Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Demystifying 9/11: Israel and the Tactics of Mistake


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#1 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,662 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 01 July 2011 - 11:10 AM

The following is an excerpt of an article on Veterans Today by Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D, University of Michigan) a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran and a graduate of the US Army War College.

It discusses, among other things, the exclusion from the media of the arrest of various Israeli agents during the events of 911 and the VAST amounts of reports from on the ground and inside the building of secondary explosions, including those in the basement, and the building 7 collapse.

Many years ago I read a fascinating discussion of the “tactics of mistake.” This essentially entailed using a target’s prejudices and preconceptions to mislead them as to the origin and intent of the attack, entrapping them in a tactical situation that later worked to the attacker’s strategic advantage.

This is what unfolded in the 9/11 attacks that led us into the matrix of wars and conflicts, present (Afghanistan and Iraq), planned (Iran and Syria) and projected (Jordan and Egypt), that benefit Israel and no other country — although I concede that many private contractors and politicians are doing very well for themselves out of the death and misery of others.
I am also absolutely certain as a strategic analyst that 9/11 itself, from which all else flows, was a classic Mossad-orchestrated operation. But Mossad did not do it alone. They needed local help within America (and perhaps elsewhere) and they had it, principally from some alumni of PNAC (the misnamed Project for a New American Century) and their affiliates within and outside of the US Government (USG), who in the 9/11 attacks got the “catalytic event” they needed and craved to take the US to war on Israel’s behalf, only eight months after coming into office.
Genesis of the Deception

That was not how it seemed at first, of course. Lists of names and associations of the alleged hijackers quickly surfaced in official US accounts and mainstream media (MSM) reports, pointing to Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda group, then largely in Afghanistan. Bin Laden denied responsibility, saying in effect that while he thanked Allah that the attacks had occurred, he had not done it, but the US demanded that the Taliban governing Afghanistan turn him over to the US. The Taliban response was reasonable: “Show us the evidence he did it and we’ll give him to you.” But the US brushed it off and attacked. Why? Because it had no convincing evidence, and never would — even on the eve of his public death in 2011, the FBI did not include 9/11 on his internet-based “Most Wanted” charge sheet.

As the war in Afghanistan for very dubious reasons extended into a war in Iraq for even more specious ones, the essential USG view of 9/11 became embedded in the public ethos. The 9/11 Commission Report, despite being handicapped when it was prepared and later revealed to have been deeply flawed, still appeared as the basic reference work on the attacks. Details may have been compromised, but the prevailing view was that 19 Arab hijackers had flown four planes into three buildings and one crash site, and that was the end of it. This was the position taken by the Bush Administration in 2001, and reaffirmed a decade later by the Obama Administration. Politicians of every stripe, most pundits and rafts of Protestant pastors (mainly evangelical) added their endorsements.

Neither I nor most Americans had any particular reason to doubt the veracity of these claims, then or later. Nonetheless, I had strong suspicions that something was very wrong with the official US account of the tragedy only weeks after the incident, while responding to a request from a local journalist for background information. Too much made no sense whatsoever: warnings after the fact when there should have been no warnings, bizarre misbehavior by the alleged hijackers that ran counter to both the mission and their faith, skills required that far exceeded any skills the named hijackers themselves could ever have possessed for the mission, and especially the total absence of any recognition for what they had done from anyone except their supposed victims – something without precedent for actions of the sort that supposedly happened on 9/11. These and similar discontinuities reinforced my suspicion that something in the entire exercise was rotten to the core.

Potentially far more significant than individual musings was the gradual appearance of dissent that eventually crystallized in the so-called “9/11 Truth” movement, which rapidly proliferated into scores of major and many minor organizations and websites dissecting the attacks, the Commission report, the motivations and agendas of assorted elected and appointed officials, and alternatives to the orthodox view. But “9/11 Truthers” have been doing their version of the Maoist “Hundred Flowers” Campaign, throwing out so many different assessments of so many different aspects of so many different issues that the core message has been lost. Nor is it a matter of too little evidence invalidating the USG position on 9/11 being available, but too much to permit a clear focus on what happened (so many trees no one can really see the forest).

Mind you, it isn’t that what has been presented is irrelevant or even necessarily wrong, although some pretty bizarre theses have been tossed around along with a good deal of thoughtful and balanced work. A substantial segment also have resisted closure under any circumstances – especially when Israel came into the equation in any way – thus keeping the rhetorical pot boiling inconclusively, more than a few for reasons that could not withstand close scrutiny as to their affiliation and motivation.


http://www.veteranst...ics-of-mistake/

Included in the article are these two videos. The first is a brief analysis of building 7 and the second is a 10 minute (unfortunately low resolution) collection of clips of eye witness accounts of secondary explosions from inside the building.




Edited by Floppin, 01 July 2011 - 01:38 PM.
forgot to link


#2 SgtJoo

SgtJoo

    Reppin that Bull City

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,618 posts
  • LocationDurham, NC

Posted 01 July 2011 - 11:53 AM

TL;DR: Jews did 9/11?

#3 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,662 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 01 July 2011 - 11:54 AM

gah, no wonder you guys still believe the official story...laziness.

#4 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,662 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 01 July 2011 - 01:37 PM

No body feels like touching this eh?

#5 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,662 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 01 July 2011 - 01:38 PM

Just realized I forgot to link the article. Ugh.

http://www.veteranst...ics-of-mistake/

#6 SorthNarolina

SorthNarolina

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,407 posts

Posted 01 July 2011 - 01:48 PM

I don't know why this conspiracy requires the planes to be fake and the buildings to have been professionally demolished. It's a lot more stable without people lying and embarrassing themselves.

#7 bredy087

bredy087

    The Comeback Kid

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,002 posts

Posted 01 July 2011 - 01:55 PM

So what did Israel gain by us being in Afghanistan?

#8 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,662 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 01 July 2011 - 02:05 PM

I don't know why this conspiracy requires the planes to be fake and the buildings to have been professionally demolished. It's a lot more stable without people lying and embarrassing themselves.


There's nothing about fake planes in the article.

#9 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,662 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 01 July 2011 - 02:10 PM

"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."

Benjamin Netanyahu

#10 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,923 posts

Posted 01 July 2011 - 02:42 PM

If Israel needed the wars to happen, all they had to do was tell us to start them. The US is Israel's lapdog, they don't need some excuse like 9/11.

#11 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,662 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 01 July 2011 - 02:45 PM

The US wouldn't have been able to sustain wars on Israel's behalf without public support.

#12 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,923 posts

Posted 01 July 2011 - 02:58 PM

They didn't really have public support, there were more protests over Iraq than over Vietnam. All they had to do was ignore those and have their network mouthpieces declare public support, and they fooled the half of the country who supported the administration at the time. 9/11 was totally unnecessary to gaining support for war.

#13 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,662 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 01 July 2011 - 03:02 PM

911 was a jumpstart catalyst for all sorts of things surrounding current events that they wouldn't have been able to do otherwise, or would have had a much harder time implementing. The terrorist boogyman and an initial military response support, also limiting civil and press freedom liberties with the patriot act and other subsequent gestapo actions were all made easier by a homeland attack.

#14 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,662 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 01 July 2011 - 03:09 PM

They didn't really have public support, there were more protests over Iraq than over Vietnam. All they had to do was ignore those and have their network mouthpieces declare public support, and they fooled the half of the country who supported the administration at the time. 9/11 was totally unnecessary to gaining support for war.


The only reason that half of the populace supported the administration and believed an Iraqi attack was necessary was because of public fear drummed up in the name of fighting terrorism, an action deemed necessary in the name of national defense because of 911.

#15 CCS

CCS

    Glutton for heart break and punishment

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,382 posts

Posted 01 July 2011 - 03:12 PM

TL;DR


I definitely think there's more than we know that happened on 9/11. But the whole fake planes thing is a load of rubbish.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com