by realp » Sun Aug 20, 2006 2:06 pm
BannedfromDU:<br><br>i have scratched the surface of the indira singh story and it looks to be very deep. haven't had time to explore it thoroughly.<br><br>you mention NORAD, and that prompts me to ask a question, not for the first time within the RI world, about the war games.<br><br>ruppert claimed that the information on the war games was the "holy grail" of the 911 story. but he left many things unsaid, as do other researchers. superficially, the war games could actually be seen as absolving cheney and his cohorts. if most of the fighters were in western canada or alaska, that explains why the response to the highjackings was so lame. but that explanation is not something that can safely be revealed to the world. cheney and rumsfeld would have been able to tell the commissioners, congressional leaders, and media bigwigs, in hushed tones, that the plotters must have discovered that the wargames were scheduled, but we can't let the public or the world know this, for obvious reasons. not that a lot of these people would believe the story, but this approach has certain advantages.<br><br>it sets up a spectrum of belief: the official story, the story about the wargames being discovered by the terrorists, and the notion that 911 was a straight inside job. many people believe the official story. a number of insiders might believe the "penetration" story, in which the terrorists found out about the exercises, and perhaps a relatively modest number of people would think that the whole thing was done by u.s. insiders, probably including cheney. among the last group, few of those who have careers to worry about will speak up. they get it, but they're going to keep quiet. if the 911 perps would do 911, what would they not do to career people who expose the truth?<br><br>the other advantage has to do with time. clearly this administration understands that they can do things a lot more quickly than society can "process" those things. the debate is endless, which is their intent. they have fielded a very able team of media people who keep everyone arguing and divided (referring to limbaugh, o'reilly, coulter, and so on), while the government cabal moves forward with their agenda very quickly. the multi-layered structure of belief that arises out of the wargames gives them an initial fallback story, namely that the terrorists penetrated our military establishment and found out about the games and then took advantage of the situation. this would be embarrassing to the cabal, but it would also be frightening to the public, and the cabal would play that to the hilt.<br><br>this has not happened yet, but it seems to me that it would take years to absorb and process. there would probably be another commission, and in the end there would be more b.s. about reforming things and more endless arguing with the right-wing tricksters about how dastardly the terrorists are, how vulnerable we are, and so on.<br><br>in reality i believe that the wargames were necessary in order to remove the air defenses, along with a number of other measures that were taken to that effect, including the highack simulation exercise that was used to confuse people and mask the real attack. without most of the planes being far away, they simply could not have explained the stand-down. so the wargames are critical to the whole thing, but ruppert does not explain it this way, so far as i know (and i admit that i haven't read everything he has written about it, but i have searched for this explanation in vain). i haven't seen anyone deal with the issue in this sort of depth.<br><br>i would like to know whether what i'm saying makes sense to people, since it seems to me like a major gap in the 911 research.<br><br>i'd also like to hear more about the case against ruppert.<br><br>thanks again, BannedfromDU. <p></p><i></i>
