Slainte

Hypothetcially lets say a group of people within the US government planned to carry out an attack against the WTC and Pentagon. In order for it to be kept a secret at the beginning it would probably have to stay between people you would class as "true believers", men really prepared to kill thousands of people for either their own gain or as service to someone else, maybe the US (in their own way) or a larger organisation. Theorists normally cite people like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfled, Perle, Feith, maybe Rove and of course GWB as such believers. Now IMO it would be perfectly possible for such "believers" to plan a conspiracy as large as 9/11 and keep it secret.

However in order to make this plan a reality these people must at some point approach "outsiders", probably non-partisan, non-political people in different government agencies, media, construction companies, etc and bring them "in" on the conspiracy. This is where it would inevitably fall apart, nobody is going to wire the WTC with explosives and not ask questions, nor would any journalist purposefully misreport it without a damn good reason. If these people hear an explanation they don't like they will go to the press or at least dig a bit deeper untill they get the whole picture. This is always the problem when you want to pull off a big operation quietly, at some point, in order to make it happen, you've got to approach people who don't "believe"(or have no personal interest) in what you're doing. If they decide they don't like it they'll leak it, often just because they can, or in the case of 9/11 because they'd make a fortune and/or save thousands of lives(if they "outed" it at the beginning).

In a conspiracy as large as 9/11 the outsiders you would need to involve to make it happen would inevitably be extremely important themselves, as if you're not in a position of importance you wouldn't be needed in a conspiracy this large. This would mean the potential "outers" would be basically untouchable, you can't offer to bring them "in" and then "get rid" of them if they refuse, meaning you would need to approach dozens of very important people and convince all of them that destroying the WTC and the Pentagon is in their interest, that simply could never happen. It would only take one person to "out" the whole operation.

This is also why in any line of work, big operations don't stay secret long, I know from personal experience.

__________________
We all live under the same sky, but we don't all have the same horizon

Gladiator

The actual conspiracy was quite simple. Antagonize Islamic militants by encouraging Israel to take excessively retaliatory actions against the Palestinians. US President Clinton had actively advocated restraint by Israel in actions against the Palestinians, up till 8 months before 9-11.

Instructions were given to the military to avoid pre-emptive actions, intended to thwart any attacks by Islamic militants. These were the same orders as ordinary in peacetime, and before Pearl Harbor.

At a higher level, US Bush Administration officials simply questioned the authenticiy of any reports of plans for attacks on the US. By scoffing at the reports of plans of Islamic Militant attacks against the US, Intelligence reports were not as vigorously followed up.

..

__________________
_______________________________
How did Our Oil get under Their Sand?

Chanda

The whole operation has been outed. In the following video, three people accidentally reveal incriminating information. At 8:05, Larry Silverstein admits "they" decided to "pull" WTC7 on 9/11. At 10:21, Bush reveals that he saw the first plane hit the tower (on tv, although it wasn't televised). And at 15:05, Norman Minetta reveals that while in Cheney's bunker, he heard about an order not to shoot down the plane headed directly toward the Pentagon:

9-11 Justice

Numerous witnesses, physicists, architects and other experts have challenged the official conspiracy theory, but their voices haven't been made public by the complicit corporate media.

__________________
"The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today." President George W. Bush, in his daily diary, September 11, 2001

Frank Talk

[QUOTE=Chanda;1057671530]At 8:05, Larry Silverstein admits "they" decided to "pull" WTC7 on 9/11.[quote]

"Pulling" a building is not used to refer to demolishing it with explosives.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Articl...09-8-06%20.pdf

The term was consistently used on 9/11 to refer to withdrawing firefighters from the buildings.
911 Links - "Pull" = Withdraw firefighters from danger?
The attacks happened before Bush entered the classroom, the footage wasn't live.
The President's Story, The President Talks In Detail About His Sept. 11 Experience - CBS News

There also wasn't an established protocol on whether or not to shoot down a hijacked commercial airliner.

Chanda

Whatever Silverstein meant, he could not have meant "withdraw firefighters from danger." According to FEMA, firefighters were never in building 7 due to lack of water.

The first attack happened before Bush entered the classroom. It was video taped, but was not televised until evening. Yet Bush claimed to have seen the first attack on tv before entering the classroom.

Two hijacked planes had already crashed into buildings. What would be the logical action to take as a hijacked plane approached the Pentagon? What was meant by, "Does the order still stand?"

__________________
"The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today." President George W. Bush, in his daily diary, September 11, 2001

Frank Talk

Source? Firefighters were in the building at one point during the day.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110313.PDF

Pull could also refer to the surrounding area and not just the firefighters inside the building.

I remember seeing footage of the first plan in the morning. Source saying it wasn't broadcast till evening? The clip is also from three months after 9/11, Bush could have easily misspoke on the subject.
Once again there was no protocol, deciding to shoot down commercial airliners is not an easy decision.
Does the order not to shoot down the plane still stand?

Do you have any direct evidence of US government involvement in 9/11 rather than this "he said something that doesn't follow the story perfectly" bullcrap?

Chanda

"WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...ema403_ch5.pdf

Did the fire commissioner require permission from Silverstein to evacuate firefighters?

"There was no film footage of the first attack until at least the following day, and Bush didn’t have access to a television until 15 or so minutes later. [Washington Times, 10/7/02] The Boston Herald later noted, “Think about that. Bush’s remark implies he saw the first plane hit the tower. But we all know that video of the first plane hitting did not surface until the next day. Could Bush have meant he saw the second plane hit—which many Americans witnessed? No, because he said that he was in the classroom when Card whispered in his ear that a second plane hit.” [Boston Herald, 10/22/02]

An Interesting Day: President Bush's Movements and Actions on 9/11

“I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower—the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there’s one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn’t have much time to think about it.” [White House, 12/4/01]

The details are too precise for him to have merely misspoke. He repeated the same story several times.

Not in this case. Planes had just crashed into 2 buildings. 125 people working in the Pentagon were killed, and likely there would have been many more if the plane had not made an incredible maneuver in order to crash into the Pentagon's new section. Or what about a decision to intercept the plane?

A decision not to defend the Pentagon is insignificant to you?

The fact that numerous warnings were ignored is in itself evidence of complicity. Lies about those warnings by Bush, Rice, et al, the stonewalling of an investigation, and the removal of crime scene evidence indicate a coverup. Furthermore, there are volumes of evidence compiled by credible, credentialed scientists, architects, engineers, and scholars that the official version is scientifically impossible. Even NIST has admitted it can't explain the total collapse of the buildings.

In any crime, storyline inconsistencies are always regarded as suspect. Have you ever questioned the official version? The administration has never provided a shred of hard evidence that Osama bin Laden was connected to 9/11.

__________________
"The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today." President George W. Bush, in his daily diary, September 11, 2001

Slainte

*Sigh* that really isn't an "outing".

Nobody of any importance has ever claimed to have been involved in a 9/11 conspiracy.

__________________
We all live under the same sky, but we don't all have the same horizon

Chanda

I don't agree that a confession by someone of importance is required for plausibilty. David Ray Griffin, noted theologian and professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, believes your theory is a myth:

Myth Number 3: Such a big operation, involving so many people, could not have been kept a secret, because someone involved in it would have talked by now.

"This claim is based on a more general myth, which is that is impossible for secret government operations to be kept secret very long, because someone always talks. But how could we know this? If some big operations have remained secret until now, we by definition do not know about them. Moreover, we do know of big some operations that were kept secret as long as necessary, such as the Manhattan Project to create the atomic bomb, and the war in Indonesia in 1957, which the United States government provoked, participated in, and was able to keep secret from its own people until a book about it appeared in 1995.18 Many more examples could be given.
We can understand, moreover, why those with inside knowledge of 9/11 would not talk. At least most of them would have been people with the proven ability to keep secrets. Those who were directly complicit would also be highly motivated to avoid public disgrace and the gas chamber. Those people who had knowledge without being complicit could be induced to keep quiet by means of more or less subtle threats—such as: "Joe, if you go forward with your plans to talk to the press about this, I don't know who is going to protect your wife and kids from some nutcase angered by your statement." Still another fact is that neither the government nor the mainstream press has, to say the least, shown any signs of wanting anyone to come forward."
9/11: The Myth and the Reality DAVID RAY GRIFFIN (Authorized Version) 30mar2006

__________________
"The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today." President George W. Bush, in his daily diary, September 11, 2001

Frank Talk

The FEMA report also says that there were firefighters in the building earlier in the day. (pg 23) Firefighters were still in the area and constantly refer to being pulled out of and away from the building.

No, and they wouldn't need his permission to demolish it either, that's why he says "they" decided to "pull it". Once again the term is NEVER used to refer to the demolition of a building and it was constantly used by firefighters when discussing withdrawal. What significance did the collapse of WTC 7 have? Why not just leave it at 1 and 2?
In the video you posted he says he saw it when he walked into the classroom not before. Which is it?

Just because you can play monday morning quarterback and say they should have shot down the plane doesn't mean that the US government was involved in 9/11.

What about it? What significance did hitting the pentagon hold? Why not just keep it at towers 1 and 2?


It's not that it's insignificant it's that not shooting down the plane does not equal they were involved in making the plane hit the pentagon. Once again there was no protocol, they decided not to shoot it down, maybe they were wrong, but that does not change the fact that your making a huge leap in logic.

Would you like to provide some of that evidence?

Once again, what does the NIST report not explain?
As shocking as it may seem to you I once did believe the 9/11 truth bull**** until I realized it didn't stand up when questioned. The entire movement is filled with racist psuedo-libertarians who are less interested in the truth and more interested in creating an unfalsifiable theory about government involvement in 9/11.

Only video tapes of him claiming responsibility. You not provided one shred of hard evidence that the government was involved in perpetuating the attacks. The US government has done many terrible things, backing Pinochet, Operation PBSUCCESS and COINTELPRO just to name a few. We know they did these things because there is extensive documentation of this. Where is that documentation for 9/11?