Aaron russo on the 9-11 inside job

[Gary Childress]

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...

Well apparently some extremists in a couple hijacked jet liners succeeded in creating the conditions for control and domination that Bush may want, so what would Bush gain from blowing up the WTC at the same time the hijackers attacked it? Or are we to deny that the two planes flew into the WTC on 9/11/2001?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Well apparently some extremists in a couple hijacked jet liners succeeded in creating the conditions for control and domination that Bush may want, so what would Bush gain from blowing up the WTC at the same time the hijackers attacked it? Or are we to deny that the two planes flew into the WTC on 9/11/2001?

It was staged up so it seems some islamist fanatics did what they did while it was prepared from within. The hijackers were on CIA payroll.

 

[Gary Childress]

So if the CIA had the hijackers on the payroll, then why rig the building from the inside also? If people discovered the building rigged, wouldn't that just jeopardize the CIA's story of hijackers attacking? Why not simply let the hijackers do their thing?

 

[chijohnaok]

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...

[My bold emphasis above].

I have seen this sort of argument before.

People claim that George W. Bush was an idiot, but then they also claim that he somehow masterminded a government controlled conspiracy to stage the largest terrorist attack in history, a "false flag" operation to hide the government's involvement in this conspiracy. Wiring 2 of the world's tallest buildings with explosives without anyone noticing them do it; buildings occupied by thousands of people at any given moment. And here we are, more than 15 years later---not one conspirator has opened his/her mouth on this, and no one has leaked any government documents about it. This is the same government that was unable to prevent a low level contractor/employee from copying huge volumes of secret data (Eric Snowden and Bradley Manning); who in a public interview revealed where the secret Vice Presidential bomb shelter is (Biden); and who cannot manage to keep government computer systems from being hacked (here and here).

So which is it: Is George Bush an idiot; or was he the mastermind of what is arguably one of the largest conspiracies in history?
He can't be both.

 

[chijohnaok]

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.

My bold emphasis above.

Very valid points Gary.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

So if the CIA had the hijackers on the payroll, then why rig the building from the inside also? If people discovered the building rigged, wouldn't that just jeopardize the CIA's story of hijackers attacking? Why not simply let the hijackers do their thing.

There seem to be several reasons for it. The buildings have had some serious health issue becouse of the material which was used to build it with and very expensive reconstruction was required. Bringing down those buildings as a consequence of terrorist attact had some very shocking psychological effects. There were some compromiting documents in the buildings suposedly...

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

My bold emphasis above.

Very valid points Gary.

I think if you know what you are doing and if you have 'sanction' from the very top you actually need only relatively small number of people to pull this off.

 

[chijohnaok]

There seem to be several reasons for it. The buildings have had some serious health issue becouse of the material which was used to build it with and very expensive reconstruction was required. Bringing down those buildings as a consequence of terrorist attact had some very shocking psychological effects. There were some compromiting documents in the buildings suposedly...

If their were health issues with the buildings those would be the concern of the building's owner's and management. The World Trade Centers were not/are not owned by the US government or the CIA. They have no stake in whether such a "secret" were revealed.

What sort of "compromising documents" would those be and who did they belong to?

 

[Gary Childress]

There seem to be several reasons for it. The buildings have had some serious health issue becouse of the material which was used to build it with and very expensive reconstruction was required. Bringing down those buildings as a consequence of terrorist attact had some very shocking psychological effects. There were some compromiting documents in the buildings suposedly...

Why not allow the planes to hit the building and then simply tear the buildings down afterward using the damage as an excuse to tear them down?

In the last sentence are you saying the CIA destroyed the WTC to prevent some secret documents from being released or something? Seems like an awfully round about way to "shred" evidence. Couldn't they just hire someone like Ollie North to go in and shred them like he did in the Iran/Contra scandal? Surely there would be less political "fallout" if someone was discovered shredding the documents than there would be if people discovered the WTC attack was an inside job?

 

[chijohnaok]

I think if you know what you are doing and if you have 'sanction' from the very top you actually need only relatively small number of people to pull this off.

The number of people necessary to "pull this off"...PLUS the number of people involved in approving and implementing this would not be just a handful (small number) of people.

Something of this scale would involve more than a "small number" of people. And to think that not one person involved in this conspiracy has come forward, not one document related to this has been revealed, and that at no point even one person that was involved or who had knowledge of this ever objected to it and went whistleblower...well that boggles the mind.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

If their were health issues with the buildings those would be the concern of the building's owner's and management. The World Trade Centers were not/are not owned by the US government or the CIA. They have no stake in whether such a "secret" were revealed.

What sort of "compromising documents" would those be and who did they belong to?

I will have to go right know but the buildings have changed the owner only a short time before the attacks and it was known that becouse of the needed repairs the buildings were "problematic". However the new owner has insured it against terrorist attacks just months prior to 9-11.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

The number of people necessary to "pull this off"...PLUS the number of people involved in approving and implementing this would not be just a handful (small number) of people.

Something of this scale would involve more than a "small number" of people. And to think that not one person involved in this conspiracy has come forward, not one document related to this has been revealed, and that at no point even one person that was involved or who had knowledge of this ever objected to it and went whistleblower...well that boggles the mind.

Documents? I dont think so. It could be definitely nothing official.

 

[Gary Childress]

I will have to go right know but the buildings have changed the owner only a short time before the attacks and it was known that becouse of the needed repairs the buildings were "problematic". However the new owner has insured it against terrorist attacks just months prior to 9-11.

Insuring against terrorist attacks surely was warranted and understandable even before 9/11. There was an attack against the WTC back in the 1990s. It seemed to be a juicy target.

 

[chijohnaok]

Why not allow the planes to hit the building and then simply tear the buildings down afterward using the damage as an excuse to tear them down?

In the last sentence are you saying the CIA destroyed the WTC to prevent some secret documents from being released or something? Seems like an awfully round about way to "shred" evidence. Couldn't they just hire someone like Ollie North to go in and shred them like he did in the Iran/Contra scandal? Surely there would be less political "fallout" if someone was discovered shredding the documents than there would be if people discovered the WTC attack was an inside job?

Oh naive little Gary....why hire a couple of people to sneak in and shred those documents (sight unseen), when you can create the largest conspiracy in history, destroy 4 perfectly good commercial jets, destroy 3 (or more) buildings in the heart of some of the most expensive real estate in the world, AND kill thousands of people in the process.
What's the fun in that?
<sarcasm off>

 

[sophie]

Why not allow the planes to hit the building and then simply tear the buildings down afterward using the damage as an excuse to tear them down?

In the last sentence are you saying the CIA destroyed the WTC to prevent some secret documents from being released or something? Seems like an awfully round about way to "shred" evidence. Couldn't they just hire someone like Ollie North to go in and shred them like he did in the Iran/Contra scandal? Surely there would be less political "fallout" if someone was discovered shredding the documents than there would be if people discovered the WTC attack was an inside job?

Apparently this is also a common refrain brought up to explain why WT7 went down. "They had sensitive documents they wanted to get rid of!" Seems like a hell of a lot of work to go through when a shredder and/or an incinerator would get the job done just as well. And if the argument is: they didn't have access to the documents but needed to get rid of them remotely - it seems to me that if a government was so powerful, effective, and far-reaching that they would be able to set up explosives all over two of the most prominent, heavily and consistently occupied buildings in one of the largest cities in the world, coordinate 2 planes, notify news organizations, launch a missile at the Pentagon and hire actors/CIA agents to make everything look like a terrorist attack, and still, after 15 years, suppress anybody from coming forward or investigating the affair, even after the opposition party took over, then surely this same group would be more than capable of staging a break-in and extracting the relevant documents, n'est pas?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Apparently this is also a common refrain brought up to explain why WT7 went down. "They had sensitive documents they wanted to get rid of!" Seems like a hell of a lot of work to go through when a shredder and/or an incinerator would get the job done just as well. And if the argument is: they didn't have access to the documents but needed to get rid of them remotely - it seems to me that if a government was so powerful, effective, and far-reaching that they would be able to set up explosives all over two of the most prominent, heavily and consistently occupied buildings in one of the largest cities in the world, coordinate 2 planes, notify news organizations, launch a missile at the Pentagon and hire actors/CIA agents to make everything look like a terrorist attack, and still, after 15 years, suppress anybody from coming forward or investigating the affair, even after the opposition party took over, then surely this same group would be more than capable of staging a break-in and extracting the relevant documents, n'est pas?

Opposition party? lol
Invasion of Iraq, intervention in Afghanistan - now thats a lot of work (and money (and lives)) -- for nothing.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Oh naive little Gary....why hire a couple of people to sneak in and shred those documents (sight unseen), when you can create the largest conspiracy in history, destroy 4 perfectly good commercial jets, destroy 3 (or more) buildings in the heart of some of the most expensive real estate in the world, AND kill thousands of people in the process.
What's the fun in that?
<sarcasm off>

Do you think shreding the documents in secret would give you chance to pass 'patriotic act'?

 

[Gary Childress]

Do you think shreding the documents in secret would give you chance to pass 'patriotic act'?

Well apparently the CIA already hired the terrorists to fly the planes into the building. Wouldn't that be enough to get the patriot act going on its own?

Even if you go through the most elaborate scenarios (possibly flirting with Occam's razor BTW) I would still have to fall back on how mindboggling it is that the US government would be able to keep such a secret for 14 years without anyone coming forward or blowing the whistle or leaving any kind of paper trail. I interned in the US Federal Government during college and they didn't all seem like diabolical schemers to me, just people doing their bureaucratic best.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Well apparently the CIA already hired the terrorists to fly the planes into the building. Wouldn't that be enough to get the patriot act going on its own?

Even if you go through the most elaborate scenarios (possibly flirting with Occam's razor BTW) I would still have to fall back on how mindboggling it is that the US government would be able to keep such a secret for 14 years without anyone coming forward or blowing the whistle or leaving any kind of paper trail. I interned in the US Federal Government during college and they didn't all seem like diabolical schemers to me, just people doing their bureaucratic best.

I think if we are to seriously entertain posibility of such events we cant connect it with the actual government but with the people behind it who never get elected or hired for official positions but never the less are in position to control the decisions.

 

[chijohnaok]

I will have to go right know but the buildings have changed the owner only a short time before the attacks and it was known that becouse of the needed repairs the buildings were "problematic". However the new owner has insured it against terrorist attacks just months prior to 9-11.

And again, neither the new owners, nor the old owners, were the US government or the CIA.....so what reason would the US government or the CIA become involved in conspiring to destroy the WTC in order to cover up an health/environmental issue there?

Also, for what it is worth, contrary to what you said, the WTC did not change owners shortly before the attacks.

The World Trade Center has been owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey since the day they first began construction on it in August 1968. It is to this day still owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. It has always been owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.