TINFOIL HAT ALERT: Bin Laden double-crossed Bush

What if 9/11 was LIHOP, but the act they were letting happen wasn't exactly what happened? It explains:

the plane intercept stand-down
why they knew which ATM to get the pix from
how they found the flight school so fast
and on and on.

What if the plan was to hijack (hijack, not crash) one (and only one) plane? That may have been sufficient to put the US on a "war footing", and go after al Queda.... which would have given the Bush Junta the environment to conduct their operations.

What if UBL used the hijack-friendly environment to mount a larger attack?

and its actually much less evil than plain vanilla LIHOP (not to mention MIHOP).

been brought up here quite a few times before and not just by me.

That's why all the inaction by Bush, especially that look on his face in the classroom.

They only planned for one. All except for Cheney, he knew there would be four.

:)

If you accept the "playas' got played" scenario, then you see a whole lot of bush/Condi statements in a whole new light:

"Our warnings were about traditional hijackings' (ie: crashing those planes was definitely NOT in OUR playbook!)

"IF I had known they were going to use planes as missiles, I would have done everything to stop them." (ie: I would have got on the phone to Osama and said "what the hell are you thinking? We don't need all the death and destruction to institute our policies. Just stick to the plan and hijack the planes, fly 'em out to the desert and await orders from Cheney. And don't try anything cute once you get to Nevada - we'll have Ted Olsen's wife on one of those planes keeping an eye on your guys. Fuck this up and we'll withold payment!")

Aug 6 PDB - "too bad the CIA isn't in on our plan! Keep 'em bottled up in paperwork...that'll keep 'em from smelling anything suspicious. And while you're at it, stand down on the Osama manhunt and pull those warships outta the Gulf."

Bush vacation - "once the shit hits the fan, I'm not going to have a moment's peace. The cheerleader speeches alone are gonna eat up my whole day. I'm outta here for a month. Let me know when the plan's ready ta go."

Yep. It explains it all.

Or some variation thereof.

that BushCo and Bin Laden were negotiating the pipeline throughout 2001 (Hence, the $43 million "gift" on May 22).
Negotiations fell through (BushCo got greedy) and decided to attack in October (lots of references to this date on the net).
Bin Laden, knowing his days were numbered, attacked first.

I also tend to believe that Cheney's Energy Task Force crap was, in fact, the basis for the negotiation deal w/ Bin Laden.

Just askin'....

This wasn't a spur of the moment activity. It was planned and coordinated.

Al qaida, as someone on TV said, does not take hostages. It kills. It has never done otherwise.

The hostage scenarios are Republican wishful thinking. Oh, if only life were more like the movies! They keep acting like the noble happy ending is only a few scenes away.

I don't think they knew a huge amount about how many planes or exactly where. Enough to leave Washington and not spend any time in Manhattan. Enough to have flyovers at Crawford and anti-aircraft weapons stationed on the roof of Bush's hotel in Florida. They were betting the plane(s) would go for big high-casualty targets. If Bush were in a tiny school, it wouldn't be much of a show.

And they told themselves it would get the country moving in a GOOD way, like after Pearl Harbor. But they never said it where any lesser person could hear them.

we have a 'winnah'!!!

yes. PNAC needed a hijacking. what they got was far worse.

they didn't flinch though did they?

'cause they think they are so in control.

Far worse than expected.

After watching junior's reaction to the the WTC, I'd have to say this jerk has to be the worlds worse poker player and actor rolled into one.

certainly at some levels in the government. it may also make sense why formal investigations were not done despite the mounting warnings.

The reason I subscribe to LIHOP (begging the question of what "I" is) is because it assumes the least to cover the available facts. I personally find some degree of malicious disregard (on the part of an "inner cabal") to be more consistent with the facts than some widespread and deep degree of incompetence. When people assume that all the senior people in this maladminstration are incompetent to the degree needed for 9-11 to occur, and to occur without the obvious and immediate countermeasures, I find that 'theory' to require a far greater number of unproven assumptions than LIHOP. Indeed, the theory of widespread incompetence doesn't satisfactorily explain/predict other actions, and their results, undertaken by this maladminstration. Thus, it's contraindicated as a more complex explanation.

I'm guided by Ockham's Razor - the principle pronounced by the English theologian and philosopher Willam of Ockham (c.1285-1349) that, other things beings equal, the simpler of two explanations is to be preferred. The Latin is "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" - entities are not to be multiplied unnecessarily.


Of most obvious concern is the fact that a LIHOP perspective is, as yet, not contraindicated by any evidence whatsoever. The obsessive and highly selective secrecy of this maladminstration seems to cry out for sunlight and transparency. We've seen neither.

whereas human behaviour is typically much more complex then physics.

If you apply Ockham's Razor to 9-11, then incompetence/coincidence is the more simple theory. But its simplicity does not guarantee that it's correct; ie it does not explain the secrecy of the administration.

I'd say things like motivation, political and economic interests, mallicious intent, make conspiracy theories of a different breed then physics theories.

What branch of physics does a "theologian and philosopher" study? :eyes:

Isn't everything else kind of built on physics?

Physics -> chemistry -> biology -> life -> thought -> motivation,politics,economy etc?

Why constrain it to available facts?

19 guys slip through the cracks for 6 months - more likely to happen because of neglect? or if they had inside help?

If there are facts that point to inside help, would not those facts be covered up, ignored to death, discredited, hidden among numerous rumors or "investigated" into dead-ends?

Well maybe

And maybe Osama is really a "black sheep" of the bush-friends Bin Laden and just coincidently enabled the Bush-II agenda.

The same as John was a "black sheep" of the bush-friends Hinkley and just coincidently made Bush-I de-facto president in the Reagan Whitehouse.

I think it's more likely that some other bush-friends, who specialize in mind-bending and have the covert connections, twisted some minds and pumped some ideas into them and babysat. Promoting their faction's agenda while eliminating undesired offspring at the same time.

Just theories, but they're so engaging I have to wonder if something else isn't going on and all this is mainly distraction :)

The bushgang conspired to ensure a well-timed "Pearl Harbor" event, agreeing to stand down and let it happen. Then, as you say, the "terrorists" (whoever they really are/were) took advantage of the open net and upped the ante.

It could also be that the mulitple planes were back-up scenarios for the plan, assuming that not all of them would succeed.

and that she has a tendency to blurt out the truth, no matter how hard she tries to control herself.

She admitted that they expected traditional hijackings. Yet, they did nothing about it? Even when the event, that they knew was coming was in progress, they did nothing about it. Now don't tell me all the upper level people in this misadministration are that incompetent?

A hijacking is not a catalyzing event.

Hijackings have occurred many times. Has a hijacking ever resulted in a war "that may not end in our lifetimes"?

What is gained by a hijacking? Is it worse than the embassy bombings? Is it worse than the Cole? Reacting to a hijacking would be more "swatting at flies."

Foreign warnings - most specifically from German intelligence - spoke explicitly of targetting landmarks with commercial aircraft.

FBI agents were on the trail, knew time and place of attacks, and were threatened with persecution under the National Security Act if they persued their investigations.

Don't kid yourself. They knew what they needed, and they got it.

First mentioned in a DU Front page article in May, 2002

In a certain large country to the west of one place and the east of another, an ambitious group of southerners manages to convince a large minority of their fellow citizens to vote for their presidential candidate, a compliant cretin with the morals of a rabid mink. Unfortunately, in a winner-take-all democracy this is not enough for him to win, so the mostly southern military obligingly sends in a few thousand illegal absentee ballots to tip the scales and the cretin's gutless opponent refuses to challenge him.

"Whoop-de-doo!" shout the handlers when the cretin dons the crown. The cretin and his handlers are in charge for four long years. They immediately start pursuing a loony right-wing agenda, trucking billions to all their rich friends and putting military leaders and their civilian catamites in positions of power -- long the custom in all banana republics.

But, much to the consternation of the handlers, the majority who actually won the election just won't sign off on their increasingly loony proposals. What they need is what they had in the good old days of a global face-off with a now defunct enemy: emergency powers, the pretext of a massive threat to the nation's security to crush or imprison their enemies, steal still more of the nation's common wealth, and pare down the annoying institution of democratic government to a useless nub.

Purely coincidentally, an old friend of the cretin, who's had a born-again experience and has decided that the great nation to the west of one place and the east of another is Satan incarnate, starts to make plans for an assault on the fortress of evil. Word comes to the cretin's handlers that this is in the works but rather than taking steps to pre-empt it they start top-secret internal discussions (from which the cretin is of course excluded). What if this attack, whatever it is, is allowed to proceed? they wonder

More...

The Story So Far

Later championed by DUer Old And In The Way, and yours truly...

Suppose the Bin Laden threatened a terror attack on the US if we kept threatening the Taliban (carpet of gold/carpet of bombs).

Further suppose that the neocons decided to allow said terror attack, (the PNAC Pearl Harbor) thinking that it would be, as Condi has said, a traditional hijacking.

Finally, suppose that, one way or another, it got back to Bin Laden that he was being given an "unguarded shot on goal." (My guess is through sympathizers in the Saudi Govt).

Now, knowing that no one was going to stop him, Bin Laden does two things:

1.) He ups the ante of his plans to attacks on the two World Trade Centers, the Pentagon, and the White House.

2.) He presses for the completion of his plans with more-or-less open communications.

Because of the latter, the entire world's intelligence services start to hear the plans and start warning Washington. Hell, the regular CIA and the FBI get start to get clued in. But the Chimpster & Co. know it's coming, so they're trying to minimize the importance of the warnings.

If all this is true, there may be further bombshells to come, perhaps from foreign intelligence services.


The Players Got Played - That spike in chatter before 9/11....

:kick:

:kick:

I've read a lot about 9/11 but there is new info in this thread.

My comment: It would be easier to prove to the sheeple that * knew of just simple hi-jackings and allowed them to happen, rather than the whole MIHOP thing. The facts that have come out are grounds enough for conviction. Impeach. Impeach. Impeach.

I found this top secret photo along with a map and hand-written notes taped under a table at Starbucks.
This top secret photo explains why he seems to always be one step ahead of us.


Found at Starbucks: The Pentagon's Papers
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0331-06.htm

(vanity kick)

With your scenario he's a willing party to creating a friendly environment that would ultimately help facilitate Bush's desire to kill him.

Put down the bong.

1. He showed no interest in killing him prior to 9/11. In fact this is what the FBI had to say:

They said the restrictions became worse after the Bush administration took over this year. The intelligence agencies had been told to "back off" from investigations involving other members of the Bin Laden family, the Saudi royals, and possible Saudi links to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan.

"There were particular investigations that were effectively killed."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4293682,00.html

2. The Bin Laden Family is, historically, business partners with the Bush family (and old personal friends).

3. UBL has been an ally to factions within the US power structure and a tool for US policy many times before (in light of the last 10 years of history, this is admittedly a weaker point).

If your argument is that signing up for the LIHOP deal would (knowingly or unknowingly) lead to negative consequences for the US, it is a poor argument because we know Bush & Co. purposely took us to war with Iraq - demonstrating their willingness to involve the US in a bad situation and/or their ignorance about such an engagement.

us troops out of saudi arabia (accomplished)

a fundamentalist gov't in iraq (soon to be accomplished)


and personally, an escorted flight out of afghanistan in the fall of 2001

out of Tora Bora just when our Special Ops forces had him surrounded and were ready to go in for the kill?

The big brass showed up and shut down the operation and then the helicopters came in and Osama was gone.

the whole story:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020128fa_FACT

highlights:

In Afghanistan last November, the Northern Alliance, supported by American Special Forces troops and emboldened by the highly accurate American bombing, forced thousands of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters to retreat inside the northern hill town of Kunduz. Trapped with them were Pakistani Army officers, intelligence advisers, and volunteers who were fighting alongside the Taliban. (Pakistan had been the Taliban's staunchest military and economic supporter in its long-running war against the Northern Alliance.) Many of the fighters had fled earlier defeats at Mazar-i-Sharif, to the west; Taloqan, to the east; and Pul-i-Khumri, to the south. The road to Kabul, a potential point of retreat, was blocked and was targeted by American bombers. Kunduz offered safety from the bombs and a chance to negotiate painless surrender terms, as Afghan tribes often do.

Surrender negotiations began immediately, but the Bush Administration heatedly-and successfully-opposed them. On November 25th, the Northern Alliance took Kunduz, capturing some four thousand of the Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. The next day, President Bush said, "We're smoking them out. They're running, and now we're going to bring them to justice."

Even before the siege ended, however, a puzzling series of reports appeared in the Times and in other publications, quoting Northern Alliance officials who claimed that Pakistani airplanes had flown into Kunduz to evacuate the Pakistanis there. American and Pakistani officials refused to confirm the reports.



According to a former high-level American defense official, the airlift was approved because of representations by the Pakistanis that "there were guys— intelligence agents and underground guys—who needed to get out."

Once under way, a senior American defense adviser said, the airlift became chaotic. "Everyone brought their friends with them," he said, referring to the Afghans with whom the Pakistanis had worked, and whom they had trained or had used to run intelligence operations. "You're not going to leave them behind to get their throats cut."

is there any indication that the plan was to only hijack one plane?

also i don't think just the hijacking of one plane would be enough to persuade people to go to war. there have been hijackings of planes before; never was reason for war.

and if you think they could have let one hijacking happen on purpose, why not more? it's only a gradual difference.

with the scope and human toll of 9/11 (as it actually happened)?

That would be REALLY evil.

Oh, and really hard... I don't think the Bushies (& PNAC?) are organized enough.

A "good theory" is one that (1) assumes the least, (2) accommodates all observations and (3) also offers a basis for predicting future observations.

LIHOP meets all three criteria.

Would this revelation make their actions any less despicable?

Some of the strogest evidence for complicity is the fact that no evidence was found of a 757 at the Pentagon and that it was hit in an unoccupied area of the building. The signature of that attack was a missile of some sort. I doubt that al-Qaeda would have been able to pull that off without assistance. Also, WTC-7 was clearly brought down with explosives. I can't imagine al-Qaeda would have bothered planting explosives in a relatively benign target like that building. Finally, it still does not account for Bush's behavior that day. If they anticipated hijackings, but not planes crashing into stuff, I doubt Bush's staff would have let him sit in a predisclosed location for as long as they did.

But if they were true, WHY? Clearly, whatever powers were in control of hijacking and crashing planes that morning needed no assistance in destroying specific ground targets (there were millions of eyewitnesses to the second WTC plane, for instance) so why use a missile? The risk of eyewitnesses ruining the official story is high.

I believe there was a large diesel tank under WTC7 (backup generators?). Also, WHY BOTHER?

If these to things were "engineered" as you suggest, they are still just minor features in a huge MIHOP scenario where the real goals are war (particularly in the oil-rich Iraq), PATRIOT ACTs & tax cuts.

I guess you & I just wear different Tinfoil Hats!

Seriously, they wanted to inflict enough damage on the Pentagon to accomplish their ends, but not so much that is would decimate the Pentagon.

The physical evidence simply does not support that a 757 hit the Pentagon. The initial damage was far too small (a hole 18 feet in diameter), there were no signs of wings or fuselage debris, and there was no noticable damage to the lawn that would indicate a plane as large as a 757 hit the Pentagon. Also, the aerial maneuver necessary to hit the Pentagon the way that plane supposedly did would have been virtually impossible for a highly trained pilot, much less a hack like Hani Hanjour. Finally, all the surveillance tapes from the service station across the street from the Pentagon were seized moments after the attack. The contents of these are still a mystery. As far as eyewitnesses, people can be led to believe things they didn't see later on due to media or peer pressure. That's one reason why eyewitness testimony is so unreliable as evidence, particularly when it contradicts physical evidence.

As for WTC-7, who knows why it was demoloshed. Apparently, the The facts are that before 9/11, no steel-structured building has collapsed solely due to fire. The WTC lease holder, Larry Silverstein, apparently made a $500 million dollar profit for the rebuilding of the complex. Also, I believe the FEMA report said that the tanks and generators remained intact.

The Bin Laden's and the Bush's have been in business for years! Just like the Hinckley family (John Hinckley the one who shot Reagan) and the Bush family were neighbors. The Bushes always use people they can trust to do the dirty work! Look here and ask what is that on the plane of course the hijackers had time to strap a missile pod under the belly of the plane before taking off in it that day!
<>
Video is here http://www.letsroll911.org/images/WF-LetsRoll.Pod.Missile.wmv




www.letsroll911.org

initiative.

That video is awfully blurry, looks like a shadow under the plane.

They use all the different cameras working that day to show it from different angles.
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3&sid=acccf2a8fa45be8f7232d69fd1fe4982
http://letsroll911.org/images/

<>

look from the LA Times web site notice the light streak across the fueslage?

<>

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

I guess from your handle You are from the East coast so Hola from the Left Coast. And what did you think of that web page letsroll911.org ? :crazy:

yeah, that was my first thought while trying to understand how so many warning signs were ignored and how the most powerful, information gathering nation in the world could be SO BLINDLY ATTACKED. How LUCKY those terrorists must have been!

I can believe LIHOP or HIHOP alot more easily than I can believe that this entire administration is moronic. I KNOW the president is...but