Evidence Mounts - Passenger Planes Couldn't Have Done What Was Done On 9-11 by Planes

[David Guyatt]

As I recall, the PNAC bunch's rallying cry soon after 9/11 was something like, "5 countries in 5 years." We hit 2 of them all right, but Syria, Iran and one other (Pakistan? Libya? Turkmenistan? IDR...) are still out there, and its been 13 years. Obviously the overall plan fell short, both in execution and (now) in the moral outrage from Americans necessary to sustain the effort.

If you ASSUME that some group of the American government planned and executed 9/11, in order to justify this extended series of military actions, then "something" didn't go according to plan on 9/11. And, if you ASSUME that there is "unfinished business" still on the back burner with this deep structure group, you could rationally conclude that some new "moral outrage" might be necessary to kickstart the program once again.

I must say I HOPE that these assumptions are wrong.

It was an interview with General Wesley Clark Drew, where he revealed that:

"We're going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran.."

And I agree it didn't going entirely according to plan - probably because they are opposed by Obama. But they also don't give up either as their end game is Iran and they are still chewing that bone, along with Syria. It depends on who gets elected in 2 years whether they continue grinding their way to this conclusion or not. I'm not too hopeful, assuming that Hilary will win the Democratic vote, but we'll see.

[Peter Lemkin]

As I recall, the PNAC bunch's rallying cry soon after 9/11 was something like, "5 countries in 5 years." We hit 2 of them all right, but Syria, Iran and one other (Pakistan? Libya? Turkmenistan? IDR...) are still out there, and its been 13 years. Obviously the overall plan fell short, both in execution and (now) in the moral outrage from Americans necessary to sustain the effort.

If you ASSUME that some group of the American government planned and executed 9/11, in order to justify this extended series of military actions, then "something" didn't go according to plan on 9/11. And, if you ASSUME that there is "unfinished business" still on the back burner with this deep structure group, you could rationally conclude that some new "moral outrage" might be necessary to kickstart the program once again.

I must say I HOPE that these assumptions are wrong.

It was an interview with General Wesley Clark Drew, where he revealed that:

"We're going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran.."

And I agree it didn't going entirely according to plan - probably because they are opposed by Obama. But they also don't give up either as their end game is Iran and they are still chewing that bone, along with Syria. It depends on who gets elected in 2 years whether they continue grinding their way to this conclusion or not. I'm not too hopeful, assuming that Hilary will win the Democratic vote, but we'll see.

One can't imagine it would be anything but slightly worse if the Republican nominee [likely Jeb Bush] were to win! The Dumbocraps and the Republifascists are really two wings of the same American Business Party. Neither represents the People, generally - but rather the Oligarchy, specifically. Only a total change in the system will change anything and prevent the hidden governmental power structures from doing what they want. Their list of nations to destroy grows, and they are rolling in money from their wars, so they just check off those they've destroyed or destabilized and go on to others on the list. They are not in any particular hurry - as dragging this out has positive [for them, only] domestic consequences of control and their Ponzi scheme.

[Martin White]

What if....what went wrong with the original plan was that the Shanksville plane was supposed to hit the White House or Congress, but Cheney, (even Cheney) baulked at that and shot it down? Maybe they thought that the WH hit would be enough to create the momentum to go all the way?

Bush, when told of the attack by Andrew Card, to me had a look of "Those crazy bastards......I called their bluff and they have now screwed me" in other words, he knew it'd been proposed but didn't think they would be that mad. The last thing on his mind at the time appeared to be surprise.

The Mineta testimony looks to me as though Cheney still thought they were bluffing with the Pentagon; that they wouldn't really hit it. When they did, maybe Cheney then authorised the shootdown of U93 (or its facsimile)

Pure unfounded speculation on my part; just wondering aloud.

[Peter Lemkin]

It does seem as if there was one more major target....so it didn't go exactly to plan...but I don't think if Congress, the White house or some other such had been hit it would have change the level of hyped up blood lust for revenge. They got their two major wars...and they have them still going - and the countries destroyed - with major hooks into the assets: minerals, opium, oil. The biggest war, IMO, was against the American People [and this was always the plan] - to nullify the Constitutional protections and bring in by stealth a totalitarian police state [nearly done].

According to my understanding of the events of Dallas, things didn't go exactly according to plan either - and they had to 'wing it' and improvise. Same with 9-11. However, in both cases, with their control of the media and evidence (not to mention ability to nullify, silence, or kill unwanted witnesses or whistleblowers) they were basically able to pull it off and pull the wool over most American's eyes. Only a few can see clearly past the noise of the propaganda machinery to what really happened in both cases - although most people do not believe the official versions [but don't know what the hell to believe!].

[Drew Phipps]

I don't think that Hilary C. would put up opposition to a war plan; she seems like a "hawk in donkey's clothing" to me.

[Martin White]

Hilary would have to overcome the perceived barrier of being a woman, not just in order to get elected, but in her approach to most issues. She will have to be more Hawkish than a man would have to be in the same situation. See: Thatcher.

[Tracy Riddle]

Sometimes I imagine that the plotters really wanted to crash a "plane" into the Capitol building to take out Congress, and kill Bush in Florida with that "Islamic hit team" that showed up that morning looking for an interview. Then Cheney and Rumsfeld could have proclaimed a national emergency and declared martial law. But not everything went according to plan that day (as with the JFK assassination) - things never do in complicated operations like this.

[Michael Barwell]

She will have to be more Hawkish than a man would have to be in the same situation. See: Thatcher.

And 'Condy' Rice.

[R.K. Locke]

The question I would have in regard to this theory is: how and why would a remotely-controlled drone end up as badly off course as "United 93"?

[Lauren Johnson]

The question I would have in regard to this theory is: how and why would a remotely-controlled drone end up as badly off course as "United 93"?

Speculation: 'Flight 93' vs. Flight 93 was designed to be used as a mythmaking event in which the hero said the memorable words, "Let's roll" and fought the evil-doers all the way to their convenient vaporization, thus providing further motivation to go to war. The actual Flight 93 suffered another fate.