Join 3,368 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

hope you weren't planning on getting work done this morning...
October 8, 2002 5:04 AM   Subscribe

hope you weren't planning on getting work done this morning... because this timeline from the centre for cooperative research has the 9/11 leadup and aftermath including all the players laid out like a twister mat. and it's all referenced. the most damning information? CTRL-F for "prophetically".
posted by three| (45 comments total)

 
Try this link.
posted by beagle at 5:11 AM on October 8, 2002


man one of the links takes you here...

nice timeline, but there's also lots of bulllshit there
posted by matteo at 5:12 AM on October 8, 2002


mefi'ed...
posted by mattr at 5:19 AM on October 8, 2002


While it's a well researched site, the "Bush knew it was going to happen" type questions they keep raising are a bit off putting.

Also it seems most people are in agreement that Bush would be justified to use missiles to shoot down a hijacked plane if it is clear the plane will be used as a "bomb". So if the Pennsylvania plane was shot down, then why would Bush not say "We had to do it"?
posted by PenDevil at 5:48 AM on October 8, 2002


Is there any one who really belive that the US Government is behind the 9/11 attack?

The biggest issue I have with that theory is how many people it would involve....

They couldn't keep it a secret the Clinton was getting blowjobs in the Oval Office... Do you really think they could keep something of this magnitude hush-hush?

Plus, if Bush & Co did it, they did a shitty job. It would be a hell of a lot easier to invade Iraq if there was undeniable proof the Saddam some how was involved in 9/11, right?

I mean, if I was going to go through all the effort of concocting a plan like that, I would make sure that it gave me the results I wanted.... Like the hijackers being Iraqis or Fake evidence on the hijacker's computers that linked them to Saddam or something....

Just food for thought....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 5:58 AM on October 8, 2002


I think I'm going to go with "Never attribute to malice what can also be attributable to stupidity."
posted by fluffy1984 at 6:15 AM on October 8, 2002


There are thousands of people who really do believe that the US Government were in some way responsible for the attacks, yes. (It would seem most believe in the government's complicity through willful negligence, as opposed to active participation, but still, yes, people believe this.)

Personally, I think these people are kooky, but I also think it's kind of telling that a government's citizens have so little faith in their leaders that this kind of paranoid conspiracy thinking is so prevalent.
posted by Fabulon7 at 6:16 AM on October 8, 2002


PenDevil: So if the Pennsylvania plane was shot down, then why would Bush not say "We had to do it"?

Easy answer: 'cause it looks better that civilians brought down the plane in an act of "patriotic heroism". The US Government's PR people understand that US civilians are suckers for patriotism and civilian heroes... and in this case, patriotic civilian heroes.
posted by freakystyley at 6:18 AM on October 8, 2002


...this kind of paranoid conspiracy thinking is so prevalent.

I dunno 'bout that. Prevalent?
posted by Witty at 6:21 AM on October 8, 2002


Freaky: exactly. Let's roll!

Finding the engine a few miles from the crash site and eyewitnesses reporting an explosion causing the plane to go down . . . I'll take missle or a bomb on board being detonated in response to attempted retaking of the aircraft for $400, Alex.

I asked a friend in the Air Force who works at the base the fighters in question were scrambled from about it, and the only response he would give me was a shrug and, "During such a situation the commander of a base would most certainly be authorized to make the decision to take down the plane." Not that that really means anything, but it is one less significant barrier to such an explanation being correct.
posted by Ryvar at 6:27 AM on October 8, 2002


Steve_at_Linnwood: Like the hijackers being Iraqis or Fake evidence on the hijacker's computers that linked them to Saddam or something....

In the big picture, Bush saw Bin Laden's efforts as an opportunity to start this so-called war on terrorism. This opportunity has justified an open war on Iraq (an itch Bush was dying to scratch even before 9/11). This opportunity has also justified Orwellian laws that attempt to keep US civilians complacent. This opportunity has also justified detaching itself from UN resolutions.
posted by freakystyley at 6:27 AM on October 8, 2002


Prevalent in the "widely or commonly occurring" sense. US Government conspiracy theories are a pretty widespread phenomenon these days. They certainly don't count as majority opinion, but they are undoubtedly common enough that you can't just say that they are the exclusive domain of a handful of freaks. Whether or not these beliefs are widespread enough to meet the dictionary definition of "prevalent" is a semantic argument.
posted by Fabulon7 at 6:33 AM on October 8, 2002


dammit, prophetically ain't in there.
posted by adamgreenfield at 6:41 AM on October 8, 2002


freakystyley: although from the phonecalls the passengers made before the plane crashed it seems there was a plan (among some passengers) to attack the hijackers anyway.

So there's evidence pointing to a possible passenger "uprising" but nothing much pointing to a missile (but please post some if you know any credible evidence).

So I'll have to go with the evidence at this time.
posted by PenDevil at 6:45 AM on October 8, 2002


This is the most well-read and documented "kooky conspiracy theory" I've ever seen. Not to say I agree with all of it, but they do seem able to back it up.
posted by hughbot at 6:45 AM on October 8, 2002


freaky: I think you are stretching it a bit there....

But I will tell you one thing, that theory really shoots to hell the whole "Bush is a moron" meme some people on the left live on... Shit, earlier this evening there was a thread on this site criticizing how Bush "allegedly" mispronounced a word in his latest address....

So on one had you want me to belive this man has the intellect of a small child and can't speak straight, but then when it suits your cause, he is a mastermind of covert operations, international conspiracy and cover ups?

Come on, it is one or the other....

I still say, even if it is remotely a possibility, too many people involved...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:46 AM on October 8, 2002


PenDevil: So there's evidence pointing to a possible passenger "uprising" but nothing much pointing to a missile (but please post some if you know any credible evidence).

I'm not too 'bout what happened myself. Whatever happened, all I know is that "passenger uprising" is the better story :).
posted by freakystyley at 6:59 AM on October 8, 2002


There are thousands of people who really do believe that the US Government were in some way responsible for the attacks, yes.

And there are millions who believe that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a real transcript of a real meeting. And there are many more who believe that Dubya's pronunciation of 'nuclear' is important. People believe all sorts of silly things. Mundus vult decipi.

Besides the conspiracy theorism, the major problem with the site is utter lack of concern for the validation of items on its timeline. Some are indisputable; others are certainly fantasies.

Random example: bin Laden's supposed visit to a hospital in Dubai in the summer of 2001 for kidney stone treatment, and being visited by a CIA agent there. Reported by in November 2001 by Le Figaro and Agence France-Presse. A single unnamed source. "The explosive story is widely reported in Europe, but barely at all in the US."

Well, no kidding! Unnamed source, no confirmation, appeared out of the blue months later. Think I could get Le Figaro to bite if I told them bin Laden, Dick Cheney, and Warren Buffet were at my kid's birthday party in June 2001, and that they had an animated conversation in the gazebo, before black CIA helicopters took them away? I suspect I could get the Center for Cooperative Research to buy it, anyway, as well as all the thousands of other conspiracy sites on the web.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 7:04 AM on October 8, 2002


The biggest problems with conspiracies is this fact:

People (on average) can't keep their mouth shut

Watergate had how many people directly involved? 30, 40 max? And yet even the President couldn't keep it quiet.

Yet somehow thousands of people are in on the "faked" moon landings, and this one, with out a single leak or piece of evidence.
posted by PenDevil at 7:07 AM on October 8, 2002


Steve_at_Linnwood: So on one had you want me to belive this man has the intellect of a small child and can't speak straight, but then when it suits your cause, he is a mastermind of covert operations, international conspiracy and cover ups?

I agree, Bush is a moron. I shouldn't have implied that he was a mastermind though: he is but a representative of his administration/platform, or as conspiracy theorists like to say, he's only a puppet of a shadow government or special interests. Simply put, Bush is a tool... and a moron... and it's suiting my cause just fine :).
posted by freakystyley at 7:07 AM on October 8, 2002


Slithy_Tove: Well, no kidding! Unnamed source, no confirmation, appeared out of the blue months later.

He he... kinda like the evidence Bush supposedly had that linked Bin Laden and/or Sadam Hussein to 9/11? Two can play at this game, you know :).
posted by freakystyley at 7:13 AM on October 8, 2002


freaky, you're mixing cases. No one thinks Saddam was deeply involved in 9/11. Maybe some al Qaeda trained in Iraq? Or maybe not.

But are you seriously doubting that bin Laden was not involved in the attack? After he boasted about it on video tape?
posted by Slithy_Tove at 7:18 AM on October 8, 2002


-not

But you know what I meant to say.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 7:19 AM on October 8, 2002


And there are millions who believe that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a real transcript of a real meeting.
Not trying to be a jerk here, but this is a logically corrupt argument. The belief of millions of people in one stupid falsity (Elders of Zion) does not disprove the validity of the beliefs of thousands of others in a different stupid falsity (Bush blows up trade centre). They are unconnected issues. The Elders of Zion, Dubya's speech problems, etc., are red herrings here.

That being said, I agree with you. I don't think the US Gov't is comprised of angelic beings, but I need a lot more evidence (as opposed to hearsay) to be convinced that they were behind this.
posted by Fabulon7 at 7:25 AM on October 8, 2002


I think there's quite a bit of evidence linking Bin Laden to the 9/11 disasters, and it all came out quite quickly once the hijacker's identities were known ie links to his organisations etc. Also, he has admitted (via those tapes of his he periodically sends out) that he was behind it.

As to Saddam being involved, there is no direct evidence, but Iraq is a hotbed of terrorist training and activity. Nothing as conclusive linking him as there is for Bin Laden.
posted by PenDevil at 7:31 AM on October 8, 2002


Slithy_Tove: But are you seriously doubting that bin Laden was not involved in the attack? After he boasted about it on video tape?

Ah, I was stretching with Saddam. He's linked to terrorism in general, that's kinda obvious. As for Bin Laden, that's kinda obvious too, despite that fact that if they can make dogs talk on TV, they can sure as hell make terrorist talk on fuzzy tape :). Sparing you the sarcasm though, that isn't to say that I don't think he's not connected to 9/11. What I wonder is how we collected this evidence? Do we have some kinda mole there? It raises the question of just how much the US government knew 'bout 9/11 in the first place.
posted by freakystyley at 7:32 AM on October 8, 2002


Orwellian - the new fascism...
posted by monkey closet at 7:36 AM on October 8, 2002


freakystyley: all the hijackers are pretty much well known to be in or connected to his (Bin Laden's) organisation(s).
posted by PenDevil at 7:44 AM on October 8, 2002


Fabulon7, you think? I agree, Dubya's dialect is a red herring, that's a different kind of 'belief', but aren't 9/11 conspiracy theory and belief in the Protocols essentially the same thing? One doesn't invalidate the other (and in fact, one could believe both), but both are examples of the same phenomenon, the eagerness of some to believe that history is not as it appears, but is being run from the shadows by sinister cabals with secret agendas.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 7:48 AM on October 8, 2002


So, did anyone find "prophetically?"
posted by wsg at 7:59 AM on October 8, 2002


Yes, I agree that there seems to be a certain kind of personality that is predisposed to blame everything that happens on unseen forces. I'm working on a theory that this belief in the conspiracy somehow absolves people of feelings of guilt and the obligation to take responsiblility for their own actions.
posted by Fabulon7 at 8:09 AM on October 8, 2002


Slithy Tove: both are examples of the same phenomenon, the eagerness of some to believe that history is not as it appears, but is being run from the shadows by sinister cabals with secret agendas.

It's the desire for order and importance, the same instinct that sees patterns in the TV static, dragons in the clouds, plays the lottery and feels the hand of God. Because simple chance, however factual, is both scary and boring.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 8:09 AM on October 8, 2002


Isn't it possible that the Bush administration knew little or nothing about bin Laden's plans, but within the first 24 hours following the attacks realized that the events of 9/11 could be used to force-feed us their political agenda indefinitely?

I recall CBS reporting that Rumsfeld insisted on an Iraqi linkage almost immediately following the attacks, long before it was even reasonably established that Osama bin Laden was responsible for them.

Maybe it wasn't a pre-attack conspiracy, but a post-attack conspiracy.
posted by skimble at 8:15 AM on October 8, 2002


Fabulon7: I'm working on a theory that this belief in the conspiracy somehow absolves people of feelings of guilt and the obligation to take responsiblility for their own actions.

I'm not sure if this theory would apply to geopolitics, but it sure as hell would apply to corporations and industries, ie fast food, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, infomercials, etc.
posted by freakystyley at 8:24 AM on October 8, 2002


skimble: ...but within the first 24 hours following the attacks realized that the events of 9/11 could be used to force-feed us their political agenda indefinitely?

That's what I said. Sorta.
posted by freakystyley at 8:29 AM on October 8, 2002


skimble: Oops, here's what I said.
posted by freakystyley at 8:31 AM on October 8, 2002


I was looking for the 'prophetically' thing to bring up this tidbit, which I haven't seen people discussing since I've been here: that the official Web site for Osama's family - you know, the ones who disowned him, who had no foreknowledge about 9/11, who were up till recently major partners in the Carlyle Group along with all the Bush gang - this domain name expired on September 11, 2001... because it was registered on September 11, 2000. Another bizarre coincidence, I guess.
posted by soyjoy at 9:04 AM on October 8, 2002


I think I'm going to go with "Never attribute to malice what can also be attributable to stupidity."

Touche! I spent a chunk of time going through this site yesterday and it is fascinating. Though I don't buy into it all, but why hasn't there been a proper investigation? Why aren't the American people insisting on it?

Another thing that never gets airplay but is easily documented with a quick Google search is that George Bush Sr. was at a Carlyle Group meeting on 9/11/01 -- at the Ritz Carlton RIGHT across the road from the Pentagon. Who else was in attendance? Members of bin Laden's family, who are investors in the Carlyle Group.

Makes even a cynic start to wonder what the heck's going on here...
posted by sparky at 9:16 AM on October 8, 2002


"1997: Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski publishes a book in which he portrays the Eurasian landmass as the key to world power, and Central Asia with its vast oil reserves as the key to domination of Eurasia. He states that for the US to maintain its global primacy, it must prevent any possible adversary from controlling that region. Almost prophetically, he notes that because of popular resistance to US military expansionism, his ambitious strategy could not be implemented 'except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.' [The book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997 (the link is to some excerpts of the book from a From the Wilderness article)]"
posted by Dean King at 9:22 AM on October 8, 2002


Finding the engine a few miles from the crash site and eyewitnesses reporting an explosion causing the plane to go down

Ryvar: though I agree with your main point, you're repeating what has become an article of faith among the conspiracy theorists. A large portion of the engine fan, perhaps weighing as much as one ton, was found 600 yards, or 2500 feet from the impact zone. Smaller pieces of debris, including paper debris, were found as far as 8 miles away, but this does not include the engine. As I've previously noted, a jumbo jet in an uncontrolled dive could easily exceed its engineering limits and begin to break up, and 500mph means you travel 2500 feet in about four seconds.

As for the fighters, even some conspiracy theorists acknowledge they were unarmed, Air National Guard jets diverted from a training mission.
posted by dhartung at 9:57 AM on October 8, 2002


Good catch sparky. It does make one wonder. Add the meeting to the whisking away of all the Bin Ladens in a private jet while everyone else is grounded only adds to the mystery of the Bush / Bin Laden connection.
posted by nofundy at 10:05 AM on October 8, 2002


As for Brzezinski: The only thing coincidental about that passage is that it was about a year later that the Clinton administration began military cooperation with Uzbekistan, after the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) signed a security agreement with the country -- which spent the 1990s courting the West, including a UN voting record closely following the US. Uzbekistan was one of the first countries mentioned after 9/11, not because somebody in the Bush administration read Zbig's book, but because they were already a reliable ally and were one of the few nations immediately willing to publicly admit to housing US military. It certainly wasn't a case of 9/11 giving us an excuse to "seize" an otherwise unwilling Uzbekistan in any meaningful way. At that point Uzbekistan was presumably seeing the opportunity at last to publicly snub Russia, who had continued to that point to exercise overwhelming influence in the region. Especially by being the first-with-the-most, Uzbekistan could reap the benefits of regional leadership out of the Russian sphere of influence.
posted by dhartung at 10:12 AM on October 8, 2002


I was going to read this, but then I saw that it was compiled from the timeline at the From Wilderness newsletter. After seeing this, I knew there was no need to read that. I saw the editor of the this newsletter, Mike Ruppert, speak a couple weeks ago here at Wesleyan University. Basically, everything he said was alarmist and crock of shit.

I believe the government missed some signs, but this idiot claimed, and I am not making this up, that the government explicitly knew that terrorists were going to hijack United and American Air Lines planes between September 9th and 11th, leaving from Boston, and fly them into the World Trade Center. All this so we can get oil.

Oh yeah, and according to his sources in Congress, who he won't name, there is a 50% chance the draft will be reinstated because we have to not only invade Iraq, but Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Philipines. I left early because of the crap he was presenting as fact.

The guy is a total whackjob, and the conspiracy theory he presents is whacky.
posted by rift2001 at 2:02 PM on October 8, 2002


i(well, actually google found it) found prophetically on this page.
posted by donkeysuck at 3:41 PM on October 8, 2002


The guy's use of "scare quotes" makes me want to "strangle" him.
posted by redshoes3 at 4:18 PM on October 8, 2002


« Older Enough Godwin:...  |  The Commercial Closet.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments