In this case, the 'obvious explanation' is that these acts were planned and executed by the USA.
Governments have been doing this sort of thing since time immemorial.
9/11 prediction
Re: 9/11 prediction
lukeolson wrote:
>>
Okay Luke - give us one actual instance of the US Government attacking its own people.
One PROVEN INSTANCE THAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED.
>>
It's in the public domain, has been for years. Who's dismissing it?
You say that "the US planned to attack its own people ..."
Wrong.
IIRC correctly from reading about it, military hawks in the Pentagon (not "the US Government") came up with a variety of "false flag" attack scenarios, some of which would or could have involved real casualties but most of which would not have (e.g. blowing up unmanned drones and saying they were airliners).
The plan was passed up to JFK and Robert MacNamara, but they vetoed it.
And therein lies the crucial difference - it was vetoed at the highest level and was NEVER IMPLEMENTED.
>>
Okay Luke - give us one actual instance of the US Government attacking its own people.
One PROVEN INSTANCE THAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED.
>>
It's in the public domain, has been for years. Who's dismissing it?
You say that "the US planned to attack its own people ..."
Wrong.
IIRC correctly from reading about it, military hawks in the Pentagon (not "the US Government") came up with a variety of "false flag" attack scenarios, some of which would or could have involved real casualties but most of which would not have (e.g. blowing up unmanned drones and saying they were airliners).
The plan was passed up to JFK and Robert MacNamara, but they vetoed it.
And therein lies the crucial difference - it was vetoed at the highest level and was NEVER IMPLEMENTED.
Re: 9/11 prediction
Flat_Eric wrote:
> lukeolson wrote:
>
> goverment wouldn't attack it's own people but it's just not
> true.>>>
>
>
> Okay Luke - give us one actual instance of the US Government
> attacking its own people.
>
> One PROVEN INSTANCE THAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED.
OK, I don't have a prove-able instance, ao I concede here. But if the the joint chiefs all passed Northwoods in 62, it's highly likely that they would consider the same thing again. You agree?
> You say that "the US planned to attack its own people ..."
>
> Wrong.
>
> IIRC correctly from reading about it, military hawks in the
> Pentagon (not "the US Government") came up with a variety of
> "false flag" attack scenarios, some of which would or could
> have involved real casualties but most of which would not have
> (e.g. blowing up unmanned drones and saying they were
> airliners).
How can it be wrong? you even go onto say yourself some have 'real casualties'..? here are few snippets from the document to refresh your memory:
The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking
haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans
enroute to Florida (real or simulated).
We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
We could develop a Communist Cuba terror campaign in
the Miami area, in other Flordia cities and even in Washington.
We could foster attempts
on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the
extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized.
Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft
should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the
government of Cuba.
It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate
convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down
a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to
Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would
be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba.
The passengers could be a group of college students off on a
holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to
support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.
Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on the base.
--------
What's also quite concerning is the document opens by saying
'It is assumed that there
will be similar submissions from other agencies and that
these inputs will be used as a basis for developing a
time-phased pl'an.'
> lukeolson wrote:
>
> goverment wouldn't attack it's own people but it's just not
> true.>>>
>
>
> Okay Luke - give us one actual instance of the US Government
> attacking its own people.
>
> One PROVEN INSTANCE THAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED.
OK, I don't have a prove-able instance, ao I concede here. But if the the joint chiefs all passed Northwoods in 62, it's highly likely that they would consider the same thing again. You agree?
> You say that "the US planned to attack its own people ..."
>
> Wrong.
>
> IIRC correctly from reading about it, military hawks in the
> Pentagon (not "the US Government") came up with a variety of
> "false flag" attack scenarios, some of which would or could
> have involved real casualties but most of which would not have
> (e.g. blowing up unmanned drones and saying they were
> airliners).
How can it be wrong? you even go onto say yourself some have 'real casualties'..? here are few snippets from the document to refresh your memory:
The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking
haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans
enroute to Florida (real or simulated).
We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
We could develop a Communist Cuba terror campaign in
the Miami area, in other Flordia cities and even in Washington.
We could foster attempts
on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the
extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized.
Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft
should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the
government of Cuba.
It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate
convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down
a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to
Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would
be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba.
The passengers could be a group of college students off on a
holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to
support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.
Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on the base.
--------
What's also quite concerning is the document opens by saying
'It is assumed that there
will be similar submissions from other agencies and that
these inputs will be used as a basis for developing a
time-phased pl'an.'
Re: 9/11 prediction
lukeolson wrote:
>>>
Anything is POSSIBLE. I could win the lottery next week. That's also POSSIBLE: But likely? I don't think so.
For one thing, the group of guys who came up with this 40 years ago are long since retired - and probably all dead by now (and here's another newsflash for you: JFK is no longer President).
In any case the crucial thing is that NONE OF THESE PLANS WERE ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED, besides which as I said before many of them involved simulations - including the college students airliner one that you cite. I specifically remember that one as involving the demolition of an unmanned drone involving no real casualties. Ditto the attacks on a Navy ship, which would even have involved fake funerals.
Also:
>> (referring to the aforementioned fake airliner shootdown)
>>
>> (killing is not mentioned)
>> (but were there actually such submissions?)
>> (the key words here being "attempts" and "appear")
A nefarious plan? Sure! But a plan that was vetoed - presumably (although we can't know for sure) because it could have involved unacceptable risks to civilians. Besides which, something like this would have been extremely difficult to keep a lid on for any length of time - even more so today, in an age when we have the Internet conspiracy theorists keeping our evil leaders in check ..... !wink!
>>>
Anything is POSSIBLE. I could win the lottery next week. That's also POSSIBLE: But likely? I don't think so.
For one thing, the group of guys who came up with this 40 years ago are long since retired - and probably all dead by now (and here's another newsflash for you: JFK is no longer President).
In any case the crucial thing is that NONE OF THESE PLANS WERE ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED, besides which as I said before many of them involved simulations - including the college students airliner one that you cite. I specifically remember that one as involving the demolition of an unmanned drone involving no real casualties. Ditto the attacks on a Navy ship, which would even have involved fake funerals.
Also:
>> (referring to the aforementioned fake airliner shootdown)
>>
>> (killing is not mentioned)
>> (but were there actually such submissions?)
>> (the key words here being "attempts" and "appear")
A nefarious plan? Sure! But a plan that was vetoed - presumably (although we can't know for sure) because it could have involved unacceptable risks to civilians. Besides which, something like this would have been extremely difficult to keep a lid on for any length of time - even more so today, in an age when we have the Internet conspiracy theorists keeping our evil leaders in check ..... !wink!
-
strictlybroadband
- Posts: 1925
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Where's the logic?
Sam Slater wrote:
> Can 30 unarmed men overpower 4 men armed with pocket
> knives?
Here's another: can 19 men carrying sharp knives get on board planes without a single one of them being detected?
Another: why were leading Saudis rushed out of the country by the FBI during a major criminal investigation?
Another: procedures existed to shoot down planes in such circumstances - why didn't this happen?
Another, post-9/11: the anthrax postal campaign was used to bolster the idea that the US was under sustained attack, but the anthrax was shown to come from US government labs. Why was nobody ever arrested?
Also, the idea that a single airliner could bring down each WTC tower is still not satisfactory. These were modern towers, built with this kind of extreme in mind.
> Can 30 unarmed men overpower 4 men armed with pocket
> knives?
Here's another: can 19 men carrying sharp knives get on board planes without a single one of them being detected?
Another: why were leading Saudis rushed out of the country by the FBI during a major criminal investigation?
Another: procedures existed to shoot down planes in such circumstances - why didn't this happen?
Another, post-9/11: the anthrax postal campaign was used to bolster the idea that the US was under sustained attack, but the anthrax was shown to come from US government labs. Why was nobody ever arrested?
Also, the idea that a single airliner could bring down each WTC tower is still not satisfactory. These were modern towers, built with this kind of extreme in mind.
[url=http://www.strictlybroadband.com/]Strictly Broadband[/url]: new movies published daily, 365 days a year!
Re: Where's the logic?
strictlybroadband wrote:
>>
Very easily. First off, the list of things that you could take aboard planes was much longer then. We're also not talking Bowie knives here. We're talking retractable box cutters / Stanley knives that are far easier to hide.
I myself used to have a penknife / key-fob type of affair that I used to carry with me all the time and which I've carried on and off planes a number of times (pre 9/11 era though).
>>
No idea. Were they? Who says they were? And even if they were, why does it necessarily have to be part of some sinister conspiracy?
A classic example of conspiracy theory hype: If there's no obvious and immediate explanation for something, then it' s eagerly seized upon as "evidence" of Machiavellian machinations.
>>
But I thought that this is exactly what the conspiracy theorists are claiming DID in fact happen in the case of Flight 93???
>>
Don't know. Good question, I seem to recall that someone was in fact arrested, though I must admit I'd have to go back and check up on that.
Was it rogue elements of some agency at work? Who knows. More likely I think is that it could simply have been some nutter acting on his own "initiative" and for his own motives without any official sanction at all.
We don't know and can't know either way. It's all sheer speculation (as are all CTs).
>>
I beg to differ.
There's extreme and then there's extreme.
Nothing like that had ever happened before. The closest comparable event was in 1945 when a military B-25 bomber (a much smaller, slower plane than the 9/11 airliners) hit the Empire State Building, killing about a dozen people.
The towers were built to withstand something like that - and my understanding is that the most likely scenario considered when the towers were designed in the '60s was that a plane on approach to either La Guardia or JFK Airport (when it would be travelling much slower and would also have used up most of its fuel) might veer off course in bad weather and possibly hit a tower.
There's no way that anyone at the time the towers were designed could have foreseen the possibility of large commercial jets with full fuel loads being hijacked and deliberately flown into the towers at around 500 mph for maximum deliberate devastation. Such things just didn't happen then and were totally unknown and without precedent.
>>
Very easily. First off, the list of things that you could take aboard planes was much longer then. We're also not talking Bowie knives here. We're talking retractable box cutters / Stanley knives that are far easier to hide.
I myself used to have a penknife / key-fob type of affair that I used to carry with me all the time and which I've carried on and off planes a number of times (pre 9/11 era though).
>>
No idea. Were they? Who says they were? And even if they were, why does it necessarily have to be part of some sinister conspiracy?
A classic example of conspiracy theory hype: If there's no obvious and immediate explanation for something, then it' s eagerly seized upon as "evidence" of Machiavellian machinations.
>>
But I thought that this is exactly what the conspiracy theorists are claiming DID in fact happen in the case of Flight 93???
>>
Don't know. Good question, I seem to recall that someone was in fact arrested, though I must admit I'd have to go back and check up on that.
Was it rogue elements of some agency at work? Who knows. More likely I think is that it could simply have been some nutter acting on his own "initiative" and for his own motives without any official sanction at all.
We don't know and can't know either way. It's all sheer speculation (as are all CTs).
>>
I beg to differ.
There's extreme and then there's extreme.
Nothing like that had ever happened before. The closest comparable event was in 1945 when a military B-25 bomber (a much smaller, slower plane than the 9/11 airliners) hit the Empire State Building, killing about a dozen people.
The towers were built to withstand something like that - and my understanding is that the most likely scenario considered when the towers were designed in the '60s was that a plane on approach to either La Guardia or JFK Airport (when it would be travelling much slower and would also have used up most of its fuel) might veer off course in bad weather and possibly hit a tower.
There's no way that anyone at the time the towers were designed could have foreseen the possibility of large commercial jets with full fuel loads being hijacked and deliberately flown into the towers at around 500 mph for maximum deliberate devastation. Such things just didn't happen then and were totally unknown and without precedent.
-
jasonhallceltic
- Posts: 427
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Where's the logic?
> believe it or not strictly broadband, pre 9/11 u were allowed 2 carry a knife with a blade up to six inches long on an american flight!!
Re: Where's the logic?
Flat_Eric wrote:
> strictlybroadband wrote:
>
> board planes without a single one of them being detected?>>>
>
>
> Very easily.
I thought he was talking about the Hijacker themselves, lol. Which Erik, btw, as you seem to have got all this figured out. Perhaps you should look at the flight manifests released by the airlines. Which if the official theory is to be believed, that 19 hijackers checked in as normal passengers. Yet, strangely their names don't all appear in the passenger lists. This is just one of many very strange things that to this day remain un-explained.
> by the FBI during a major criminal investigation?>>>
>
>
> No idea. Were they? Who says they were? And even if they were,
> why does it necessarily have to be part of some sinister
> conspiracy?
who says it does? I'm getting quite frustrated just listening to you continue to label everyone as a conspiracy theorists. By definition the official story is the biggest theory of all:
Just listen to it, 19 young muslims led by a tall man in a cave learn to fly air liners. All of them successfully go undetected by the intelligence agencies and on the 11th september hijack 4 air liners using plastic knifes and box cutters. These hijackers then proceed to fly around the United States for a couple hours without so much as a wiff of fighter jets or anyone else trying to stop them. The hijackers then proceed to hit 3 of their 4 targets, one of which is the pentagon which resides in restricted air space and is one of the most heavily protected buildings in the country. The others are the towers of the WTC, which both collpase to the ground within minutes of each other.
That's what I call a cracking conspiracy theory. True, it may well turn out to be, but it is still a conspiracy theory.
> A classic example of conspiracy theory hype: If there's no
> obvious and immediate explanation for something, then it' s
> eagerly seized upon as "evidence" of Machiavellian
> machinations.
So explain it? you know if the Report would just explain these things instead of ignoring them then all these so called crazy CTs would go away.
According to French intelligence Bin Laden was met by the CIA at an American hospital in Dubai 2 months before the attacks. At which time he was wanted for various other terrorist crimes. http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/s ... 44,00.html
Yet another un-explained, un-questioned incident. As is the fact that Bush senior on 9-11 was meeting Bin Laden's brother at a washington hotel for a Carlyle Group conference (reported on CBC and the london observer).
Now, I am not providing an alternative explantion or conspiracy theories for these events, but I fail to see how anyone with an ounce of rational thought can not agree that they are rather suspicious events that need to be explained by those involved.
> circumstances - why didn't this happen?>>>
>
>
> But I thought that this is exactly what the conspiracy
> theorists are claiming DID in fact happen in the case of Flight
> 93???
Flight 93 is just one of many mysteries. Do you recall all those phone calls made from flight 93? yet few realise that the technology to make sure phone calls from cell phones was only introduced in 2004.
'September 2004, Last month, Qualcomm Corporation issued a press release stating that they had developed a new technology that would finally make it possible to make cellular phone calls from commercial airliners. Using a technology called "Pico Cells", the system will work as a link between the airliner and ground towers. According to the press release, it is currently impossible to connect by cell phone in a plane that is above 4,000 feet'
According to the FAA, Flight 93 never flew below 29,000 feet, until it went into a deadly spiral. Now, this begs the question, just how did so many people make crystal clear phone calls to their loved ones when no such technology was in place at the time?
Do I have another explanation, no I do not. But again, very strange and needs explaining.
> strictlybroadband wrote:
>
> board planes without a single one of them being detected?>>>
>
>
> Very easily.
I thought he was talking about the Hijacker themselves, lol. Which Erik, btw, as you seem to have got all this figured out. Perhaps you should look at the flight manifests released by the airlines. Which if the official theory is to be believed, that 19 hijackers checked in as normal passengers. Yet, strangely their names don't all appear in the passenger lists. This is just one of many very strange things that to this day remain un-explained.
> by the FBI during a major criminal investigation?>>>
>
>
> No idea. Were they? Who says they were? And even if they were,
> why does it necessarily have to be part of some sinister
> conspiracy?
who says it does? I'm getting quite frustrated just listening to you continue to label everyone as a conspiracy theorists. By definition the official story is the biggest theory of all:
Just listen to it, 19 young muslims led by a tall man in a cave learn to fly air liners. All of them successfully go undetected by the intelligence agencies and on the 11th september hijack 4 air liners using plastic knifes and box cutters. These hijackers then proceed to fly around the United States for a couple hours without so much as a wiff of fighter jets or anyone else trying to stop them. The hijackers then proceed to hit 3 of their 4 targets, one of which is the pentagon which resides in restricted air space and is one of the most heavily protected buildings in the country. The others are the towers of the WTC, which both collpase to the ground within minutes of each other.
That's what I call a cracking conspiracy theory. True, it may well turn out to be, but it is still a conspiracy theory.
> A classic example of conspiracy theory hype: If there's no
> obvious and immediate explanation for something, then it' s
> eagerly seized upon as "evidence" of Machiavellian
> machinations.
So explain it? you know if the Report would just explain these things instead of ignoring them then all these so called crazy CTs would go away.
According to French intelligence Bin Laden was met by the CIA at an American hospital in Dubai 2 months before the attacks. At which time he was wanted for various other terrorist crimes. http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/s ... 44,00.html
Yet another un-explained, un-questioned incident. As is the fact that Bush senior on 9-11 was meeting Bin Laden's brother at a washington hotel for a Carlyle Group conference (reported on CBC and the london observer).
Now, I am not providing an alternative explantion or conspiracy theories for these events, but I fail to see how anyone with an ounce of rational thought can not agree that they are rather suspicious events that need to be explained by those involved.
> circumstances - why didn't this happen?>>>
>
>
> But I thought that this is exactly what the conspiracy
> theorists are claiming DID in fact happen in the case of Flight
> 93???
Flight 93 is just one of many mysteries. Do you recall all those phone calls made from flight 93? yet few realise that the technology to make sure phone calls from cell phones was only introduced in 2004.
'September 2004, Last month, Qualcomm Corporation issued a press release stating that they had developed a new technology that would finally make it possible to make cellular phone calls from commercial airliners. Using a technology called "Pico Cells", the system will work as a link between the airliner and ground towers. According to the press release, it is currently impossible to connect by cell phone in a plane that is above 4,000 feet'
According to the FAA, Flight 93 never flew below 29,000 feet, until it went into a deadly spiral. Now, this begs the question, just how did so many people make crystal clear phone calls to their loved ones when no such technology was in place at the time?
Do I have another explanation, no I do not. But again, very strange and needs explaining.