egafd.com

Hey

Right first off let me just say im not trying to start another 9/11 conspiracy thread (yawn been done) but read about this inj the paper this morning and have just started watching it. Speaking as some one who has all ways been kinda on the fence with the whole issue it brought into light some interesting points.



Regards to the family

BB

It's an interesting video and raises questions that should be easy for the Bush administration to answer (but have chosen not to for whatever reason).

Like you, I'm cynical about all conspiracy theories, but especially the "official" conspiracy theory where a naughty man living in a cave decided to attack America because he was "jealous of their freedoms".

There's one question I'd like answered more than any other, and that's why the CIA met bin Laden in 2001 (before 9/11), and what was discussed at the meeting?

George Monbiot did a good hatchet job on this drivel last week,



Sorry, but the Twin Towers were brought down by a group of determined religious zealots, who had spent years planning and rehearsing
for their day, and who probably couldn't believe their luck that security was so lax. To dismiss the plot as implausible as it would have been
hatched in a cave in the Hindu Kush, is the same attitude that said the
Japanese were short sighted and travelled to the front on bicycles so how
could they be a threat to Singapore in 1941. Any US plot would have involved the participation of thousands of people, one or two of whom would by now have spilled the beans to the Washington Post/CNN. There are similarities to the canard that Churchill/Roosevelt had prior warning about Pearl Harbour. The risk of discovery in the porous political scene in the States then as now, was too great to contemplate such deception.
The real questions remain unanswered. Amongst which is why were hundred's of Saudis allowed to leave when all flights were supposed to be grounded? So as not to embarass Bush's friends and financial contributors. Who are of course Whahabis.
As is Osama BL.
I hope this doesn't spoil our new found rapprochement, BB.

IT's definitely provided lots of food for thought.
There's a brilliant scene in Oliver Stone's sprawling but ultimately outstanding movie 'JFK' where Donald Sutherland's character 'X' encounters Jim Garrison played by Kevin Costner and tells him about the real reasons behind John Kennedy's assassination.
'X' tells Garrison that the hunt for who actually pulled the triggers that afternoon in Dealey Plaza is just a "parlour game" to distract the public from the real reasons for the President's murder: WHY it was done; WHO benefits; WHO has the power to cover it up.
Let's just say at this stage that the American military benefited greatly from the subsequent escalation of the Vietnam War under Lyndon Johnson's tenure at the White House while the same institution has enjoyed similar success in Iraq following that incredible day of September 11, 2001.
If the US would alllow thousands of their own to perish following the so-called surprise attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, don't you think the high command in Washington would sanction something similar to provoke the public to backing another war exactly six decades later?
History, as we all know, does have a habit of repeating itself...
(BTW, I do have a degree in American Studies and History so I do know what I'm talking about!!!)

Where does this idea that JFK wouldn't have done similar to Johnson in Vietnam, come from? Kennedy was responsible for the two actions that dramatically Americanised the conflict. He greatly increased the number of 'advisors' and material flowing to the Diem regime, and his later active encouragement of the coup that toppled and killed Diem, cemented American involvement in a war that Kennedy couldn't be seen to run away from. By deciding to stay, the anti-communist that was JFK, meant inevitable escalation of the war and US involvement. An ultimately weak president like Kennedy would never have dared to pull out. Anti-communism was a political fact of life in 60s America. It would have taken a far braver man than him. JFK was a foreign policy president compared to Johnson, and his lack of much domestic policy success made it imperative he performed on the world stage. Hence his Berlin speech. His history of opposing communism and that America had a place in fighting the cold war meant it would have been 'All the Way with JFK'. He was due to deliver a speech later on the 22nd of november, in Dallas, in which he meant to warn America that they 'dare not weary of the task of supporting S Vietnam, no matter how risky and costly.' Hardly words of a man about to leave SE asia to its own devices.
After his death his family fostered the myth that he would have scaled down and withdrawn, if only because his brother, previously a keen supporter of the war, sensed a chance to challenge Johnson on an anti escalation ticket.
His lack of domestic success or even interest does raise an interesting side issue for conspiracy theorists, and that is his assassination could have been arranged by those who really would benefit from a Johnson Presidency. Not the military-industrial complex who would have done ok whoever was in the White House, but those whose civil rights and living standards rose in the Great Society that Johnson created and ultimately lost due to the albatross that was Vietnam.


Snowy wrote:'If the US would alllow thousands of their own to perish following the so-called surprise attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, don't you think the high command in Washington would sanction something similar to provoke the public to backing another war exactly six decades later?
History, as we all know, does have a habit of repeating itself...'

Well my point is, the US did not allow 'thousands of their own to perish....' in 1941, nor in 2001, for reasons aplenty. FDR was a navy man to his very core, he would not have done anything to damage what was very much his creation. Nor would a consumate politician like him have risked it becoming known that he had. Just accept it, shit happens, when compounded by hubris, arrogance and fuck up. In 1941 and in 2001.

Utter Bollocks.

I second that emotion.!thumbsup!

Andy, you're right for sure that ideas of a full-fledged American plot behind 9/11 are nonsense. It wouldn't have involved thousands of people as you suggest, but dozens at the very least. To think that this could have remained completely secret for over 5 years is impossible.

The plot was masterminded by dissident Saudis including bin Laden. Notably, the Bush administration has completely ignored the Saudi links. But to discount that the CIA had no involvement or forewarning is premature. Bin Laden may be a religious nut, but his deep past links with the CIA are well known.

As I said, the one question that should be answered is the extent of CIA links with bin Laden between the collapse of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and 9/11. In particular, why did the CIA meet the man in 2001, at a time when he was already America's most wanted?

The CIA and MI5 were quite certainly encouraging and funding jihadists during the 90s, including in Bosnia and Kosovo. Some of the British "terror suspects" now are well known to MI5 because they were recruited and encouraged to fight jihad in Kosovo as part of British foreign policy.

So again, you're right that this was a plot by religious fundamentalists - but these were religious fundamentalists with strong past links to Western intelligence organisations.

lol not at all Andy!! The main reason for posting this was like i said all ways been on the fence,but with a slight lean towards the offical explanation. Just put this up to hopefully learn some more facts from you guys and maybe make up my mind once and for all.

Thanks chap

BB