• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Pentagon 911 Conspiracy?

crunchy5 said:
I very much doubt that I've ever said anything of the sort jerry, if it was as you suggest how would all the suspicions have come about, there are leads every where :lol: :lol:

There are plenty of suspicions, but no leads. There are imagined leads within the theories of the conspiracists, but these seem to be constructs of the conspiracies themselves. There are no actual leads - if there were, we would be able to prove the conspiracies about 9/11 true. But, let's face it, what we actually have is alot of conjecture and guesswork, no actual substantial evidence that points to anything concrete.
 
crunchy5 said:
That's not what my philosophy lecturer would have called logic ted, is there anything to connect Jimmy Carter to 9 11, no, is there anything suspicious linking cheney, wuh or any of the neocon cabal to to the events, yes loads of evidence, piles of it, just no proof. yet.

There is no evidence either, IMHO. The suspicions remain unfounded, and are based more it seems on agendas and bias rather than anything else. As Ted has pointed out, people suspect various people simply because they're in charge. But as yet no-one has proved any links to them and the events of 9/11, in terms of them orchestrating it all.
 
crunchy5 said:
Jerry_B said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Would that apply to real US Government conspiracies, which have been uncovered, like the Iran-Contra Affair?

I'm talking about conspiracy theories, not conspiracies of another (perhaps actual) kind. The theory that there's some sort of secret group behind 9/11 - an idea you've posited - is not borne out by any evidence AFAIK. Unlike what happened with the Iran-Contra stuff.

The whole of the Iran Contra affair was a "conspiracy theory", it was being covered up none of the guys involved talked there were just folk looking in making logical guesses and connections putting two and two together and coming up with the correct conclusions who pushed and pushed getting mocked and pressured all the time until it was proven to be true. ...
In fact several of the key players in the Iran Contra Affair actually made it into President George W. Bush's Administration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra

...

Persons involved pardoned and reinstated

In 1992 U.S. President George H.W. Bush pardoned six people involved in the scandal,[35] namely Elliott Abrams, Duane R. Clarridge, Alan Fiers, Clair George, Robert C. McFarlane, and Caspar W. Weinberger.

George W. Bush selected some individuals that served under Reagan for high-level posts in his presidential administration.[36][37] They include:

* Elliott Abrams:[38] under Bush, the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs; in Iran Contra, pleaded guilty on two counts of unlawfully withholding information, pardoned.
* Otto Reich:[39] head of the Office of Public Diplomacy under Reagan.
* John Negroponte:[40] under Bush, the National Intelligence Director.
* Admiral John Poindexter:[41] under Bush, Director of the Information Awareness Office; in Iran Contra found guilty of multiple felony counts for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, and the alteration and destruction of evidence, convictions reversed.
* Robert Gates: [42] under Bush, confirmed on December 6, 2006 as the new Secretary of Defense to replace the resigning Donald Rumsfeld. Served as Director of Central Intelligence from 1991–1993 under George H.W. Bush. During Iran Contra he was Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
* Charles E. Allen: [43] under Bush, appointed in August 2005 to be chief intelligence officer at the Department of Homeland Security. Allen's position at DHS was not subject to Senate confirmation. Prior to the DHS appointment, Allen had worked 47 years at the CIA. Director of Central Intelligence William Webster formally reprimanded Allen for failing to fully comply with the DCI's request for full cooperation in the agency's internal Iran-Contra scandal investigation. However coworkers of Allen pointed out that Webster reprimanded the one person in the CIA who had brought his suspicions of a funds diversion to Robert Gates. [Eclipse: The Last Days of the CIA, Mark Perry, 1992, p. 216.]

...
I'm not saying that any of them are old grey Jewish reptoids, though Jerry_B might.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
I'm not saying that any of them are old grey Jewish reptoids, though Jerry_B might.

But perhaps they're part of that shadowy group you invented...? ;)
 
Jerry_B said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
I'm not saying that any of them are old grey Jewish reptoids, though Jerry_B might.

But perhaps they're part of that shadowy group you invented...? ;)
I didn't invent it, I merely deduced it. You extemporated, interpolating your own weird fantasy creatures. ;)
 
Which again just goes to show that you haven't understood the point I was making. You were the one bringing 'weird fantasy creatures' into it - your 'creatures' were some sort of shadowy secret group, working for certain vested interests, who were responsible for 9/11. As such, this group is pretty much the same as a concept as the greys/jews/reptoids are to other conspiracy theories. Such things are a crutch to make the discrepancies in any given conspiracy theory add up. Such things are still an invention - or at best, a somewhat wild assumption - unless someone can prove that they actually exist. And their role is deduced from buying into any given theory.
 
Jerry_B said:
Which again just goes to show that you haven't understood the point I was making. You were the one bringing 'weird fantasy creatures' into it - your 'creatures' were some sort of shadowy secret group, working for certain vested interests, who were responsible for 9/11. As such, this group is pretty much the same as a concept as the greys/jews/reptoids are to other conspiracy theories. Such things are a crutch to make the discrepancies in any given conspiracy theory add up. Such things are still an invention - or at best, a somewhat wild assumption - unless someone can prove that they actually exist. And their role is deduced from buying into any given theory.
I believe I did understand the point you were making. It was a fairly straightforward attempt to besmirch my Postings, using the technique of 'Guilt by Association,' or 'Association Fallacy'. In which case, the rationalisations of your opinion, for it does appear to be only your opinion, were probably secondary to your insinuation of anti-Semitism, or attempts to suggest some sort of craziness, through the unlikeliness of space alien greys and reptoids.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
I believe I did understand the point you were making. It was a fairly straightforward attempt to besmirch my Postings, using the technique of 'Guilt by Association,' or 'Association Fallacy'. In which case, the rationalisations of your opinion, for it does appear to be only your opinion, were probably secondary to your insinuation of anti-Semitism, or attempts to suggest some sort of craziness, through the unlikeliness of space alien greys and reptoids.

I think you might be misunderstanding the post. Personally I interpreted it as meaning that if a belief rests on a suspicion which the believer admits there is no clear evidence for (save for a historical precedent which implies nothing more than a possibility) and that belief addresses the existence of a deliberately and neccessarily obscured group then it's just as conceivable that another group can assume the role of of the cabal without substantially affecting the theory or neccessarily reducing the amount of evidence supporting the suspicion.
 
Out of touch with reality?
http://yournewreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/rumsfeld-deserted-his-post-on-morning.html

Monday, March 26, 2007

Rumsfeld "Deserted His Post" On Morning Of 9/11

By Darryl Mason

There was a time when it was socially unacceptable, in the United States at least, to say anything bad about then defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The man who once flew over Iraq and declared the terrorism-smashed country didn't look so bad, from the air, was widely perceived to be a cross between a witty genius, an American hero and a war-time leader of Patton and Churchillian credibility and vision. From September 11, 2001 to late 2004, Rumsfeld was all but untouchable.

But the 'Generals Revolt' of 2005 and 2006, proved to be right on the money.

Rumsfeld was a lying, insidious propagandist, who okayed and encouraged the use of torture by the military in Iraq and the United States, who ignored the sexual torture of Abu Ghraib until confronted with it by the media, who played down the strength of the Iraqi insurgency for years while thousands of American soldiers died, and he was the one who regularly blasted anyone who said things might not actually be going America's way in Iraq as being like "Henny Penny", crowing about how "the sky is falling in..."

Rumsfeld is a fallen American icon now. The gloves are well and truly off and the head-kicking boots are on. It sounds like there are plenty of former Rumsfeld colleagues from the White House and Pentagon who are now ready to tell the truth about America's most dangerous defence secretary, and even Rumsfeld's behaviour on the morning of September 11, 2001, is coming into renewed and revelatory focus.

So what exactly was former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld doing on the morning of September 11, 2001?

We know Rumsfeld was in his office in the Pentagon, we know he was seen helping at least one of the wounded after the Pentagon was smashed by the third hijacked plane, and we know that he was the one who fronted the cameras hours before President Bush and "impressed viewers" with his "calm demeanour".

But according to a new book. 'Rumsfeld' by Andrew Cockburn, the then defence secretary was so unconcerned, and unsurprised, after learning that two jet airliners had crashed into the World Trade Centre towers that he continued with regular CIA briefing.

He only got moving when another plane slammed into the Pentagon. When Rumsfeld refused to follow security advice and chose instead to head out in front of the media cameras at the Pentagon, a senior White House official, with him that morning, says Rumsfeld "deserted his post".

When he picked up a piece of the destroyed American Airlines jet from the lawn of the Pentagon, he was "inteferring with a crime scene".

Rusmfeld also chose to ignore "anxious pleas" from the military to go immediately to the operational command centre. America was clearly under attack, but where was the defence secretary?

When he finally arrived at the command centre, the United States had been under attack for than two hours and the last hijacked airliner, United 93, had already crashed into a field.

The defence secretary took no part in US military operations on the morning of the most destructive attacks ever launched against the United States.

You can read the first chapter of the new book 'Rumsfeld' here.
The eternal sunshine of the spotless mind.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
I believe I did understand the point you were making. It was a fairly straightforward attempt to besmirch my Postings, using the technique of 'Guilt by Association,' or 'Association Fallacy'. In which case, the rationalisations of your opinion, for it does appear to be only your opinion, were probably secondary to your insinuation of anti-Semitism, or attempts to suggest some sort of craziness, through the unlikeliness of space alien greys and reptoids.

No, it seems obvious now that you did not understand what I was saying, at all. Other people have understood my point. Also, I was not at any time insinuating the things you mention, nor was I invoking guilt by association, nor craziness, etc.. I would ask you to go back and re-read what I've posted, as you still clearly have not grasped the point.
 
I can't say that I have much time for certain Posters', old grey jewish reptoid fantasies, even as instructional examples.

Unfortunately, this is much more what I had in mind, when I put forward my original hypothesis.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/09/sb-revolving-door-blackwater-1158094722

Revolving Door to Blackwater Causes Alarm at CIA

Harper's Magazine. By Ken Silverstein. Pub. September 12, 2006

Blackwater USA, the private security contractor that has operated in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, and New Orleans, has been booming the past few years. Founded in December of 1996, the company spent its early years “paying staff with an executive's credit card and begging for customers,” according to the Virginian-Pilot. But today, Blackwater reportedly has revenues of about $100 million annually, almost all of it from government contracts, and maintains “a compound half the size of Manhattan and 450 permanent employees,” according to the newspaper.

How did Blackwater rise so high, so fast? The “war on terrorism” got the ball rolling for the firm, but one suspects that political connections played a big part as well. Erik Prince, Blackwater's founder, is a former SEAL who is deeply involved in Republican Party politics. Since 1998, he has funneled roughly $200,000 to GOP committees and candidates, including President Bush. In 2004, Blackwater retained the Alexander Strategy Group, the PR and lobbying firm that closed down earlier this year due to its embarrassing ties to Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay. (Paul Behrends, a former national security adviser to Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, handled the account for Alexander. After the firm shut down, Behrends moved on to a firm called C&M Capitolink, and took the Blackwater account with him.)

A number of senior CIA and Pentagon officials have taken top jobs at Blackwater, including firm vice chairman Cofer Black, who was the Bush Administration's top counterterrorism official at the time of the 9/11 attacks (and who famously said in 2002, “There was before 9/11 and after 9/11. After 9/11, the gloves came off.”) Robert Young Pelton, author of the new book, Licensed to Kill , says that an early Blackwater contract—a secret no-bid $5.4 million deal with the CIA—came in 2002 after Prince placed a call to Buzzy Krongard, who was then the CIA's executive director.

A CIA source with whom I spoke said that Prince is very tight with top agency officials and has a “green badge,” the security pass for contractors who have access to CIA installations. “He's over there [at CIA headquarters] regularly, probably once a month or so,” this person told me. “He meets with senior people, especially in the D.O.” (The D.O., or Directorate of Operations, runs covert operations; last year, it was absorbed by the newly created National Clandestine Service.)

Prince's visits are probably one reason that the revolving door to Blackwater keeps turning. Last fall, Rob Richer resigned from the post of Associate Deputy Director of Operations; he immediately took a job as Blackwater's Vice President of Intelligence. Richer is a former head of the CIA's Near East Division and long served in Amman, where, for a period beginning in 1999, he held the post of station chief. For years he was the agency's point man with Jordan's King Abdullah, with whom he developed an extraordinarily close relationship. “There have been some ups and downs in our relationship with Jordan, but the king has always been on good terms with the CIA,” said a person familiar with the situation. “The king's primary relationship is always with the CIA, not the American ambassador.”

The CIA has lavishly subsidized Jordan's intelligence service, and has sent millions of dollars in recent years for intelligence training. After Richer retired, sources say, he helped Blackwater land a lucrative deal with the Jordanian government to provide the same sort of training offered by the CIA. Millions of dollars that the CIA “invested” in Jordan walked out the door with Richer—if this were a movie, it would be a cross between Jerry Maguire and Syriana. “People [at the agency] are pissed off,” said one source. “Abdullah still speaks with Richer regularly and he thinks that's the same thing as talking to us. He thinks Richer is still the man.” Except in this case it's Richer, not his client, yelling “show me the money.” (Richer did not return a phone call seeking comment.)

Meanwhile, there's talk at the agency that Blackwater is also aggressively recruiting Jose Rodriguez, the CIA's current top spy as director of the National Clandestine Service. Rodriguez has a number of former agency friends at Blackwater, most notably Rick Prado, with whom he served in Latin America and who is now Blackwater's Vice President of Special Programs.

One of my sources told me that agency employees have voiced concerns to CIA director Michael Hayden about the Blackwater revolving door. “In a situation like this, there are too many opportunities for people to scratch each others' backs,” he said.
* * *

Note: Another internal concern at the CIA is that employees involved in the agency's secret detention program might be hit with subpoenas or indictments if the Democrats win control of the House in November. I noted this back in April; on Monday, the Washington Post had a front-page story saying that CIA counterterrorism officers have “signed up in growing numbers for a government-reimbursed, private insurance plan that would pay their civil judgments and legal expenses if they are sued or charged with criminal wrongdoing . . . The new enrollments reflect heightened anxiety at the CIA that officers may be vulnerable to accusations they were involved in abuse, torture, human rights violations and other misconduct, including wrongdoing related to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.”

I'm told that a number of CIA employees have been complaining to Inspector General John Helgerson about the detainee program. “They have told him that they don't like the program and they want to be on the record about it now, in case the subpoenas start flying,” a source reports.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
I can't say that I have much time for certain Posters', old grey jewish reptoid fantasies, even as instructional examples.

If you don't read, you won't understand. And you clearly do not understand. If you did, you wouldn't make such remarks. And how can you attempt to defend your ideas if you don't read others' objections to them? Would you rather live in a closeted world of your own ideas? If so, what's the point of being here?
 
Well, the idea that the events of 9/11 were perhaps orchestrated by some shadowy group (a.k.a. 'the dark side'), acting for certain interests, behind the scenes - and the counterpoint that this idea was perhaps merely something handy to make the various discrepancies the 9/11 conspiracy theories add up, despite the fact that it's unproven. There's also the added factor that it smacks of similar concepts behind other conspiracy theories - that events are being controlled by shadowy forces such as the greys, or the jews, or the illuminati, or reptoids, etc..
 
If a theory is proven, it becomes fact and is no longer theory.

The trick is to get the theory accepted. An accepted theory is what we are looking for here I think, one with a logical route from beginning of theory to end of theory, and with evidence that is from reliable sources (or as reliable as is accepted) and so forth.

We have already established motive after all.
 
coldelephant said:
We have already established motive after all.

Have 'we'? In what way, and what is that motive? IMHO, some see a motive, others don't. Motive implies intent, which also has to be shown...
 
Motive for the guy who owned the WTC was money from insurance.
Motive for the neo-cons was to have a war on terror as a front for further stabilisation and possibly expansion of the US empire.
Motive for Al Q (once it was set up and given a name) was to strike a blow against the evil western empire.

Motives abound old chum. Motive leads to intent.
 
coldelephant said:
Motive for the guy who owned the WTC was money from insurance.
Motive for the neo-cons was to have a war on terror as a front for further stabilisation and possibly expansion of the US empire.
Motive for Al Q (once it was set up and given a name) was to strike a blow against the evil western empire.

Motives abound old chum. Motive leads to intent.

Its worth reading this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono which discusses why "Who Benefits" may not always be reliable when it comes to political acts.

In politics, many actors may benefit from a certain event. A skilled politician who is able to advance his agenda by using (or abusing) a particular event, or a company that quickly steps in to offer a remedy to some real or perceived problem can benefit greatly from an act they never caused. Cui bono may fail completely if the persons who intended to benefit from a certain act gain nothing or only a tiny benefit, and other players obtain a huge advantage. For example, consider a mugging committed in front of a video camera. The mugger obtains just $50 and is quickly caught. His benefit is tiny. A political faction that wants to roll out surveillance cameras all over the city uses the incident skillfully to gain widespread acceptance for their plan. Their benefit is huge, and they may even be faced with a conspiracy theory accusing them of setting up the entire incident.
 
I think the benefit that the owner of the WTC got once he was paid by the insurance company was substantial.

I think that the benefit to the US empire was dubious.

I think that the benefit to Al Q (after they had been set up) was substantial.
 
You just can't make this stuff up.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2138917,00.html

A very private war

There are 48,000 'security contractors' in Iraq, working for private companies growing rich on the back of US policy. But can it be a good thing to have so many mercenaries operating without any democratic control? Jeremy Scahill reports

Wednesday August 1, 2007. The Guardian

...

At war with the Pentagon

How Rumsfeld paved the way for Blackwater

The world was a very different place on September 10 2001, when Donald Rumsfeld stepped on to the podium at the Pentagon to deliver one of his first major addresses as defense secretary under President George W Bush. For most Americans, there was no such thing as al-Qaida, and Saddam Hussein was still the president of Iraq. Rumsfeld had served in the post once before - under President Gerald Ford, from 1975 to 1977 - and he returned to the job in 2001 with ambitious visions. That September day, in the first year of the Bush administration, Rumsfeld addressed the Pentagon officials in charge of overseeing the high-stakes business of defence contracting - managing the Halliburtons, DynCorps and Bechtels. The secretary stood before a gaggle of former corporate executives from Enron, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics and Aerospace Corporation whom he had tapped as his top deputies at the department of defense, and he issued a declaration of war.

"The topic today is an adversary that poses a threat, a serious threat, to the security of the United States of America," Rumsfeld thundered. "This adversary is one of the world's last bastions of central planning. It governs by dictating five-year plans. From a single capital, it attempts to impose its demands across time zones, continents, oceans and beyond. With brutal consistency, it stifles free thought and crushes new ideas. It disrupts the defence of the United States and places the lives of men and women in uniform at risk."

Pausing briefly for dramatic effect, Rumsfeld - himself a veteran cold warrior - told his new staff, "Perhaps this adversary sounds like the former Soviet Union, but that enemy is gone: our foes are more subtle and implacable today. You may think I'm describing one of the last decrepit dictators of the world. But their day, too, is almost past, and they cannot match the strength and size of this adversary. The adversary's much closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy."

Rumsfeld called for a wholesale shift in the running of the Pentagon, supplanting the old department of defense bureaucracy with a new model, one based on the private sector. The problem, Rumsfeld said, was that unlike businesses, "governments can't die, so we need to find other incentives for bureaucracy to adapt and improve." The stakes, he declared, were dire - "a matter of life and death, ultimately, every American's."

That day, Rumsfeld announced a major initiative to streamline the use of the private sector in the waging of America's wars and predicted his initiative would meet fierce resistance. "Some might ask, 'How in the world could the secretary of defense attack the Pentagon in front of its people?'" Rumsfeld told his audience. "To them I reply, I have no desire to attack the Pentagon; I want to liberate it. We need to save it from itself."

The next morning, the Pentagon would literally be attacked as American Airlines Flight 77 - a Boeing 757 - smashed into its western wall. Rumsfeld would famously assist rescue workers in pulling bodies from the rubble. But it didn't take long for him to seize the almost unthinkable opportunity presented by 9/11 to put his personal war on the fast track.

· An extract from Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army (published by Serpent's Tail, price £12.99). © 2007 Jeremy Scahill. To order a copy for £11.99 with free UK p&p go to guardian.co.uk/bookshop or call 0870 836 0875.
I'm sure Charles H. Fort had something to say on the topic of Fort-uitous coincidences? 'Fortuosity? Or, was that Tommy Steele?
 
Motive?well,by God, where the hell do we start?How about the 2.3 trillion dollars the Pentagon 'lost' announced a day before the 'plane' slammed into the Pentagon's accounting offices killing the accountants & destroying the records?
Or perhaps,the trans-Afgani pipeline as a motive for invading Afganistan?what's the Caspian basin energy reserves worth again?Or maybe the now permanent bases in the former Soviet satellite states that will allow us to militarily control the flow of oil/gas out or the region?What are they worth?(consider we can now cut off China or any other 'adversary' or 'ally' who opposes us)I don't know?Maybe it's the destruction of the American people's civil liberties..what with the patriot act (a 342 page document that would have taken an army of lawyers months to write) that was printed & bound & on the desk of every American congress man within 8 days of 911! (and the only two congressmen who bothered to open that binder & read a little of it & threatened to vote against it were sent Antrax in the mail & it was of the Ames strain..as in Ames Iowa....from our own bio-weapons lab..what does that tell you?) or maybe it's the record profits of contractors like Halliburton of whom the VP is CEO (with deffered payments of course) or perhaps the record profits of the oil companies..what using the 'unrest' in Iraq to keep oil off the market.Maybe the 'production sharing' agreements,Aye..what giving western oil companies 80+% of Iraq's oil for 30 years..what's that worth?What with peak oil & what not?There's lots & lots of motive for 911,but none for a shadowy 'terrorist' organization that did it just because they "Hate our freedom"
 
agree with you there entirely ....but motives are not always reasons for doing something.

JWS
 
JoeWestSydney said:
agree with you there entirely ....but motives are not always reasons for doing something.

JWS
Actually, isn't that what a motive is, by definition?

I think what you mean, although I may be wrong, is that having a motive is not the same as acting on it. I may have a motive to kill the person upstairs who practises tap dancing at 2 am, but that doesn't mean I'd do it.

Or to put it another way, motive doesn't necessarily lead to intent.
 
And let's not forget that that the supposed motives still seem to be conjectural.
 
waitew said:
Motive?well,by God, where the hell do we start?How about the 2.3 trillion dollars the Pentagon 'lost' announced a day before the 'plane' slammed into the Pentagon's accounting offices killing the accountants & destroying the records?

They made and announcement and then destroyed the evidence?

What devillish cunning :twisted:
 
Anome_ said:
JoeWestSydney said:
agree with you there entirely ....but motives are not always reasons for doing something.

JWS
Actually, isn't that what a motive is, by definition?

I think what you mean, although I may be wrong, is that having a motive is not the same as acting on it. I may have a motive to kill the person upstairs who practises tap dancing at 2 am, but that doesn't mean I'd do it.

Or to put it another way, motive doesn't necessarily lead to intent.

Killing a 2am tap dancer? surely that's self defence?
 
Mike_Pratt33 said:
waitew said:
Motive?well,by God, where the hell do we start?How about the 2.3 trillion dollars the Pentagon 'lost' announced a day before the 'plane' slammed into the Pentagon's accounting offices killing the accountants & destroying the records?

They made and announcement and then destroyed the evidence?

What devillish cunning :twisted:


Yep,that's exactly what they did.Which is better:to announce the money is missing knowing all the evidence will be destroyed in a 'terrorist' attack the next day & the story completely forgotten (all most) or risk having a survivor (a Pentagon accountant) give an interview from his hospital bed & spill the beans about the missing trillions?Besides it plays right into their arrogance.They're doing right in front or our noses & bragging about it & there's nothing we can do about it.They get off on that!
 
Back
Top