This is one thing I cannot get.

What is the motivation for a Government to attack itself on the scale of 9/11? Or the now forgotten Oklahoma bomb? Why would the British government stage 7/7 for no apparent reason?

Was the IRA real? Have the Spanish just invented ETA?

Conspiracies are incedibly easy to allege, just point out some inconsitancies of which there are many in life, but they are impossible to deny, you simply get the you are deluded/part of it argument.

I have been to enough court cases to realize that witnesses see different things, offenders act in strange illogical ways, everyone does when under stress but it means nothing, the truth is the truth.

What is missing in someone's life that they despareately want to believe this crap?

This is one thing I cannot get.

What is the motivation for a Government to attack itself on the scale of 9/11?

Simple. It's a way to scare the populace into supporting say, war against another nation as a means to advance some sort of ideological agenda.

Operation Northwoods provides evidence that governments and intelligence agencies do think of this stuff.

Not every conspiracy theory has credence of course, but I don't blame people for being highly suspect of government, especially when evidence mounts that something is up...

They didn't need thousands dead and a public embarrassment to Langley to launch a war against Iraq. For chrissakes, we already attacked Hussein once and the WTC had already been bombed.

They didn't need thousands dead and a public embarrassment to Langley to launch a war against Iraq.

I know you'll dismiss this but I'll say it anyway:

Before the GWB presidency, the leadership of the Project for a New American Century clearly sought renewed war with Iraq and to establish "a substantial American force presence in the Gulf" and they went further to write in their missive Rebuilding America's Defenses that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

Key members of the PNAC leadership -- Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Feith etc -- went on to hold positions in the GWB administration that would allow them to do certain things to allow this "new Pearl Harbour" to come about such that they could proceed with the plan. It was in Feith and Rumsfeld's "Office Of Special Plans" that the "intelligence" about Iraq's weapons programs was cooked up. Cheney leaning on intel analysts to deliver what he wanted to hear is also documented. Of course, we all know the crock of shit Powell presented to the UN and Rice's over-the-top bloviations about mushroom clouds and the like...

It's pretty well documented that Bush was not at all interested in Osama Bin Laden and while ignoring guys like Clarke pleading for attention, he told his people to find him a way to wage war with Iraq. Indeed, even on 9/11 and the days that followed, planning for a war in Iraq took precedence over planning to properly deal with AQ. Rumsfeld is on record as having commanded his people to make a link between Hussein and the events of that day, telling them to "go massive...sweep it all up...things related and not..." Clarke was dumbfounded to walk into a meeting in the days after 9/11 thinking they were going to talk AQ but instead found the discussion steering toward Iraq.

I think these guys were itching to go to war with Iraq and get forward bases there. I think they knew the American public wouldn't buy it unless America not only suffered a black-eye but if she could be convinced that radio-silent death-ships lurked off the coast and mushroom clouds might appear over Topeka if they didn't do something about Saddam. I think they knew an attack was coming, probably involving airliners, and thought it would be the perfect "event" to get their ball rolling. I doubt they foresaw the extent of the damage that would end up being done nor the resulting body count.

In the end, though, they got their war.

I know you'll dismiss this as a wacky conspiracy theory and that's fine. Looking at the evidence, it's at least as plausible an explanation as America simply being caught with her defensive pants down after a summer of terror warnings flooding in from all over the globe and the USS Cole attack less than a year earlier...

Why don't you go ask some guys in jail?

They think they can get away with it, so they do it, simple.

Oh right, there's no such thing as "government conspiracies", because governments are holy and only individual citizens commit crimes.:rolleyes:

Just like 5 years ago when those crazy conspiracy theorists accused the Bush administration of conspiring to start a war with Iraq which has killed hundreds of thousands of people, including over 4000 of their own soldiers. What were those loonies thinking? Like the government would lie to us about starting a war? Oh wait... They did, these people don't even blink at the deaths of upwards of a million people, and they are currently "conspiring" to wage war on another sovereign nation that has done us no harm, which 9-11 gave them the excuse.

Just what is missing in your life Dogberry that you believe this crap? Did you forget that Iran attacked us on 9-11? Or are you just on the side of Amedinijad?:eek:

Why don't you go ask some guys in jail?

They think they can get away with it, so they do it, simple.

Yes I know I spend my life investigating crime. Conspiracies nearly always crack pretty early.


Oh right, there's no such thing as "government conspiracies", because governments are holy and only individual citizens commit crimes.:rolleyes:

I didn't say there was no such thing, but on the scale of 9/11 and 7/7?

I sincerely doubt it.



Just like 5 years ago when those crazy conspiracy theorists accused the Bush administration of conspiring to start a war with Iraq which has killed hundreds of thousands of people, including over 4000 of their own soldiers. What were those loonies thinking? Like the government would lie to us about starting a war? Oh wait... They did, these people don't even blink at the deaths of upwards of a million people, and they are currently "conspiring" to wage war on another sovereign nation that has done us no harm, which 9-11 gave them the excuse.


Intentions and conspiracy are two different things.

I am sure Bush and co could have dreamt up something other than 9/11 to start a war.

America is usually fairly open to suggestions of invading somewhere.

The PNAC theory was: it is critical to American interests to maintain control over the Persian Gulf. Bush I put that idea into practice when he invaded Iraq in the first place. Note that:

1. He didn't some phony decoy killing thousands of Americans to gain Congressional approval or the support of the American public.

2. No war in Iraq followed the 1st WTC bombing.

3. It also wasn't necessary for the Pentagon to bomb itself, least likely of all.

And the reason conspiracies are ridiculous has nothing to do with the government being 'holy' - it's impossible for thousands or hundreds of thousands of people at all three levels of government and civilians to collaborate on a secret activity and keep it secret.

That is well-known to both the federal government and their security contractors, who say that the longest it's possible to keep any high-level state secret is around a year.

I am sure Bush and co could have dremt up something other than 9/11 to strt a war.

The beauty of the theory I just penned is that they didn't have to dream up a way to make this happen. They knew that AQ would soon give them the Pearl Harbour they sought. They just had to sit back and wait for it.

There was no need to embarrass the national security infrastructure or themselves to gain Congressional approval for a war let alone make himself look like he was falling down on the job in his first term!

The beauty of the theory I just penned is that they didn't have to dream up a way to make this happen. They knew that AQ would soon give them the Pearl Harbour they sought. They just had to sit back and wait for it.

Is there any proof at all for this?

Is there any proof at all for this?

To me the evidence is in the public record. Nothing I wrote is incorrect. It is up to the critical thinker to put the pieces together. There is a difference betwen my "theory" and others out there: I don't suggest that Bush and Co were in on it. I think they saw a coming event they thought they could leverage to their advantage. They didn't fly the planes into the buildings but their inaction facilitated it.

Why do you suppose the Bush administration spent so much effort stonewalling the 9/11 commission at every step of the way?

There was no need to embarrass the national security infrastructure...

This administration shows it doesn't give a shit about the intelligence community. Setting up their own little satellite office (the OSP) because the regular channels weren't giving them what they needed was the first hint. The act of outing Valerie Plame is another tip that they don't care about intelligence or the people working in the field.

...make himself look like he was falling down on the job in his first term

The proper outrage was feigned, the necessary public appearances next to firefighters and against military backdrops made and tough-talking, folksy "dead or alive" rhetorical bravado in speeches given that quickly made the public dismiss those saying "Uh, but wait..." in their collective lust for some towel-head blood to spill.

Besides, if Bush really cared about what people think he'dve learned to pronounce "nuclear" a long time ago.

No first-term president would intentionally make himself look like an incompetent and his state and defense departments worse, let alone be caught reading a children's story at kindergarten with a stupid look on his face when it all went down.

There were far easier ways to get the job done.

To me the evidence is in the public record. Nothing I wrote is incorrect. It is up to the critical thinker to put the pieces together. There is a difference betwen my "theory" and others out there: I don't suggest that Bush and Co were in on it. I think they saw a coming event they thought they could leverage to their advantage. They didn't fly the planes into the buildings but their inaction facilitated it.

.

So the answer is 'no' then. At least not at the moment.

Stalin should have seen operation Barbarossa coming, enough people told him, the US should have seen Pearl harbour coming the list goes on.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Shortly before 9/11 I was in Special branch which is the anti terror wing on the Police, we were hardly even considering Islamic terrorism.

I can actually appreciate your view, I would'nt really call you a conspiracy theorist at all, it is quite feasible that information could have been witheld, its just that having seen things from the inside I think they just got caught off guard.

No first-term president would intentionally make himself look like an incompetent and his state and defense departments worse, let alone be caught reading a children's story at kindergarten with a stupid look on his face when it all went down.

He and his ideologically-driven handlers might be willing to take that chance if they thought he'd be seen as a strong "war president" for taking the fight "to them" after the fact. For a while there it certainly worked. Despite the fact that he and his defense department did look like incompetent, unprepared dolts after 9/11, in the month following 9/11 his approval rating went from a mid-50% to nearly 90%. For some reason the country got behind the man despite the failure to protect the nation.

Now, do you think Rove et al didn't foresee this happening? That the country would rally behind even a hopeless chimp like GWB and forgive whatever he may or may not have done if it meant fighting a common enemy?

There were far easier ways to get the job done.

What's easier than letting a few guys with boxcutters do all the heavy lifting for you?

Hard to believe they'd feel that way: it sure didn't work for his dad, the 2nd most famous one-termer of the 20th century!

They are psychological scar tissue from events that seem too large or too diabolical to comprehend

Eventually, real conspiracies are exposed, even the smallest ones .. just ask Bill and Monica

Or Dick Nixon or Ken Lay or ...

Lets get back on track here shall we?

We arent talking about bugging a hotel we are talking mass murder.

Hard to believe they'd feel that way: it sure didn't work for his dad, the 2nd most famous one-termer of the 20th century!

The use of lies, fear and propaganda to advance an ideological agenda has worked countless times in the past.

I think conspiracy theories exist because governments have historically given people enough material to work with and little reason to trust them. When something like Northwoods sees the light of day -- and it only takes one -- people feel vindicated in their belief that their representatives are indeed very capable of nefarious doings.

Sure it has, but mounting a vast terrorist attack on yourself has, as far as we know, never happened in the past.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the 'truth' movement hasn't even been able to support their woo-woo claims with even ordinary evidence.

My take on "conspiracies" in general:

Have you ever gotten a gut feeling of uneasiness about something or someone, felt that things weren't quite right somehow, and then later wished you'd followed your original intuition because it was proven correct?

For me, it's kind of like that. I've always been more likely to ask questions rather than simply accept an explanation that didn't ring completely true to me. I don't claim to have all the answers to everything, but at least I'm satisfied that I've made a reasonable attempt to investigate the veracity of anything before I finally decide to believe it.

A good memory and study of past history helps too, because patterns of human behavior don't really vary that much over the passage of time.

My take on "conspiracies" in general:

Have you ever gotten a gut feeling of uneasiness about something or someone, felt that things weren't quite right somehow, and then later wished you'd followed your original intuition because it was proven correct?

For me, it's kind of like that. I've always been more likely to ask questions rather than simply accept an explanation that didn't ring completely true to me. I don't claim to have all the answers to everything, but at least I'm satisfied that I've made a reasonable attempt to investigate the veracity of anything before I finally decide to believe it.

A good memory and study of past history helps too, because patterns of human behavior don't really vary that much over the passage of time.

Yes it is absolutely right to question everything, I would not disagree with that.

However I am talking specifically about large scale terrorist attacks here, attacks which were watched by millions on TV for Christ's sake.

The conspiracy theorists are not 'questioning' they simply refuse to believe the overwhelming evidencec at hand.

What is the motivation for a Government to attack itself on the scale of 9/11? Or the now forgotten Oklahoma bomb? Why would the British government stage 7/7 for no apparent reason?

Was the IRA real? Have the Spanish just invented ETA?


Are the Jews really trying to undermine German ethnic purity and establish a global socialist state? Is Iraq really training al Qaida terrorists and arming them with WMDs? Governments come up with plots to use fear to control the population all the time. Create a scape-goat and/or evil enemy and use that to keep the population in line.

I don't think the US staged an attack on the US on 9-11, but motivations to do that would be to leverage the attack for money and/or power and/or ideology.

I do know that the Bush Administration needed a 9-11 style attack to occur in order to promote their agenda, as they said in PNAC papers, and they were warned that al Qaida was plotting a major attack on the US using airliners, and they made no effort to dig any deeper, at all. Was that incompetence or was it half-conscious disregard, because the "threat" was something they needed? I don't know. Could be either.

This is one thing I cannot get.

What is the motivation for a Government to attack itself on the scale of 9/11? Or the now forgotten Oklahoma bomb? Why would the British government stage 7/7 for no apparent reason?



What makes you think it was the entire government attacking itself? Just can't wrap your mind around the notion of crooked politicians in league with crooked international business men? Since when has that notion ever been tough to understand?

What part of the age old notion of outright treason for the sake of billions of dollars seems to be evading your intellectual capacity?

What makes you think that Blackwater Security's death squad operatives are all good old red blooded American patriots? Did you know that Blackwater owns a majority of the KGB's cold blooded killers that the Russians couldn't afford anymore? Of course you don't know this.

Now, what makes you think that a corrupt group of politicians, a handfull of mercenaries gathered from the nations that raised them to hate us, and the most brilliant minds in the evil world of international geo-political corporate power, couldn't - or wouldn't - kill off a few thousand of us to get everything they ever wanted from our treasury?

And what on earth would ever make any one of them confess to a Goddamn thing if they did?

It'll have been worth over 2 trillion dollars to such a consortium when this War on Terror finally winds down, as a result of the attacks you mentioned above. None of these attacks - alone - could have ever accomplished what the combination of them all achieved for these people.

Now, we have international terrorism as a firmly planted fact of our world, and the people I believe to be at the root of it all will be cashing in on that fact for generations. They nurtured and developed people like Osama bin Laden through their CIA activities in Afghanistan, under the guis of "freedom fighting" the Soviets in the 80's. Now, they have the army they need to keep us in fear and throwing money at them to keep us protected.

This scenario just plain sounds more plausible when I look at who is profitting from all of this versus both sides of us (we and these raggedy terrorists) who are losing our asses to them. I follow the money. Not the millions, but the billions and trillions. They always tell you to follow the money, and the money, in this case, leads only in one direction.

That money is the motivation for all of this. When the USSR collapsed, there was no Cold War to cash in on anymore. They need a super villain to scare us into giving them money to protect us. Now they have an invisible, uncountable enemy that we'll never be able to prove that we've beaten. This "terrorism threat" has no form, no possibe way to count our progress against it, and no possible way to determine when it's been won. It's the perfect Cold War against a global enemy that can never collapse. In fact, there's no real way to prove it actually exists. Espedcially if the only proof that exists is suicide attacks by deranged lone losers.

This perfect Cold War is the motivation for the attacks you listed. It will drive the business model of the global arms/defense industry for the next 50 years.

I don't think the US staged an attack on the US on 9-11, but motivations to do that would be to leverage the attack for money and/or power and/or ideology.
Exactly: it was just a windfall of political capital that fell in their laps and they exploited it to the max.

Exactly: it was just a windfall of political capital that fell in their laps and they exploited it to the max.

That is one possibility.

Another is that they saw a potential opportunity in all the threats and warnings pouring in, an opportunity that would give them their Pearl Harbour and thus meet their ideological needs. They opted to wait for it to "fall in their laps" rather than acting in any way to protect the nation by preventing it.

You can't tell me, given the character of the men in charge at the time, that you know this is an impossible scenario.

That is one possibility.

Another is that they saw a potential opportunity in all the threats and warnings pouring in, an opportunity that would give them their Pearl Harbour and thus meet their ideological needs. They opted to wait for it to "fall in their laps" rather than acting in any way to protect the nation by preventing it.

You can't tell me, given the character of the men in charge at the time, that you know this is an impossible scenario.

The fact that a government would view an unprecedented attack against its citizens as a "windfall of political capital" and a historic opportunity (i.e., to fill the void left by the collapse of Communism -- an all-powerful Enemy to scare people into docility) is in itself very significant and reveals the true nature that government and its relationship to citizens.

Whether or not this government went beyond this assumption and actually conspired to engineer the attack is, as far as I'm concerned, beside the point, which has already been made in the first proposition.

That is one possibility.

Another is that they saw a potential opportunity in all the threats and warnings pouring in, an opportunity that would give them their Pearl Harbour and thus meet their ideological needs. They opted to wait for it to "fall in their laps" rather than acting in any way to protect the nation by preventing it.

You can't tell me, given the character of the men in charge at the time, that you know this is an impossible scenario.

Considering they started taking Cipro on 9-11 they had to know something, if you really want to see how dark our government is you only need to look into the forgotten Anthrax attacks which DID come from the US government, not any Middle Easterners..

i think it has mostly or everything to do with projecting ones hate and paranoia at something like the government. some people just take their dislike and mistrust of the government too far. i also think its to sucker those with that much hate and mistrust to get them to believe whatever makes the government look bad.

fact is there is almost always a grain of truth in everything, ALMOST. but that grain of truth can snowball into something entirely different and completely out of left field.

i dont know, it just seems like some people arent happy unless they are foaming at the mouth angry at something. the government is usually the easiest target, they take taxes from us, they pass some pretty stupid laws, politicians lie and bullshit us, noone in the government can do anything correctly, the government tends to **** up whatever it runs (FDA, education, FCC, etc) so its not surprising the government is scapegoat for whatever theory you can come up with, someone will find a way to tie the government in and make them seem like the devil incarnate.

with as much time as they waste on hearings over steroids used by baseball players and lecturing oil execs about the profits their companies are making i dont think they have much time to think of evil shit to do on a regular basis. i know ive read enough conspiracy theories that require more time than the government can afford to give to such "projects" of evil and general god awfulness.

You can't tell me, given the character of the men in charge at the time, that you know this is an impossible scenario.
It's extremely unlikely that a first-term president would:

1. Choose to be perceived as having permit the worst attack on American soil in history on his watch due solely to demonstrable incompetence, or

2. Put in himself in the position of predictably being forced to spend unplanned multi-billions from his budget bailing out the airline industry and the rest of the economy, particularly given his obvious pre-existing desire to finance a war on foreign soil.

And that's especially true in light of the sitting president's experience as the child of a president who failed to earn a second term even after getting congressional approval for a war on the same soil. A president too stupid to realize the above would be too stupid to pull off the operation.

The LIHOP conspiracy theories are really not logical or practical.

The fact that a government would view an unprecedented attack against its citizens as a "windfall of political capital" and a historic opportunity (i.e., to fill the void left by the collapse of Communism -- an all-powerful Enemy to scare people into docility) is in itself very significant and reveals the true nature that government and its relationship to citizens.

At the very least, it reveals what I would assume to be the true nature of this particular administration, if not governments in general.

I think people are drawn to conspiracies because it makes them feel like they have information that they're not supposed to have.

It's extremely unlikely that a first-term president would:

1. Choose to be perceived as having permit the worst attack on American soil in history on his watch due solely to demonstrable incompetence, or

2. Put in himself in the position of predictably being forced to spend unplanned multi-billions from his budget bailing out the airline industry and the rest of the economy, particularly given his obvious desire to finance a war on foreign soil.

And that's especially true given the sitting president's experience as the child of a president who failed to earn a second term after getting congressional approval for a war on the same soil. A president too stupid to realize the above would be too stupid to pull off the operation.

The LIHOP conspiracy theories are really not logical or practical.

It's possible to see how, under normal circumstances your points could be viewed as valid and reasonable.

However, as the last 7 1/2 years have clearly demonstrated, the presidency of George W. bush hasn't been in any way normal.

A president who freezes while our nation is under attack ( in on the plan to attack his own nation or not) is comitting dereliction of duty in the most extraordinary way.... A president who then takes the time for a photo op DURING the attack adds to the impression that George W. Bush is unfit for the office of the president.

The Bush admin's chant that "The debt doesn't matter" coupled with their money wasting ( to put it mildly) policies and the current state of our budgetary affairs lends weight to the idea that the current administration was in no way prepared for the realities of running our government.. but was instead prepared to raid the treasury while infiltrating every aspect of the government with it's like minded agents. ( who could then propetuate Bush's policies indefinately) which is patently self serving.

That said, your points become moot simply because this admin has shown ZERO regard for the people of the United States in a demonstratable way.

In other words, you are asking everyone to ignore their own experiences in favor of your opinion, and your opinion doesn't jibe with practical reality.

The reason Bush was involved with so many flawed policies, has demanded the right to torture people publicly, has tried to walk away from the Geneva Conventions, lied about knowing the details of Katrina prior to it's happening and after it happened, walked away from capturing or killing Ossama Bin Laden in favor of catching Saddam at all costs, is he simply doesn't care about the United States, it's people, it's finite resources or it's image....

George W. Bush doesn't care and is not concerned with such petty things as "the truth" about himself or his so called ideology.

The preponderance of evidence shows his "word" is given with no regard for his not keeping it... hense, his word has ZERO value... IS COMPLETELY WORTHLESS.

Having a president who is more than willing to either be a part of a plan to attack the United States, OR willing to stand aside as an attack on the United States is carried out ( as a means of furthering his agenda) is UNTHINKABLE for most Americans...UNTHINKABLE.

But there you have it, the proof is now a part of our history.

He either WAS a part of a plan to attack our nation OR he stood aside and allowed it to happen.

There IS no third option.

The same applies to the concept of answering the attacks.

We were either going to GET Ossama Bin Laden, or we weren't.

To date, we haven't got him.

That is ALSO now a part of our history.

There is no third option.

So it is with all aspects of this president's record. ( Thankfully, at least THIS record can't be lost by this administration which has demonstrated a fondness for LOSING records of it's official actions.)

It has nothing whatsoever to do with regard for the people. First term presidents don't knowingly do things that make them look bad. Period.

He could have easily accomplished the same goals without making himself look like an idiot and killing the economy when he needed to finance a war.

I think people are drawn to conspiracies because it makes them feel like they have information that they're not supposed to have.

The fact that verifiable reality is such that a range of conspiracy theories (regarding the US government) is actually plausible is probably more interesting and significant than any one of those conspiracy theories.

In that sense, focusing on "proving" the theory may effectively divert attention from what is in plain view.

The Bush admin's chant that "The debt doesn't matter" coupled with their money wasting ( to put it mildly) policies and the current state of our budgetary affairs lends weight to the idea that the current administration was in no way prepared for the realities of running our government.. but was instead prepared to raid the treasury while infiltrating every aspect of the government with it's like minded agents.And that seems to be unfettered or even opposed by your Democrat heros that are now controlling Congress. If you liberals really wanted to do something about the debt, your party would stop passing debt-ridden budgets. The president can't sign a budget that the Congress doesn't pass.

There's also the fact that Democrats can't point to a single thing they'd like to cut other than the war (which, for some unknown reason, they continue to fund while at the same time decrying the war spending). At the same time, they have all sorts of plans for NEW and massive spending initiatives!! I heard them talking last night at the convention that Obama plans to spend $150B on "infrastructure". Shall we just tack that on top of the debt we already have?

The fact that verifiable reality is such that a range of conspiracy theories (regarding the US government) is actually plausible is probably more interesting and significant than any one of those conspiracy theories.

In that sense, focusing on "proving" the theory may effectively divert attention from what is in plain view.I think this is completely valid. I've said many times that there isn't any need to try to uncover conspiracies. There is so much of what our government does that is outrageous and is right out in the open for anyone to see.

Maybe that's just too "ordinary" or "boring" for some people...

And that seems to be unfettered or even opposed by your Democrat heros that are now controlling Congress. If you liberals really wanted to do something about the debt, your party would stop passing debt-ridden budgets. The president can't sign a budget that the Congress doesn't pass.

There's also the fact that Democrats can't point to a single thing they'd like to cut other than the war (which, for some unknown reason, they continue to fund while at the same time decrying the war spending). At the same time, they have all sorts of plans for NEW and massive spending initiatives!! I heard them talking last night at the convention that Obama plans to spend $150B on "infrastructure". Shall we just tack that on top of the debt we already have?

First, it should be pointed out that most of the things mentioned happened in Bush's first term... you know, when he was APPOINTED President by his and Cheney's hunting buddy on the SCOTUS.

Second thing worth mentioning is that it was a Republican led Congress at that time...

Last on this line of reasoning is that there is a remaining quantity of Republicans in Congress who have acted as OBSTRUCTIONISTs on many of the corrective measures the dems have "bothered" to impliment.

I know you will do your level best to blame all of Bush's policies, wars, malfeasancies, and outright acts of treason on the Dems, but that is your job, and I appreaciate that for what it is.

I think this is completely valid. I've said many times that there isn't any need to try to uncover conspiracies. There is so much of what our government does that is outrageous and is right out in the open for anyone to see.

Maybe that's just too "ordinary" or "boring" for some people...

Do you think also that it may be that people do not want to think of fortress Ameria being breached by foreigners? Or that a home enemy is less firightening than a foreign one?

This is one thing I cannot get.

What is the motivation for a Government to attack itself on the scale of 9/11? Or the now forgotten Oklahoma bomb? Why would the British government stage 7/7 for no apparent reason?

Was the IRA real? Have the Spanish just invented ETA?

Conspiracies are incedibly easy to allege, just point out some inconsitancies of which there are many in life, but they are impossible to deny, you simply get the you are deluded/part of it argument.

I have been to enough court cases to realize that witnesses see different things, offenders act in strange illogical ways, everyone does when under stress but it means nothing, the truth is the truth.

What is missing in someone's life that they despareately want to believe this crap?

I'm not sure why people would have such a difficult time accepting the fact that governments have a history of "false flag" operations. Are you familiar with Operation Himmler where the Nazis faked attacks on their own people which they blamed on the Poles to justify the invasion of Poland?

Where does this completely unearned blind trust in governments come from? Have you not heard of Operation Northwoods where in the 60's Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan that describes blowing up American airplanes that involved an elaborate plan of switching the planes, then to blaming it on Cuba in order to justify an invasion on Cuba? The very fact that there were people in our own government even thinking about this kind of shit let alone actually drafting a plan should give you some insight.

It's also very probable that America knew the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor, right down to the exact date of the attack, and allowed it to happen to justify America entering WWII.

How about the recent admission by the US Government about the Gulf of Tonkin (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261) in Vietnam?

So I guess what you could say is missing in "someone's" life is the truth.

It's extremely unlikely that a first-term president

I don't know why you're hung up on the first-termedness of GWB and an alleged concern over mere appearances. For a decade the PNACians had been spoiling for war. They even petitioned (http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/98-Rumsfeld-Iraq.pdf) Clinton to go to war with Saddam in the late 1990s. Once these men attained the positions of power, it was simply a matter of time. As it turns out, the catalysing event they wrote of in their "Building America's Defenses" was, as you said, dropped in their lap. Given that a war was going to happen, the "process of transformation" needn't be a "long one" anymore:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." - link (http://www.lewrockwell.com/chartier/chartier114.html)

They had their event and the transformation could begin. I don't see why you think amid all this ideological wheat, GWB would be at all worried about appearance chaff. He wasn't so much a first-term president as he was a tool of the PNAC ideologues. All they cared about was beginning the "process of transformation" and they knew all they had to do to hold on to power was to scare the American people sufficiently as was demonstrated in the 2004 election (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/07/cheney.terror/).

1. Choose to be perceived as having permit the worst attack on American soil in history on his watch due solely to demonstrable incompetence, or

Let's put it this way:

The administration was warned something big was cooking and they did nothing. So, either the BA truly was demonstrably incompetent or they wanted it to happen. Either way, the image projected is not a good one.

Just a month before GWB took office in January of 2001, the USS Cole, a gigantic hole in her side, was offloaded from a transport ship in Mississippi. Certainly, this event must have been fresh in the memory of the administration. Then, of course, there's the Millenium Plots and the embassy bombings the led up to GWBs inauguration. It is inexplicable that the Republican administration of -- first-term president, if you like -- GWB would not go after those that had bombed the Cole, attempted to bomb the Sullivan especially in light of the warnings and threat assessments pouring in from most countries in the world, including Afghanistan unless they had ulterior motives.

Do we conclude incompetence? It's one possible option. But there's alot to suggest that this was calculated to exploit on a timely, as you put it, "windfall of political capital."

2. Put in himself in the position of predictably being forced to spend unplanned multi-billions from his budget bailing out the airline industry and the rest of the economy, particularly given his obvious pre-existing desire to finance a war on foreign soil.

No president really gives a hoot about expenditures. It's not as if he's paying out of his own pocket. If presidents did care, the US debt would not be hovering near $10-trillion now. Bush was/is spending $4-billion a month in Iraq and has been doing so since 2003. A multi-billion airline bailout would be peanuts, both compared to war expenditures but also to the overall debt.

The LIHOP conspiracy theories are really not logical or practical.

I don't think you've made an argument that definitively proves this. I think the evidence suggests the let-it-happen theory is more correct than, say, sheer incompetence on the part of GWB and everyone else in his administration.

I'm not sure why people would have such a difficult time accepting the fact that governments have a history of "false flag" operations. Are you familiar with Operation Himmler where the Nazis faked attacks on their own people which they blamed on the Poles to justify the invasion of Poland?

Where does this completely unearned blind trust in governments come from? Have you not heard of Operation Northwoods where in the 60's Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan that describes blowing up American airplanes that involved an elaborate plan of switching the planes, then to blaming it on Cuba in order to justify an invasion on Cuba? The very fact that there were people in our own government even thinking about this kind of shit let alone actually drafting a plan should give you some insight.

It's also very probable that America knew the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor, right down to the exact date of the attack, and allowed it to happen to justify America entering WWII.

How about the recent admission by the US Government about the Gulf of Tonkin (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261) in Vietnam?

So I guess what you could say is missing in "someone's" life is the truth.

Well i guess that because i dont believe the US Government had the inclination nor the ability to commit 9/11 makes me totally trusting in Government?

This is a familiar cry from consipracy people.

I mistrust Government as much as the next man on the number 8 bus, however attacking a radio station back in 1939 is significantly different from perpetrating the most public act of terror ever seen on the planet.

Governments do play dirty but the scale of 9/11 and the sheer weight of evidence makes it net to impossible that 9/11 was an inside job.

Do consiracy people actually admit that muslim terrorists exist? because they do and yes they hate the west.

So far .. the usual DA conspirophiles are scoring a perfect 100% :nice:




Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.

Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.

Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.

Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.

Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.

Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.Appeals to 'common sense';
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.

Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.

Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.

Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.

Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.

Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.

The conspiracy is claimed to involve just about anybody;
Conspiracy tales grow in the telling, and can swell to world-spanning proportions. As the adherents struggle to explain counter-arguments, the conspiracy grows even more (see preceding item). Conspiracy theories that have been around for a few decades typically encompass the whole world and huge portions of history.

The conspiracy centers on the "usual suspects";
Classical conspiracy theories feature people, groups or organsations that are discriminated against in the culture where the story is told. Jews and foreigners are a common target. Likewise, organisations with a bad or colorful reputation feature prominently, such as the templars, the nazis and just about any secret service.


I mistrust Government as much as the next man on the number 8 bus, however attacking a radio station back in 1939 is significantly different from perpetrating the most public act of terror ever seen on the planet.

Only about a billion witnesses were watching on tv when the supposed moussad-pnac-fbi-cia-nist-nypd-fdny-nwo-norad-aa-ntsb-usaf-boeing cabal decided to "hit the red button" on the wtc :rolleyes:

So far .. the usual DA conspirophiles are scoring a perfect 100% :nice:






Only about a billion witnesses were watching on tv when the supposed moussad-pnac-fbi-cia-nist-nypd-fdny-nwo-norad-aa-ntsb-usaf-boeing cabal decided to "hit the red button" on the wtc :rolleyes:

You don't need a TV when you're in the path of a toxic dust cloud the size of Godzilla and it's racing in your direction.

Funny how that can change your perspective on your elected leaders and their ability to "keep you safe".

BTW,.... the NYFD, those stand up guys and gals who raced to their own deaths to save anyone they could ,didn't push the red button... they jumped into the path of that red buttons target and took it like the hero's they are.

The FBI, NYPD and what-have-you were for the most part not affected even though they had offices in the towers... They simply left.( Though SOME of the NYPD didn't get the memo and raced in with the Fire Dept.)

I don't know why you're hung up on the first-termedness of GWB and an alleged concern over mere appearances.
Because first term presidents want only one thing: a second term.

For a decade the PNACians had been spoiling for war.
As we learned from the 1st Bush administration, it didn't require a 9/11-like catastrophe to achieve.

He wasn't so much a first-term president as he was a tool of the PNAC ideologues.
I see no evidence of that. His father had no less a relationship with PNAC and he was quite upset about his failure to earn a second term.

Your estimation of the power and importance of PNAC is rather exaggerated. It's not some SHIELD-like super-entity whose members care about nothing other than imposing its will. It was a think tank.


Let's put it this way:

The administration was warned something big was cooking and they did nothing. So, either the BA truly was demonstrably incompetent or they wanted it to happen. Either way, the image projected is not a good one.
The administration inherited an intelligence service that was built to fight the Cold War, not stop terrorist attacks. They could not turn that around in a little more than a year. The fact they failed to do the latter is not ipso facto proof they wanted 9/11 to happen.

Like the old adage states: "Never attribute to malice what is more easily explained by stupidity."

Just a month before GWB took office in January of 2001, the USS Cole, a gigantic hole in her side, was offloaded from a transport ship in Mississippi. Certainly, this event must have been fresh in the memory of the administration. Then, of course, there's the Millenium Plots and the embassy bombings the led up to GWBs inauguration. It is inexplicable that the Republican administration of -- first-term president, if you like -- GWB would not go after those that had bombed the Cole, attempted to bomb the Sullivan especially in light of the warnings and threat assessments pouring in from most countries in the world, including Afghanistan unless they had ulterior motives.
See above. The theory that the Bush Administration had the magical power to stop all terrorist attacks from happening if really wanted to is quite flawed.

Eventually, a major terrorist attack would succeed. Sometimes the dragon wins

No president really gives a hoot about expenditures. It's not as if he's paying out of his own pocket.
The idea that a president who wanted to pay for a war didn't care about expenditures is so ridiculous it can be dismissed.

Because first term presidents want only one thing: a second term.

Universally? Proof?

As we learned from the 1st Bush administration, it didn't require a 9/11-like catastrophe to achieve.

No, it took Iraq to invade Kuwait and pretty much every other nation on the planet including Arab states to immediately jump on board to get him out. Bush-Is mission was far different than Bush-IIs, don't you think? Why did Bush-I essentially stop at the Iraqi border?

Is it really logical to compare the first Gulf War to the Shrub's War?

I see no evidence of that. His father had no less a relationship with PNAC and he was quite upset about his failure to earn a second term.

PNAC wasn't officially formed until 1997 though what would become its membership list was active in the early part of the 1990s. I wouldn't say that GHWB had the same type of relationship that his son did though.

Your estimation of the power and importance of PNAC is rather exaggerated. It's not some SHIELD-like super-entity whose members care about nothing other than imposing its will. It was a think tank.

A "think tank" whose top members and many signatories went on to positions of power within the BA. Abrams, Armitage, Cheney, Libby, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Khalilzad, Rodman... Do you think it's a coincidence that once these men -- and others -- came to power that the focus was put on finding a way to go to war with Iraq rather than dealing with AQ?

The administration inherited an intelligence service that was built to fight the Cold War, not stop terrorist attacks. They could not turn that around in a little more than a year. The fact they failed to do the latter is not ipso facto proof they wanted 9/11 to happen.

This does not explain the BAs refusal to hear what men like Clarke was saying. It's not that he was told "Sorry Dick, we just don't have the resources..." They weren't even interested. Clarke came into the BA from the Clinton years with a portfolio of information on AQ and was all but ignored.

See above. The theory that the Bush Administration had the magical power to stop all terrorist attacks from happening if really wanted to is quite flawed.

At least tell me what they did do, besides telling Condi Rice and John Ashcroft and Pentagon staffers to stop flying commerical in that time period.

In the summer of 2001, the G-8 summit in Genoa Italy was heavily secured, including anti-missile defenses and no-fly zones, due to credible information that Osama Bin Laden's group was going to attempt to assassinate Bush along with other leaders, possibly by flying aircraft laden with explosives into the Ducal Palace during the meetings. Italy responded to credible threats.

GWB gets home and promptly goes on vacation. In early August he's breifed about Bin Laden's intent to strike within the US and he prepares to protect the nation...how, exactly?

Why did Italy act on credible information and the BA not?

Why, despite the mounds of intelligence pouring in over the summer, including the Genoa intel and the Italians' response, did nothing occur in the US?

The idea that a president who wanted to pay for a war didn't care about expenditures is so ridiculous it can be dismissed.

Do you think Bush is more concerned about running up the debt or fighting his war in Iraq? Think before you answer. What has the deficit done during the Bush years? Do you think Bush really cares?

Even if the BA hadn't thought far enough ahead to see the airline industry getting into trouble over this, do you imagine a man willing to pour $4-billion a month into Iraq would give a rats ass about a pissant $15-billion airline bailout such as the one Congress passed in Sept/01?

Universally? Proof?
It's what you'd call a 'self-evident proposition' Politicians don't knock themselves out campaigning and electioneering just to get voted out at the end of their term.

No, it took Iraq to invade Kuwait and pretty much every other nation on the planet including Arab states to immediately jump on board to get him out.
Exactly: Hussein gave you a reason to take his ass out every five minutes: invading Kuwait, gassing the Kurds, funding suicide bombing, etc.

You didn't need to fabricate a reason to invade him: just wait a couple of days and he'd give you one.

Bush-Is mission was far different than Bush-IIs, don't you think? Why did Bush-I essentially stop at the Iraqi border?
Because in my opinion, Bush I didn't have the balls to invade Iraq. For whatever Bush Jr is lacking in brains, common sense and presidential dignity, he had more balls than his Dad.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2003/0419reasonsnot.htm

Is it really logical to compare the first Gulf War to the Shrub's War?
Is it logical to compare the Old and New Testaments, or World War I and World War II?

When a simple show of superior brawn didn't intimidate Hussein sufficiently to ensure our long-term access to the Persian Gulf, Bush 43 decided to take it all the way.

PNAC wasn't officially formed until 1997 though what would become its membership list was active in the early part of the 1990s. I wouldn't say that GHWB had the same type of relationship that his son did though.
PNAC is just a neo-con think tank that absorbed the leading lights of Washington and MSM Straussians. They're not some Weisshauptian puppetmaster cabal.

A "think tank" whose top members and many signatories went on to positions of power within the BA. Abrams, Armitage, Cheney, Libby, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Khalilzad, Rodman... Do you think it's a coincidence that once these men -- and others -- came to power that the focus was put on finding a way to go to war with Iraq rather than dealing with AQ?
No. Neoconservatism is the premier intellectual alternative to the religious stranglehold on the American right in today's politics. It's not surprising that educated conservatives would choose that worldview over the creationist, anti-science and reason Moral Majority.

Neocons would consider the long-term interests represented by secured access to oil to take logical priority over the short-term threat presented by AQ.

This does not explain the BAs refusal to hear what men like Clarke was saying. It's not that he was told "Sorry Dick, we just don't have the resources..." They weren't even interested. Clarke came into the BA from the Clinton years with a portfolio of information on AQ and was all but ignored.
See above.

At least tell me what they did do, besides telling Condi Rice and John Ashcroft and Pentagon staffers to stop flying commerical in that time period.
Not sure. The real deal would be highly classified. It's well-known that following the fall of the Soviet Union, much of our intelligence infrastructure was lulled into a false sense of security.


Why, despite the mounds of intelligence pouring in over the summer, including the Genoa intel and the Italians' response, did nothing occur in the US?
See above.


Do you think Bush is more concerned about running up the debt or fighting his war in Iraq? Think before you answer. What has the deficit done during the Bush years? Do you think Bush really cares?
Probably, in an arrogant type of way. He honestly buys into the supply side equation: government spending + regressive tax = economic growth.


Even if the BA hadn't thought far enough ahead to see the airline industry getting into trouble over this, do you imagine a man willing to pour $4-billion a month into Iraq would give a rats ass about a pissant $15-billion airline bailout such as the one Congress passed in Sept/01?
Yes, the crushing effect of 9/11 on the economy, unplanned big drain on the budget, and loss of jobs after the bail-out were all major contributors to the loss in his approval rating.

You don't need a TV when you're in the path of a toxic dust cloud the size of Godzilla and it's racing in your direction.

Funny how that can change your perspective on your elected leaders and their ability to "keep you safe".

BTW,.... the NYFD, those stand up guys and gals who raced to their own deaths to save anyone they could ,didn't push the red button... they jumped into the path of that red buttons target and took it like the hero's they are.

The FBI, NYPD and what-have-you were for the most part not affected even though they had offices in the towers... They simply left.( Though SOME of the NYPD didn't get the memo and raced in with the Fire Dept.)

There is no question that our fearless leaders will capitalize on disasters or attacks to further an objective or agenda

I had NYPD and FDNY in the list because some, but not all, of the conspiracy scenarios required their complicity .. which brings me to the next sign of a conspiracy theory that the author left off.

There are a multitude of contradictory conspiracy narratives
Big conspiracies never settle on an official or agreed upon narrative. There often is not even a single full narrative that explains the event, but rather, a loose aggregate of smaller conspiracies that are not tied together in any coherent manner. New stories spin off of old ones and the conspiracy believers often disagree sharply on the causes or conspirators of the event. Great effort is expended on discrediting the official story with out the conspiracy believers constructing their own coherent narrative. The individual conspiracy theories vary widely between semi-plausible to utterly ridiculous.

Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.

Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.

Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.

Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.

Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.

Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.Appeals to 'common sense';
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.

Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.

Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.

Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.

Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.

Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.

The conspiracy is claimed to involve just about anybody;
Conspiracy tales grow in the telling, and can swell to world-spanning proportions. As the adherents struggle to explain counter-arguments, the conspiracy grows even more (see preceding item). Conspiracy theories that have been around for a few decades typically encompass the whole world and huge portions of history.

The conspiracy centers on the "usual suspects";
Classical conspiracy theories feature people, groups or organsations that are discriminated against in the culture where the story is told. Jews and foreigners are a common target. Likewise, organisations with a bad or colorful reputation feature prominently, such as the templars, the nazis and just about any secret service.


All I could think of reading this was religion. It works really well that way.