Does anyone have a comprehensive theory about 9/11?

If in fact WTC 1, 2 & 7 were taken down with explosives, what is the explanation for the hijackings?

is what Van Romero called them back on 9/11/01, and it looks like he was right.

know that it was explosions!

As long as a person stays dumb........and doesn't look at the fake Bin Laden videos.......all is well!

That depends on who did what and why.

You're setting aside the notion that the planes brought down the towers.

Assuming explosives were used, they could have been planted by al
Qaeda or by parties unknown. The planes might have been flown by al
Qaeda or by parties unknown.

That means four possibilities:

1. Planes AQ, explosives AQ
2. Planes AQ, explosives PU
3. Planes PU, explosives AQ
4. Planes PU, explosives PU

In case 1 the reasons to use the planes are:
a) to cover up for the agents that helped you smuggle the
explosives into the towers
b) to create Hollywood-style images that will go down in history
for 10,000 years like the burning bush and the sinking of the Titanic
c) to terrorize everyone who knows anyone who works in a tall building
d) to attract the FDNY to the scene and kill them
e) to inspire in young Muslim men the ambition to someday fly a 747
into a big building or a stadium full of people
f) to make travel in the West uncomfortable for muslim people so
they will stay in muslim regions and avoid Western influences

In case 2 a) doesn't count and c) assumes the towers collapse but the others apply

In case 3, somebody learned of an AQ plot to blow up the towers and
decided to make it bigger and better by adding airplanes--presumably
to stir up trouble for al Qaeda and Iraq and to further the agenda
that 9/11 has engendered.

In case 4, very possibly ALL of the reasons above apply.

(Of course the Kevin Fenton Hypothesis that NYC officials brought the
towers down because they were going to collapse anyway and the
officials wanted to avoid damage to adjacent structures applies to
both case 2, and case 4.)

I'm struck with the way the four planes work together as a piece of
theater: The drama of the towers eclipses the implausibility of the
success of the Pentagon attack; the victimhood of Pentagon personnel
deflects criticism of the lack of air defense, and the Pentagon's
raging inferno and its collapse support the fiction of a similar
raging inferno and collapse in the WTC. The destruction of 93
paradoxically both aids the notion that the lack of interception was a
moot point since those people were going to die anyway, and allows the
tougher-minded to believe that NORAD finally did get its act together
and shoot it down. This duality blesses the notion that maybe we'll
never know the real story and maybe we don't want to know, and maybe
the nation is better off with fairy tales.

accomplished, if one rejects the government's explanation. It's possible for me to believe that PU destroyed the towers, but I can't understand how PU flew airplanes into the towers. Generally, only AQ types are willing to do this sort of thing.

Agree with your points about the "theatrical" aspect of the whole thing.

extremely speculative, and I ventured there only for the sake of logical
completeness when examining possible motivations.

I've seen websites that claim that remote control of aircraft is
possible, but I haven't investigated the issue myself. Some point out
the presence of the same C-130H in proximity to both flight 77 and
flight 93 at the time that they crashed. It seems to me that if target
radio beacons were placed in the towers, guiding 767-missiles on
autopilot to the spot would not be difficult. But again I haven't
investigated it.

Other candidates for suicide pilots would include people with terminal
illnesses. Again, this is sheer speculation.

I'm inclined myself to believe that the Bushites took advantage of an
existing al Qaeda plot and hijacked it, but we must always remain aware
of the possibility that technology outstrips our imagination.

of planes. That is a certainty that has been around for a long time.
The only questions are did it happen, and if so who was responsible and why? And whether the remote control was of the flights that left the airports or of other planes that were substituted by a takedown along the way. All of these are possible technically,
and not ruled out by the official reports.

There are anomolies regarding the official records that make it unclear what happened to each of the flights said to be hijackings
AA11,AA77,UA93,UA175.

The vast majority of airline pilots and military pilots on record about this think remote control not only is feasible but was likely used in 9/11. The majority with the most knowledge of such things do not believe the hijacking reports by the 19 arabs are credible.

"(Of course the Kevin Fenton Hypothesis that NYC officials brought the
towers down because they were going to collapse anyway and the
officials wanted to avoid damage to adjacent structures applies to
both case 2, and case 4.)"

It wasn't my idea originally, but, embarassingly, I can't remember where I heard it first.

The idea is not just that they were demolished because somebody thought they were going to collapse anyway, the alternative would be that somebody high up in teh chain of command realised the mileage in destroying the towers (using explosives in place in case of some completely different event) and gave the order for this reason.

Generally, the argument here is between people who think the government helped AQ (or set it up) before the attacks started and people who think the government started to exploit genuine attacks (for example by invading Iraq, which had nothing to do with them) after they finished. I'm suggesting that somebody in the government realised what was going on DURING the attacks and gave them a helping hand, even though they had foreknowledge that such attacks would take place that day.

If the demolition of the WTC was designed to follow the impact of the planes, how come:
(1) The bomber blew the wrong tower up first?
(2) The buildings explode, rather than implode, indicating far too much explosives were used?
(3) There are those tell-tale squibs coming out of the sides?
(4) They told Rudi just before they did it?
(5) It looks just like controlled demolition - shouldn't they have tried to disguise it a bit?

One question that can be answered and isn't.....were 11,175,93, and 77 part of the Vigilent Guardian exercises on 9/11?

I can't refute it either. And it explains a lot of crazy shit lately.

1. Peak Oil is real. We're running out. Meaning economic, cultural,
and social chaos.

2. The Powers That Be are unwilling to share this knowledge with the
people, fearing it will cause panic, existential reactions, etc.

3. PNAC recognized Peak Oil some time ago, and made plans to seize Iraq
and the Central Asian oil fields--but they knew the American people
would not go for it unless they knew about Peak Oil.

4. 9/11 was the only way to get the people behind the military
adventures necessary to seize the oil.

5. The Powers That Be behind the Democrats agree that seizing the oil
is necessary (so gov't by, for, and of shall not perish) but the Dems
are not ruthless enough to do the dirty deed, so the Dems (and the
Repubs, if you get down to it) are willing to stand down and let this
mob of thugs seize the federal gov't for a while.

6. The Bushites stole the election of 2004 in order to cover up their
complicity in 911 and other crimes.

7. The Dems are covering up the theft because of 5.

8. New Orleans, like the oil reserves, represents a resource of
global significance because that is where the fruit of the US grain
fields is transferred from barge to ship. Destruction of the
residential city means that a modern robot port can be constructed
under federal authority.

Honestly, I don't want to connect these dots. Can anyone help?

At this point, I feel pretty confident about the following:

3a. Jack Abramoff played a central role as a point of contact between the 9/11 terrorists and the White House.

3a.1. Through the Capitol Athletic Foundation and other laundering mechanisms, and by virtue of the fact that he is a dual citizen, Abramoff was easily in touch with Mossad.

3a.2. Abramoff also had an effective laundering operation already in place through his SunCruz casino boat operation.

3b. Mossad was monitoring the actions of the 9/11 terrorists through the mysterious Israeli art students/movers/zoom copter salesmen. At some point, they must have penetrated the al Qaeda operation.

3b.1. Also by virtue of dual citizenship and parallel goals, Mossad was in touch with the PNAC wing of the White House--Paul Wolfowitz, I would guess. But there are plenty of suspects.

3c. The informed PNACer may have been able to contact Abramoff directly through Mossad, but I'm inclined to think that he instead informed White House criminal don and PNAC ally, Karl Rove (Rove and Abramoff had a direct line of contact through personal assistant http://rawstory.com/news/2005/ROVE_AIDE_CALLED_TO_TESTIFY_TOOK_HIS_MESS_0802.html">Susan Ralston). Regardless, someone directed Abramoff to offer himself as a venue for laundering leftover funds used by the 9/11 terrorists back to al Qaeda. This allowed those in the know inside the White House to monitor the progression of events and to have some knowledge of when the attacks would occur.

3.d. On September 5, 2001, Mohammed Atta and several other 9/11 fliers took a ride on Abramoff's SunCruz casino ship, where they informed Abramoff (or a shill) that the laundering operation should proceed.

3.e. Abramoff dutifully informed the White House. However, being a greedy bastard, I suspect that Abramoff did not launder the al Qaeda money back. Instead, I think that on September 6, 2001, he took his part of al Qaeda's cash and used it for put options on United and American Airlines, netting himself a cool $5 million or so. This would prove important as Abramoff would therefore get in the way of every White House investigation. Wherever his name came up, the investigation stalled, because he was Karl's boy. And that, in turn, is what has allowed for the trickle of information from disgruntled federal investigators.

3.f. Sticking with petgoat's theory, a parallel operation must have been in place to inform and line up power brokers throughout Washington. This was a double-cross. For example, the President may have been informed that something big was about to go down and he would look like a hero for stopping it. Congressional Democrats may have been similarly informed. Regardless of who knew what and who thought what was going to happen, everyone who had advance knowledge was presented with a fait accompli when the attacks succeeded.

3.f.2. John Ashcroft, Colin Powell, and others in charge of investigative agencies, who likely did not have advance knowledge, were roped in when they unwittingly participated in cover-up and investigation steering by halting investigations whenever Abramoff and SunCruz came up. As it slowly dawned on them that not only had the White House allowed the attacks to proceed, but that they themselves were complicit in the cover-up, they were given the option to leave after the election theft of 2004. It occurs to me that Donald Rumsfeld himself may not have known in advance, but once presented with the opportunity to pursue his PNAC agenda, he opted not to look such a gift horse in the mouth.

Okay, that's about it, but I have some thoughts below.

After 3.e, there is a discernable line of divergence between LIHOP and MIHOP. There is compelling evidence for both. For example, the Operation Vigilant Guardian exercises may have provided White House PNACers the opportunity to conclude that the attacks would succeed unassisted. On the other hand, Flight 77 did an excellent job of erasing the institutional expertise which might have reconstructed the conspiracy. If it was a coincidence, it was a fortuitous one for the conspirators.

I think it really depends how far in advance the conspirators were informed by Mossad, which could have been at any time after Abramoff knocked off Gus Boulis and gained control of SunCruz in February, 2000.

This brings up an interesting final observation.

Abramoff is thought by some to have provided the slush fund which kept the army of Republican Lawyers in satin sheets while they were stealing the Florida electoral votes in November and December of 2000. It occurs to me that the money provided may have been courtesy of al Qaeda.

If that is the case, and the Bush Administration does not end America as we know it to avoid the electric chair, and we honest citizens somehow get this country back while maintainting the continuity of government, we may have the opportunity to decapitate the Republican party for all time by revoking the citizenship of all the lawyers and power brokers who participated in the election theft of 2000 with the help of terrorist funds.

These days, however, I'm not particularly prone to wishful thinking. In fact, the only reason I'm mentioning this is because I want to get the thought down before I catch two in the back of the head.

I agree that Abramoff's (and maybe Grover Norquist) relationship with AQ financieers has not been given closer scrunity. I recall GWB telling us that he was going to "drain the financial swamps of AQ" shortly after 9/11. Someone must have explained the reality of such an investigation to Dimson. He also lost interest in getting OBL "Dead or Alive" after 9/11. The fact that Jim Baker ended up defending the House of Saud against the 9/11 victims $1BB lawsuit tells me that the Bush family is compromised, maybe blackmailed with regards to investigating the Saudi role in 9/11.

I wouldn't give Rumsfield a pass on his pre-knowledge, though. He was a major player in PNAC, along with Cheney and Jeb Bush (I wonder why George, Jr. is missing from that plan? Pleausible deniability?) I suspect there were plenty of career neocons infected within the various agencies during Clinton's time in office. "Able Danger" appears to be an example where information about the hijackers were stuffed by people in the Pentagon who may have had a hidden agenda.

The Bush-appointed 9/11 Ommission Commission steered pretty clear of trying to understand what happened on 9/11. From Day 1 they wanted to frame the investigation as a discussion about how to prevent future 9/11-type terror events...but if we don't investigate the root cause and who knew what on 9/11, then the same people are in place to LIHOP/MIHOP again.

The reason I asked about 11, 175, 93, and 77's role in the VG exercises is because there are potentially 2 scenario's: (1) It was really an outside job and someone had to have been a mole within this administration who gave the "terrorists" insider info on this planned exercise and the planes involved. Or, (2) if it was an inside job and those 4 planes were in fact part of the exercise, then that changes everything about the role of the hijackers, no? They could easily have been patsies all along and their role in VG might have been to assume the role as terrorists to add realism to the exercise. How difficult would it have been to retrofit 4 planes with RC controls? The big coincidental clue on this was when I read about all of those Raytheon RC program managers who were killed on 11....perhaps, part of the VG exercise was to evaluate the RC capabilities of Raytheon's systems to thwart hijacking commercial airliners?

since there is evidence in the official record of more than one Flight 11 plane. There is official evidence supporting 2 Flight 11s at Boston Logan, in 2 different concourses. And that the one that had the official passengers on board was delayed- 2 passengers and one flight attendant called relatives to say the flight was delayed. Yet the plane that left in another concourse and was tracked towards NY left on time. Even though the official computer boarding list showed some boarded after the flight left.

And then there are official reports that Fl 11 continued on past NY and towards D.C.

Very strange, and no attempt was made by 9/11 Comm. to clear up the many obvious anomolies and implausibilities in the official record.

http://www.flcv.com/offcom11.html

Does the 9/11 CR tell how the FBI identified the alleged hijackers?

Ever since I learned of the Mossad's warning about the 19 terrorists
in the US, the one that named Atta and at least three other alleged
hijackers, I've suspected that the Mossad was the FBI's source for
the hijack suspects. Presumably they got this info from their "art student" spy ring.

What if the Mossad is lying and the 19 are just patsies?

You turn the presence of five Arabs who might have been the alleged hijackers on a SunCruz Casino booze-cruise (will someone please get me some tickets too?) into a direct connection to Abramoff? Yeah, I saw Hopsicker come to the same conclusion, and let's face it, it's really wishful speculation. Feel free to ask the question, but you can't build a case on this.

This is all very nice and technically possible, but let's face it: it's a long way from the easy matter of disproving the official story (for which the actions of the chain of command and air defense system on 9/11, the forewarnings, the obstruction of the FBI and the subsequent cover-up by the official investigations are enough) to the creation of a complete alternate scenario (one can think of a hundred other, equally plausible variations).

Dr. D.R. Griffin's books and http://www.flcv.com/warnings.html and
http://www.flcv.com/coverup.html
and etc.

and evidence regarding some who appear to have been complicit
but no full explanation of all the details that I've seen.

To many people would be suspicious if the towers had collapsed without apparent cause.
The 'collapses' have two effects: make it a great disaster, and destroy evidence.

The hijackings are genuine.

WTC 1 and 2 had explosives in anyway, because they were a known terrorist target (after the 1993 bombing) and would have totalled a good chunk of Lower Manhattan had they fallen any way but straight down.

The 1993 plan was to topple the North Tower onto the South Tower, which would then fall in the direction of Wall Street. The bombers estimated 250,000 fatalities - a high end estimate IMHO, even if the plan had worked, which it didn't. However, there's also the damage to property, loss of information, job losses, etc.

When the planes hit the towers either (a) somebody thought they might fall down due to the impact damage and fires and blew them up in a genuine attempt to prevent further loss of life or (b) somebody figured they could invade half the Middle East if they fell down and blew them up regardless of them being stable enough to stand.

I don't know whether 7 was wired before or after the attacks, maybe it really was demolished because the Fire Department couldn't fight the fires anymore.

First the fact that he happened to be in Jeb's magic kingdom, and secondly that he was so unperturbed about supposedly seeing a plane hit the first tower.

If there was a concerted plan by sections of the govt. to do 9/11, then I doubt it included Bush, because:
(1) He's an imbecile and everybody knows it, if I was plotting to fake an incident for war, he's the last person I'd tell;
(2) Couldn't they have come up with a better excuse that, "I couldn't respond to the attacks on America because I was reading a story about a goat"?

I think he probably didn't see the plane hit the first tower - that was just one of the usual things he makes up (you know, like the US doesn't use torture). Most people weren't that peturbed upon learning the first plane hit, anyway - they all thought it was an accident until the second plane hit.

I'd explain his lack of peturbation on learning the second plane hit by saying that:
(1) He's an idiot;
(2) He doesn't have anywhere near the experience to be president of the US - all he'd previously done was be a pisshead failed oilman and then governor of Texas for a few years. At best GWB is material for the state legislature, and that's being generous;
(3) When he got the message about the second tower, Card didn't tell him there were other planes in the air, so he didn't know about them (perhaps Card hadn't been told himself);
(4) He'd already given the OK to get the first tower ready for demolition and assumed (correctly) that this OK would be expanded to cover the second one.

Who could argue with that?

But I have to say that I disagree with Michael Moore on this, or at least with the version of events in Fahrenheit 911. Shrub may be an imbecile, but he's got more power than anyone else in the world at the moment, and 9/11 couldn't have gone forward without his giving it the green light.

I'm guessing our MBA-in-Chief said something like "don't bore me with details, just show me the results," although he must have had a pretty good idea of what was going down, since both his brothers were involved in it, Marvin heavily.

But Dick and Rummy probably assured him there would be "minimal" loss of life, and then made sure to maximize it, so maybe there was some element of surprise in his reactions and behavior (gee, they didn't tell me we were gonna kill 3,000 New Yorkers!).

But I'm sure he's forgotten all about it by now. Now watch this swing!

or coincidental about 9/11. How they managed the hijackings I don't know. Maybe they were staged, maybe the hijackers were bribed, probably they were tricked. Who knows. But after five years of Bushevism I think that any theory that gives them the benefit of the doubt is likely to be wrong.

After the impossible is done it is blamed on obvious villans who have duped, for their own reasons, into playing a role, then, bring out the flags and cry for revenge.

Here is something more than a theory because it explains events at the World trade center, all of them and it ALL works.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html