9/11 conspiracy theories rife in Muslim world

[defendandprotect]

9/11 conspiracy theories rife in Muslim world

By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA, Associated Press Writer

EXCERPTS ONLY --

Such beliefs have currency even in the United States. In 2006, a Scripps Howard poll of 1,010 Americans found 36 percent thought it somewhat or very likely that U.S. officials either participated in the attacks or took no action to stop them.

Controversy over U.S. actions and policies, including the widely discredited assertions that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, reinforced the perceptions of conspiracy theorists. Iranians dug deeper into history, recalling the U.S.-backed coup in their country in 1953.

"Initially, I was doubtful about the conspiracy theories. But after seeing the events in later years, I don't have any doubt that it was their own operation to find a pretext to hit Muslim countries," said Shaikh Mushtaq Ahmed, a 58-year-old operations manager in a bank in Pakistan. "It's not a strange thing that they staged something like this in their own country to achieve a big objective."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101002/ap_on_re_eu/eu_attacks_the_theories


-------------------------

Think this should be posted for the record --

False flag operations are nothing new to the United States - "Operation Northwoods"

and Nixon's "Huston Plan" being but two. Neither are coups anything new to the US.

And that isn't "Voodoo History" it is sadly violent and accurate US history.

And, the Stock Market certainly was "played" at the same time -- tracing back to CIA.

As for evidence -- audio and video reports by firefighters and US controllers have been

suppressed. The photographic "evidence" from our Pentagon is laughable -- as is the

theory that our Pentagon was a "sitting duck" without protection! Or that we had an

"exhaustive investigation" -- !!

Some do point to MOSSAD being involved -- I personally have no idea whether that is a

valid charge or not -- however that is no more "anti-Semitic" than anyone challenging

the Israeli war on Palestine or any other Israeli government policies. Rather queerly

few point to the possibilities of "anti-Semitism" in US's attack on Iraq, which W. Bush

described originally as a "Crusade."

If this was LIHOP or MIHOP certainly it did not require "thousands of people" --

We have had nothing but lies about our involvement in the Middle East -- from WMD to

the creation of Taliban/Al Qaeda which Brezinski confirms.

[Raster]

1. That the conspiracy "would require thousands of people" is the alibi/lie/meme

used most often to try and discredit anyone that does not swallow the "official" story. No it wouldn't and didn't. The beauty is that to actually LIHOP, very few persons were necessary: Dick Cheney*, Donald Rumsfeld* and few other firm PNAC believers carefully positioned to play their roles. This was their "new Pearl Harbor." Now, after the fact, yes, that took quite a few more persons to maintain the official story. But even those persons who believe that cheney* and rumsfeld*, among others, allowed 9/11 to happen have no choice but to perpetuate the lie. Verifiable evidence of ANY American involvement in 9/11 would lead to the breakdown of the authority of the United States government, both within the US and throughout the world. The damage alone to the American citizen's collective psyche would be immense. The illegal and immoral Iraq and Afghanistan wars of aggression would be proven to be just that: illegal and immoral. Charges of war criminality AND TREASON would most certainly be leveled at certain persons previously involved in the United States government. And even though the vast majority of the government of the United States would be innocent of involvement in 9/11, the entire government would be guilty by association.

[defendandprotect]

3. Considering how much money Cheney/Bush were pouring into Blackwater's pockets ....

I imagine they were ready, willing and able to offer any assistance asked of them!

No questions asked!

Any real investigation of 9/11 would leave everyone :rofl:

Who but our own government could arrange for NORAD to be AWOL?

Who but our own government could arrange for four simultaneous training programs

to be running -- one of which overlapped the alleged plot in having "hijackers" crashing

planes into "skyscrapers." Even one of the soldiers at the console asked, "Are we really

supposed to believe this is a coincidence?"

Like the JFK coup on our government, those willing to investigate and prosecute are quickly

targeted and tossed out of government -- Frank Church, for one. Many others. They say that

at the time of the JFK assassination, DU lawyers were turning up dead by the hundreds.

Actually, I don't think it takes much debate re 9/11 for the average person to understand

what really happened and how unlikely that anyone like Osama Bin Laden could have done this!

Had the government told us that the Russians did it, Americans would still be :rofl:

Only government could arrange for NORAD planes to be sent to the Canadian border and to

one of the Southern states -- and for the many military bases these "hijacked" planes flew

over not to begin to send their own jets up to intercept.

Bush/Cheney definitely had an "Operation Ignore" going on -- for months and months.

That's why the Russians finally went to the United Nation's Security Council to report their

concerns and their intelligence information. In August, just before the attack, the

United Nation's Security Council sent their own representatives to report this information

to the White House/Bush and our various intelligence agencies! In August!

It's also encouraging that as corrupt as the Bush administration was, many of their own

people tried to blow the whistle on them -- Clarke and O'Neill to name just two!!

Maybe one day, we will see some real investigation and prosecution of this 50+ years of

out in the open right wing political violence and stolen elections that have give people

like the Bush family such power to destroy our government and democracy!

:)

[SDuderstadt]

4. Why don't you ask Richard Clarke if he believes...

"9/11 was an inside job".

[Raster]

5. I don't believe it's the Bush* family, per se. They're just the errand boys, willing to do anyone's

bidding if the price is right.

No, like I said, even those persons highly placed in the American government that KNOW that the official story is bunk, and KNOW where at least some of the responsibility truly lies, are committed to never revealing their sordid secrets for the "good of the nation" or "state secret." No, the truth and the actual circumstances surrounding 9/11 will be shrouded in secrecy for decades to come. And as we know, there are factions of the United States government that are very skilled at making sure inconvenient truths never again see the light of day. Hell, there are factions of the US government that even try to make sure that as little public discussion about certain issues takes place. A spook threatening a reporter, the Pentagon buying AND BURNING an entire print run and agents provocateurs on discussion boards. Go figure.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Twist_U_Up]

42. PHD in stupid

[hack89]

7. The cover up would take thousands

think of the supposed NORAD "stand down" - there are literally tens of thousands of military personnel who would know if there was something out of the ordinary.

NIST has the bigger problem that millions of non-government and non-Americans that have the education and professional knowledge to know if the NIST reports were bad science.

[Ohio Joe]

2. How many did it require?

What is your belief of what happened on 9/11? Were there planes? CD? I'm not asking for exact details, in general what do you believe that only a few could be in on it?

[brettjv]

8. Only one person (who's still alive) had to be in-the-know.

The 'hijackers' were invited here to participate in the training exercises (Vigilant Guardian, etc), and were brought here early, and told to go about their business as 'real' terrorists would, learning to fly, etc. These activities were meant as a test of the Able Danger system. Only one very powerful person needed to give this order, or at least understand it's significance.

The four AA and UA pilots and their crew were in the know of this part of the plan, and were instructed to turn over control to the 'hijackers' who they were assured were competent US-trained Saudi pilots as part of the training exercise. Only one very powerful person needed to give this order, or at least understand it's significance. Everyone on the planes was of course going to end up dead as a consequence of the days events.

Somebody then *unwittingly* placed transponders in the WTC (perhaps John O'Neill, who of course ended up dead) and Pentagon that took over the planes control systems and told them (as soon as they got near) that the path to the tarmac was through the WTC and Pentagon. Only one very powerful person needed to give this order, or at least understand it's significance, and the person who performed the installation could have had no clue of what the devices they installed actually did, nor why they were doing it, and the existence of such technology would obviously be top-secret.

Literally, all it would have taken is one very powerful person to pull the strings to make this whole thing happen. Obviously, he'd also have to had enough power to order (and then cover-up) the shoot-down of the flight over Pennsylvania. He'd also need enough power to 'shape' the nature of the training exercises, so that 'hijacked planes crashing into buildings' was part of the narrative, in order to create the necessary confusion (no 'stand-down' order was needed, just the exercises and the confusion).

I'll give you one guess who I think that person was.

The only real loose-string would be any records that these hijackers were brought here 'on purpose'. But anyone who had enough power to do all the rest of the stuff I mentioned could have had them destroyed.

Anyone who had happened to find out the hijackers were brought here intentionally, OR those people who transmitted the order to the Pilots to yield control of the planes would have lacked the critical piece of the puzzle (the control override mechanism of the planes), and thus would have been told 'we were double-crossed, look what these guys ended up doing, we can't tell the American people we messed up this bad', etc and that would have been the end of that.

[zappaman]

9. wow you seem to have lots of inside information

some would say you are speculating but I think you know too much not to have been in on it.

[brettjv]

10. No, I don't.

What I have is my own proposal of what happened that contradicts the people who's primary argument is "ZOMG it CAN'T have been MIHOP because BAJILLIONS of people would've HAD to have enough information and evidence to go to Congress and expose the whole thing!?!".

I say that's a BS argument. I just gave a scenario that explains basically everything that we know to be fact about this day in the context of MIHOP that doesn't involve lots of people being 'in the know'.

Obviously I don't actually know what happened, I just don't think it required a huge number of people knowingly taking part in the conspiracy.

[SDuderstadt]

11. Jesus, what a crock...

Please, please take a critical thinking class. Your local community college will have them.

[brettjv]

12. I've taken many of them ...

Critical Thinking and Logic classes, 200 level at 4-year college, as a matter of fact. Never failed to earn an A grade in any of them, either.

You, on the other hand, have apparently NOT taken any, otherwise you'd be well aware that you are resorting to the ad-hominem fallacy rather than engaging in legitimate debate.

My point here is that it doesn't NECESSARILY REQUIRE large numbers of people to have been 'in the know' in order to pull off MIHOP, and just explained a mechanism by which it COULD have happened thusly.

YOUR JOB, logically, assuming you are one of those 'It couldn't be MIHOP because too many people would have to be involved' folks, is to turn around and provide evidence that MY explanation COULDN'T be right. As opposed to resorting to fallacy.

[zappaman]

13. No, I can tell you had something to do with it

and it is very common for government spooks to come onto discussion boards like this and plant disinformation.
what is your game?
who are you?

[brettjv]

14. I see what you're doing there ...

That's (sorta) funny, I'll give you that.

This being said, your actual debating skills are (apparently) pretty FAIL ;)

I realize though what a shock it must be to see someone down in the Dungeon who believes in MIHOP but DOESN'T believe in "controlled demolition", "no plane crashed into the Pentagon", and other such easily-undermined (and all around crazy-sounding) ideas ...

[SDuderstadt]

15. Gee...

I made an ad hominem argument? Hint: I plead guilty to disdain for conspiracists, dude.

Your argument is a crock. I don't believe you've taken critical thinking classes because, if you did, you wouldn't make such a silly claim.

In your "argument", not one person would later realize that they were unwittingly part of it and come forward??? Beyond that, you do, of course, realize that your "one very powerful person" would have had to have been in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, right?

Bonus question: Do you actually understand what a transponder does?

[brettjv]

16. Yes you did ...

Because your 'argument' consisted entirely of a personal attack.

And frankly it's no matter to me whether you believe I've taken critical thinking classes. I don't believe YOU have, either. So there.

ANYways, kudos for actually trying to make this a proper debate ...

Again ... not that many people would have played an 'unknowing' role here. You would have the very few people that spoke to the pilots, and the very few people who knew these hijackers were let in as part of a top-secret project for real-world testing of Able Danger (I assume you are familiar with the system I refer to). Think about it ... you really *cannot test* a system like this WITHOUT having people come here and *act like* terrorists, now can you?

And no, I don't know what a transponder does, I'm using that as a generic term ... I'm talking about some type of remote control being involved here. Something that told the planes where to go, perhaps tricking them into thinking arriving at it's destination involved flying through these buildings.

Do I KNOW such a mechanism exists? Of course not. Do you know it DOESN'T exist? I doubt you do. Does it seem possible that it could exist? It does to me.

In any case, again ... IF these very few 'unwitting' people do NOT KNOW about the remote control part of the equation, then it's very possible that none of them would 'come forward', because a) they are likely to be very high in the national security establishment to begin with, and b) they would have been told 'we were double-crossed, look at what these swarthy muslims turned around and DID, we can't let the world know we messed up this bad'.

And again, w/o the knowledge of the remote control piece, none of these people would know for sure that the 'double-cross' story was BS, nor would they have the needed facts to 'prove' MIHOP. They might be VERY suspicious (I would be), but that doesn't mean some CIA-lifer is necessarily going to take it upon himself to single-handedly try to blow the lid off this thing (and perhaps bring down the US government in the process) in the way you suggest is inevitable.

EDIT:
I think silence on the part of this very small group of people is especially likely given it became quickly obvious that the ENTIRE WORLD believed the whole 'Osama Bin Laden directed it from his cave' story. Anyone who attempted to contradict this narrative, esp. back the days after 9/11, would quickly have been labeled a nut-job, don't you think? Not to mention, they could have been silenced by secret nat'l security gag order, just like Sibel Edmonds, right?

I should add ... Dave Frasca of the FBI, the one who quashed looking into Moussaoui's computer ... he had to know that these guys were invited here and being protected ... but he was later promoted and given some special award by Bush, so ... I'm guessing his silence was bought.

EDIT II:
With regards to your whole 'the bad guy had to be in both Clinton and Bush admin' question ... upon what do you base this assertion?

I'm asserting that ORIGINALLY, the purpose of bringing of these 'terrorists' into the US was for the purpose of testing Able Danger, and was not for nefarious purposes. This may well have begun under Clinton, no argument there. However, I believe it was someone in the Bush admin who decided to put these guys to use as 'real' hijackers pursuant to the Vigilant Guardian (again, a loose term for the training exercises of the day) exercises, and set them up as the patsies to be on the planes which were then remote-controlled into the buildings.

EDIT III:
One last thing ... if you really open your eyes and read what's out there ... there's a whole BUNCH of people that have come forward and said, in so many words, 'it sure looked like these guys were being protected from on high prior to 9/11'. If you haven't seen any such quotes, I'd be happy to look them up for you. John O'Neill, Schippers, and Colleen Rowley, just to name a few.

[SDuderstadt]

17. No offense, dude...

but you're a run-of-the-mill, garden variety conspiracist spouting previously debunked bullshit. You can't even get basic facts straight. I'll humor you with one, then leave you to others who know far more about what they're talking about than you do, which is just about everyone.

A transponder is not a remote control device:

Aviation For more details on this topic, see Transponder (aviation). Another type of transponder occurs in identification friend or foe systems in military aviation and in air traffic control secondary surveillance radar (beacon radar) systems for general aviation and commercial aviation. Primary radar works best with large all-metal aircraft, but not so well on small, composite aircraft. Its range is also limited by terrain and rain or snow and also detects unwanted objects such as automobiles, hills and trees. Furthermore it cannot always estimate the altitude of an aircraft. Secondary radar overcomes these limitations but it depends on a transponder in the aircraft to respond to interrogations from the ground station to make the plane more visible.
Depending on the type of interrogation, the transponder sends back a transponder code (or "squawk code") (Mode A) or altitude information (Mode C) to help air traffic controllers to identify the aircraft and to maintain separation. Another mode called Mode S (Mode Select) is designed to help avoiding overinterogation of the transponder (having many radars in busy areas) and to allow automatic collision avoidance. Mode S transponders are 'backwards compatible' with Modes A & C. Mode S is mandatory in controlled airspace in many countries. Some countries have also required, or are moving towards requiring, that all aircraft be equipped with Mode S, even in uncontrolled airspace. However in the field of general aviation, there have been objections to these moves, because of the cost, size, limited benefit to the users in uncontrolled airspace, and, in the case of balloons and gliders, the power requirements during long flights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder

Duh.

Reading your confused, disjointed posts, I'm reminded of what our good friend Lared has said: "Anything is possible when you don't know what you're talking about".

[brettjv]

20. Um, duh ...

You obviously don't read well, dude. I already told you that I just used used the word 'transponder' as a generic term, that what I'm talking about was some sort of remote control device that directed the plane to fly through the building. I don't know what such a thing would be properly called. Perhaps we can just refer to it as, oh, I dunno ... Global Hawk?

Obviously, since there is such a thing as auto-pilot, planes can be controlled by something other than humans sitting at the controls, correct? Ergo, your claim that remote control of a plane is 'debunked bullshit' is frankly just piled higher and deeper. You don't know what the fuck is out there in terms of technology, and neither do I. But CLEARLY it's not impossible that such a thing exists. It's not like I'm talking about fucking time-travel here, DUDE.

And I seriously doubt that anyone of a reasonable intelligence level would call my posts on this thread 'confused and disjointed'. 'Delusional' I might go along with, but my communication here is very clear and concise. Again, assuming the reader is of a reasonable intelligence level.

So, again ... is the ad-hominem all you got? I thought you were making some progress with your last post, actually offering up some semblance of an argument, but ... sadly, you've quickly digressed into the presumably warm cocoon of logical fallacy.

Another poster, KDLarsen, seemed to have no trouble coming up with a good rebuttal to my little 'case' ... you've had a try with numerous posts, and come up with nothing I couldn't logically assail.

[SDuderstadt]

22. "You don't know what the fuck is out there in terms of technology, and neither do I"

Then why are you going around talking like you do?

As I said before, you're just a run-of-the-mill, garden variety conspiracist rebunking previously debunked bullshit. Forgive me if KDL has more patience with you than I do.

[brettjv]

25. Wow ... you are REALLY bad with basic logic dude ...

Honestly I don't blame you for sticking to the ad-hominem stuff in every single post and avoiding an actual debate, because I'm not sure you grasp how it's properly done.

My entire 'argument', if you will, has been based on the idea that 9/11 *could* be MIHOP without it necessarily having to involve large numbers of people being 'in the know' of the entire plan ... some number of which would certainly logically come forth and successfully expose it as such.

The scenario where some type of remote control was used to direct the planes into the buildings most definitely allows for the possibility of a very small-scale conspiracy, actually *requiring* only one (very powerful) person being 'in the know' of the entire plan.

Remote-control technology of planes of various kinds CLEARLY exists, as auto-pilot is a type of remote control. Who knows what else might be out there.

(note: I'm NOT trying to PROVE THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED, nor am I necessarily saying it's LIKELY ... I'm saying it is POSSIBLE, and I described a scenario that makes it possible).

My point is ... unless you know for a FACT that it's impossible for these planes to have been somehow directed into these buildings w/o the actual 'hijackers' purposefully doing so ... then you cannot refute my argument that it's POSSIBLE for MIHOP to have occurred w/o large numbers of people having to be in the know. Unless you got some other angle here ... I wouldn't really know since you don't seem capable of constructing an actual valid syllogism, just name-calling and fallacy.

So you see, dude ... I know how to present an argument in such a way that I don't end up reduced to resorting to the ad-hominem fallacy over and over as substitute for an actual tangible defense of my position. It's all about phrasing your position in such a way that it's difficult to outright 'prove wrong'.

Of course, I've had many years to ponder the concept of 'how could MIHOP even conceivably be possible', so you're at a bit of disadvantage in this debate to start with.

And lastly let me just say, your whole 'everybody knows your shit is debunked' strategy ('Appeal to Authority' I believe is the name for this fallacy, if I recall from my CRITICAL THINKING classes) is some laughable sophistry.

[SDuderstadt]

31. Yeah, yeah,yeah...

sorry, dude...since your proposal cannot be falsified, what do you think it proves?

P.S. Could you point to anywhere that I called you a name?

Bonus question: how is pointing out that something has been previously debunked an "appeal to authority"?

[brettjv]

33. Okay ...

Point by point:

My proposal can be falsified. I already told you how ... proving that remote control of the planes is not possible. That is just one example, and there are others. However, by nature MY argument was couched as a response to someone else basically saying that MIHOP is NOT possible based on the specific reason of 'too many people would have to know'. Therefore I purposefully assumed a much lesser burden, which is showing that there's a scenario where it was POSSIBLE w/o a whole bunch of people knowing about it.

So you didn't call me any names, technically. But there were de-facto insults instead of syllogisms, and you cannot deny that.

And in my esteem, an argument along the lines of 'you've already been proven (by others) to be wrong, i.e. everyone already knows your wrong' is a form of the appeal to authority fallacy. I mean, there's absolutely no question that such an argument wouldn't hold up in a court, so ... that pretty much tells you it's invalid right there. Do I have to spell out CRITICAL THINKING 101 to you again, Dude?

[SDuderstadt]

34. No, pointing out that something has been...

repeatedly debunked is not a "form" of appeal to authority, inasmuch as it does not rely on any person or persons of an authoritative nature. It's merely pointing out your claims have already been debunked on the facts. So much for your claim to have studied critical thinking.

Thanks for admitting your accusation about me name-calling was false. And, you should really study the concept of falsifiability.

I don't see any real reason to waste time on you, dude.

[brettjv]

39. Now you're just being plain silly ...

Not to mention completely wrong.

Saying that someone is wrong because what they are asserting has 'already been debunked' is ABSOLUTELY a type of the appeal-to-authority fallacy. The term 'debunking' by it's very nature, necessitates the assertion that the person who did the 'debunking' or provided the contrary facts was authoritative in nature.

Of course, there's also an element of argumentum ad populum involved in your presentation, because by NOT citing your authority, you are inherently implying that it's 'common knowledge' that the purported 'debunking' has taken place. So ... fallacy on top of fallacy. Nice work.

And not to mention, there's nothing in that definition that precludes that the person making the argument (i.e. YOU) IS PERSON A. In other words, if you are NOT claiming 'common knowledge' as the basis for your debunking claim, then YOU are making YOURSELF 'Person A', and are claiming to be right based on YOUR AUTHORITY to decide what has and what has not been debunked.

And again, would this 'argument' be considered valid in a court of law? You KNOW, if you have a single brain cell in your head, that it WOULDN'T BE.

Now, I admitted to mis-speaking with regards to the name-calling.

From where I sit it's time for you to man up and admit that my point here is valid.

It is NOT legitimate debate to simply say, in so many words 'you're wrong because everybody knows you're wrong, your claims have been previously proven false'.

If you are a lawyer, you can do that in your closing statement, but in the actual 'debate' portion of the Hearing, you better have provided the freaking EVIDENCE that 'the claims have been proven false'.

[Twist_U_Up]

43. its hard to debate with stupid

thats why i have left this bird to dig his own grave....its worked very well.

[SDuderstadt]

44. You might want to check...

Brettjv's profile, dude.

[KDLarsen]

18. Just one question..

What was the purpose of the hijackers' video wills? Terrorism media 101 class?

[brettjv]

19. See, now that is a good question ...

Nice work.

Now, if I was an unreasonable person, I might suggest that these guys were playing the game right up to their mission, which as I've posited was a 'friendly' hijacking as part of a training exercise, but I'm not willing to go that far into the land of ludicrous, so ...

Can you please direct me to where I can watch one of these videos?

[KDLarsen]

21. The video wills can be found here

http://911myths.com/index.php/Responsibility

Scroll down to the bottom.

ETA: Some of the video wills can also be found in the As-Sahab propagande video "Knowledge Is For Acting Upon: The Manhattan Raid", it can be found on Google Video.

[brettjv]

24. Okay so I had a look at the wills ...

And from what I saw, frankly I'm not entirely convinced that these are properly called 'wills'

And then there's the fact that these were (apparently) put out by al-qaeda.

Which makes me rather curious. It seems to me one of two things is likely true. For AQ to have these videos, either
1) They were made before these guys even came to the US, or
2) They were transmitted back to Afghanistan or wherever from the States.

If 1 is true, then it might qualify as some type of evidence that these guys were either actual Islamic radicals, or were comfortable posing as Islamic radicals before the camera. It certainly is not inconceivable to me that if the instigators of 9/11 were US-based, they could very much want to convince Al-Qaeda (if there is such a thing) that 'their people' were responsible just as they'd want to convince the US people that Al-Qaeda was responsible. It's all part of creating a convincing cover story. And Al-Qaeda may well be very happy to have the world think it's responsible even if it were not, so ...

If 2 is true, and these videos were transmitted over the internet back to Afghanistan, then to me it just comports perfectly with my preposition that these guys were told to do everything as much like terrorists would do things as humanly possible. Remember that in my little 'proposal', these guys are ostensibly here to test the efficacy of Able Danger or whatever it was called at that time. A bunch of arab's sending video wills talking about jihad and whatnot over the internet certainly would seem to qualify as a exactly the type of thing Able Danger was designed to capture and red-flag.

So ... while I certainly consider this to be amongst the best evidence to the contrary of my little pet theory, I'm afraid that there remains (to me anyway) reasonable doubt that these videos prove that these men were true jihadist radicals, and that these were their legitimate "I'm committing suicide tomorrow" type of wills that I was frankly hoping to see.

And despite 'al qaeda' adding images of the crumbled Pentagon to the background and things of that nature, in the video's I watched I didn't see any actual mention by the speaker of planes crashing into buildings or whatnot. For all I know, the vague insinuation of attacks against the US could be anything.

I also have no way of knowing that that these are the ACTUAL guys that were on the planes, because I basically have to take the US government's word that it knows who these guys are AND Al-Qaeda's word that these are their wills and admissions that they were on their way to committing 9/11. Nor do I have a way of knowing whether the translations w/what they are saying is accurate.

And lastly, I believe that possibility exists that some of these 'hijackers' WERE Muslim extremists. Again, presuming my 'us-based powerful figure' was the real instigator, there would be little danger involved in having some 'real' extremists involved, now would it? As long as YOU are in charge of the people these extremists answer to, it really only helps the cover story to have a few true extremists along for the ride.

Frankly, whilst again these provide compelling food-for-thought in terms of rebutting my little proposal, I cannot rightly call the existence of these videos as proof-positive that it is wrong.

[KDLarsen]

27. Erh, what?

They were indeed made in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has a fairly tech-savy media arm named As-Sahab, which is responsible for releasing various Al Qaeda related propaganda material. Some of the wills were recorded in front of a green-screen, with images of the attacks added subsequently.

[brettjv]

28. Well, as I said before ...

I'm only willing to take this debate to a certain level of ludicrousness ... in truth, the only 'conspiracy' I believe in is that the Bushies most definitely conspired to cover-up their mind-boggling ineptitude when it came to preventing these attacks.

Although I would not 'rule out' actual malfeasance in the form of just ignoring the threats because they honestly didn't give a shit if we did get attacked because they knew they could work it to their advantage in so many ways (or what's commonly known as LIHOP).

I would also add that I believe WHOLE-HEARTEDLY that a massive conspiracy was undertaken by the Bushies to fraudulently convince both Congress, the Public, and the UN, to support a US attack on Iraq. And the Bushies also conspired to cover up how Tillman died. And they conspired to expose Valerie Plame as a CIA operative to discredit Wilson ... and they conspired to blame the underlings for Abu Ghraib ... and I could go on if you like.

I just find it funny that MOST of us here on DU have NO trouble believing the Bushies were capable of a number of fairly intricate conspiracies, such as the one where they lied us into a war where thousands of Americans have died ... but you suggest to these same people an idea like LIHOP and they fall all over themselves to tell you that such a conspiracy is just simply and OBVIOUSLY impossible and unthinkable.

But hey, at least this kinda of logical disconnect ... it's good for some lolz.

OTOH, MIHOP in any form ... I do find it a HUUUUGE stretch ... but I'm not convinced it's impossible on the basis of 'too many people would've had to know about it'. These videos admittedly present complications for the scenario I outlined ... but they don't make it impossible.

It would be one thing if these were videos discovered by US forces on these guys laptops back at their homes or motels, dated in the weeks or days before 9/11, and they were all talking about destroying the 'towers of capitalism' in the coming days or something like that, and they were never transmitted anywhere. Now THAT would convince me that my little proposition pretty much HAS to be bullcrap.

But 'Al Qaeda' having videos of these guys talking like Jihadists ... which they've released years after the attacks ... but that were recorded many months before the attacks, and lack any actual mention of anything directly and undeniably describing the 9/11 attacks ... I dunno if it's iron-clad proof.

Again, I only wanna take this 'so far', but ... if these guys were working for my theoretical 'powerful mastermind', and 'the plan' involved these guys 'acting like' terrorists from day one, in order to test what is basically a 'global terrorist locating system' ... who knows ... they may have been instructed to make these videos at some military base in KSA or wherever, really. They could later have delivered to 'Al Qaeda' by some Saudi agent.

Now, is this stretching plausibility to an extreme degree? Absolutely. Is it impossible, again, w/o large numbers of potential whistle-blowers being sufficiently 'in the know'? I don't think it is.

If you presume that these were fake terrorists working for a very tight-knit and top-secret part of the US government as guinea pigs, under the auspices of testing out Able Danger ... it makes a WHOLE LOT of things (like the existence of these videos w/o the 'hijackers' actually knowing they were going to their deaths) possible. Not LIKELY, but POSSIBLE.

And as I mentioned in the previous post, there's nothing about the scenario I described that precludes the possibility that SOME of these guys were legitimate Jihadists. What's critical is that my theoretical mastermind had the ability to get these people here, and protect them from getting caught, and make sure they got on the planes ... under whatever auspices.

[KDLarsen]

29. I see you're referring a lot to Able Danger

Do you know what Able Danger was?

[brettjv]

30. I know what it was reported to be in the 9/11 timeline site

The Cooperative Research site or whatever that site was/is called.

But that was a number of years ago, so if the 'understanding' of what AD was has changed significantly, I wouldn't know about it.

My understanding was that it was/is basically a global electronic data 'surveillance' and data-mining system, designed to comb through all manner of disparate electronic data (money transfers, airline ticket and certain other types of purchases, as well as stuff like email and website postings) in order to find potential threats against national security ... like terrorist-hijacking plots.

Presuming I am right in this understanding ... my position is that the ONLY logical way to test out it's efficacy is to have some people come here from foreign lands and 'act like' terra-ists.

[SDuderstadt]

23. Wait a minute....

you've never seen the video wills before???

[brettjv]

26. That is correct, I had not until just now.

My response to this is in another post on this thread.

[SDuderstadt]

32. So, your knowledge is limited...

maybe you should study the subject your trying to "debate". Being poorly informed isn't a winning strategy.

Just a thought.

[brettjv]

35. Is Ad-Hominem all you know?

Because it's certainly looking that way.

If I'm so uninformed, then it should make your job as my opponent in this debate that much easier. You should be wiping the floor with me ... but yet over and over (and over and over) it seems that all you got is various forms of the ad-hominem and appeal to authority fallacies.

This is also not a winning strategy.

I'll say it again ... in the scenario I described, there's nothing that inherently precludes there being some garden-variety wanna-be jihadists from being part of the 'team'. What would be important is that they could be controlled.

Mohammed Atta has been repeatedly referred to as the 'ring leader' of this operation. Where is HIS 'will'? How about Hani or Marwan? They are also not there.

In fact, the only PILOT represented in this collection is Ziad Jarrah ... have you watched that news report talking about him? They call him 'Westernized' with a German girlfriend, saying he was raised in Christian Schools and known to drink beer, etc, etc. And they really don't show anything incriminating whatsoever in that report, they just basically show him standing around in a field talking to a camera. And then he ends up just flying around endlessly, never hitting anything, no apparent target in mind. I'm positing that's what all these pilots were meant to do, told that the planes would be landed at the nearest airport.

I'm sorry, but to me, the existence of these 'wills' basically made by the 'grunts' of this operation WAY ahead of time and later propagandized and presented by 'al qaeda' ... it doesn't disprove my little hypothesis.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Dude...

by your own admission, you were unaware of the wills. I am merely pointing out what you already admitted to.BTW, please point to anywhere that I have made an "appeal to authority". Take your time.

Other than that, I don't see a lot of value in wasting time on you.

[brettjv]

37. It is STILL a fallacious means of debate ...

Because your argument, rather than being composed of valid syllogisms, consists entirely of repeatedly saying, in so many words, 'you're wrong because you're YOU, and you don't know anything, and everybody else already knows that your argument is bullshit'.

If you're such a critical thinking master, you'd know these are forms of the ad-hominem and appeal-to-authority fallacies.

And I don't have to 'take my time' because proving this will take about one fucking second.

From the wiki here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

1. Source A says that p is true.
2. Source A is authoritative.
3. Therefore, p is true.

That, my friend, is EXACTLY what you are doing when you say 'oh, this is already debunked'.

And as for ad-hominem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

Which is EXACTLY what you've done, over and over and over.

So, by all means, run away Dude. You've obviously got nothing, and lack the ability to discern fallacy from valid debate even if you did.

EDIT: And let me just add, I think it's capital-H Hilarious that you jumped into this debate with an admonishment that *I* needed to take a critical thinking class, when it's beyond obvious that YOU have absolutely no idea what is taught in such a class.

[SDuderstadt]

38. Did you miss the part that says...

"by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative"? Nice strawman, by the way.

As I said, dude, you're an absolute waste of time, just like all your previous "personas".

Adios.

[brettjv]

40. See my other post ...

How about we quit running two threads here?

I've never had a previous persona here on DU Dude.

But sure, by all means, run away. And take your inability to debate w/o resorting to blatant fallacy (regardless of the technical name of each one committed), with you.

[SDuderstadt]

41. Maybe someone else will play...

your games with you, dude.

Good luck with that.

[Ohio Joe]

45. That is still a lot more then one man

"The 'hijackers' were invited here to participate in the training exercises (Vigilant Guardian, etc), and were brought here early, and told to go about their business as 'real' terrorists would, learning to fly, etc. These activities were meant as a test of the Able Danger system. Only one very powerful person needed to give this order, or at least understand it's significance."

Not one man. I suppose it may be possible that one man knew before 9/11 for this part but after, everyone involved would have figured it out easily. How many people is that? Lots I would expect.

"The four AA and UA pilots and their crew were in the know of this part of the plan, and were instructed to turn over control to the 'hijackers' who they were assured were competent US-trained Saudi pilots as part of the training exercise. Only one very powerful person needed to give this order, or at least understand it's significance. Everyone on the planes was of course going to end up dead as a consequence of the days events."

The pilots were in on it? On who's orders? Others at the airlines would have to have known... many others. Pilots would not allow themselves and passengers to be involved in such a thing without all of their superiors knowing full well what was happening. I also can't see any airline participating in such a thing for fear of lawsuits but assuming they did, how many more is that? Lots more I would expect.

"Somebody then *unwittingly* placed transponders in the WTC (perhaps John O'Neill, who of course ended up dead) and Pentagon that took over the planes control systems and told them (as soon as they got near) that the path to the tarmac was through the WTC and Pentagon. Only one very powerful person needed to give this order, or at least understand it's significance, and the person who performed the installation could have had no clue of what the devices they installed actually did, nor why they were doing it, and the existence of such technology would obviously be top-secret."

Simply placing a transponder is not enough. Extensive modifications would have to have been done to the planes themselves. Again, I don't see any airline allowing this to be done with unwitting passengers on board. Now we are adding in a bunch of mechanics at two different airlines into the mix that would have been fully aware of what they were installing. Lots more people.

Like it or not, your theory requires that at the very least lots of people at both airlines and lots of people in the government would have figured it out as soon as it happened. I don't see how the one man theory holds up.

[SDuderstadt]

46. "Brettjv" went...

bye-bye, OJ.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

48. Maybe you should take it up with the moderators...

dude.

Do you think they're playing favorites? However, if they're only going after the "interesting" ones, trust me, you have nothing to fear.

[zappaman]

49. No Planers, like yourself, are quite boring

so post away!