New 9/11 CT: Who Killed John O'Neill?

[DrDebugDU]

No planes / no missiles would have been by far the easiest, since they needed to install explosives in the whole building for the Controlled Demolition. So they added some explosives in the shape of a plane on the WTC.<br><br>AIG/Kroll/Marsh have their fingerprints all over WTC and it is a bit too suspect that the planes hit on the areas controlled by them as well. Not to mention the intimate link between those companies and the CIA (Kroll probably is the new CIA), Bush family and Kissinger. <p></p><i></i>

[DrDebugDU]

Another reason is that it would have kept them libruls occupied. Just give them the stupid line that "Bush did it" and let them go over the weak physical evidence in detail. In the meantime nobody looked whether it is literally an inside job. <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>No planes / no missiles would have been by far the easiest, since they needed to install explosives in the whole building for the Controlled Demolition. So they added some explosives in the shape of a plane on the WTC.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I'm not sure what that means -- added some explosives in the shape of a plane on the WTC? And why would that be easier than guiding the real planes or drones to the right floors of the building? I'm not sure which would be more unnecessarily reckless in devising a plan -- having no planes at all and using faked footage (what about the aircraft debris at the scene and the building tenants who say they saw a plane coming at them?) or trying to get Atta and those idiots to overtake planes and hit the targets without having it all fall apart. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 6/27/06 9:50 am<br></i>

[DrDebugDU]

It is very difficult for planes to hit an exact point. Even with drones and the most sophisticated equipment it would have been terribly hard to hit the exact point. Besides nobody saw anything on WTC1 except for those French guys and there are too many "they happened to be..." in their story.<br><br>It is not reckless at all. It is reasonable easy to add planes to the video footage and to add some aircraft parts (they did the same thing at Lockerbie remember) and have people saying that they saw it. Most wouldn't have seen it and probably think that they missed the plane and even those who were sure that they didn't see a plane where few and could be easily dimissed.<br><br>There are many layers of deceipt. There is no clear record that any of those planes were scheduled and they could have made up the list and perhaps added some people who needed to disappear that day as well.<br><br>Atta was a drug runner. He was not a suicide pilot and they simply played blame their drug runners. That's probably the reason why most are still alive. They never bothered about them anyhow and this kind of a deceipt is integral in being a draug runner. <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

I've heard the arguments about remote navigation, and while I'm no expert on this at all, I can't say I find that very persuasive. You're talking about very sophisticate defense contractors and spook toys, and I don't think there's much of any problem in getting either a commercial aircraft or a drone to hit whatever floor you want to hit in the buildings. Jim Hoffman even says this stuff is "off the shelf." <br><br>As for the other stuff, yeah, it's possible, but why screw with it? They can't know in advance who's going to say what and control everything, so you're taking a risk there. And for what it's worth, a great majority of 9-11 researchers overwhelmingly reject the idea of no planes at all. <br><br>Now I'm very skeptical of all theories and particularly our knowledge base here, which is quite contaminated and is largely supplied by the govt or a large helping of inaccurate and/or disingenous media accounts. But in my view, I think it's quite unlikely that the whole thing was an optical illusion or faked video. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 6/27/06 10:07 am<br></i>

[DrDebugDU]

The level of deceipt is such that no-planers are automatically labelled as disinformants. They weird things is that everything which has turned out correct is labelled that way. Hopsicker got an enormous label job. So it Andrew Grove. This video will probably get a similar job, however they are probably still working on it.<br><br>All the evidence points in the same direction and that's inside and yes, I'm convinced. The number of coincidences is such that inside job is by far the most likely option and no, I don't that "contamined" crap. That's the stuff used by disinformants to make you look the other way.<br><br>And 9/11 truth is not going to believe this anyhow, since they are financed by Adnan Khashoggi who is the big drug dealer and is tied into 9/11 as one of the most important guys. <p></p><i></i>

[DrDebugDU]

Insider trading:<br>1. UAL 285x times normal<br>2. Marsh 93x times normal<br><br>Biggest inside traders:<br>1. Deutsche Bank = CIA<br>2. Morgan Stanley<br>3. Lehman Bros<br>4. Bank of America<br>5. Marsh<br><br>So who did these guys know in advance that Marsh was the #1 target and who come Marsh itself is one the biggest players. How come Deutsche Bank who is CIA's favorite bank is the #1 player? <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

I think that's all important stuff, but it doesn't say much of anything about the planes. You're right, most 9-11 truth people will stay away from no planes at WTC because, even if it's true, it's sounds so outrageous that it's a terrible thing to hinge your speculation on. They don't want to be marginalized and I'm sure they think talking about no planes is a sure way to get labeled as nuts in the minds of potentially swayable people. That would true whether or not Khassogi were financing 9-11 truthers. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[DrDebugDU]

The planes can be optional, however there is plenty of physical evidence to suggest that all the material has been altered and many strange anomalies. Also they didn't need it for their inside job and it would made the chance of failure a lot bigger. I think that the Pentagon is the result of a partial failure anyhow.<br><br>They started at WTC1 which was completely under their control (and wiped up 295 employees as well who had a last minute meeting and according to the whistleblower they had been complaining about money laundering). After that was successful they tried the more difficult WTC2 (since it required access to friendly companies). And then moved on to the Pentagon which was a partial failure.<br><br>The weird thing is that I'm one of the few who embraced the video and suddenly discovered lots of additional material in this direction. Since it doesn't fit the plan of the official theory and neither of the "acceptable mainstream MIHOP" it will have a hard time getting to spot. One thing which I did notice is that the Krolls at DU were really nervous and haven't dared to come near the thread and keep on kicking other stuff on top. They also spend a lot of time against the no-planers and try to ridicule them and evne defending the standard MIHOP against those weirdos. Is it because no planes immediately means inside job? <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Is it because no planes immediately means inside job? <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Who knows at DU. My limited experience over there is that it's filled with crap and alot of the same merry-go-round, did not, did too, childish back and forth bullshit, with very little in the way of serious argument or analysis. So yes, I suspect there are paid posters and trollers over there working for PR firms or whoever. But again, I think conventional MIHOPers have a perfectly facially plausible argument for rejecting no planes at WTC because the evidence to prove it isn't there and it's potentially very discrediting. I'm not sure that it's because no planes immediately means inside job, since they are already arguing inside job and so much else immediately means inside job. (I actually think the whole Pentagon controversy and the obsession with WTC 7 is precisely because most people think that if those issues don't match the govt version, then it immediately means inside job.) <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 6/27/06 10:45 am<br></i>

[NewKid]

see also here for an example of the kind of coverage conventional MIHOPers are probably worried about. Notice how the hit piece focuses on Loose Change speculation, Jayhan, and Marrs, and doesn't lay a glove on Hoffman. Yet, this story will no doubt be linked to all over the place by wingnuts and liberal bloggers alike to say that there's no real controversy over 9-11. <br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies/" target="top">www.salon.com/ent/feature/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies/</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[DrDebugDU]

I know. Well I have most stuff anyhow, so I can make two stories. With and without planes.<br><br>That gold stuff is no lie either, however there is no evidence that it has been looted, since nobody seems to know how much there was before and how much there was after, but it's one of those things which make you go "Hmmm."<br><br>There are quite a number of subgoals in 9/11. It isn't just about Afghanistan, Bush, Oil, Drugs, Insurance fraud, but it also includes "how to wipe your competitors" and many more dirty tricks were played that day. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=drdebugdu>DrDebugDU</A> at: 6/27/06 11:09 am<br></i>

[NewKid]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>There are quite a number of subgoals in 9/11. It isn't just about Afghanistan, Bush, Oil, Drugs, Insurance fraud, but it also includes "how to wipe your competitors" and many more dirty tricks were played that day.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>No doubt. <p></p><i></i>

[zjurhgvc]

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/">www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/fr...hows/knew/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Well, according to the Frontline report on O'Neill-the only really 'neutral' source out there-O'Neill was the 'spider in the web' of the US intelligence community. He almost literally created OBL as a threat, running into the FBI director's office right after a bombing and yelling 'it was OBL, I'm sure of it', or words to that effect. Some of his colleagues or underlings referred to him as 'Satan.' He led the investigation into TWA 800. There is the issue of the stolen papers, and all sorts of other bogus stuff--all of his behavior screams 'mole' to me. It seems he and a small Kroll-linked cell got themselves positioned in NYC and in charge of security in the TT (which went down in August--9/11 was not his first day; that's an urban legend), well after his career in NYC with FBI in which he managed to get to know every fricking person of importance in the whole city... I've read enough about CIA, Mossad, MI-6, and so forth to know that O'Neill is playing a role, or multiple roles, is/was some sort of superspy.<br><br>He had how many different girlfriends who didn't know about each other? (causing quite a scene when they found out...)<br><br>We have Jerry Hauer finding O'Neill's body--so all I want to know is whether the family recognized the body; was it recognizable? Was the funeral open casket? We have a massive witness protection relocation program in this country; people change identities every day. Why would O'Neill do so? Perhaps to go to a promised retirement in some unnamed foreign land.<br><br>I've posted on this before; eventually I will get around to deconstructing the Frontline report. I just think that the Kroll milieu in the days and weeks before 9-11, and O'Neill's circle in NYC, offer a possibility for a group with MMO. Blaming all this on Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld just isn't going to fly, IMHO. O'Neill, Negroponte, and their kind are the real powers, the permanent government. (eminences grises)<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

John O'Neill did survive. Well, his name did anyway.<br><br>How convenient that the lead Swift Boater working to discredit Kerry in 2004 was an old GOP mud-slinger named...John O'Neill.<br><br>This caused endless confusion over at democraticunderground. <p></p><i></i>