What's Wrong With This Hypothetical Scenario, and Why Is It Being Proposed?
A Hypothetical Theory of What I Suspect Happened On 9/11
Submitted by LUCUS on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 1:50pm.
911 | attack | Bin Laden | False Flag | hijack | plan | plane | plot | September 11th | Terror
Keep in mind I "SUSPECT" that this is what happened. I don't absolutely believe it, just suspect it.
Radical Muslim loyalists were distraught about US Imperial policies in the East, so they planned a hijacking. It was to be a regular hijacking, with the usual demands in exchange for the lives of the passengers. I suspect that "some" of the 19 hijackers listed were involved.
The US/Israeli intelligence complex caught wind of the plot...Then Along Came A Spider
Some people saw this as a chance to beef up their budget and they made a conscious choice to not only pave the way for it to happen, but, to change the outcome of the hijacking.
There were remote control devices installed in the planes and transponders and thermite based demolition charges placed at the WTC 1, 2, and 7. The reason why they destroyed building 7 was because that was the base information center for this to happen, thus, it and the evidence needed to be destroyed.
I suspect the hijackers had no idea they were on a suicide mission. The first two planes were guided to their destinations by remote control.
I suspect that the Pentagon was a military plane that released a Global Hawk which flew into the Pentagon. Someone on the inside had to turn off air defense for this to happen.
It looks as if somehow the pilot(s) of flight 93 were able to regain control of the plane...This was a problem because it would have left witnesses that would contradict the "official" story, thus, it had to be shot down. This would explain the debris field being 6 miles. I suspect flight 93 was heading for Congress.
I suspect there were 2-3 hijackers on each plane, that's why some are still alive. The "official" story needed more hijackers to seem plausible, so the extras were added to the original list.
That's why Bin Laden's first statement was that he did not take part...He had realized that their original hijacking plan had been hijacked by US/Israeli intelligence and decided to back out of taking the blame for the job.
That's why the 9/11 truth movement was divided between MIHOP and LIHOP, so we would argue about that, instead of looking at the possibility that it was a combination of both LIHOP and MIHOP...
This is what I "suspect" happened.
- gretavo's blog
- Login to post comments
what flights? what hijackings?
All we know is two unidentified planes were flown into the twin towers which were along with WTC7 demolished with explosives, something blew up at the Pentagon, and some debris landed on the ground in Pennsylvannia. Until more, and credible evidence is provided to substantiate ANYTHING fed to us as "what happened on 9/11" we have no reason to believe any aspect of the official story is true.
friendly reminder
1. Radical Muslim Loyalist Involved With Attacks?
The idea of Radical Muslim Loyalist aka Islamic Extremism being involved with 9/11/2001 attacks is an idea created by the perps and included in the official narrative to confuse and enrage people against the Muslim world.
To describe it as anything more then a phony cover story, IMO, is like using space beams to describe how the WTC complex was destroyed. I have yet to find credible evidence that rabid Muslims formulated a plot to hijack and crash planes into the WTC Complex. I have yet to find credible evidence that Muslims Radical Loyalists hijacked and crashed planes on 9/11/2001.
Some might find this position extreme but consider this. Since 9/11/2001 the Muslim world has been militarily invaded and occupied. Hundreds of thousands murdered, millions displaced all because of the false notion that "Radical Muslims" did 9/11/2001 attacks.
This is the one conspiracy theory that has been killing people since day one. Space beam theories don't have this power.
The idea of a master plan by Bin Laden and his distraought Muslim Radical Loyalists is nonsensical. Hijacking planes and crashing them into the WTC complex is the worst thing the evil Master Mind could do for his cause. He surely would have calculated his own destruction if this alleged plan were to succeed.
2. Radical Muslims Vs American / Israeli Intelligence
Both 'Radical Muslims' and 'American / Israeli Inteligence Complex' are much too broad descriptions of the perps. So, from here on out let's use names. Also, all to often we have the exact names of the Muslim Fanatics that are allegedly involved but names for the other bad guys are absent from the discussions.
It's wrong that Muslims get a 'radical' label and Americans and Israelis are just part of the "Intel Complex".
Is this a form of racism that effectively gives the green light to wars like the one in Afghanistan? The Muslims might not have been 100% responsible for 9/11/2001 but they are still MUSLIM RADICALS and still a threat to America the Free right?
3. Someone Wired Buildings With Explosives
Any attempt to put Muslims to the front of the 9/11 culprit list fails when one acknowledges that the WTC complex was wired with explosives that were detonated on 9/11/2001.
To imagine that the perps would allow this operation to depend on the success or failure of hijackings is beyond believable. The hijackings were most likely faked and evidence actually suggest this to be the case.
4. Combination of LIHOP / MIHOP?
No Fucking way.
This is not possible. There is only one option, MIHOP. People with names planned an operation to demolish the world trade center complex and blame it on 'Radical Muslim Loyalists who hijacked planes on 9/11/2001". There is no such thing as LIHOP.
Again, it makes no sense to have real hijackings. If you believe the buildings were laden with explosives and that there were remote controlled devices installed on the planes...why in the world would the perps do anything more then create a fake hijacking situation?
It makes no sense at all to include live hijackers let alone real Muslim Radical Loyalists hijackers. All one has to do to confirm this is look for evidence that Radical Muslims did indeed hijack those planes. Is there any?
5. Global Hawk - So the Pentagon was totally faked hijacking but the others were real?
The author hypothesizes that a Global Hawk and not Flight 177 hit the Pentagon. A 100% faked hijacking? Or did Muslim Radicals also hijack the Global Hawk?
Thanks Jpass, very well stated
What really gets me is the way the fake truthers who pretend to believe in the bogus and completely absurd islamofascist hijacking narrative cite official sources for evidence of the islamofascist hijackers: the 9/11 Commission Report, kangaroo court documents, interrogations of tortured detainees, etc.
So, on the one hand they argue that 9/11 was "an inside job" or "allowed to happen" by the lying and evil government, but then they go and pretend to be so gullible as to accept everything the evil and corrupt government claims at face value (with no independent verification) regarding the core part of the whole 9/11 PsyOp - namely the most unprovable and sickening aspect of the conspiracy theory that has served as the justification for the killing of millions of people since day one. This to me is one of the most blatant red flags that should alert anyone who has sufficient brain cells that something is very, very wrong with certain individuals who purport to be 9/11 truth advocates, such as Jon Gold, John Doraami, jimd3100, John A, John Judge, "zombie bill hicks", and those who circle the wagons and protect all those blatant shills. Sheesh! How long to they expect to be able to get away with such blatant dishonesty and divisive behavior before too many people eventually wise up to their BS, as appears to be happening once again on 911Blogger? Unless there is another mass purge of the shills' detractors very soon, the fakes will be thoroughly exposed and descredited on their home turf - the 911LieHopBlogger that they have controlled and censored for so long.
Once you are willing to add
Once you are willing to add remote control and demolition charges to the plot who needs any muslim hijackers? They might change their minds in the last moment and not show up at all. Or fell in love with a stripper. Or have a car accident. Or become christian.
In LUCUS' scenario the supposed muslims are completely unnecesary. Furthermore:
- The idea to destroy WTC7 'to get rid of evidence' is ludicrous. What evidence? A computer? A remote control device with a few buttons to ignite the explosives in WTC1/2? Come on, you don't need to destroy the whole building for that. WTC7 was wired just like WTC1/2 because they wanted to fly a plane into that building as well, namely F93. The unexpected delay of 41 minutes caused the military to shoot that plane down before it could reach it's intended destination.
- Pentagon: there was no plane, no missile, no nothing. Just bombs from the inside plus CIT-style flyover. F77 (if it existed at all) was indeed intended to fly into the Pentagon but something went wrong with the remote control and needed to be shot down over the Atlantic.
Not just a regular flyover,
but a CIT-style flyover. With extra pickle.
I agree with most of your conclusions except
"The idea to destroy WTC7 'to get rid of evidence' is ludicrous."
I'm not sure why that is so ludicrous. The MO of evidence destruction on that day was so ubiquitous with just about every aspect of the 9/11 attacks, I certainly would not describe the concept at ludicrous. Perhaps you are correct that a plane was originally intended to crash into WTC7, but that is not mutually exclusive of the need for the purps to destroy all the evidence in the building: the command center, all the SEC files of Wall Street investigations, the likelyhood that the intelligence agencies in that building contained evidence of their collusion with the attacks, etc.
"F77 (if it existed at all) was indeed intended to fly into the Pentagon but something went wrong with the remote control and needed to be shot down over the Atlantic."
This seems like pure conjecture to me and is a much more convoluted explanation than the more siimple one: that F77 was never intended to fly into the Pentagon, but pre-planted explosives were used to make it appear that way, along with a perfectly timed flyover. There is no evidence of a plane having been shot down over the Atlantic. Also, there were too many witnesses located right in front of the Pentagon and within the last quarter mile or so of the approach to the Pentagon who had a perfect closeup view of the plane and all seem to describe a large jetliner, not a missile or global hawk or other type of aircraft.
"that F77 was never intended
"that F77 was never intended to fly into the Pentagon, but pre-planted explosives were used to make it appear that way, along with a perfectly timed flyover."
Then you have the burden to explain the behaviour of these FBI-agents who confiscated all the video evidence. That action was carried out in panic mode, it was not pre-planned.
" There is no evidence of a plane having been shot down over the Atlantic."
Any idea how big the Atlantic is? Nobody was looking for F77 in the Atlantic because everybody thought it crashed in the Pentagon.
Your logic seems convoluted
"Then you have the burden to explain the behaviour of these FBI-agents who confiscated all the video evidence. That action was carried out in panic mode, it was not pre-planned."
Backasswards. you make no sense. How could they have been able to confiscate all the videos within a few minutes if it was panic mode and not pre-planned? The speed with which the agents were able to arrive at the various locations of the videos indicated that they were waiting in the wings. Have you really thought through your logic on this one?
"Any idea how big the Atlantic is? Nobody was looking for F77 in the Atlantic because everybody thought it crashed in the Pentagon."
Sooooo, I guess you are saying that the absence of evidence of a shoot down over the Atlantic due to people not looking for it there, proves somehow that it HAD to have been shot down there? Now you've really lost me.
F77 likely shot over the Atlantic
"There is no evidence of a plane having been shot down over the Atlantic. "
Really?
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a930goeast
good, now assuming
they were directed eastward on mission to shoot down 77, i wonder what has since happened to the pilots/pilot who carried out such.
"they were directed eastward
"they were directed eastward on mission to shoot down 77, i wonder what has since happened to the pilots/pilot who carried out such."
They got promoted just like the pilot Gibney, who shot down F93.
Gibney
About Gibney:
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-3039291184775568866&ei=64nbSpzeI...
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-7468344798529291274&hl=nl&emb=1
History Commons
So, when I stated that, "There is no evidence of a plane having been shot down over the Atlantic," you responded by providing a link to a History Commons article which states that fighters were dispatched at first over the Atlantic Ocean. I read the entire section and found nothing that indicated that a plane was shot down over the atlantic.
Soooo, I guess your logic is: Since, according to the official story, fighter interceptors were first sent out over the Atlantic, that somehow proves that F77 was shot down over the Atlantic? Sorry, I'm just not able to follow how this is a logical argument. How does the fact (even if it could be verified independently) that fighters were sent out over the Atlantic prove anything...other than that fighters were sent out over the Atlantic?
Incidentally, History Commons cites the 9/11 Commission Report, NORAD, and mainstream outlets for ALL of their sources, ALL of which SUPPORT THE OCT. So, I wouldn't take History Commons as the final word on anything other than what has been independently verified.
I did not want to suggest
I did not want to suggest that the link proves that F77 was shot over the Atlantic. But the link is surely an explanation of what might have happened.
Psssfffttt!
If F93 was even in the air, it was to have taken out Congress so that the Continuity of Government plan would allowed for full takeover by the evildoers. It was remote control, like the others but at some point, developed a mind of its own. So, it was shot down. F93 destination of WTC7 is a load of crap.
"F93 destination of WTC7 is
"F93 destination of WTC7 is a load of crap."
The demolition of wtc7 was an embarrasment for the perps. Silverstein had to talk himself out of it ('we decided to pull'). This was clearly not planned. Nobody in his right mind will plan and implement the demolition of wtc7 without having a plane flying into it to make a pretext for imploding the building.
"Nobody in his right mind
"Nobody in his right mind will plan and implement the demolition of wtc7 without having a plane flying into it to make a pretext for imploding the building."
Assuming Lucky Larry had last minute jitters and the perps (including Silverstein) were in their "right mind" is a stretch, to say the least. Another a load of crap.
plane flying in to make a pretext for implosion of 7
i agree
There was speculation that
There was speculation that wtc 7 could have been timed to go down at the same time as one of the taller towers with the dust cloud hiding the CD. Some failure to detonate on time caused it to come down much later. Im not saying they did not plan to hit it with a plane, but that there is a possibility of another scenario. I would think it would be harder to hit WTC 7 with an airliner given its much shorter height compared to WTC 1 & 2 and against the other tall buildings surrounding it and possibly blocking a clean approach for an aircraft.
What supports the flight having been planned to go into WTC 7 however is that 4 planes were announced as having been hijacked. Every plane that was "hijacked" should have had a destination, WTC 7 seems to have been the only building primed to explode on that day that did not have an aircraft hit it (or get a fly by like the Pentagon). Maybe we just don't know it but a building could have been ready to get a airliner crash into it and then get a CD, but somehow the airplane did not arrive and the CD had to be defused later on.