will examine it. I don't see a vast conspiracy where hundreds of people all knew and covered it up, and given how many see * as an idiot I see the 'caveman' theory as being more likely than him carrying it out :)

Just some random thoughts, I have more and may delve into them later when not so tired.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

8. Can't agree there...they are fanatics not STUPID..

but I do agree with you on the point they didn't care if they made it to buildings or not as I stated to a previous poster...that was the whole in my theory.

[The Straight Story]

13. Fanatics can be rather stupid

No matter which religion or philosophy they follow. They don't think, they react. Their actions did not help their cause at all, it only hurt it - which was a stupid move. Who did they win over?

If christians blow up abortion clinics do we sit here and reason it out and sympathize with them, try to rationalize their actions and blame America for what we did to them to 'make' them do it? No, we condemn it as the wrong course of action. We attack (as I have seen here at times) the 'fundies'.

This was the same type of action, but by 'fundies' of islam with a grudge. We try to rationalize it and blame ourselves for making them do it, we were mean to them so they had no other choice (if you believe they did it). But that is oversimplifying the matter.

The perps used violence, killed thousands like we say * has done in Iraq. Him we give a hard time, them we sometimes make excuses for. Such actions are wrong, period.

Fanatics are stupid in that they try to use violence to control others (in this case). They use violence to try and change the way things are because they don't believe enough in their arguments. They see no other choice. Sometimes, it comes down to fighting, in this case if they wanted a fight they should not have killed people who had nothing to do with their plight. To them we were all the same, but when freeper types say the same about iraq (kill em all, carpet bomb, etc) we see that as the wrong mentality - if it is wrong for us how do we justify it for them?

Governments are the problem, not the innocents under the government. If they felt America was the enemy, and they want to kill our people, than we should hunt them down as they will not (obviously) discriminate between our military and the general public. If they wanted to further their cause they did not do so by their actions, which to me is stupid behavior. They killed people who had no grudge against them, and for what? Did we change? Did we cave in? They took the wrong road because they were stupid.

How has the Dali Llama handled the china situation? Did he get his people to fly planes into buildings full of chinese people? Violence breeds more violence, if we expect dumbya to see this and chastise him for not seeing it, can we give a pass to the hijackers?

It was stupid. It did nothing for them except create more death of their own people. They chose the wrong path, and they alienated the very people who could have kicked out the * and helped them. They gained nothing, killed many, and have nothing to show for it.

[JohnyCanuck]

11. Lucky terrorists just happened to pick a date for their attack

when the USAF and NORAD had fighter resources tied up in war games which simulated aircraft hijackings along with air attacks from Russia and apparently for a period of time sewed confusion as to which were the real hijacked aircraft and which were the simulated hijacked aircraft taking part in a war game. See Minstrel Boy's DU thread on this topic here:

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1694495


Also discussed at www.oilempire.us


Four decades ago, the novel (and movie) "Seven Days in May" was a popular political thriller about a military coup d'etat in the United States against a President who sought to scale back the Cold War. In this story, a military cabal schemed to topple the government under the guise of a military communications exercise. This "war game" was to have been used as the cover for toppling the government and installing a General as President who would stop arms control treaties with the Soviet Union.

On September 11, at least five different "war games" were being conducted by the military and intelligence agencies that simulated 9/11 type events which paralyzed the air defenses, apparently ensuring the success of the "attacks." The British Navy was conducting exercises in the Indian ocean. A biowar exercise was also about to start in New York City. Who has the power to coordinate all of these exercises? Dick Cheney and the White House?

It is difficult to believe that it is a bizarre "coincidence" that the military and CIA were conducting wargames similar to 9/11 on September 11, 2001. While it seems likely, if not blatantly obvious, that these war games were one of the means used to confuse the air defense system for sufficient time to allow the World Trade Center to be attacked, the war games do not answer the question of how the air defenses were suppressed for another half hour after the second tower was hit (at which time everyone knew that an attack was in progress). The Air Force had another half hour after the second tower to scramble interceptors to defend the Capitol (the plane that is alleged to have hit the Pentagon made its 180 degree turn over Ohio to head back toward D.C. about the time that the second tower was struck).
http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html

http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html

[Old and In the Way]

12. Doesn't it make you feel good to know that the same people in charge on

9/11 are still in charge?

But seriously, the Pentagon getting hit 52 minutes after the 2nd crash into the WTC?

Hans Hanjour, who couldn't fly a Cessna could drive a 757 at cruising speed, do a 270 degree turn and drop 7,000 feet, putting the plane a mere 6 feet or so off the ground and into the only part of the Pentagon newly reinforced. What are the odds a rookie pilot doesn't destroy the plane in midflight pulling that stress on the airframe?

Interesting that no fighter intercept (even unarmed fighters) occurred. SOP would be a fly by of the cockpit to get the pilot's attention. That never happened. I wonder why?