This is how it was done

[Tim Howells]

September 11 appears to have been a standard false-flag, operation
similar to the Gladio bombings, and the Aldo Moro assassination.
For excellent documentaries concerning these previous false-flag
operations go here:

http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video_CIA.htm

The second item in the list is a three part BBC Timewatch series
on Gladio. The Third item, Death in Rome, is a documentary on
the Aldo Moro assassination.

It works like this; Radical groups are infiltrated, and the agents
sent in then are positioned to lead the phony operations. They take
along with them weak-minded "compatriots" in the movement, who serve
as patsies. Care is taken to cook up manifestos along the lines of
the confession videos intended to be discovered after the atrocities
are committed. All of the heavy lifting in these operations is done
by highly qualified professionals with lots of inside help and
support. The patsies are just there as props, and to take the blame.

Is there any evidence that this is the case re 911? Yes!

"A former high-level intelligence official told me, 'Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the F.B.I. to chase.'"

WHAT WENT WRONG
The C.I.A. and the failure of American intelligence
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
The New Yorker
Issue of 2001-10-08

Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained at U.S. Bases
The Pentagon has turned over military records on five men to the FBI
September 15, 2001
By George Wehrfritz, Catharine Skipp and John Barry
NEWSWEEK

Sept. 15 — U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes that were used in Tuesday’s terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s.
THREE OF THE alleged hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla.—known as the “Cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation,” according to a high-ranking U.S. Navy source.
Another of the alleged hijackers may have been trained in strategy and tactics at the Air War College in Montgomery, Ala., said another high-ranking Pentagon official. The fifth man may have received language instruction at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Both were former Saudi Air Force pilots who had come to the United States, according to the Pentagon source.

... MORE AT LINK ...

According to several mainstream accounts, four of the hijackers trained at
the Pensacola Naval Air Base, and three of them gave the base as their
address on their drivers licenses.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&the_alleged_9/11_hijackers=otherHijackers

In this article, I discuss the evidence indicating that
Mohamed Atta was deliberately leaving a false trail during his time
in the United States:

September 11, Islamic Jihad or another Northwoods

And of course lets not forget the evidence surrounding the way
in which the hijackers received their visas to enter the US
(sponsored by the CIA).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x138085

And last, but not least, remember that the anthrax attacks were
definitely an inside job, according to authoritative sources close
to the investigation, complete with phony notes intended to implicate
"Arab terrorists".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=137603&mesg_id=137603

Tim Howells

[greyl]

1. Your post isn't worth its title, Tim. nt

[The Lone Groover]

2. Good post Tim, well worthy of its title. n/t

[greyl]

3. You wouldn't be responding to post #1 instead of the OP, would you?

Of course you wouldn't. After all, the OP explains how it was done, once and for all.
Let's close up shop, all the info we need is in the OP. Anyone looking for the best argument of Inside Job need look no further than the OP of this thread.
Bookmark it and send copies to Keith, because this is finally going to end the invasion of the Mid-East and pull the choke on the military-congressional-industrial complex.

[The Lone Groover]

4. America...

...would never dream of pulling off a false flag op.

Would it?

[greyl]

10. Yes, America would. Evidence of a dream isn't evidence of reality. nt

[Bryan Sacks]

5. (Idiotic) Goalposts coming through

So now hypotheses of the 9/11 attacks (with an admitted rhetorical flourish) have to resolve the Middle East crisis? Hey, that's fair. :sarcasm:

[Tim Howells]

6. Actually it's hard to imagine ...

It's hard to imagine that either the crises in our foreign
policy or our constitutional crises will be resolved without
first coming to grips with the true nature of the
September 11 attacks.

Tim Howells

[greyl]

12. Failure of imagination. nt

[greyl]

11. What are you babbling about? Straw argument due to lack of reading comprehension. nt

[Tim Howells]

31. Here's the point ...

The OP was in partly in response to your demand on another
thread for a "coherent theory" of what happened on September 11.
Well the OP provided that IMO. But rather than dealing with
that and even attempting to deal with this in a remotely
rational way, you just dance off with new "issues" like
the fact that the coherent theory does not provide a
solution to the problems in the Middle East.

Not that we expect any better of you, but since you ask,
that was the point of Brian's post.

Tim Howells

[greyl]

34. I disagree that the OP says what you claim it does.

Can you rephrase it and leave out the Gladio, anthrax, and Aldo Moro irrelevancies? Try not to depend on people following links, only use links as footnotes.
Phrase it however you please, but I'd prefer to see it in narrative form.

*Admittedly, my reply included sarcastic hyperbole regarding the military-industrial-congressional complex, but my argument doesn't depend on it.

[Tim Howells]

35. Those who do not learn history ...

... are destined to repeat it. And that is exactly what is going on
here. The secret services here and elsewhere repeatedly pull the
same old routine over and over, and the ignorant public falls for
it over and over. If you really cannot be arsed even in the
age of the internet to simply follow the links, I'm afraid I
can't help you.

If you truly believe that Gladio, the Moro assassination, Northwoods,
and even the anthrax attacks are irrelevant, I'm afraid you
are truly beyond help. There is none so blind ...

Tim Howells

[CJCRANE]

37. You make some good points.

The reality is that a post on a messageboard cannot contain a judge, jury, courtroom, evidence etc. to get to the bottom of this. But those who pay attention and investigate for themselves can see where the evidence leads (or at least that further invesitgation is necessary).

Somehow the debunkers expect us to present an open and shut case in a few paragraphs as if international espionage, money laundering, geo-politics etc are somehow simple topics that are easy to understand. They just need to look at how complex and long-lasting a financial fraud case can be to see that isn't true.

[Tim Howells]

39. agreed ...

Really getting to the bottom of 911 will require the full powers
of the federal government. However, already it is clear that the
broad outlines of the plot must be close to that argued in the OP,
and very far from the official line being pushed by a few loud-
mouths here.

Tim Howells

[MervinFerd]

7. O' Well that clears everything up. Brilliant! Mr. Howells! Simply Brilliant!

You can see things us ordinary mortals dare not think. Brilliantly infer vast plots from vague evidence and ambiguous details!

You rush in, where the very Angels would fear to tread!

[ima_sinnic]

8. speaking of "vague evidence and ambiguous details," what about that pantload we've

been told to swallow that is supposed to wrap everything up neat & tidy, no further questions need be asked?
From the sound of your post, I assume you think your "vague evidence" of OCT does a better job than OP's of explaining things?

[Tim Howells]

9. Well, there is a serious point in there ...

For a serious and thoughful exploration of the problems associated with
"connecting the dots", see this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x142357

Tim Howells

[MervinFerd]

13. One fears that you look at a whole page, full of dots, and...

connect the ones that make the image of the elephant you want to see, then erase the ones that don't fit your elephant because--- they don't fit.


As to "crimes that make the laws tremble": Iran-Contra ain't 911 and you would still need --real-- evidence, even if it were. No number of connected dots can substitute for -one- named witness or -one- unambiguous document.

[Tim Howells]

27. That is always a concern ...

Which is why dialogs like this with people who see things
differently can be valuable, if you can get an
honest exchange going - challenging each other's
interpretation based on evidence.

You dismiss Gladio and the Aldo Moro assassination,
Northwoods, the Lavon affair, etc. as irrelevant, but
I see them as highly relevant. They establish beyond
any doubt a pattern of using false-flag attacks and
atrocities for political purposes. The resemblance
to 911 is clear in terms of the type of operation - the
only difference is one of scale. In the case of Gladio
there were hundreds of innocenct victims - in the case
of 911 there are thousands. IMO anyone who does not
hesitate to sacrifice hundreds of innocent civilians,
and in fact views that operation as a big success -
It is hardly surprising that they go on to bigger things.

I hope that you have already watched or will watch those
documentaries carefully. One good thing is that it takes
away for a moment the context of September 11, which is such
an emotional, raw and immediate issue. Take a careful look
at how these things work, and try to cast a cold, analytical
eye on exactly what was done who did these things and why and
how - all the operational levels required to make something
like that work. The Italian operations are an important part
of our recent history in any case, and everyone should try to
develop a good understanding of thm.

We can come back to September 11 any time, but understanding
Gladio etc. is crucial for anyone who accepts e.g. Chomsky's
attitude that we are in tin-foil-hat-science-fiction-beyond-
preposterous-etc territory here. That simply is a major
misconception on your part.

Tim Howells

[CJCRANE]

14. Interesting post.

Although I'm thinking of becoming an OCTer, it's much easier just insulting other people and moving the goalposts any time they get near to a coherent accusation.

[greyl]

15. "Near" to a coherent accusation? You said it.

Even the most impressively intelligent Inside Job Cultist accusations aren't coherent and supported by evidence. They're farther away than they appear.

[CJCRANE]

16. You've made my point.

How much evidence do you want? You keep moving the goal-posts.

Most people think OJ Simpson is guilty but did he ever confess? No but they look at the evidence and that's the conclusion they keep to. Very few killers come along with a piece of paper saying "hey guys, it's me, I've written the evidence all down here and signed it".*

*Although in fact OJ did eventually write a book but it was years after the event.

[greyl]

17. Could you do us a favor and rephrase the OP

so that the coherent theory and evidence that you claim to be there are presented as succinctly as possible?
Tip: Don't mention Gladio, Aldo Moro, or Anthrax. They're irrelevant.

[CJCRANE]

18. You're purpose seems to

be to simply claim that things are irrelevant.

As I've stated before we're not going to get to the bottom of this from a few comments on a messageboard. It's obvious your agenda is to support the status quo no matter what and "CTers" are here to question it. Challenging the status quo is always going to be harder but in the end let's hope we're on "the right side of history". B*sh & Blair are still power but even now the 9/11 and Iraq War questions are bubbling up. They seem to keeping to be keeping a lid on them - just.

[greyl]

20. If you really think my agenda is to support the status quo, you're wildly ignorant.

Why not take half an hour and attempt to fulfill my request? Is it an important issue to you, or not?

[CJCRANE]

22. There is a lot more for me to lose

than for you.

I think that's why CTers generally dabble around the edges, get bogged down in technical details or (in the worst cases) bring in lizardmen and lasers to lighten the accusation.

I myself am just dabbling, I think it's for each person to come to their own conclusions in their own time based on the evidence or lack of evidence they've seen.

[greyl]

26. Sounds like Sylvia Browne's unspoken defense.

She knows if her claims were put to a proper test, they would fail.

www.stopsylviabrowne.com/home/

[CJCRANE]

28. Not really.

Look at what happened to Litvinenko. If you had proof of a Russian MIHOP, for instance, would you personally stand up and shout it out to the world?

[greyl]

29. Oh, that's what you meant. You're afraid of being murdered.

Uh huh.

[CJCRANE]

30. It's unlikely that anyone's paying attention

to a few posts on DU. But I have heard of freepers tracking down DUers and harassing them and they're only the lowest critters on the food-scale.

The reality is that powerful people in foreign govts are involved/accused. It's easy for you to poke fun because you are on the side of power, you have nothing to lose.

If you are prepared to stand up in public and make an accusation about a foreign govt then I will salute your bravery. But you seem more interested in using tactics of ridicule and offering nothing constructive.

[greyl]

33. Being tracked down and harassed by "Truthers" doesn't shut me up.

I think it's probable that you're using this gauzy defense because you can't find a coherent theory supported by evidence anywhere in the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement. edit: (I can't find one) /edit
I leave the possibility open that I'm wrong on that, which is why I'm trying to encourage someone to cut through the bullshit and present a decent argument.
As it stands, the OP is nothing more than evidence of the power of suggestion to sway peoples perception.

[CJCRANE]

32. By the way

I've lived in a third-world country which was a One-Party State transitioning to democracy.
And contrary to popular belief they don't always simply assassinate the opposition (look at Burma and Zimbabwe also as an example of this). What they generally do is harass them and arrest them on trumped-up charges and flood the media with hit-pieces about them. So standing up to power isn't usually lethal but it is very difficult and not the path to choose for an easy life.

on edit: added Zimbabwe

[MervinFerd]

24. Gladio, Anthrax, Northwoods, the Maine and Bush reading PetGoat....

really -are- irrelevant.

To prove something to the unconvinced, you have to start with a clear hypothesis and then present evidence that bears -directly- on that hypothesis.

We are -all- quite convinced that Bush is a nasty bastard who would do anything he can get away with. But that does not mean that he -did- do any particular thing. There still has to be evidence.

[Tim Howells]

36. So the Anthrax attacks are irrelevant ...

That is a pretty amazing statement. I can see though why
you want to ignore the long history of false-flag terrorism.
Anyone who understands this history cannot help but strongly
suspect that 911 was an inside job. For a knowledgeable
person, the evidence presented in the OP re the backgrounds
of the alleged hijackers and the planted evidence clinches it.

Tim Howells

[Tim Howells]

38. Oh ... and about that planted evidence ...

thanks to Alex Jones et al. for pointing out these early observations from
noted September 11 "debunker", the ultra-politically-correct George Monbiot:

Like almost everyone on earth, I want to believe that the attack on New York was the work of a single despot and his obedient commando. But the more evidence US intelligence presents to this effect, the less credible the story becomes.

First there was the car. A man had informed the police, we were told, that he'd had a furious argument with some suspicious-looking Muslims in the parking lot at Boston airport. He led investigators to the car, in which they found a copy of the Qur'an and a flight manual in Arabic, showing that these were the fundamentalists who had hijacked one of the planes. Now flying an airliner is not one of those things you learn in the back of a car on the way to the airport. Either you know how to do it or you don't. Leaving the Qu'ran unattended, a Muslim friend tells me, is considered sinful. And if you were about to perpetrate one of the biggest terrorist outrages the world has ever seen, would you draw attention to yourself by arguing over a parking place?

Then there was the passport. The security services claim that a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was extracted from the rubble of the World Trade Centre. This definitive identification might help them to track the rest of the network. We are being asked to believe that a paper document from the cockpit of the first plane -- the epicentre of an inferno which vapourised steel -- survived the fireball and fell to the ground almost intact.

When presented with material like this, I can't help suspecting that intelligence agents have assembled the theory first, then sought the facts required to fit it. I think there are grounds to suggest that the attacks were carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even if we don't know precisely who they were. But why do the agents appear to be overdressing their case?

http://www.zmag.org/monbiotcollat.htm">Collateral Repair How to Win the War with Peace
George Monbiot
The Guardian
September 25, 2001

I guess this was before Monbiot got the word that this subject was out of bounds.

Tim Howells

[MervinFerd]

19. The --accusation-- against OJ was entirely clear and coherent; therefore,

it is possible to form a clear opinion as to his guilt or innocence.

With Conspiracy Theories of the kind in the OP, there is 'evidence'--lots of evidence-- but there is no coherent -accusation-. One cannot, therefore, form any clear opinions at all.

If all this evidence actually proves something, then STATE THE ACCUSATION CLEARLY.

Yes, "we" will question whether the evidence actually supports the accusation. But, that's how the process of investigation and rational discussion works--- State hypothesis, question and reject hypothesis, state better hypothesis or gather new evidence, etc...

Conspiracy Theorists universally adopt this tactic---State evidence that surely must prove -something-, but never say what the -something- is (because a clear statement can be rebutted but a vague insinuation cannot).

[greyl]

21. OT on O.J.: I agreed with the criminal court decision. nt

[CJCRANE]

23. Let's hope they catch the real killer!

;)

[greyl]

25. Heheh. I think a guilty man was framed, and that the prosecution sucked. nt