Inside Job

After the attacks on 9/11/2001 a whole lot of speculation about many things began circulating almost immediately. Who did it? What are we going to do about it? Will we rebuild? How do we stop it from happening again? All perfectly normal responses so far, right? Then you get into the darker side. Who knew about it? Why didn't they stop it? Was it an inside job? Well, after a great deal of consideration, thought, and a revelation provided at lunch with some friends, I've come to the inescapable conclusion that 9/11 was in fact an inside job and the administration knew it was going to happen and did nothing to prevent it. All in the name of political posturing.

There is one small difference though. It wasn't the Bush administration who was responsible. The man most directly responsible for the attack was none other than William Jefferson Clinton himself. You might be wondering just how I arrived at this conclusion, and why those I was having lunch with arrived at the same conclusion as well. It's simple, and I'll lay out a few things first:

1993 WTC Bombing

Clinton had zero response to the original 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Well, probably near zero anyway. Unlike his predecessor, Clinton treated that bombing as a criminal incident rather than the act of war it really was. So instead of an all out effort to hunt down those responsible, the only thing that happened were a bunch of FBI arrest warrants being issued.

The Khobar Towers 1996

The enemy struck again, this time blowing up Khobar Towers, in Saudi Arabia. At the time this facility was being used to house foreign military, many of which were American soldiers. Hezbollah killed 19 American Air Force that day, and Bill Clinton did absolutely nothing about it.

1998 U.S. Embassy Bombings

In 1998, three US embassies in Kenya were bombed by the same militant group that had been conducting terror attacks against us since 1993. Again, Clinton did little to nothing about it. By this time, emboldened by our lack of a response, they stepped things up.

2000 USS Cole Bombing

October 12, 2000 the enemy struck again killing 17 US Navy sailors and injuring 39 more. The ship was in port in Aden, Yemen at the time of the attack and was approached by a small inflatable raft. Once more, there was no response.

What isn't known though is that through the course of these events, as documented by an ABC News special some years ago, Clinton had numerous opportunities to take out Osama bin Laden and crush the Al Qaeda network once and for all. Time and time again, permission to take the kill was denied and the opportunity would vanish. Multiple CIA agents and officers came forth to corroborate these claims.

So where does the political posturing fit in? Here's the scenario. All of the above attacks were practice runs for the real deal. Perfecting technique. I and those I had lunch with, along with a few other folks who we noticed were listening intently, came to the conclusion that the Clinton administration either planned the 9/11 attack or knew it was coming and was content to let it happen. Why? To use it as a way to bolster Al Gore's presidency and change the image of Democrats on foregin policy with the public. Only their plan backfired when GW Bush won the election. Since the attack planning was already too far along for them to stop and the individual terrorists were unlikely to be aware of the details, the plan had to shift to figuring out a way to blame the whole thing on Bush being an incompetent boob so that the Dems could paint the Republicans as retards in the media.

So there it is. 9/11 was an inside job, planned and executed by the US government.

If this sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to you, you're probably right. But if this is crazy and stupid and utterly baseless, perhaps you "truthers" out there might want to stop and think about how much dumber and even more insane your version is where the moronic redneck idiot from Texas gets himself elected and in 9 short months masterminds and executes the entire plan and then managed to cover up all of the details for 9 years and counting with a biased left wing media on his ass the whole way looking for any excuse to have him impeached.
RIP United States of America

July 1776 - November 2012.

« Oblivion Projects
Deepwater Horizon »

Posted on May 2, 2010 12:10 am by Samson in: | 67 comment(s) [Closed]
Wow, Samson, those are some pretty serious allegations. Not that I can refute them at all, but.. I also don't think I'd be willing to go on record as making them either. Do we actually know of any proof that could be used to back all that up? In a sense, even the full scale 9/11 could be chalked up to a criminal action rather than an act of war. I recall quite a bit of publicity over the '93 WTC bombing and the '98 embassy bombings and the 2000 USS Cole bombing, are you sure next to nothing was done about any of those? At the very least, even our government has always taken more than a little offense at attacks against our embassies and our military rarely takes a bombing of a US Naval vessel lightly. Now, I can't say that it sounds unreasonable that the Clinton administration might've known things were coming or might have tried to take advantage of those events for political posturing, but to take the extra step and say they actually masterminded the operation from the '93 WTC bombing through 9/11... :(

I'm pretty much going to spend this comment and this comment only on the subject, since I'd really rather spend my time on Oblivion, but:

1. I suppose you're aware that the 9/11 Commission Report rather differs from you on the subject, and paints a different picture than the one you're describing;

2. That ABC special isn't a documentary. Not that I've seen it myself, but the evidence rounded up in the Wikipedia article, some of which I went and checked for myself, is fairly damning;

3. Your theory also fails the logic test, given what we know about OBL, and given what we know about Clinton, never mind what we know about the tunnel vision of US government agencies, but then I suppose that's either completely obvious or needs more time to explain that I have at my disposal;

4. Very specifically with respect to 1998 because it's the one I remember the best, I guess I might call trying to assassinate OBL with 66 cruise missiles more than nothing. The 9/11 Commission Report is pretty clear that on about this time if not earlier, the Clinton Administration got more serious about the issue, going so far as to call AQ a national security issue;

5. This entire post is guilty of the very worst rear view mirroring, in which 17 years of discovered clarity is applied ex post facto to things that were not at all clear at the time, never mind conflating Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, never mind that most if not all of the 1993 bombers were in fact convicted and stuck in ADX Florence, and never mind a few other things besides that I could go into more detail on if I didn't feel like playing Oblivion more.

@Dwip: Oh, right, the 9/11 Commission Report. That lovely document so full of BS everyone who had a hand in writing it has brown eyes and hair? :)

And yeah, I think you'll already note that I don't consider Wikipedia a reliable source for anything even remotely political. Not that I trust ABC News any better, but they did have their shit straight at least, and I did see the documentary for myself. If you think the stuff about how the Clintons have pressured the network into blocking the DVD release is BS, you don't know the Clintons well at all.

@Conner: Yes, Clinton did nothing or very nearly nothing. Issuing arrest warrants and firing off random volleys of cruise missiles doesn't count for much in most places.


Apparently you have deleted my user from your blog.

After I get done joining Fury in /facepalm land, I'll have to ask why you haven't made any posts on the Deep Horizon conspiracy yet.

And what's with the lack of Arizona illegals debate? Doesn't matter because it's in AZ and not CA?

I don't usually go in for the posts that are just a smilie, but I'm not sure what I really want to say to all this this time other than to offer up a frown. :sad:

Mael, the Arizona illegal immigrant law did get brought up here in the Kerchner v. Obama blog entry.

Samson, I'm not sure why the site's telling me it had a fatal error each time I try to submit a post, but the posts do seem to actually be getting through. :crazy:

Edited by Conner on May 3, 2010 2:01 am
So. I guess my buddies were right, I would have gotten far more play from this on a politics forum with more traffic. I figured posting it here would at least get some kind of reaction though, and honestly I thought Dwip of all people would have realized I had to be pulling everyone's leg on this. You guys apparently don't know me as well as you think if you all took it seriously - I think I've made it pretty clear that I don't buy into the 9/11 conspiracy crap and this post was meant more to point out the stupidity of that than actually argue a legit case.

But really, if the truthers out there want to keep at it, I'm more than happy to point out that my version makes far more sense and has far more evidence to back it up, despite being obviously wrong.

Mael, no, I have not deleted your account, but you're obviously trying to use the wrong username. Also, patience, Deep Horizon is coming, but not right now. Perhaps later today. Given that I'm not the only one who thinks it was, it otta be at least mildly more interesting than an obviously bogus 9/11 conspiracy post.

AZ is very much an important subject, and it too will be coming, sometime after Deep Horizon. Yeah, I know, out of order and all, but hey. With any luck, OK and TX will be following suit and we can all party in the streets or something.

@Conner: No clue, first I've heard of fatal errors when posting. I'm not getting any indication of that from my end.

Edited by Samson on May 3, 2010 3:01 am
I admit that I wondered for precisely that reason. OTOH, I also happen to know that you loathe Clinton to a vast degree. Still a little out there, but close enough to plausible. Combine with this weekend's set of debilitating headaches, and there you go.

Oh, and FWIW, I've got a couple posting errors too, although not many and not for a while. Usually when it happens to me it outright crashes, though, which should be sending reports.

Edited by Dwip on May 3, 2010 10:46 am
I don't loathe Clinton. He wasn't all bad. Except for the whole turning the Whitehouse into a whorehouse, pissing on the economy, and treating terrorism as a civil crime. In the viewport of hindsight, I'd take 3 Clintons over 1 Obama any day.

You had debating headaches?

There are two fatal error reports in my inbox right now, but they're both from spambots that overloaded the SQL server.

See, there you go. :P

Debilitating, not debating. And I probably spelled it wrong, but oh well. Evidently the heat was doing bad things to me, and I was slow to catch on. Nothing a little emergency Chinese food can't cure.

Heh, well, you can even count me among those who would rather have Hillary as president than Obama, despite her obvious progressive politics. Not that McCain would have been that much better, I only voted for him on foreign policy anyway.

Except for the whole turning the Whitehouse into a whorehouse,

I do not know why we have this obsession with making our pollies super human to the point where, normal human weakness cannot be part of their job descriptions. The whole system becomes a prisoners dilemma situation because we force them to lie and thus the end result is we get sub optimal outcomes when there are superior outcomes to be had.

Its hard not to blame Bill in some regards, or to atleast feel some sympathy for his situation, just take a look at Hilary, its not like she inspires erections for bathroom mechanics (masturbation joke) like some other women in politics, i know you guys get all worked up over Sara Palin. But i think we Aussies have one better, Kate Ellis our sports minister is a bit of a hottie,

Honestly, I didn't think it sounded very right, Samson, but I didn't know enough about the issues involved (nor want to research them enough) to recognize it as an intentional hoax either.

Sorry to hear about the headaches, Dwip. We've had a rash of them over here lately too, but ours have been storm front induced so they tend to break once the front passes.

I'm not sure what to tell you about the fatal errors, I'd tried to post to three topics last night and each time I hit submit it'd give me a message about having encountered a Fatal Error and emailing you the details, at first I didn't know if it was still posting anyway or what since the site was obviously not crashed entirely so I actually resubmitted my post to the oblivion humor thread two more times before my RSS feed caught up and I realized it'd posted each try anyway, so then I refreshed and deleted the two extra posts and came back here to edit my post in this thread to include a response to Mael and a comment to you - it had no trouble with editing a post. Maybe it was a fluke, I really don't know. Hopefully, it's self-resolved, whatever the case, by now and I won't have similar issues trying to post this.

As for Clinton, I was/am one of those who really didn't like Clinton at all and would have far preferred even McCain over Hillary, but I'd still have preferred Hillary over Obama. :sigh:

Edit because Fury posted while I was typing and to let Samson know that I got no fatal error message with that post so presumably, whatever may have caused it last night, it's resolved (or at least in remission) at this point. :shrug:

Fury: I fully agree about Hillary, not that Monica Lewinski was any super great prize either really... You may rest quite well assured that Sarah Palin is not considered all that hot by all of us over here, her thing is that she's a former beauty queen or some such, but many us are quite aware of the due emphasis on the word 'former' in that title. Y'all's sports minister isn't bad at all, so I can definitely hear what you're saying.

Edited by Conner on May 3, 2010 2:43 pm
The_Fury said:

I do not know why we have this obsession with making our pollies super human to the point where, normal human weakness cannot be part of their job descriptions.

We'll note I didn't say anything about normal human weaknesses. Bill Clinton didn't go to some dive in a back alley in DC to get his hooker. If he had, I certainly wouldn't have made much of an issue of it. He banged his intern at the Whitehouse in the damned Oval Office for God sake. I think there's a pretty big difference and I don't think it's unrealistic to expect our politicians to have an ounce of respect for the offices they hold. Clinton had none for the office of the president. He further disrespected the office and this country by lying about the whole thing in court, under oath.

Maybe my taste in women is off (doubt it) but I happen to think Sarah Palin is quite attractive. Your sports minister is attractive too. So take that for what its worth. Hillary Clinton though? No thanks, past her "use by" date.

@Conner - Some of it was probably storm-related, too. We just had a pretty good one last night, and looks like we might get more soon.

I'll continue my stand in favor of Bill Clinton, and for Hillary too although I think maybe Obama was the better choice for '08 - if you think the rancor against Obama was bad, remember when Hillary was the anti-Christ? I sure do. OTOH, Bill's taste in women not so much. I understand Hillary did ok for herself back when, and Bill was pretty clear about the whole "I married her for her mind!" thing in his book, but Monica Lewinksy?

I think perhaps in the annals of the White House the Lewinsky/cigar/Oval Office thing isn't the worst that ever happened there, but that's neither here nor there.

I've tried both user names with all combinations of passwords I use or have used. I can't log in to save my life.

Anyway, the North Korean minisub blowing up Deep Horizon was a good read. I want to play one of the Navy SEALs in the movie.

Then I guess you should let me know which user name you want, so I can update the site and force it to issue you a new password. Assuming I even have the email addy right.

@Samson: In fairness, if we set aside the blatant perjury facet, do you honestly think Bill was the first to engage in such behavior while in office (even in the oval office itself) or was he just the first to get scandalized by having done so?

:shrug: Sarah Palin's just not that attractive in my opinion. Hillary Clinton's just plain nasty, much like Nancy Pelosi or Janet Reno, again, just my opinion though.

@Dwip: We got a very brief but pretty good storm pass through here this evening, it suddenly got windy and dark out and stayed that way for a good hour and a half or so then started raining really hard as we sat down for dinner... about an hour later when we'd finished dinner, the rain had already stopped but tomorrow I'll be out there picking up downed branches again and avoiding the puddles all day because of it.

When Hillary was the anti-christ? Other than Obama recently doing all he can to prove he's the real anti-christ (including hiring on Hillary to be one of his top dogs), when did she cease to be the anti-christ and become human??

I will definitely agree that Monika was hardly attractive to my tastes either, but I can understand that she's a vast improvement over Hillary and was willing and handy.

@Mael/Samson: I must've somehow missed the Deep Horizon thing, was it in the news without the specific name or something? Looks like Samson's got a new blog entry about it tonight, so I guess I'll just read about it there....

Anonymous [Anon] said:
Comment #19 May 15, 2010 4:08 am
I'm about to fuck you up with some truth.

* Logic is rational, but atheism presupposes that everything comes from material sources.
* Logic isn't material, so atheism lacks any objective source for logic.
* Without an objective source for logic, atheism cannot employ logic.
* Therefore atheism is self refuting.
* Since atheism is refuted, theism must be true.
* God exists.

Anonymous [Anon] said:
Comment #20 May 16, 2010 9:46 am
Fascinating theory, and definitely plausible. However, I recently came across a 9/11 theory on the internet that caught my attention. It goes something like this:

The 9/11 attacks were planned and executed by a small group of Saudi nationalists and Sunni Muslim fanatics, under the orders of a Pakistani called Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, while funding and spiritual guidance came from a Saudi with a chip on his shoulder called Osama Bin Laden. This far fetched but plausible theory hinges on the assumption that Muslim fanatics are capable of possessing the organizational skills to plan and coordinate a low tech simultaneous airplane hijacking without the aid of the CIA or other federal institutions and the tacit approval of the federal government.

I don't know what to think about this theory. On the one hand, a government conspiracy of this magnitude and nature seems very unlikely and would be almost impossible to cover up, but the simpler theory requires something even more unlikely: several muslim fanatics with a higher than room temperature IQ. I just don't know.

It's hard to say. It is quite plausible, and our government has certainly done all they could to encourage this theory, but it is a challenge to believe that there were enough muslim fanatics who were able to agree on the plan to actually carry it out like clockwork. While the attacks were low-tech, they actually were pulled off with a remarkable degree of precision considering the historic efforts of the muslim fanatics in general. On the other hand, to say that our government basically coordinated efforts to attack our own people on our own territory is making a very dangerous accusation to say the least...

Interesting theory on atheism and logic. :)

Also, 2nd Anon, I think you got the point of the post just fine even though you probably don't realize it.

As much as i did not like the Bush regime, its a pretty big pill to swallow to even consider that he, his government or agencies controlled by the government had a hand in manufacturing these events. And while Bush's popularity grew out of these 9-11 bombings, he is hardly the megalomaniac type who even cares what people think of him, let alone be so insecure in himself to kill a few thousand people, just so a few hundred million would love him.

While it might be plausible that the US Military and CIA had a hand in manufacturing this, a far more plausible theory is that they simply failed to join the dots together from the information they had, or they just did not have the information needed. See, failure is easy to do and takes no effort, and you do not have to lie about it, where as, a conspiracy, leaves a lot of people in a position where they must lie, and as we all know, every lie comes out in the wash at sometime, or someone who is part of that lie is going to get God and Conscience and confess. The bigger the lie the more impossible it becomes to cover up, and a lie on this magnitude would be almost impossible to hide considering the amount of effort that went into investigating what happened.

It would have taken come effort on the part of the terrorists to put this together, the fact that there were 4 planes used might show how much redundancy they put into the plan, they wanted to succeed, and knowing that some of them will fail, means you put more independent teams together. But once you have the people on the ground and ready to go, as long as no one gets an act of God and Conscience and comes clean, its pretty much impossible to stop a plane crash landing in a building or to even know its going to happen untill you hear the boom, one only has to look at the loon who parked his cesna in the tax office last year for evidence of that.


* Logic is rational, but atheism presupposes that everything comes from material sources.

If, as you say, that it is rational to follow logical thought, then atheism is correct because the logical path flow is that matter begets matter which through logic and experimentation one can observe, not God begets matter which no one has ever observed. Thus, in your opening line you have made moot the rest of your argument and have shown that atheism is correct.

Also, logic and rational thoughts are no prerequisites for any of the judaeo/christian/muslim type religions, FAITH is, which is an entirely different from logic and rational,

I don't know about all that, Fury. I agree that it seems remarkably unlikely that Bush concocted the entire 9/11 thing for the sake of his popularity. Likewise, it does seem far easier to accept that our intelligence agencies demonstrated incompetance in realizing the immenant threat, despite what information they had, in time to prevent it rather than their having demonstrated the level of wanton self-destruction that could've come from it if they'd actively taken part in an outright attack against their own nation on our own soil and their role was ever discovered. On the other hand, we know that historically our intelligence agencies have been able to keep conspiracies of even that magnitude fuly under wraps for decades before.. either way, I'm not quite willing to commit to those level of treasonous accusations myself without some very substantial proof. As for someone using a plane as a weapon, even back in WWI we could tell the destination of a komikaze pilot or a crashing aircraft with rather significant accuracy often well in advance. Whether it is in advance enough to do anything about it is another matter altogether, and obviously stopping an incoming aircraft from falling upon it's trajectoried target is next to impossible. Even lowing it up while still in the air still leaves very dangerous debris scattering from above that will likely cause almost as much damage and death to those unfortunate enough to be under it. (Incidentally, "the loon who parked his cesna in the tax office last year" is hardly the first time someone's "parked" a plane inside a building in this country, even without including 9/11... in 1994 a small plane was crashed into the wihte house itself, for example but it was hardly the first either, I just don't feel like looking up all the rest for you right now, but there've been several others.)

As for the logic vs. atheism thing... um, yeah. Fury, as much as I don't care to help you promote theology here, you've got the right of it. Purely logical argument deems atheism itself as the only plausible answer to theology, to argue the fallacy of atheis one MUST have some degree of faith or superstition otherwise the existance of a supernatural being that's accomplished things which are scientifically impossible simply makes no logical sense. Note that I am not arguing for atheism, just that the argument being used here is badly flawed and quite self-contradictory, aside from the fact that it seems entirely irrelevant to the actual subject of the thread. The only tangent of this thread prior to our Anonymous posting about atheism that I could see even remotely spawning that was the tongue in chek discussion of Obama being the anti-christ.

<< prev 1, 2, 3 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.

Forgot Password?

2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31