Aaron russo on the 9-11 inside job

[Gary Childress]

@Tim: I know you as a honest guy. Why dont you watch first 20' of the video I posted and see if an Nobel prize winner and couple other scientist together with some other people who witnessed the situation life can provide you with proper credible support?


This video made by architects and engineers claims that 1,500 experts from the field have a serious doubts about the official report:
Link to video.

OK. So I watched the entire video. I'm not an architect nor engineer and don't know the first thing about it. I haven't read any of the NIST report. So all I have to go on at this point is the video which wants me to believe that some sort of controlled explosion occurred in the WTC towers. So here's what I presume I'm supposed to think:

The US government hand picked a team of military or else civilian personal experienced in high rise demolition to inconspicuously plant thermite charges in key locations in the WTC at some point BEFORE 9/11/2001. Then, when 2 jet liners hijacked by some young Arab radicals crashed into the buildings, these charges were detonated at the right moment to bring the towers crashing down nice and neatly as appears to have happened.

So my questions are:

1. Who is presumably responsible for all this? George Bush? Dick Cheney?

2. Why would they want to destroy the WTC and kill some 2,000 to 3,000 Americans so that they can invade Iraq for whatever reason?

3. Has anyone come forward with any confession of being part of or even knowing of such a plot?

4. How would the government cover something like that up and keep it from going public? They can't even keep their own mouths shut when it comes to blowing the cover of their own CIA agents.

5. I can certainly see how Islamic fundamentalists might want to kill 2,000 Americans but who in the US government would agree to such a conspiracy when they were presented it? I presume at some point Bush or Cheney or whoever responsible must have asked someone else to help them and those people said, "sure, why not? we don't mind killing 2,000 of our fellow Americans."

Again, I know nothing about engineering or the NIST report. But just knowing a little of human nature I really find it difficult to believe that any US official could engineer such a plot without someone leaking it to the press. Heck, knowing Government officials we'd be reading about it in someone's official memoirs by now.

 

[Kyriakos]

Wouldn't surprise me if 9/11 was an inside job. Since you can always find a couple of people in power who will literally do anything to further the goals of their 0.01% pals, regular people be damned.

That said, if it was staged the end game was not to invade Iraq, but to (by phases) turn the US into a police-state through things like the patriot act. Which- regardless whether 9/11 was staged or not- has happened and still is evolving to that direction. The entire planet became a hugely more dangerous place after the moves allowed to be taken following 9/11.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Sorry for the misunderstanding I actually wanted that you guys watch this documentary which I posted earlier:
Link to video.

 

[Silurian]

Chaotic mass murder that is unanticipated, small scale in its planning and implementation, and that serves no long term plan other than to simply terrorize people, has happened and will continue to happen under the noses of the people in charge. That is scarier.

The objective of 911 was to provoke the US into attacking the Middle East. Al Qaeda would have hoped that the actions of the US in the Middle East would unite Muslims behind them.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

The objective of 911 was to provoke the US into attacking the Middle East. Al Qaeda would have hoped that the actions of the US in the Middle East would unite Muslims behind them.

I wonder if you have a source for that becouse the way I see it that kind of hope us totally unbased. Besides there is no such thing as Al Qaeda except for what was created by CIA as base for recruitment of mercenaries from muslim countries to fight proxy conflicts starting by combating Soviets in Afganistan.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I wonder if you have a source for that becouse the way I see it that kind of hope us totally unbased. Besides there is no such thing as Al Qaeda except for what was created by CIA as base for recruitment of mercenaries from muslim countries to fight proxy conflicts starting by combating Soviets in Afganistan.

Actually the Arab jihad in Afghanistan (which ultimately led to the group known as al-Qaeda) was a third-party operation funded by private investors. It was not directly associated with the US/Pakistani Operation Cyclone, although the foreign Arab fighters probably benefited indirectly from it.

al-Qaeda itself was created after the war by bin Laden and other extremists who had been involved in the Arab jidad effort in Afghanistan.

 

[Gary Childress]

Wouldn't surprise me if 9/11 was an inside job. Since you can always find a couple of people in power who will literally do anything to further the goals of their 0.01% pals, regular people be damned.

That said, if it was staged the end game was not to invade Iraq, but to (by phases) turn the US into a police-state through things like the patriot act. Which- regardless whether 9/11 was staged or not- has happened and still is evolving to that direction. The entire planet became a hugely more dangerous place after the moves allowed to be taken following 9/11.

Oh please. You've been watching too many James Bond movies. Even the very powerful in the US are not that overtly sadistic. The number of collaborators that would be needed to pull off something as elaborate as an "inside job" of blowing up the WTC would ensure almost impossibility in keeping it a secret for any length of time. Surely someone would have talked by now.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Link to video.

It's unfortunate that truther conspiracy theorist videos are way over-represented on YouTube. The excellent debunking videos kind of get drowned out.

 

[Silurian]

I wonder if you have a source for that becouse the way I see it that kind of hope us totally unbased. Besides there is no such thing as Al Qaeda except for what was created by CIA as base for recruitment of mercenaries from muslim countries to fight proxy conflicts starting by combating Soviets in Afganistan.

I assume that al-Qaida hoped to kill hundreds on the ground plus the victims in the aircraft and so the attacks were more successful than they planned. It is also argued that 911 was an act of attrition, obviously this was also an element.

An attack on US civilians in the US is different to attacks on soldiers overseas. The US is known abroad for the large number of people who express the desire to “Shoot first ask questions latter”.

The aircraft flew into the WTC near the top of the buildings. They could have hit lower down where they would have trapped more people in a fire.

But if the planes had hit lower they would have not been seen so widely. The attacks happened mid morning. New York is a media hub, I would not be surprised if some TV studios could point their cameras out of their office windows at the WTC.

How could it not provoke a response?


From Andrew H. Kydd and Barbara F. Walters The Strategies of
Terrorism

The United States in September 2001 was ripe for provocation, and al-Qaida
appears to have understood this. The new administration of George W. Bush
was known to be hawkish in its foreign policy and in its attitude toward the
use of military power. In a November 2004 videotape, bin Laden bragged that
al-Qaida found it “easy for us to provoke this administration.” 61. The strategy appears to be working. A 2004 Pew survey found that international trust in the United States had declined signiªcantly in response to the invasion of Iraq. 62 Similarly, a 2004 report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies found that al-Qaida’s recruitment and fundraising efforts had been given a major boost by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. 63 In the words of Shibley Telhami, “What we’re seeing now is a disturbing sympathy with al-Qaida coupled with resentment toward the United States.”64 The Bush administration’s eagerness to overthrow Saddam Hussein, a desire that predated the September 11 attacks, has, in the words of bin Laden, “contributed to these remarkable results for al-Qaida.”

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/is3101_pp049-080_kydd_walter.pdf

 

[Kyriakos]

Oh please. You've been watching too many James Bond movies. Even the very powerful in the US are not that overtly sadistic. The number of collaborators that would be needed to pull off something as elaborate as an "inside job" of blowing up the WTC would ensure almost impossibility in keeping it a secret for any length of time. Surely someone would have talked by now.

Then again the dead don't talk

As noted, i can't know if this was an inside job or not, but i do not share your view that there aren't malignant people in the top tier of power who may as well kill millions if it serves their own goals. Do you think that reptiles like Kissinger have any human-level sensibility or sympathy?

 

[Gary Childress]

Do you think that reptiles like Kissinger have any human-level sensibility or sympathy?

For peoples of certain other nations, no. But that's almost across the board with most people in any country. However, even Kissinger would probably draw the line at blowing up 2000 fellow Americans in order to get some diabolical policy in place. I doubt he was Dr. No or something.

 

[Gary Childress]

Put it this way Kyriakos. If you were very powerful and rich, would YOU plot mass murder of your fellow countrymen and women in order to erect some sort of police state to benefit your own welfare. If the answer is "no" then I see very little reason to posit the existence of uber-evil people who would. Maybe there's a serial killer or two out there who would stoop to such a level but most educated people who are raised under favorable economic circumstances (which the rich generally probably are) are probably not as sadistic.

 

[Kyriakos]

Put it this way Kyriakos. If you were very powerful and rich, would YOU plot mass murder of your fellow countrymen and women in order to erect some sort of police state to benefit your own welfare. If the answer is "no" then I see very little reason to posit the existence of uber-evil people who would. Maybe there's a serial killer or two out there who would stoop to such a level but most educated people who are raised under favorable economic circumstances (which the rich generally probably are) are probably not as sadistic.

Those who rise in politics usually are far more psychopathic than the norm. For starters, the average person doesn't seem to actually seek that kind of power in the first place. This was an issue already in ancient greek political debate.

 

[Gary Childress]

Those who rise in politics usually are far more psychopathic than the norm. For starters, the average person doesn't seem to actually seek that kind of power in the first place.

Sort of a cynical view of the world, don't you think?

 

[Gary Childress]

I think I would be in tune with Socrates in believing that relatively few people knowingly do evil. Even people who rise to power generally think they are doing something good or else justified when they enact policy. Something like a conspiracy to mass murder ones own countrymen and women in order to create a police state to further one's own interests is pretty near impossible to justify under ANY circumstance (even the most deluded ones). Maybe there are a couple people out there who would do it but I would think they would find it nearly impossible to find the collaboration needed to make an "inside job" of blowing up the WTC possible.

 

[SLAAKMAN]

(Once again Gary's naive optimism radiates with a cute charm. If the world was filled with more people like him, it would be a peaceful & frolicky place to live).

 

[Gary Childress]

I'm trying to be realistic, Slaak. There's nothing "naïve" about looking at outlandish theories and questioning their plausibility.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I think I would be in tune with Socrates in believing that relatively few people knowingly do evil. Even people who rise to power generally think they are doing something good or else justified when they enact policy. Something like a conspiracy to mass murder ones own countrymen and women in order to create a police state to further one's own interests is pretty near impossible to justify under ANY circumstance (even the most deluded ones). Maybe there are a couple people out there who would do it but I would think they would find it nearly impossible to find the collaboration needed to make an "inside job" of blowing up the WTC possible.

I bet you Hitler thought of himself as a pretty good guy with the best for Germany and for Europe constantly on his mind.

If there is a powerful interest/monopoly group within USA (and beyond) they are not shooting for "cultural victory". They want it all. And in that light having couple thousand dead in US is nothing compare to, say, "global war" -- oh wait there is a global war on terror in wich name more control is being exercised!

Shall we try to get the grip of monopoly away from our lives, or shall we not? Shall we withhold our hand and say monopoly is inevitable, that all that we can do is to regulate it? Shall we say that all that we can do is to put government in competition with monopoly and try its strength against it? Shall we admit that the creature of our own hands is stronger than we are? We have been dreading all along the time when the combined power of high finance would be greater than the power of the government. Have we come to a time when the President of the United States or any man who wishes to be the President must doff his cap in the presence of this high finance, and say, "You are our inevitable master, but we will see how we can make the best of it?"

We are at the parting of the ways. We have, not one or two or three, but many, established and formidable monopolies in the United States. We have, not one or two, but many, fields of endeavor into which it is difficult, if not impossible, for the independent man to enter. We have restricted credit, we have restricted opportunity, we have controlled development, and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.

 

[Gary Childress]

I bet you Hitler thought of himself as a pretty good guy with the best for Germany and for Europe constantly on his mind....

Point conceded. However, as much as I dislike Bush I have doubts that he's quite "up there" with Hitler. What would be the reason for George Bush to destroy the WTC? What would be the motive?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Point conceded. However, as much as I dislike Bush I have doubts that he's quite "up there" with Hitler. What would be the reason for George Bush to destroy the WTC? What would be the motive?

The way I see Bush he has some honesty but he is an idiot. It seems he has been convinced that in order to keep US (meaning the interest of the most powerful few) as a dominant power some dynamic events were needed which would brought into the motion processes through which this dominance could be secured without starting global apocalypse. The idea of "new world order" is indeed based on dominace and to some is self-justifying. Its nothing new communist in Russia and elswhere were also prepared to decimate their own populace for their own good...