The patsy theory

The notion of no real Arab hijackers seems to be a popular view found in the 9/11 truth movement. It's as if accepting that al Qaeda operatives hijacked the planes means one must buy the entire rationale of the government's WoT. It's like saying that because one agrees that Hussein was indeed a very bad guy that means one also agrees with the invasion/occupation of Iraq.

Are the foreign policy/blowback theorists completely full of it? They ascribe the hijackers' motives to US foreign policy in the Middle East. Is this an absurd viewpoint?

FTR, I don't know what happened. Everything about 9/11 is confusing so I'm not sure how anyone can be certain of their conclusions. We still haven't heard from either chief of the CIA and FBI Bin Laden units (Rich B. and Rod Middleton). Many key interviews with intel agents on the NARA website are pending classification review, even though AFAIK these records were given to NARA around 2004. There are three remaining civil suits against the airlines/security companies that haven't gone to trial. Attempts to release records from this litigation haven't been successful as the judge claims it would affect the trial and the companies/government claim releasing this information would harm national security.

They ascribe the hijackers' motives to US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Given that this is a viewpoint supported by the perps own statements, it seems silly to consider it absurd.

If you entertain the possibility of Arab highjackers, you need to stop being a paid Bushco shill who gets all of his information from Fox News.

At least that's my understanding.


Are the foreign policy/blowback theorists completely full of it? They ascribe the hijackers' motives to US foreign policy in the Middle East. Is this an absurd viewpoint?


Utterly absurd. Why would any Arabs be motivated to violence by US foreign policy in the Middle East? Don't be silly.

Prior to 9/11 there was never an Arab or Muslim extremist who ever thought about engaging in a terrorist act - and certainly not one in which they would die in the process. The fact that such a "suicide attack" had never been committed by a single terrorist in the history of Middle East politics proves that 9/11 had to be an inside job, and that there is no other possible explanation.

Do you mean you don't know if planes flew into two world trade center buildings, the pentagon and the ground in PA or do you mean you know that planes flew into those objects, but your not actually sure how they were made to get there?

are we talking about Patsy Cline or Patsy Ramsey. It would make a difference even though both of them are dead. Or, are you talking about

but the point is that the Powers That Be knew what was coming and needed to control the attacks-- which they did, according to the physical evidence-- and hence the "patsies".

let me break this to you gently, dude. You have zero credibility, with the possible exception of a couple forum members who have less critical thinking skills than you do.

If the truth was on your side and if you think you have superior thinking skills, you wouldn't give a chicken-shit excuse for
why you won't debate.

you're not getting anywhere with your false claim. No one here has declined your challenge to debate. However, no one will agree to a method that is easily manipulable and, more importantly, I don't trust you or your compadres with my personal information. In the meantime, quit pretending that declining a "phone debate" is refusing to debate.

No one wants your telephone number. If you're at least trying act like you're sincere, then you must awfully thick in the
cranial section. YOU could place a call and hide your number. But, you're too scared to engage in a fair debate and you
must not even know anyone who would be willing to substitute for you.

Why are all Untruthers such goofy KFC?

If you don't feel up to the task, I wouldn't object even if you asked someone to substitute for your unwillingness to step up to the
plate, ws.

Why are all Untruthers KFC?

You embarrass yourself on a daily basis here by making assertions you can't support and ass-backwards "logical conclusions" and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=246042&mesg_id=247067">lies, but you don't even know why you should be embarrassed. And now you wanna run around challenging people to a "phone debate?" Grow up.

I assert that you are scared to engage in a fair debate about 9/11. That assertion is supported by your wimp-out confessions.

... to race up the stairs against a guy in a wheelchair. Grow up, learn what the terms "argument" and "rebuttal" actually mean, learn how to do each, and maybe I'll reconsider.

It seems unlikely that after being watched by the FBI et al. through many seasons while they 'learned to fly' and moved about the country, that they wouldn't have been flagged and severely questioned given that several criminal situations were perpetuated by their 'type'.

Highly unlikely. Malfeasance by the authorities at best.

In fact a couple of them were flagged by field agents but FBI HQ somehow dropped the ball!!

The questions arise when compared with the OCT idea that they stayed free all that time and then made it through security leaving a trail of incriminating evidence in their cars, etc. and boarded the planes then commandeering several pilots who were ex-military with box knives, and flew the planes with such accuracy that experienced pilots said was hardly possible........

See where that's going? It is entirely plausible that they were patsies and nearly implausible that that they did what they are said to have done.

The evidence weighs heavily against the OCT.

1) How were they fooled? I've heard the "test airline defenses" theory and IMO it isn't credible. It's like testing bank security with a real bank robber. Talk about inviting lawsuits. In line with this theory some have suggested the calls from the planes were also part of a drill. Again, this isn't credible. No passenger would ever screw with their families in such a manner. It appears some of the al Qaeda operatives were well educated. Thus one would expect a fair amount of curiosity on their part if someone gave them a bizarre story about pretending to be terrorists.

2) LIHOP theory suggests that they were protected from arrest so they could carry out the attacks.

3) A false flag paradigm suggests they were protected so they could be blamed for the attacks. The problem with this is that one has the puzzle of why a false flag attack would have left so many loose ends. If the intention was to have the public buy them as perps then why on earth weren't their flight skills better? For example, the architects of a false flag attack could have simply made up certification tests on commercial airliners. Yet the issue is clouded to the point where you question whether the named perps were capable of carrying out the attacks. What explains such a strange MO?

FWIW here is one explanation for the MO:

The transparent MO:

This MO seems designed to make it obvious that the named perp could not have been solely responsible for committing the crime. OTOH, the cover up seems intended to withhold evidence leading to other perps. One obvious question--why would the MO call for transparency if that meant the government/media would have to work so hard to cover up the truth? Why not just make it look like a lone nut (JFK assassination) or 19 al Qaeda operatives did it by themselves? After all, isn't it beneficial for the perps to fool the public into believing all is well in their democratic state? For whatever reason it seems the objectives of the transparent MO are more important than any complications related to the cover up. Objectives=intimidate, demoralize and confuse anyone who isn't fooled by the propaganda.

It isn't always easy to distinguish between real sloppiness and intentional "sloppiness." For sure it's a mistake to chalk up all anomalies to intentional aspects of a transparent MO. That said, it sure appears like the priority of some key terrorist attacks/assassinations is not the concealment of complicity by unnamed perps. It's confusing because it runs counter to all conventional understanding of criminality and because so much effort is expended to cover up the crime.

A related aspect is the incompetence explanation:

1) Used in relation to government failing to achieve publicly stated goals. For example, we are told Iraq was supposed to be a thriving democracy but the US architects were incompetent. They didn't properly plan for the stated goal.

2) Used in relation to unexplained government conduct. For example, CIA, NSA and FBI withholding of information about al Qaeda operatives inside the US.

It's an extremely effective talking point as it reinforces authoritarianism by giving people an outlet for their doubts.

All they had to have was an identity and a desire to carry out the attacks. Even if their plan was totally unworkable. Why would you have to fool them if it's what they wanted to do? Your questions all revolve around the assumption they were really on the planes, how do you know that? How do you know they even were in country, or even alive? Identity theft is one of the biggest crimes in the US.


So does MIHOP, if they were just patsies. All they had to have was a known desire to carry out this type of attack. They didn't even have to be real people, just identities.


You have to understand the art of disinfo. Disinfo is only designed to fool about 90% of the people. They are on a budget and don't want/need to spend anymore than is necessary, it's a cost/benefit type of thing. 10% has been determined to be the amount that can be easily suppressed without causing problems. Ask yourself where did you hear about the pilots being incompetent? On the internet or on TV? If it was on TV it was very brief and hardly ever if at all repeated. Then look at where 90% of the public get their news. The TV.


That's exactly what they did, but only enough to convince 90%. Sure some of the 90% have doubts but only 10% believe conclusively that it was an inside job because only 10% bother to delve deeply into all the evidence.

Have you watched Zeitgeist the Movie, and the sequel?

it doesn't really matter what their motives were.

Buzzy Krongard once said something quite revealing. (I don't have the exact quote to hand) but he said that al-Qaeda is like an organized crime syndicate, all you need is money and you can hire their operatives.

The CIA created al-Qaeda ("the base"). It was a database of men who were recruited to help drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan, way back in the late 70's.

That only the two in each of the cockpits (apparently according to the impossible phone calls from the aircraft that the typical arangement was two in the cockpit and three outside, except for flight 93 which had only two outside) knew the actual planed outcome of the hijacking.

The eleven others may well have been "patsies" of a sort.

I assume that's what you mean. Am I correct?

The recordings of the broadcasted cockpit takeover were released in the Moussaoui exhibit. They are chilling.

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

What does the military-industrial-surveillance-security complex do when they are faced with peace breaking out? They find a way to develop an enemy, provoke a conflict.

Our deep state is practically a one-trick pony. Provocation is their game. They use it with "enemy" nations, "enemy" organizations, and "enemy" citizens.

In spite of airports being one of the most video surveiled public locations there is ZERO footage of any of the hi-jackers boarding the planes

NONE of the hijackers are on ANY of the airline passenger lists, there's not even any Arab names.

7 or 8(?) of the photo identities of the 19 released almost immediately were false identities. These people came forward worldwide and said hey, I wasn't there, I'm still alive. The FBI at first said whoops we have a problem with the list then they suddenly backtracked again and stood by the lists. So if 7 or 8 were still alive the identities were false, so who was really on the planes, and where did they get the names/photos so quickly if they were false identities and weren't on the airline lists?

Out of all 4 of the crash sites, how come not one single one of the hi-jackers DNA has been found and presented?


Not sure if that's entirely true. The supposed hijackers is just one facet although it was one of the first things presented by the government, and the more you look at it the more you realize it's false.


Not at all. And the fact that blowback is possible and does happen makes the use of these Arab patsies plausible.


Ask yourself why that is? The largest attack ever on our soil, how come we don't all know what really happened? How come they carted off all the evidence? How come there was no NTSB investigations like is normal in all plane crashes? How come they took years to hold a hearing and then people were allowed to testify behind closed doors and not under oath or on the record? One example, the investigation of the shuttle crash over Texas got $40 MILLION within 2 weeks. The 911 investigation got $2 MILLION after 2 years.

Read up on it, the best is "The Terror Timeline". A compilation of media stories released in public and put into a timeline. If you can read this from front to back you will be certain of the conclusion. 911 was an inside job.