9/11: Are "Let It Happen" theories debunkable?

[Bruno D.]

Before describing the claim, I'd like to say that I have no idea why Truthers do not try to "convince the world" about conspiracies using much simpler methods, like undebunkable theories, like the one below.

Claim:
- A few people from the government (and CIA, and FBI and others) knew something big was about to happen, but they simply chose to not act so that they could have a big excuse for a War on Terror and Patriotic Act and others. "They" could even suggest targets or fund trainings or anything else. The main goal is to involve as little people as possible on the conspiracy. There are actually some information of UK and other countries Intelligence warning US about that.
- The "they let it happen" conspiracy would take only a dozen people, and if anything leaked, "they" could always argue that it was incompetence rather than conspiracy.
- The only point is that "they" never thought that the towers would actually come down. "They" planned planes to explode on air, planes to hit buildings and so on, but no one could ever imagine that planes hitting the WTC would actually make both of them collapse.

So, is this claim debunkable?

My opinion is that it's not, because no one has all the information to prove or disprove it. And all the gains for "them" would be the exact same ones as the "controlled demolition" and similar.

The CTs could orchestrate their theories, proofs, videos, opinions, everything for the "they let it happen" theory, no sides would be able to convince the other one (this already happens :[ ) , and we would be spared of nonsense debates over the internet.

 

[Lobster Johnson]

I think it has more to do with the fact that Truthers actually believe what they are saying is true rather than taking a generic, counter official standpoint and arguing that.

 

[Mick West]

We don't debunk claims of theories. We debunk claims of evidence.

What evidence is claimed here?

 

[Alienentity]

LIHOP has been around for a while, so has the ever popular MIHOP. (corrected!)

Is it debunkable? Many aspects are, IMO, since the FAA, NEADS, and both military and civilian chains of commands attempted to respond but were unable to in time to prevent the attacks.
The LIHOPers make all kinds of debunkable claims regarding intercepts and responses.

 

[Bruno D.]

We don't debunk claims of theories. We debunk claims of evidence.

What evidence is claimed here?

Hmmm, Mick, it was more about opening a discussion about this line of thought than posting evidence to be debunked. I could work a little harder on finding evidence for this theory if I actually believed that. ;-)

Well, if there's no place to wide open discussion threads, please move or close this one.

 

[Bruno D.]

LIHOP has been around for a while, so has the ever popular LIHOP.

Is it debunkable? Many aspects are, IMO, since the FAA, NEADS, and both military and civilian chains of commands attempted to respond but were unable to in time to prevent the attacks.
The LIHOPers make all kinds of debunkable claims regarding intercepts and responses.

I was not familiar with the acronyms. Tks

The first google result for the search is interesting:
http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/lihop-vs-mihop/

 

[Mick West]

Hmmm, Mick, it was more about opening a discussion about this line of thought than posting evidence to be debunked. I could work a little harder on finding evidence for this theory if I actually believed that. ;-)

Well, if there's no place to wide open discussion threads, please move or close this one.

There's a place for meta-discussions about conspiracy theories, I was just clarifying what it means to debunk something here. You can almost NEVER actually debunk such a claim in the sense of proving it - but you can debunk individual claims of evidence. I'd like to see what the actual claims of evidence are (then they can be debunking in individual threads, if needed)

 

[Mick West]

I was not familiar with the acronyms. Tks

The first google result for the search is interesting:
http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/lihop-vs-mihop/

I like to suggest a third possibility when this distinction comes up. The "Glad it happened, not on purpose" (unfortunately GIHNOP).

I do this because a significant part of the "evidence" that people use to justify LIHOP is that parties have since benefited from it, in political and/or monetary ways. I try to raise the issue that these people (PNAC, for example) would have benefitted from it in exactly the same way regardless of if they helped plan it or not - hence their profiting alone is not evidence of their involvement.

 

[Mick West]

Thread title changed to reflect OP content.

 

[Alienentity]

I was not familiar with the acronyms. Tks

The first google result for the search is interesting:
http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/lihop-vs-mihop/

I figured as much. Sorry, my typo is now corrected. Second one should read MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose)

 

[Bruno D.]

We don't debunk claims of theories. We debunk claims of evidence.

What evidence is claimed here?

What about whistleblower Coleen Rowley? Formerly a FBI agent and who wrote a letter on 2002 stating that she warned and warned and warned about Zacarias Moussaoui and that she was ignored. I didn't find anything about her here at Metabunk.

Although it's not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was involved, it could mean that "they" didn't want to act on anything related to terrorism on those days.

The evidence for LIHOP is her report / letter.

Here is her full report:
http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2002/10.html

Here is her blog, where she uses her "popularity" to talk about this and other subjects:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/

 

[Mick West]

What about whistleblower Coleen Rowley? Formerly a FBI agent and who wrote a letter on 2002 stating that she warned and warned and warned about Zacarias Moussaoui and that she was ignored. I didn't find anything about her here at Metabunk.

Although it's not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was involved, it could mean that "they" didn't want to act on anything related to terrorism on those days.

The evidence for LIHOP is her report / letter.

Here is her full report:
http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2002/10.html

Here is her blog, where she uses her "popularity" to talk about this and other subjects:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/

That's possibly evidence for incompetence at the individual or organizational level. But why is it evidence of deliberate inaction, or foreknowledge?

 

[Alienentity]

What about whistleblower Coleen Rowley? Formerly a FBI agent and who wrote a letter on 2002 stating that she warned and warned and warned about Zacarias Moussaoui and that she was ignored. I didn't find anything about her here at Metabunk.

Although it's not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was involved, it could mean that "they" didn't want to act on anything related to terrorism on those days.

The evidence for LIHOP is her report / letter.

Here is her full report:
http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2002/10.html

Here is her blog, where she uses her "popularity" to talk about this and other subjects:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/

LIHOP can't be proved based on a person being ignored or marginalized. For that you'd have to have direct admission thru emails or phone calls of superiors.
Strangely despite all the revelations gleaned by the Bradley Manning and Snowden leaks, absolutely NOTHING has been uncovered to support LIHOP or MIHOP theories.

This alone should strongly indicate that there is no substance to the theories and rumours.

 

[Bruno D.]

That's possibly evidence for incompetence at the individual or organizational level. But why is it evidence of deliberate inaction, or foreknowledge?

That's the main problem: it's almost impossible to distinguish LIHOP from incompetence, you can't debunk and you can't prove this evidence. The only way to do that is having additional proofs directly from the "system" or from whoever participated in the scheme.

But going to the main point of this topic, if the CTs were much more focused on LIHOP than MIHOP theories, it would be much much more difficult to debunk anything.
- Debunkers would say that you cannot affirm that there was a conspiracy because there is no final proof.
- CTs would say that you cannot affirm there wasn't without a proof.

Deadlock.

LIHOP can't be proved based on a person being ignored or marginalized. For that you'd have to have direct admission thru emails or phone calls of superiors.
Strangely despite all the revelations gleaned by the Bradley Manning and Snowden leaks, absolutely NOTHING has been uncovered to support LIHOP or MIHOP theories.

This alone should strongly indicate that there is no substance to the theories and rumours.

The main difference between Rowley and Snowden / Manning is the amount of documents each whistleblower was able to gather. If Snowden or Manning only said A, B or C, they would be discredit very quickly.

For this reason is it safe to say that a whistleblower should only blow the whistle when he possess documents? Wouldn't it make everything very hard for conspiracies uncovering?

 

[Cairenn]

It is easy for me to believe that Bush administration missed putting the pieces together. First they had put together a team, and folks had to learn to work with each other. All members of their team were not yet in place. (My Brother in Law was on a flight to DC that day, because his confirmation hearing before the Senate was the next day --he was confirmed a month or so later as a Deputy Sec of the Interior).

Many of the folks that Bush brought in were specialists in other parts of the world, not in the Mid East.

I think that the upset and turmoil of a change in the White House and in the party in power allowed things to be missed. Even if Gore had won, many of the same problems would have been there also.

 

[5forforty]

That's possibly evidence for incompetence at the individual or organizational level. But why is it evidence of deliberate inaction, or foreknowledge?

In order to establish deliberate inaction or foreknowledge, it first must be established that the party knew/had reason to know, and despite that the party still acted grossly negligent or recklessly.

 

[Michael Scott]

It's not quite a conspiracy, but it is quite evident that there was a failure of law enforcement to stop them. It's also quite likely the there was a coverup of it if there was.

But it's more of an issue of covering incompetence than a full blown conspiracy.

 

[WeedWhacker]

It's not quite a conspiracy, but it is quite evident that there was a failure of law enforcement to stop them. It's also quite likely the there was a coverup of it if there was.

But it's more of an issue of covering incompetence than a full blown conspiracy.

To your first point? No, not a conspiracy....EXCEPT as much as a "cover MY ass" tendency....AFTER the events. Meaning, a LOT of the "alphabet agencies" really screwed the pooch....

So, that means, I tend to agree with your last sentence, the "summation".

EDIT: And, since I have the "floor" for a bit....the LIHOP versus MIHOP ("LIHOP" is the topic of this thread) seem irrelevant.

IT HAPPENED!!! And, was a MAJOR failure of intelligence gathering and inter-agency communication and cooperation....is MY take on it!

EDIT (2)...and, it forever CHANGED my enjoyment of my chosen career, as an airline pilot....to the detriment.

 

[McGurnicle]

In order to establish deliberate inaction or foreknowledge, it first must be established that the party knew/had reason to know, and despite that the party still acted grossly negligent or recklessly.

US Intelligence was warned repeatedly and often in the years and months leading up to the attacks, and contrary to official spin and denials, the Intelligence Community of the US was provided specifics including the method of attack as well as the targets.
They Tried to Warn Us: Foreign Intelligence Warnings Before 9/11

Not to mention the many "intelligence failures" where evidence and information was uncovered which would have undoubtedly foiled the plot but was either suppressed or destroyed for ostensibly absurd reasons. It seems clear that all parties concerned knew/had reason to know, and despite that still acted grossly negligent or recklessly. Foreknowledge and deliberate inaction have been pretty solidly established to a fair standard of reason but since there is no absolute proof there are still grounds, no matter how shaky those grounds may be, for doubt, if one is so inclined to doubt for whatever reasons.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

Conceptually, the national security apparatus was aware of threats to the state... much the way police are aware that crime is an ever present problem. Both are hard to prevent for multiple reasons and one of them is that it is not possible to accuse someone of a crime that hasn't been committed. What they do do is make a case for conspiracy to commit a crime and this is not very easy in police work nor in international matters... especially involving non state actors as is the case with terrorism.

Clearly whether stated openly or not, the NSS was aware that USA policies were not popular with people around the world and especially in the ME where the US is seen as very much a partisan in the Israeli-Arab conflict which has been going on since the establishment of Israel. There have been many instances of "terrorism" aimed at US citizens and assets around the world for decades and one could easily assume that at some point the US would experience a terrorist incidence coming from the ME on its own soil.

So the NSS was attempting in some "feeble" way to monitor what they believed were persons of interests who appeared connected to terrorism in some manner. To build a conspiracy case they would have had to infiltrate these operations in the planning stage. And this was almost impossible given how small these operations are and how below the radar they are by their very nature.

Entrapment or stings are tools used but they require insider knowledge and this is very difficult to come by. We can predict that there will be corporate crime or conspiracies in the future but how does law enforcement find out where? Usually with some snitch or gets wind of something afoot.

We hear at some point at the NSS heard "chatter" and thought something was up but clearly it seems did not have enough of the pieces of the puzzle to act in any coherent and coordinated manner. Perhaps some people were tipped off to be cautious during a certain time frame??? And there was the failed Bojinka plot which was exposed and perhaps the basis for using commercial fights to inflict terrorist damage to the USA.

I doubt the public at the time would have accepted very heightened security at airports at the time... and who knows if they could have caught the hijackers in any case.

The result of 9/11 is we now have more invasive security and less privacy and the people accept this for their personal safety... so grandmas and little children can be stripped searched and all our communications are monitored... all in an attempt to catch a crime before it happens.

 

[jaydeehess]

The same administration that lacked foresight to seal Iraq's borders upon destroying that country's buracracy, the same administration that did not have the foresight to devise a law enforcement community after destroying the existing police organizations there, the same administration that thought handing over pursuit of the very person they went into Afghanistan to apprehend, over to Afghanis, the same administration that had many months to prepare for actions in Afghanistan and Iraq but did not have the foresight to uparmour light vehicles,
that administration demonstrates that they deliberately disallowed intelligence agencies from following up on Intel by demonstrable lack of foresight about the terror attack plans of All Qada?

Really?

 

[Svartbjørn]

The same administration that lacked foresight to seal Iraq's borders upon destroying that country's buracracy, the same administration that did not have the foresight to devise a law enforcement community after destroying the existing police organizations there, the same administration that thought handing over pursuit of the very person they went into Afghanistan to apprehend, over to Afghanis, the same administration that had many months to prepare for actions in Afghanistan and Iraq but did not have the foresight to uparmour light vehicles,
that administration demonstrates that they deliberately disallowed intelligence agencies from following up on Intel by demonstrable lack of foresight about the terror attack plans of All Qada?

Really?

You forgot "The same administration that was too stupid to run the country" was also responsible for a massive conspiracy for all of the above.

 

[Hevach]

Toss in, the administration that thought Ben Stein was the world's leading economist and trusted his advice that it was mathematically impossible to tank the housing market, the administration that forgot to check if an agent was undercover before talking about her, or the administration that forgot to clear the undo metadata from their plagiarized report on Iraq before releasing the raw file to the press...

These are the little things, knowing how your tools work, knowing how to read a list, knowing how to vet experts, knowing how to use Google. The very foundation of a conspiracy big or small, and the Bush Administration was full of self described "big picture guys" who failed at details.

Oh, hey, one more, the administration that leaked like a sieve. When the president and VP themselves are responsible for leaks and not just staff grunts, there can be no secrets, because there's no telling what they'll blurt out to a hostile room during a touchy press conference like the villain from a bad 1980's courtroom drama.

If details are the foundation, secrecy is the roof. And a building with a broken foundation and a cardboard roof will topple in the first stiff breeze. The US has probably never had a presidency capable of keeping a conspiracy this large hushed up, but the Bush administration might just have been the worst one for that job.

 

[jaydeehess]

Ben Stein, master economist and scientist

 

[Myth Crusher]

That's possibly evidence for incompetence at the individual or organizational level. But why is it evidence of deliberate inaction, or foreknowledge?

There is much more evidence. Remember, FBI agents sent warnings to the White House. So did a CIA official. The CIA memo was even titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US". This is all declassified.

It's also worth noting that other warnings came from Germany, Egypt, France etc. Some even sending more then one warning. Many whistle blowers to point out, like Bruno D. pointed out. To blame all this on an "Intelligence failure" is absurd in any case.

But hey, even the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission, John Farmer said in his own book "At some level of the government, at some point in time... there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened".

 

[Mick West]

There is much more evidence. Remember, FBI agents sent warnings to the White House. So did a CIA official. The CIA memo was even titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US". This is all declassified.

It's also worth noting that other warnings came from Germany, Egypt, France etc. Some even sending more then one warning. Many whistle blowers to point out, like Bruno D. pointed out. To blame all this on an "Intelligence failure" is absurd in any case.

But hey, even the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission, John Farmer said in his own book "At some level of the government, at some point in time... there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened".

"absurd" is a rather subjective judgement. How do you know how competent the intelligence services were, or how well the inter-agency sharing worked?

And the "not tell the truth" would at least include covering up such failures, as nobody wanted to take the blame.

 

[Svartbjørn]

Unfortunately, both sides of the issue are subjective. Having a bit of experience working with the intelligence community.. I was stationed with an Intel Bn in Okinawa... The sheer amount of information you have come across the desk is insane... and this was just for our operational area. I can only imagine how much information the FBI/CIA/MI-5/CSIS.. then having to sort through it all, analyze it, dissect it, trace down leads your analysts THINK might pan out or be credible.. or actual threats.. then place on top of THAT the sheer number of threats the US gets on a daily basis both home AND abroad? There's no way to pin point who knew what and when, why things were classified as credible while others werent.

My own personal opinion is that it wasnt a "failure" in the sense that someone made some kind of huge mistake that screwed the pooch.. but more along the lines of, looking at the massive amount of information that comes in hourly, let alone daily makes trying to pin 9/11 on anyone in particular is an exercise in futility. Even if you COULD find hard concrete evidence that some one somewhere INTENTIONALLY hid what was going to happen.. good luck getting a confession or having it stand up in court. I dont think 9/11 was an inside job, that some analyst somewhere hid the truth, or that their bosses knew about it and hid the truth JUST so they could have an excuse to invade Iraq.. there are helluva lot easier ways to go about invading a country than some massive convoluted scheme involving thousands of people all working in concert with one another JUST to make sure hijackers take over a few aircraft. From a tactical standpoint.. there are too many variables.. too many things that can change or go wrong. If you want to use an event as an excuse you do so in such a manner that you can absolutely control the outcome for your own designs.. you dont leave something to chance.

 

[Myth Crusher]

"absurd" is a rather subjective judgement. How do you know how competent the intelligence services were, or how well the inter-agency sharing worked?

And the "not tell the truth" would at least include covering up such failures, as nobody wanted to take the blame.

I think such an intelligence failure is too massive to NOT be a cover up. I don't buy the "Inside Job" theory. But I am very convinced they knew the attack was coming and did nothing to stop it. There was so much gained from this attack.

Even insiders say that information was withheld. Take the John Farmer quote for example. Not to get too off topic here but 6 of the 10 original 9/11 commission members have said that information was withheld from the investigation.

But my mane point here is that there were too many warnings from different places to just chalk it up to an "Intelligence Failure". This evidence speaks volumes.

 

[deirdre]

I think such an intelligence failure is too massive to NOT be a cover up. I don't buy the "Inside Job" theory. But I am very convinced they knew the attack was coming and did nothing to stop it. There was so much gained from this attack.

Even insiders say that information was withheld. Take the John Farmer quote for example. Not to get too off topic here but 6 of the 10 original 9/11 commission members have said that information was withheld from the investigation.

But my mane point here is that there were too many warnings from different places to just chalk it up to an "Intelligence Failure". This evidence speaks volumes.

you need to provide sources of the quote, if you are going to 'quote' someone(s).

 

[Pete Tar]

But I am very convinced they knew the attack was coming and did nothing to stop it.

They knew that exact attack and the nature of how it would be carried out was coming, or they knew that a non-specific terrorist attack attempt would be made at some point in time?

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

They knew that exact attack and the nature of how it would be carried out was coming, or they knew that a non-specific terrorist attack attempt would be made at some point in time?

Anyone might speculate with a good amount of certainty that the US would be a target of terrorism. Our policies were grating people around the world and "diplomacy" was not an option for those people.... terrorism was.

The US had no policy to prevent crimes before they happen... especially terrorism which is often hatched offshore. Intel is supposed to find out these sorts of things... And there was talk of "chatter" about a coming attack. Did they infiltrate enough to know the precise plans?

Stings are difficult... and it's pretty hard to catch a crime underway unless you know all the details and can position assets to thwart the crime... What would more security at the airport have done? If they knew the hijackers were going to do the deed perhaps they could have grabbed them before the boarder the planes... tossed them in jail and proceeded to a conspiracy case.

But obviously they did not have that level of intel. And once the planes were hijacked there was little to nothing to do. We had and have no policy to shoot down commercial air liners. The element of surprise worked against the massive national security state.

There was a cover up so the public could not know how ineffectual intel and our national security apparatus was... something we have spent trillions on... mostly to fight a war with USSR or similar or... invade an unfriendly nation to plunder its resources. War is a money racket and the MIC has been partying on tax payers' dime for decades. Enemies using terrorism are really a very difficult "enemy" to stop... naval battle groups and ICBMS and fighter jets and tanks are useless... but that's what we have... The MIC was pretty embarrassed by 9/11 and had to make sure that the focus would shift away form how and why 9/11 happened to making wars to get rich and supposedly prevent another one... hahahaha hence the big run up to war and all the patriots beating their drums and waving their flags and rushing off to fight in the ME.

There were many lessons to learn from 9/11 including how absurd some of these tall buildings are... really death traps. Officials and engineers and so on allowed these sorts of buildings to be erected with inadequate protection for the occupants.

My take away is that "no accountability" is as American as apple pie.

 

[Myth Crusher]

you need to provide sources of the quote, if you are going to 'quote' someone(s).

Which quote in particular? The John Farmer quote is from his own book. I was just coupling that fact with all the warnings they received. It makes the story look even more fishy. With warnings coming from literally multiple countries and alphabet agencies it would be a stretch to just make an excuse for everything. "This was a coincidence, that was a coincidence, this is too, and that, and that, and that, and this" and when an insider comes out you can't just say "Their opinion is invalid".

But my goal is not to find a conspiracy, but find the truth. For this (9/11) the evidence is staggering. Far too many pieces that don't add up correctly to just attribute this to "Coincidence".

It wouldn't be the first time our government has manufactured an act of terror to further some purpose they might have had. (Think of the Gulf of Tonkin or the innocent lives lost in Iran during Operation AJAX when they staged many attacks, killing hundreds).

 

[deirdre]

Which quote in particular? The John Farmer quote is from his own book.

most people reading, don't know who John Farmer is. They don't have his book. It's best when providing evidence to write the actual quote and where it came from so we can see what you are talking about. Otherwise you are just some guy on the internet saying things that may or may not be true (no offense). There's a lot of 'not true' on the internet these days ; )

 

[Myth Crusher]

most people reading, don't know who John Farmer is. They don't have his book. It's best when providing evidence to write the actual quote and where it came from so we can see what you are talking about. Otherwise you are just some guy on the internet saying things that may or may not be true (no offense). There's a lot of 'not true' on the internet these days ; )

I pointed out who he was. He was Senior Council for the 9/11 Commission. His book is titled "Ground Truth".

Here you can see multiple quotes from insiders disputing the official narrative - http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september112009/911_truth_9-11-09.php

 

[Mick West]

I was just coupling that fact with all the warnings they received. It makes the story look even more fishy. With warnings coming from literally multiple countries and alphabet agencies it would be a stretch to just make an excuse for everything. "This was a coincidence, that was a coincidence, this is too, and that, and that, and that, and this" and when an insider comes out you can't just say "Their opinion is invalid".
But my goal is not to find a conspiracy, but find the truth. For this (9/11) the evidence is staggering. Far too many pieces that don't add up correctly to just attribute this to "Coincidence".

Where is your quote about coincidences coming from? Who said "Their opinion is invalid".

If you are going to debunk a claim, or claim someone said something, then please provide the original quote and a reference (preferably a link).

 

[Myth Crusher]

Where is your quote about coincidences coming from? Who said "Their opinion is invalid".

If you are going to debunk a claim, or claim someone said something, then please provide the original quote and a reference (preferably a link).

Well, what do you have to say about so many insiders already claiming that information was withheld and that the government made it clear not to tell the truth? If you're saying that their points are in fact valid than that is to say that the government covered this up. If you are saying that this was a cover up, then we are on the same page.

 

[jaydeehess]

Well, what do you have to say about so many insiders already claiming that information was withheld and that the government made it clear not to tell the truth?[
If you're saying that their points are in fact valid than that is to say that the government covered this up. If you are saying that this was a cover up, then we are on the same page.

What information, what type of information? How does this not support the idea that this was withholding or sugar coating to cover up incompetence rather than your accusation of it covering up a deliberate plan to allow the attack to go forth?

You say you are not looking for a conspiracy but you also seem to be saying that the attacks were known of and allowed to take place. That would be a deliberate act of forethought and thus a conspiracy.

 

[jaydeehess]

Who, specifically, are "they", and what, specifically, did they know about the attacks?

There was a report that Condi Rice called a friend on the west coast who was to fly to the east on Sept 11, and told him not to. His flight was to take off at a time that would put no where close to the scene at the time of the hijackings, and his plane was taking off from the west coast.
Obviously if this report is true then C.Rice was not trying to protect him from being hijacked if she had knowledge about where the planes were being hijacked from, or where the targets were. At best then she was protecting him from the inconvenience of having to be grounded in the middle of the country.

Really????

I know of no report at all that has any specifics about the attacks, no intelligence about the airlines being targeted let alone which flights or even the airport. No Intel about the day/time of day of the attacks.

Yes, there were reports that greatly implied that terrorists would learn to fly well enough to pilot a hijacked flight into ground targets. Just how does that mean a conspiracy to let AQ do so in NY, and D.C.?


In fact one item demonstrates the lack of specificity. The continued musing as to the intended target of Flight 93. If any specifics about targets are contained in the info that supposedly was ignored and spoken of by Farmer, then this guesswork would no longer be required.

IMHO BTW, Flight 93 was headed for the Capitol Building. Its very large, very distinctive and easy to find from the air due to its size and distinctiveness and due to the large landmarks nearby, such as the National Mall with the reflecting pool showing the way.

 

[Myth Crusher]

What information, what type of information? How does this not support the idea that this was withholding or sugar coating to cover up incompetence rather than your accusation of it covering up a deliberate plan to allow the attack to go forth?

You say you are not looking for a conspiracy but you also seem to be saying that the attacks were known of and allowed to take place. That would be a deliberate act of forethought and thus a conspiracy.

It supports the idea because there were gains from this attack. What happened after the attack? Almost immediately afterwards the Patriot act was passed. 2 wars sprung up from this. And keep in mind we went after oil in Iraq and lithium in Afghanistan. Corporations profited millions! Dick Cheney's previous company Haliburton, made millions in contracts.

It's really not a stretch, staging attacks or covering them up has been a key method for furthering a certain political agenda for years. Hitler bombed his own reichstag didn't he? That was the Parliament building that his military bombed only to blame it on another entity so he could further his agenda. And in order to get to war with Poland, Hitler faked a Polish invasion and blamed them for the attack. This all came to light during the trials after WW2.

Japan bombed their own railways to start war with China by blaming this attack on them. That's now recorded is it not?

If you'd like American examples then I can still point out many. The Gulf of Tonkin attack was a fabricated event. They distorted info in order to get involved with Vietnam. Now that's totally admitted too.

Any idea what happened in Iran in 1953? A little thing called "Operation AJAX". In this, our CIA spread false rumors about the Iranian president to get him kicked out of power. But aside from spreading lies and disinformation, they were also responsible for murdering literally hundreds of innocent people to blame it on the Iranian president. Between 300 - 900 people lost their lives because the CIA staged and fabricated terror attacks. You can read more here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax#U.S._role

What did the many people within our government plan to do in 1963? Blow up American planes to blame it on Cuba. JFK wouldn't go through with this although it was signed by all the Join Chiefs of Staff. Now this has been completely declassified.

Now we learn of warnings sent about 9/11 and see insiders state that information was withheld to hinder their investigation and you expect people to believe it? The writing is on the wall. This is a very clear cover up.

You no longer have anything to debunk on this particular subject to debunk. So in this case, if anybody is going to just divert attention here I no longer wish to participate in this thread.

 

[jaydeehess]

MythCrusher, you responded to my post yet did not actually address any point I made.

Yes, the attacks were used to further an agenda. That does not mean that agenda drove the attacks.

If I were to be killed in a traffic accident would the fact that my wife will collect on insurance insinuate that she had something to do with it?

What information, what type of information? How does this not support the idea that this was withholding or sugar coating to cover up incompetence rather than your accusation of it covering up a deliberate plan to allow the attack to go forth?

You say you are not looking for a conspiracy but you also seem to be saying that the attacks were known of and allowed to take place. That would be a deliberate act of forethought and thus a conspiracy.

Your last post also indicates you are supposing a probable conspiracy.