How do Truthers explain the cooperation/coordination needed within the US govt...

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Robin

Was in fact quite a significant figure in the design provision of war ships to governments around the world at the time, even after their parent company was nationalised.

The point is, wars are not necessarily good for providers of military hardware.

I notice that Boeing didn't have any kind of stellar performance in the years following 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan.

Why don't you go ahead and name the companies you have in mind that made huge profits during that time and we will see if it is plausible that they could have thought that murdering thousands of Americans was a good business plan to get those profits.

A quick google search will get you this data immediately. For example this, this, and this. The first source sums it up as:

Quote:

The top five U.S. defense contractors generated almost $129 billion in revenues and $8 billion in profits in 2006, double the revenue and profits in 2000 when George Bush became President. The War on Terror has been a windfall for the defense industry and their shareholders.

The fact that 9/11 was one of the most profitable events for the defense industry in recent history is hardly contentious. You even indicated as much yourself by pointing out how expensive the war on terror was - one man's expense is another man's revenue.

[Fonebone]

Originally Posted by Robin

My Dad was an international arms dealer. I could never work out why we weren't rich. I mean we weren't poor none, but just an ordinary house in the suburbs and a Holden Kingswood. Not even a swimming pool.

I guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to start wars and suchlike.

Come to think of it, the company made a loss while the Vietnam war was still going and became profitable afterwards.

There are "arms" dealers and then there are "arms dealers". One type of
"arms dealers" made ample profits from the wars and some - well - not so much.

https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/war-and-prosthetics/

[Dave Rogers]

People who rob banks can obtain large amounts of money. This is not, in itself, sufficient evidence to convict everyone of bank robbery.

Dave

[Robin]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

A quick google search will get you this data immediately. For example this, this, and this.

Cherry picked figures on an infographic are not much use to anyone. Only the last is of any use.

Nevertheless, is it safe to say that you are nominating Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics and United Technologies as the kind of company that might, plausibly, be suspected of using mass murder of innocent American citizens as a business strategy?

[Robin]

Which department of these companies would be tasked with plotting mass murder with the Government?

Or would there be a secret society of CEOs having meetings with government or intelligence figures?

How exactly would it happen?

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

People who rob banks can obtain large amounts of money. This is not, in itself, sufficient evidence to convict everyone of bank robbery.

Dave

Dave stop the charade already. Robin claimed that it would be hard to believe that people in the US government would long for a pretext to engage in an expensive engagement.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Robin

Cherry picked figures on an infographic are not much use to anyone.

Show the infographic you are talking about and show that the figures are cherry picked.

While you're at it, show that you didn't engage in cherry picking by telling us the story of your father working for a local branch of a company which lost money during the period. In particular, you will need to show that losing money during the period was true of the defense industry in general, and not just limited to a few select companies, one of which happened to employ your father.

Quote:

Nevertheless, is it safe to say that you are nominating Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics and United Technologies as the kind of company that might, plausibly, be suspected of using mass murder of innocent American citizens as a business strategy?

I think it is plausible that at least one such company could have thought that mass murder was a good business strategy to gain said profits.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Dave stop the charade already.

There is no charade here. Means, motive and opportunity are irrelevant when there is no evidence that a crime has been committed. As I said above, this sort of time-wasting speculation is a classic outcome of accepting the reversal of the burden of proof. There is still no credible evidence suggesting the involvement of the US government in the 9/11 attacks.

As for what Robin claimed, I'm contending that the claim was pointless and irrelevant too. You've been complaining that I don't disagree enough with people who disagree with you; are you now demanding that I agree with them?

Dave

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Person A: "The US government overthrew the Iranian government to protect the profits of the oil industry."

Person B: "Well my dad owned a little gas station once and we weren't rich. Guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to overthrow governments."

Person A: "The US government propped up dictatorships in South America to protect the profits of the sugar & banana industries."

Person B: "Well my dad once sold bananas at a market stall and we weren't rich. Guess he wasn't trying hard enough with sinister plots to prop up South American dictatorships."

What does your gish gallop of Pseudoskepticism and off topic nonsense have to do with 19 terrorists who murdered thousands of Americans on 9/11, they were buddies with UBL

Why can't you get on topic and stop doing the quibble gish gallop of BS

Back to the topic...

Quote:

caveman1917 - Rather something like 50% mainstream, 45% MIHOP, 5% everything else.

What is everything else?

You claim it is 45% the government made it happen, is that based on {}?

Explain your claim of 50/45/5? It would be interesting.

Explain the 5%. What is it?

Explain what is the 45% MIHOP.

I guess the reality plot of 9/11 is too complex for some...
Complex Plot of 9/11
1. Take planes - fake a hijacking, gee, like DB Cooper, get money, oops, kill
2. Crash planes - unlike DB Cooper these idiots killed themselves and thousand

The complex plot of 9/11 which has you pulling a conspiracy theory out of thin air at best

Quote:

caveman1917 - Rather something like 50% mainstream, 45% MIHOP, 5% everything else.

Your plot is so easy to make up, takes no effort, research, or time, you just say it is so.

Your evidence is = {}

UBL is

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

There is no charade here. Means, motive and opportunity are irrelevant when there is no evidence that a crime has been committed. As I said above, this sort of time-wasting speculation is a classic outcome of accepting the reversal of the burden of proof. There is still no credible evidence suggesting the involvement of the US government in the 9/11 attacks.

The point is that nobody claimed that possible motive, in itself, constitutes evidence of US government involvement in 9/11. So why bring it upon yourself to dispute something which nobody claimed? The discussion is about whether it is plausible that a defense industry company could have thought it a good business plan to gain some profit. A discussion initiated by Robin's claim to the contrary. Of course Robin is always free to stop that discussion by retracting his claim.

Quote:

As for what Robin claimed, I'm contending that the claim was pointless and irrelevant too. You've been complaining that I don't disagree enough with people who disagree with you; are you now demanding that I agree with them?

Rather, I've complained about you being uneven in applying the burden of proof, exempting some claims from having a burden of proof for no discernible reason other than perhaps that you happen to agree with them, and your willingness to support nonsensical justifications (as per smartcooky's post) for it. The only reversal of the burden of proof that has been accepted in this thread is the assertion that so-called "negative claims" somehow do not incur a burden of proof.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

<snip>
I think it is plausible that at least one such company could have thought that mass murder was a good business strategy to gain said profits.

Your experience with major corporations is as bad if not worse than your experience with revolutions.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

A quick google search will get you this data immediately. For example this, this, and this. The first source sums it up as:


The fact that 9/11 was one of the most profitable events for the defense industry in recent history is hardly contentious. You even indicated as much yourself by pointing out how expensive the war on terror was - one man's expense is another man's revenue.

There are two assumptions you made which lack context.

Ike was right.

The Defense Industry would not have made this money without Iraq or Afghanistan.

First, Ike was full of crap. His Military Industrial Complex speech was a swipe at the incoming President (JFK), who planned to double the size of the US Military to counter the Soviet threat. Thanks to Vietnam Ike's MIC has been the bogey man for a generation of hippies, anti-American peace-nicks, and other folks who clutch their pearls anytime there's saber-rattling. What EVERYONE forgets is that Ike's military strategy was to use nuclear weapons to counter the Soviet and Chinese threats.

The difference was this:

Ike: Nuke 'em until they glow.

JFK: Flexible response based around a large, robust military force.

Call me a war monger but I'd go the JFK route every time.

Even with the Vietnam War most defense contractors barely made money and this would be true until the mid-1980's as the old guard CEO's of those companies retired and younger men took their place. The new blood understood business whereas the old guard were all about the next super weapon. The new blood changed the management cultures in places like Lockheed, Raytheon, and others where weapons could still be designed and built but with less overhead, and flat out waste.

To be blunt, the defense industry is making more profits because they're run by smarter people.

If your claim was true, why hasn't Colt Firearms benefited from this windfall? They make the M-16A2's and M-16A4's and the M-4 battle rifles. Where are the dump trucks full of cash leaving the Colt factory on their way to the bank?

Colt is what old-school defense industry management looked like.

Walmart makes more in profits each year than the entire defense budget without selling a single tank, submarine, or missile system. Peace is more profitable than war. And even had we not invaded Iraq and Afghanistan the defense industry would still be making money as old weapons are replaced, new weapons systems are sold, and weapons are exported.

No need to risk your bottom line by murdering 3,000 Americans to start a war against an NON-STATE ACTOR.

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

I think it is plausible that at least one such company could have thought that mass murder was a good business strategy to gain said profits.

Cool. Which one? Mass murder is as horrible a crime as it gets. Are you going to name names and provide credible, direct evidence of their involvement in murdering 3,000 people, or is this just more wishful thinking and ideological tunnel vision based on classic edgy "US military-industrial complex = bad!" sentiment?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

...
I think it is plausible that at least one such company could have thought that mass murder was a good business strategy to gain said profits.

projection? which such company did 9/11? UBL inc

Lucky for the world you are not the CEO/President/MFWIC of one such company.

How did you come up with the 50/45/5?

What is the 5 percent?

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

There are two assumptions you made which lack context.

Ike was right.

The Defense Industry would not have made this money without Iraq or Afghanistan.

First, Ike was full of crap. His Military Industrial Complex speech was a swipe at the incoming President (JFK), who planned to double the size of the US Military to counter the Soviet threat. Thanks to Vietnam Ike's MIC has been the bogey man for a generation of hippies, anti-American peace-nicks, and other folks who clutch their pearls anytime there's saber-rattling. What EVERYONE forgets is that Ike's military strategy was to use nuclear weapons to counter the Soviet and Chinese threats.

The difference was this:

Ike: Nuke 'em until they glow.

JFK: Flexible response based around a large, robust military force.

Call me a war monger but I'd go the JFK route every time.

Not only that, but Eisenhower put the Manichean and uber-hawkishly anti-Communist DULLES BROTHERS in charge of his foreign policy (State and CIA). And they were there for all eight years of his Presidency. If Ike had a problem with them, he certainly didn't show it.

Grimly, JFK's assassination and Oswald being shot two days later because the dumb Dallas PD paraded Oswald out before the cameras with minimum security (letting Jack Ruby exact vigilante justice on live TV), and the later assassinations of JFK's brother and MLK, Jr., convinced everyone that "They" offed these men because "They" felt threatened by them.

JFK LOVED the CIA and black ops (modern US Special Operation Forces owe a lot to Kennedy's efforts), and he and especially his brother kept pushing the CIA to take insane risks in covert programs like Operation Mongoose - you know, the obsession with killing Castro. Compared to the Kennedy brothers, many in the CIA were doves. The same views led to JFK greatly increasing the number of military "advisers" and CIA officers in Vietnam, from several hundred to the order of 15,000 WITHIN (less than) THREE YEARS. Counterinsurgency!

And the same excesses manifested in Operation Mongoose led directly to the violent coup against the Diem brothers just weeks before Kennedy's assassination, which left LBJ holding the bag. And note that LBJ had wanted to keep Diem in power and was privately convinced from the beginning that Vietnam would be a major problem for his Presidency - but he felt that he needed to stay the course in Vietnam to satisfy the many hawks in Congress, along with the Silent Majority of the American people, so that he could get his liberal Great Society programs through. LBJ couldn't afford to "lose" Vietnam like Truman "lost" China, for example.

Of course, the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese didn't need to win outright, just wait out the Americans for as many years as it took for them to get sick of it and go home. And that's precisely what they did.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Show the infographic you are talking about and show that the figures are cherry picked.

Check your second link and look at the infographic on it. Do you consider that any kind of useful presentation of relevant information?

In your first link it has a comparison between CEO salaries in 2000 and 2007. So what? In order to say anything useful it would have to show annual realised renumeration over a longer period compared with that if CEOs in general.

CEO renumeration goes up and down and is often at the mercy of the market.

Quote:

While you're at it, show that you didn't engage in cherry picking by telling us the story of your father working for a local branch of a company which lost money during the period. In particular, you will need to show that losing money during the period was true of the defense industry in general, and not just limited to a few select companies, one of which happened to employ your father.

The point was to get away from the idea that arms dealers are Bond villains licking there lips at the prospect of war.

But also to show that a war is not necessarily profitable for those in the arms industry. Procurement procedures, for example, can become longer and more difficult and therefore costly, share prices can become depressed.

Quote:

I think it is plausible that at least one such company could have thought that mass murder was a good business strategy to gain said profits.

As I said I find it implausible that this could be a serious discussion in a business strategy meeting or agreed upon by a vote in the board room and I assume you are not suggesting this.

So if such a company could have thought that mass murder was a good business strategy to gain profit then it would have to be some individual or group that stood to gain from this action who could plausibly have colluded with the government (or perhaps directly with the intelligence services or some rogue element within the intelligence services).

I don't rule it out. I can think of a situation in Australia where a corrupt politician almost certainly colluded with a company to direct the intelligence services to carry out an operation on another country to benefit the company and eventually to benefit the politician. So, yes, it does happen.

This case didn't involve murder but again I don't rule out that such collusion might involve deliberate acts of murder.

But we are talking about the cold blooded murder of thousands of citizens of their own country.

So some individual or group would have discussed this with someone in two successive administrations, someone with power to direct the intelligence services to commit a serious crime in their own country and to cover up if necessary.

I say possible, but not particularly plausible.

If we were talking about collusion with the Russian government to do this, then the plausibility increases.

If the covert action involved infiltrating the network of Islamic extremists and convincing gullible individuals to carry out this action then it doesn't have to be the US government doing it, it could be any number of countries. The Russian leaders would seem to have the best motive and much easier to hide kickbacks to the Russian President.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by Robin

So if such a company could have thought that mass murder was a good business strategy to gain profit then it would have to be some individual or group that stood to gain from this action who could plausibly have colluded with the government (or perhaps directly with the intelligence services or some rogue element within the intelligence services).

I don't rule it out. I can think of a situation in Australia where a corrupt politician almost certainly colluded with a company to direct the intelligence services to carry out an operation on another country to benefit the company and eventually to benefit the politician. So, yes, it does happen.

This case didn't involve murder but again I don't rule out that such collusion might involve deliberate acts of murder.

The problem with a business strategy that involves the 911 attack is the down-side, and every business strategy takes in the down-side. The down-side is discovery and revelation of the plot. Here we're talking about the CEO and Board of Directors being executed or getting life in maximum security prison. Their personal assets are confiscated, their families and friends are aggressively investigated. The company is seized by the Federal Government and sold piece meal to their competitors.

The beauty of Al Qaeda is that they're a formidable enemy. Any communications between them and the theoretical evil-doers would have been recorded and documented. By now it would have been released onto the internet and Al Jazeera. Iran has a capable intelligence agency and since Ayman al-Zawahiri has been hiding out in Iran (allegedly) they've had his place and communications monitored, mostly for internal security reasons. But if they had something on the US along the lines of 911 being a false flag they would make that public just as they exposed the Iran/Contra scandal back in the 1980s.

The be blunt: There are many countries who would benefit from the revelation of 911 being an inside job.

The next problem is that counter-terrorism isn't conducive to a healthy bottom-line for the defense industry. Just take a look:

Ratheon:

https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities

Lockheed-Martin, and Boeing, and General Dynamics have more products in the fight, but all of these products would be made anyway because that's what they do:

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products.html

https://www.boeing.com/defense/

https://www.gd.com/our-businesses/combat-systems

Boeing and General Dynamics have a thriving civilian product range:

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/

https://www.boeing.com/space/

https://www.gd.com/our-businesses/aerospace

https://www.gd.com/our-businesses/in...ion-technology

Ignored in the MIHOP theory is the fact that no CEO will risk a multi-billion dollar company - or his life, conspiring with Jihadists to kill Americans on American soil.

The claim shows a gross lack of understanding of money.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

The problem with a business strategy that involves the 911 attack is the down-side, and every business strategy takes in the down-side. The down-side is discovery and revelation of the plot. Here we're talking about the CEO and Board of Directors being executed or getting life in maximum security prison. Their personal assets are confiscated, their families and friends are aggressively investigated. The company is seized by the Federal Government and sold piece meal to their competitors.

Yes, that also supports what I am saying.

Also, it is hardly strategic for a high tech weapons company to want to engineer a war that could only ever end in the US, armed with all their high tech weaponry, surrendering to a bunch of low tech warlords.

Great advertisement for them.

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

P(mass murder | false-flag) =/= P(false-flag | mass murder)

You've estimated the former rather than the latter.

Fair enough, yes I made that mistake.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Semantics, the net result is 250k of their own people dying each year for the country's supremacy.

Defence expenditure is not just for the country's supremacy. It's also, well, for defence. Moreover, the people who plan the budgets are quite different from the people who perform the military actions.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

This strongly counters your heuristic argument that those in power care so much about their own people they wouldn't kill them for the country's supremacy.

You haven't established that the focus of the people planning the budgets is supremacy and not protection, therefore no, the argument isn't countered.

Axxman has provided more heuristic arguments about one of the potential actors: the CIA.

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by beachnut

projection? which such company did 9/11? UBL inc

Lucky for the world you are not the CEO/President/MFWIC of one such company.

How did you come up with the 50/45/5?

What is the 5 percent?

That 5% is clearly Rodan.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by pgimeno

Defence expenditure is not just for the country's supremacy. It's also, well, for defence. Moreover, the people who plan the budgets are quite different from the people who perform the military actions.

That's the main problem with US defense spending, the military doesn't always have a say in what they get. The US Army just got more M1 Abrams tanks that it didn't request and does not need. The flip side is that tank building, fighter building, and submarine building is a rarefied skill-set, and there is a very real threat to national security if they are allowed to dwindle. The real threat from China is missiles, their strategy seems to bee all-missiles all the time.

Few of the big ticket items comes in handy for hunting terrorists, which as 95% HUMINT (people-driven), and 5% drones, bombers, and Hellfire missiles.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

That's the main problem with US defense spending, the military doesn't always have a say in what they get. The US Army just got more M1 Abrams tanks that it didn't request and does not need. The flip side is that tank building, fighter building, and submarine building is a rarefied skill-set, and there is a very real threat to national security if they are allowed to dwindle. The real threat from China is missiles, their strategy seems to bee all-missiles all the time.

Few of the big ticket items comes in handy for hunting terrorists, which as 95% HUMINT (people-driven), and 5% drones, bombers, and Hellfire missiles.

Which should drive new programs of ballistic missile interceptors.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Robin

Check your second link and look at the infographic on it. Do you consider that any kind of useful presentation of relevant information?

The infographic shows the increase in spending on private defense contractors after 9/11, which is exactly the relevant information. Granted, I don't like its presentation either, but I simply linked you to the first 3 google results I got to show how easy it was to get those numbers and demonstrate that, indeed, 9/11 was highly profitable for the defense industry.

Quote:

In your first link it has a comparison between CEO salaries in 2000 and 2007. So what? In order to say anything useful it would have to show annual realised renumeration over a longer period compared with that if CEOs in general.

It also has a lot more comparisons than just CEO salaries, for example it also has comparisons for total defense spending as well as for profit of the largest private contractors. You're cherry-picking one irrelevant datapoint among many relevant ones.

Quote:

The point was to get away from the idea that arms dealers are Bond villains licking there lips at the prospect of war.

But also to show that a war is not necessarily profitable for those in the arms industry. Procurement procedures, for example, can become longer and more difficult and therefore costly, share prices can become depressed.

Something which could have happened does not refute something which did happen. It's a demonstrable fact that 9/11 was hugely profitable for the defense industry as a whole.

Quote:

If the covert action involved infiltrating the network of Islamic extremists and convincing gullible individuals to carry out this action then it doesn't have to be the US government doing it, it could be any number of countries.

It needn't even be a country. If there's anything those FBI "sting" operations show, it is how easy it actually is to convince the right people to engage in terrorist attacks. Any reasonable wealthy stock owner of some defense company may have been able to pull it off.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by pgimeno

Defence expenditure is not just for the country's supremacy. It's also, well, for defence. Moreover, the people who plan the budgets are quite different from the people who perform the military actions.



You haven't established that the focus of the people planning the budgets is supremacy and not protection, therefore no, the argument isn't countered.

A comparison of the US military budget to other countries' budget, the amount of military bases abroad, as well as the numerous wars of aggression waged, shows that it is about the country's supremacy and not about protection. Though, of course, any empire justifies its own imperialism in terms of defense and protection - this was even true of the Roman Empire, reading the Roman senate's discussions one can only be amazed at how they managed to defend themselves into an empire.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

A comparison of the US military budget to other countries' budget, the amount of military bases abroad, as well as the numerous wars of aggression waged, shows that it is about the country's supremacy and not about protection. Though, of course, any empire justifies its own imperialism in terms of defense and protection - this was even true of the Roman Empire, reading the Roman senate's discussions one can only be amazed at how they managed to defend themselves into an empire.

But this does not support the idea of MIHOP.

The size of our military is merely a reflection of the fact that there's always another conflict around the corner.

In the case of Iraq, why fake an attack to start a war that was going to happen anyway?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

... It needn't even be a country. If there's anything those FBI "sting" operations show, it is how easy it actually is to convince the right people to engage in terrorist attacks. Any reasonable wealthy stock owner of some defense company may have been able to pull it off.

Not evidence for your fantasy version of 9/11 you can't explain.

Quote:

caveman1917 - Rather something like 50% mainstream, 45% MIHOP, 5% everything else.

what is the 5 percent - why can't you explain what you made up

[bknight]

Originally Posted by beachnut

Not evidence for your fantasy version of 9/11 you can't explain.

Quote:

caveman1917 - Rather something like 50% mainstream, 45% MIHOP, 5% everything else.

what is the 5 percent - why can't you explain what you made up

I'd like to hear what the 45% MIHOP is composed.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by bknight

I'd like to hear what the 45% MIHOP is composed.

Plus how it's possible to believe two diametrically-opposed explanations at the same time, whilst still allowing room for 5% more contradiction.
Some mental agility there, caveman1917.

[waypastvne]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Any reasonable wealthy stock owner of some defense company may have been able to pull it off.

In order to really get to the bottom of this, we are going to need a large scale and a duck.

[Robin]

The major stock holders in the defense companies seem to be investment companies or banks.

Again you have the problem of identifying individuals who would, even if they were psychopaths, have the financial motive to invoke this huge risk.

I can't see that the price movement in these companies was anything spectacular, some of them continued a previous rising trend and then fell soon after 9/11 and took a long time to recover, Lockheed Martin for example.



The bit rise came much later, maybe 2013 but it wasn't anything the market wasn't doing.

Perhaps General Dynamics showed most growth over that period, but still had a price fall in the aftermath of 9/11 and took a long time to catch up to where the previous trend was taking it.


If this eventuated in a huge pay-day for some investor that would be worth that risk, then I suppose it would not be too difficult to find that person.

But again, I think this is drawing a long bow.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Robin

The major stock holders in the defense companies seem to be investment companies or banks.

Again you have the problem of identifying individuals who would, even if they were psychopaths, have the financial motive to invoke this huge risk.

I can't see that the price movement in these companies was anything spectacular, some of them continued a previous rising trend and then fell soon after 9/11 and took a long time to recover, Lockheed Martin for example.

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...ge-5.png?w=848

The bit rise came much later, maybe 2013 but it wasn't anything the market wasn't doing.

Perhaps General Dynamics showed most growth over that period, but still had a price fall in the aftermath of 9/11 and took a long time to catch up to where the previous trend was taking it.

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...ge-6.png?w=826
If this eventuated in a huge pay-day for some investor that would be worth that risk, then I suppose it would not be too difficult to find that person.

But again, I think this is drawing a long bow.

You and your facts. and your bleedin' rational arguments.
You've killed this conversation!
Can we go over again how it's logical to hold two diametrically-opposed beliefs at the same time, with room for a few more on this side? We need more unfounded percentages, and fewer facts. The 9/11 Sub-Forum has a proud tradition of fact-free posting to uphold.

[tanabear]

I prefer the term false-flag terror attack myself over inside job. However, I recently came across a bit of information that I had not been aware of.

Ron Unz in his American Pravda series recently wrote on Mossad Assassinations. He covered events detailed in the books By Way of Deception by Victor Ostrovsky and Rise and Kill First by New York Times reporter Ronen Bergman.

Ron Unz writes,

"Of these famous incidents, Bergman only includes mention of the King David Hotel bombing. But much later in his narrative, he describes the huge wave of false-flag terrorist attacks unleashed in 1981 by Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, who recruited a former high-ranking Mossad official to manage the project.

Under Israeli direction, large car bombs began exploding in the Palestinian neighborhoods of Beirut and other Lebanese cities, killing or injuring enormous numbers of civilians. A single attack in October inflicted nearly 400 casualties, and by December, there were eighteen bombings per month, with their effectiveness greatly enhanced by the use of innovative new Israeli drone technology. Official responsibility for all the attacks was claimed by a previously unknown Lebanese organization, but the intent was to provoke the PLO into military retaliation against Israel, thereby justifying Sharon’s planned invasion of the neighboring country.

Since the PLO stubbornly refused to take the bait, plans were put into motion for the huge bombing of an entire Beirut sports stadium using tons of explosives during a January 1st political ceremony, with the death and destruction expected to be “of unprecedented proportions, even in terms of Lebanon.” But Sharon’s political enemies learned of the plot and emphasized that many foreign diplomats including the Soviet ambassador were expected to be present and probably would be killed, so after a bitter debate, Prime Minister Begin ordered the attack aborted. A future Mossad chief mentions the major headaches they then faced in removing the large quantity of explosives that they had already planted within the structure."

False-flag terror attacks by the Mossad seem to be standard operating procedure. So who was the Prime Minister of Israel when the 9/11 false-flag attack occurred?

Ron Unz has also written on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories as part of his American Pravda series. He wrote:

"Sharon was a notoriously bloody and reckless leader, with a long history of undertaking strategic gambles of astonishing boldness, sometimes betting everything on a single roll of the dice. He had spent decades seeking the Prime Ministership, but having finally obtained it, he now had his back to the wall, with no obvious source of rescue in sight.

The 9/11 attacks changed everything. Suddenly the world’s sole superpower was fully mobilized against Arab and Muslim terrorist movements, especially those connected with the Middle East. Sharon’s close Neocon political allies in America used the unexpected crisis as an opportunity to seize control of America’s foreign policy and national security apparatus..."

Of all the false-flag attacks, 9/11 is the easiest to discern. It is clear why it was done, for what reason, and who benefitted. But the mass media propaganda that came out of 9/11 continues down to the fake news era of our own time. The media is not about "reporting" the news, it is about the wholesale creation out of cloth of entirely false narratives.

[carlitos]

“Ron Unz writes” - any thinking reader would stop right there, and so I did.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by carlitos

“Ron Unz writes” - any thinking reader would stop right there, and so I did.

A Neo-Nazi thinks Jews did 9-11? Shocked, shock I say!

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by tanabear

... Of all the false-flag attacks, 9/11 is the easiest to discern. It is clear why it was done, for what reason, and who benefitted. But the mass media propaganda that came out of 9/11 continues down to the fake news era of our own time. The media is not about "reporting" the news, it is about the wholesale creation out of cloth of entirely false narratives. ...

Oops, more lies, no evidence. Where is your proof? Dog ate it? Where"?

[bknight]

Originally Posted by beachnut

Oops, more lies, no evidence. Where is your proof? Dog ate it? Where"?

He aint got no stinkin evidence.

[The Common Potato]

Caveman1917,

If a defence barrister brings up an alibi as evidence of non-guilt, he is not trying to prove the negative of the accusation, he is giving positive evidence of the alibi.

#Potato is Innocent

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by carlitos

“Ron Unz writes” - any thinking reader would stop right there, and so I did.

Any thinking reader who isn't a Nazi sympathizer would stop right there. It's an important distinction.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

Any thinking reader who isn't a Nazi sympathizer would stop right there. It's an important distinction.

Seems like a similar outcome.

[smartcooky]

We have a Nazi-sympathizing 9/11 truther in our midst, which is somewhat peculiar when you consider that the Nazis may have been the first to come up with the idea of flying suicide planes into New York skyscrapers.

https://likoed.nl/2007/09/the-nazi-r...oed-nederland/