« No Time Like the Present | Main | Why Everyone Should Live With a Three-Year Old »


I just finished my own blog entry about "Loose Change II" and decided to take a break by checking out what was new with a random blog on the TypePad homepage. It's a little discouraging to be the only one I know that thinks there might be more to the story. The first site I came across was yours... Nice to know I'm not actually alone.

This story is getting some traction. Most people want to ignore it and I don't really blame them because it is the most horrifying idea imaginable.

I think in these discussions its vital to look at comparable cases to get an idea of what ought to have happened or how other successful government black ops or cover-ups have proceeded. Of course by definition the most successful we won't know about I suppose.... but the best example known is probably the Pearl Harbor attack.

Google for "Robert Stinnett" and maybe "Pearl Harbor" or "Day of Deceit" which is the name of his book.

It's basically a book detailing how FDR deliberately and systematically provoked the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor so he could enter into an unpopular war (WW2) that he had just got elected by running on a campaign to NOT join.

In other words it's the exact set up that 9-11 might be. A faked attack, a Reichstag fire if you like. In fact PNAC and Bush repeatedly refered to 9-11 both before and after it happened as a "Pearl Harbor".

Now of course when I say "fake" I don't mean there were no real Japanese involved or the boats were sunk by the American government. That sort of thinking is too complex. The easiest way to fake an attack by someone against America is to simply push a real enemy into making an attack and making sure all of the usual defences happen to be down for their arrival.

Because the weakest link in any conspiracy theory isn't technical but human. If 9-11 was faked in either sense there ought to be people who know about it and will talk. Pearl Harbor happened over 60 years ago and the author still couldn't find more than a few scraps of information from live witnesses (it was mostly based on old released government documents -- some of which Bush turned around and made retroactively secret again after the book came out). But this is in part because no Americans had to do anything truely and obviously "terrorist". All they had to do was avoid passing on vital data at a few appropriate moments -- and that sort of ham fisted secrecy even within the government is all too common already.

Plus there are several clues that 9-11 might have gone down like this because we have evidence that Bush was communicating with the Taliban and thus Al-Qaeda prior to 9-11 and making provocative threats. There's also some evidence of crippling America's defences on the day of the attack and evidence that the government might have been following the progress of the 9-11 kidnappers secretly and not reporting it to the FBI or CIA (because the agents following the kidnappers were Israeli - Antiwar.com has a lot of details on the involvement of Iraeli agents including a story on how 3 Israeli agents had been arrested filming the burning towers and laughing and hi-fiving each other).

Ok I watched the video. It's very good and certainly indicates there needs to be aproper investigation but there are problems.

(1) Just because you know that there's a cover-up doesn't mean you know what was covered up. Bush being a crook helps him here. It's Bush. There's always a cover-up but it might be for some petty reason like not allowing some petty fuckup by his brother (head of security at the towers) to come out. Or Rove might just have said that any investigation would tend to distract people from selling the war on Iraq, regardless of what it found, instead an investigation would tend to make Bush look weak, so it was necessaary to shut down anyone calling for an investigation and just sweep it under the rug. All true even if the government's version of events is correct.

(2) What's the motivation for controlled collapse? The main motivation here is of course the need for a casus belii against Iraq. But Bush had that with just the planes. There was just no need to bring the buildings down --- and certainly no need at all to bring down WC7 --- to stir up Americans for a war. In fact if there was a controlled collapse that was made to look like damage from the planes then collapsing WC7 would be not just redundant and dangerous (in terms of more chances of being discovered) but completely undermines the case ---- because no plane hit.

Sure WC7 looks freaky as all hell and looks like it was "pulled", but doing so wouldn't help Bush.

(3) the human problem here is immense. Someone had to plant thousands of charges so either that was a small group over a long time -- risky, or a large group over a short time -- also risky. The people planting the charges would have to be technicians -- not spooks. How could they be trusted to keep quiet? You'd have to shoot them afterwards. And what idiot would do all this work? Unlike with the case of Pearl Harbor there's just no way to get this work done by a technician without them knowing what they were doing was highly irregular and most likely a huge crime. How many people could you get to do that? And wouldn't any such people be afraid you'd kill them after the job was done? In any conspiracy the human angle is always the biggest problem. These were huge buildings. You couldn't just hire any Joe off the street to pull them down. And you couldn't do it with just one man either.

Having said all that it's all very suspicious. The suspicions just don't appear to me to point anywhere yet.

I should also add that with the controlled collapse theory you have no deniability by the conspirators if found out. With a Pearl Harbor style plot you have deniability stacked up in mountains. Everyone is just acting incompetently (ring any bells?) not acting criminally. Everyone except the hijackers that is... who are all conveniently dead.

The film makers don't say the evidence points anywhere either - just away from everything that's in the official story.

Here's 2 more thoughts:

(5) It seems to me that the best conspiracies consist of people who are true believers in the cause. FDR basically chose to execute a few thousand Americans to get into WW2. But Stinnett actually thinks he was right to judge that entering WW2 was worth it. he just thinks the "deceit" part was wrong.

Now if Bush let / provoked terrorists to attack America I think he could more easily rationalise it in his mind if it was the terrorists doing the killing not him. He and his co-conspirators would say to themselves, "Well Al-Qaeda was going to attack America anyway all we did was make them do so on our terms not theirs. America was at war and needed to be woken up."

It's much harder to rationalise cold blooded murder of nearly 3000 people to yourself if there's nobody else to blame.

(6) if I was going to engineer from scratch a fake terrorist attack on the USA that was intended to terrify the average American citizen and make them support a war of aggression I wouldn't have picked anything so complex as flying planes into buildings.

Personally I'd have gone for poisoning the water supply of some mid-sized town somewhere. It's something that spooks could do easily without a trace, no photographic evidence from video cameras like airports have, no big technical problems, no need for techinicians whose loyalty is in doubt. The terrorism would scare the hell out of Americans because every time anyone in the country turned on a tap they'd be thinking "Is this poisoned?" and unlike big targets like the World Trade center it wouldn't just be people in big cities that were realistically scared of an attack.

The whole scheme seen from the point of view of a black op is not very neat. This is adequately explained by the theory that no US operative chose the technique -- it really was Al-Qaeda who came up with the whole planes hijacking concept with all it's inefficiencies.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Bang for the Buck: Boosting the American Economy

Compassionate Conservatism in Action


  • "We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war."

  • Photobucket


  • "[O]ur time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice."


  • "True religion will not let us fall asleep in the comfort of our freedom. Love thy neighbor is not a piece of advice, it's a command. ...

    God, my friends, is with the poor and God is with us, if we are with them. This is not a burden, this is an adventure."

The Reverend Al Sharpton

  • Ray wasn't singing about what he knew, 'cause Ray had been blind since he was a child. He hadn't seen many purple mountains. He hadn't seen many fruited plains. He was singing about what he believed to be.

    Mr. President, we love America, not because of all of us have seen the beauty all the time.

    But we believed if we kept on working, if we kept on marching, if we kept on voting, if we kept on believing, we would make America beautiful for everybody.


  • ''With adequate profit, capital is very bold. A certain 10 percent will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 percent will produce eagerness, 50 percent positive audacity; 100 percent will make it ready to trample on all human laws; 300 percent, and there is not a crime which it will not scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged.''

Join Us!

  • Member, Project Hamad

Happy 71st Anniversary Social Security!

  • Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting


Become a Proud Member of the Guppy Army



Count Me, Damnit!

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004

Oh, I've Won Awards

alternative hippopotamus

Paperwight's Fair Shot

Your Liberal Media