The Real 9/11 Conspiracy, The Invention of Islamic Terrorism

[pressimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/24108c83141c.jpg[/pressimg] Let's forget all the silliness that has grown up around 9/11. Those wild eyed fairy tales of holograms and mini-nukes are not taken seriously by those of us with common sense. Some of us even wonder if these ridiculous ideas are being actively promoted as a smoke screen to keep everyone from taking a hard look at the reasons behind the attack. The powers that be love for the world to see these stories of ghost planes and Nostradamus and shapeshifting reptilians That way, anyone who speaks of 9/11 without piously standing shoulder to shoulder with this administration's policies and declarations on the matter can be wrote off as another nutcase.

It's downright unpopular to ask certain questions. Just to wonder if 9/11 was the result of US policies in the '80s and '90s can be a problem. Ron Paul said that it was "blow back", and he was immediately attacked as being unpatriotic. It is political suicide to ponder, out loud anyway, if the years of meddling in Islamic governments business resulted in them bring the fight home to American shores. But the question won't just go away, because a lot of people ask themselves if America played a role in the radicalization that portion of Islam that became Al Qaeda. Did America play Russian roulette with Islamic fundamentalists?


The Mudjahadeen Connection and the USSR's "Vietnam"

On July 3, 1979, President Jimmy Carters administration took a step towards ending the stalemate of the Cold War. A then secret directive was issued to funnel support to some anti-soviet "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan. It was all part of the game between the western powers and the old USSR. Just another move where pawns bled and died in proxy wars, as each side sought some advantage or the other.This time the idea was that America could use the growing civil unrest in Afghanistan to draw the Soviets into their own version of Vietnam. A war they couldn't win.

Western leaders felt safe in pushing a war half a world away. These "freedom fighters" could bait the Russian bear into open fighting, thereby draining the USSR of resources and the will to struggle. It would cost the Americans very little, and if it worked, the payoff would be a greatly weakened Soviet Union. It's doubtful that the planners of this venture were sure it would even work at all. But these were the days of the likes of Oliver North, and any plan was worth a shot.

Surprisingly, it worked like a charm. Before the year was out, the Russians came to Afghanistan to spread their form of Christmas cheer. The government in Kabul had been on the verge of losing control, and as a good client state, had invited the USSR to come and restore order. We may never know just how the CIA, America's chosen "front man" for this covert action, spent their money, but it's a pretty safe bet most of it went into destabilization of the Afghan government and causing civil unrest.


The US War Machine Playing Both Sides Against the Other

This was the start of an almost decade long war, and the CIA was hip deep in making sure it was a bloody one. Within weeks, then Secretary of Defense Harold Brown was dealing with China for weapons to be sent to Pakistan, and on to Afghanistan, to be used on Russian "peace keepers". To be sure that there was no shortage of arms, an additional $15 million was soon spent with Egypt for arms and ammunition, and ferried on US planes to the conflict.

We should take a moment to look at just who all these arms were being sent to. The group we were arming to the teeth in an effort to extract some "payback" for our own humiliation in Vietnam was a group calling themselves the mujahadeen. Taken as a whole, these "freedom fighters" were far from being upstanding citizens, by any stretch of the imagination. They were scarcely more than gangs, led by self-styled war lords. Gangs which for years had been fighting among themselves for control of the lucrative opium trade.

Mujahadeen translates into "holy warriors", a misnomer if ever there was one. While religion was a part of their overall life concept, it seems that money and power was as great a motivating force. Calling them holy warriors is like saying the L.A. gangs are Catholic Conservatives just because some of them wear crosses. A good example is is one well known leader of the time, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. He was most widely known for throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil, according to a report by Tim Weiner.

Historically, Afghanistan has been an isolated crossroads. Despite some modernization in the cities, it remains on a feudal level even today. In such an atmosphere religion too often is a tool of oppression and control. War lords use these kinds of tools to control their domain. The more brutal the slant taken by the clergy, the better the tool for the leaders. In such a setting, it is small wonder that Islam would be bent to use of these barbarians.


Radicalizing Islam for Strategic Benefit

But radical religion fit well with the goals of the US. Russia could be seen as a decadent society, and battling them could be seen as a holy work. Compared to the lifestyles of most people in Afghanistan, the Russians were too modern, too open, too evil. And with the money and guns that America supplied through the CIA, the power base of the war lords was growing. And as they grew, their ideas on what was right in a religious context grew. It was a vicious circle that America was feeding.

In a 1998 interview, Zhigniew Bresenski, one of the players of those days, spoke in an interview. He said, "What was more important in the world view of history?... A few stirred up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and an end to the Cold War?" Only a few short years later the WTC would fall at the hands of those same "stirred up Muslims". One has to wonder how he felt about it by that time.


The Plot Intensifies in The Reagan Years

During the Reagan years money and arms flowed like water. According to Ronald Spiers, then ambassador to Pakistan, the CIA sent a river of men and money, along with arms from China and Egypt, and even Iran. Assault rifles, land mines, antiaircraft guns, and grenade launchers; they sent anything and everything to keep the heat on the Russians. Pakistani General Mohammed Yousaf estimated that he saw over 10,000 tons of these items pass through Pakistan in 1983 alone.

And in March of 1985, the Reagan administration upped the ante some more by signing the National Security Decision Directive # 166,29. Now the CIA sent satellite data, even intercepted Soviet communications to the mujahadeen. America sent targeting devises for mortars, long range sniper rifles, and later even stinger antiaircraft rockets. And tons of the urban terrorists friend, C-4 plastic explosives.

It goes without saying that the US didn't just hand these over to a bunch of feudal barons barely out of the horse age without training them in how to get the biggest bang for the buck. While there isn't a much available information, logic assures us that there must have been a lot of training in the use of all these things. The CIA spooks surely spent time prepping this army of radical Islamic fundamentalists before aiming it at the Russian bear.


The US Created and Trained Radical Islamic Terrorists

In their short-sighted desire to extract some "payback" from the USSR, America armed and trained an Islamic force, infused with a radical religious viewpoint, to fight, and win, a guerrilla war against a modern regular army that was much like our own army. The CIA would rather we thought that everything was aimed at military targets during this time, but there can be no doubt that some of these arms, and the training to use them, were used in assassinations and car bombings as well. The US could hardly avoid being in the terrorist training business.

Now every army needs recruits, and this one was no exception. Pakistan journalist Ahmed Rashid has said that in the decade between 1982 and 1992, some 35,000 Muslims, from over 40 countries, answered the call to join up. Thousands more poured in to the religious schools set up near Pakistan's western border. In all, over 100,000 radical Muslim extremists were culled from the from the world's most radical groups. Common sense tells us that the overwhelming majority were already committed to the fundamental ideology before they ever left home for the hinterlands of Afghanistan. Osoma bin Ladin was one of these recruits.


The CIA Connection to bin Laden and Al Qaeda Takes Shape

CIA officials steadfastly deny past knowledge of bin Ladin, or at least of a paper trail. But in the trial of the Kenya embassy bombings evidence was shown that in at least 1989 he was the one they shipped a load of high powered rifles to. According to the Boston Globe, this was confirmed by the manufacturer of the weapons, a firm out out of Tennessee. But a paper trail is hardly the point anyway. The CIA ran this operation, and bin Ladin was on the team. Just because the Grand Wizard says he never saw some of the KKK members, it doesn't lessen his connection to them. The CIA produced this show, and bin Ladin was in the chorus line.

Around 1988, Al Qaeda (The Base) was born. Then as now, it was a terrorist network led by CIA trained men like bin Ladin. Men trained for war in Islamic fundamentalist religious schools in Pakistan. While the radical Islamic message was a wonderful bond for men facing the "godless communists", it was one that cunning leaders of the movement could aim at anyone. When the USSR tucked it's tale and headed north in 1989, an army of religious fanatics were left behind with no enemy worthy of their talents as a reason to go on.


The Weapon Turns on its Creator

It is small wonder that the better documented '90s saw Al Qaeda turn on the west, eventually declaring war in the only way they knew how, in the way they had been trained by the CIA to wage war. Without the USSR to fight, they needed some other high profile foe, and the "great Satan" of America was perfect for the role. Al Qeada took control of the Taliban, those returning orphans of war that had been raised on bloodshed and Islam, justifying it's existence by finding a reason to attack the west.

Consolidating power, terrorist attacks against western targets went on the rise, reaching a crest with 9/11. By attacking America at home Al Qeada showed the world that it was a power to be reckoned with. A well trained army, which these radical Muslims were and likely still are, is a danger to peace if they have no real ties to a home and hearth. A soldier without a war or a true home is like a mad dog.


Summary

In the final analysis, the western powers set themselves up for this war of terror. In a desire for revenge and an arrogance unworthy of of our people, our leaders led us into an ambush just as surely as Custer led the 7th cavalry into one at Little Big Horn. We have yet to see if the piper has been paid in full.



ADL Osama bin Laden profile

Centre for Research on Globalisation: Who Is Osama Bin Laden?

Centre for Research on Globalisation: Cover-up or Complicity of the Bush Administration?

CNN: Bin Laden, millionaire with a dangerous grudge

BBC: Who is Osama Bin Laden?

Osama Bin Laden

If you like this ATS Premium article, DIGG It Here so that more people might become aware of it.

Even though this article doesnt touch on 9/11 being a inside job, I think its a good background analysis to how the US ended up in their "war on terror". Weather bin ladin planned 9/11 or not, it offers a nice explanation for some of the forces behind what the US has created for itself today.

Im going to take my opportunity to push for the 9/11 Coincidences documentary which I feel is the best one out there, and every part deals with a specific subject.

I do not agree that the real conspiracy is the invention of islamic terrorism since there is too many things wrong with the official 9/11 story.


[edit on 13-11-2007 by Copernicus]

Originally posted by Copernicus
Even though this article doesnt touch on 9/11 being a inside job, I think its a good background analysis to how the US ended up in their "war on terror".

[disclaimer -- the following is my personal thoughts and in no way should be considered associated with any official position or editorial preferences of AboveTopSecret.com]


There are two ways to look at this information, and extrapolate to our current situation:

1) An attempt to influence the direction of a regional conflict during the Cold War, via the radicalization of a religion, resulted in creating a series of events that brought about the war on terrorism and war economy.

2) A direct covert involvement in the building of, and retaining secret ties to fanatic religious terrorist groups created a weapon which could then be used for the 9/11 attacks and resulting war economy.

Both scenarios are classic "inside job" type conspiracies that result in the global war on terrorism, the development US police state, and the resulting windfall for a select few that is associated with a war-time economy. In scenario #2, the "weapon" of Islamic terrorists was used in the 9/11 attacks, so it certainly also fits with "9/11 inside job."

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Both scenarios are classic "inside job" type conspiracies that result in the global war on terrorism, the development US police state, and the resulting windfall for a select few that is associated with a war-time economy. In scenario #2, the "weapon" of Islamic terrorists was used in the 9/11 attacks, so it certainly also fits with "9/11 inside job."

I see your point, but how covert was it really since its obvious that Bush, Bushs younger brother, Cheney and probably a few more people knew about it and was involved in assisting the deed and the cover up afterwards?

The "inside job" part was to me that the administration assisted whoever carried it out. I still think there is a large degree of doubt if this was really carried out by Islamic terrorists in the first place, but someone did.

As you may know, lots of the people the US administration said was hijacking the airplanes was found alive afterwards, going about their daily business as usual. And then there is the planted passport and so on. There are tons of stuff not making sense. Did islamic terrorist really do this or were they the patsy? Every good inside job has a patsy.


[edit on 13-11-2007 by Copernicus]

Originally posted by Copernicus
The "inside job" part was to me that the administration assisted whoever carried it out. I still think there is a large degree of doubt if this was really carried out by Islamic terrorists in the first place, but someone did. As you may know, lots of the people the US administration said was hijacking the airplanes was found alive afterwards, going about their daily business as usual.

Can you provide proof that they are alive and kicking and going on their business?

I mean seriously, people seem to think Islamic terrorists can't do these kinds of things. Is your perception of Arabs really that low? Are they that primitive and stupid?

Originally posted by deltaboy
Can you provide proof that they are alive and kicking and going on their business?

Here is a link. You can also check this video at about 1 minute in and forward. These are facts that you can verify to be true.

I mean seriously, people seem to think Islamic terrorists can't do these kinds of things. Is your perception of Arabs really that low? Are they that primitive and stupid?

Wow, that was a nice spin.

No. The US has some of the best air security in the world. Nobody can hijack airplanes and fly them around across the country without some serious inside help. Cheney took control of NORAD to help make it possible.

You really should watch the documentary I listed before.



[edit on 13-11-2007 by Copernicus]

Originally posted by Copernicus

You got to be kidding me?? This ain't facts, just people with opinions stating this guy is alive and kicking, this guy is alive and kicking. How about giving interviews or somethings, or show actually videos of them alive in post-9/11.

No. The US has some of the best air security in the world. Nobody can hijack airplanes and fly them around across the country without some serious inside help. Cheney took control of NORAD to help make it possible.

I wish it was true that the U.S. has the best security but its big and we don't have enough sky marshalls for all of them, even now. Best doesn't mean perfect either. Cheney took control of NORAD? He's in the bunker of the White House. I don't know where you get that idea.

You really should watch the documentary I listed before.

Your so called documentary doesn't even help your case.





[edit on 13-11-2007 by deltaboy]

Originally posted by deltaboy
You got to be kidding me?? This ain't facts, just people with opinions stating this guy is alive and kicking, this guy is alive and kicking. How about giving interviews or somethings, or show actually videos of them alive in post-9/11.

I edited my post while you were writing and added a site which has a good information and the sources it was taken from. You can google for other sources if you dont like that one.

Originally posted by deltaboy
I wish it was true that the U.S. has the best security but its big and we don't have enough sky marshalls for all of them, even now. Best doesn't mean perfect either. Cheney took control of NORAD? He's in the bunker of the White House. I don't know where you get that idea.

Look, if you are going to ignore the evidence, you wont reach the truth what really happened. Cheney was in control of NORAD during 9/11.

Norman Mineta's testimony, to the 9/11 Commission, admitting that Cheney gave NORAD stand down orders on the morning of 9/11:



Norman Mineta confirmed that Dick Cheney ordered a stand down on 9/11:

www.jonesreport.com...

Gov. Ventura's comments regarding the suspicious inactivity of NORAD on 9/11:

www.total411.info...

Suspiciously, the text of Norman Mineta's testimony was removed from the original 9/11 Commission's transcript and report; the video was removed from its archives, as well.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Your so called documentary doesn't even help your case.

Not if you are going to ignore what really happened, it wont.



[edit on 13-11-2007 by Copernicus]

Originally posted by Copernicus

Norman Mineta's testimony, to the 9/11 Commission, admitting that Cheney gave NORAD stand down orders on the morning of 9/11:

Norman Mineta confirmed that Dick Cheney ordered a stand down on 9/11:

LOLOLOL you believe that "orders still stand" means stand down??????? Mineta "omg I think we shot down the plane."

Not if you are going to ignore what really happened, it wont.

I'm not ignoring it, just ain't accepting something like this type of information that you are giving me.

First off, I am grateful to those who consider this work as a foundation piece, which is exactly what it was intended to be. I have avoided the 9/11 subject until now, not because I lack opinions on it, but because it is still very much an ongoing event. In my opinion, it's not yet over.

To understand any event of this magnitude, one must first understand the players involved. It is not enough to name them, but some form must be given to the shadow they cast. No matter where one stands on the events of 9/11, the story of Al Qeada is a part of it.

Was the tool of Islamic extremist used directly by certain parts of our national leadership to further some hidden agenda? Was Al Qeada allowed to happen so that a mindset of terror could be foisted on the public? Was, as has been mentioned, a patsy made to stand forth in the world's mind while others fired the gun from the grassy knoll? Whatever the answer to these questions may be, we have to consider the history of the '80s and '90s.

For me it is too soon to say which of these ideas holds the most merit. Or if there are elements of many of these scenarios present. With this thread, I hope to start a dialog that is without anger, and great emotional investment, by those who partake, wherein we can examine all the theories, complete with their motivational reasons.

To do justice to this subject, we must restrict ourselves to behaving in a way that stresses research, and not the more evangelical method of those with a preconceived notion about the truth. Doubtless there will be competing viewpoints on this material, and on any that is brought up subsequently. As long as we maintain a detached approach to the subject, we will be taken as serious researchers, and not as 'kooks'.

To deny ignorance is our goal. That can only be achieved by dispassionately viewing all possibilities, and eliminating those that seem the least likely to be possible. In this manner we can go forward united in forcing accountability for 9/11. Those with something to hide will be the first to be hindered by such an approach, for it is only unity of purpose that creates fear in those with something to hide.

I look forward to reading the thoughtful input of everyone truly interested in understanding what 9/11 really meant, and exactly how it came to happen.

Originally posted by deltaboy
LOLOLOL you believe that "orders still stand" means stand down??????? Mineta "omg I think we shot down the plane."

I can see where this is going now (I present evidence, you dismiss it) but I figured I would make one last try to get through to you. Here is another video with him:

Mineta says Vice President Cheney was "absolutely" already there when he arrived at approximately 9:25 a.m. in the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center) bunker on the morning of 9/11. Mineta seemed shocked to learn that the 9/11 Commission Report claimed Cheney had not arrived there until 9:58-- after the Pentagon had been hit, a report that Mineta definitively contradicted.

“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?

Source: JonesReport

reply to post by NGC2736


did you write this ? If so, my compliments, it's very thorough and shows a lot of intelligent thought

this conflict does go back a long way, you can't examine 9/11 without exploring all the strange bedfellows that the US has slept with in the region.

what do you make of the theory OBL's motive behind the attacks was to provoke a knee jerk response from the US, in hopes of inciting a conflict that would destabilize thr entire region, allowing him to be installed as a caliphate, and joining the regions oil money with Pakistan's nuclear capabilities to create a Muslim super power ?

reply to post by syrinx high priest


There is certainly some plausibility to such an idea. Ambition is a part of so many actions in the world. I have heard nothing along these lines that can be attributed to him directly, but it would seem reasonable that the thought would cross his mind.

reply to post by NGC2736


OK

If I read this correctly, your understanding is that OBL was acting more on a general grudge sort of motivation, resentment of the US prescence in Saudi Arabia, etc, that he possibly was going for a spectacular event, with a wider goal of just inflicting as much damage as he could ?

reply to post by syrinx high priest


At this point, there is no indication that his motives were more than to retain the powerbase he had built up during the Soviet conflict. He picked the one target, and motive, that he could use to give justification to his, and by extension Al Qeada, a reason for going on.

Naturally, these are just my opinions, as I have never heard from his own lips anything of the sort.

Originally posted by NGC2736

At this point, there is no indication that his motives were more than to retain the powerbase he had built up during the Soviet conflict. He picked the one target, and motive, that he could use to give justification to his, and by extension Al Qeada, a reason for going on...

First of all, compliments on your most excellent OP. It's refreshing to see intelligent and knowledgeable historical analysis behind the 'war on terror' and a reminder of the major role played by US Govt agencies in the original creation of AQ. Very thorough & well written.

I don't know how much you travel in the ME or in 'The Islamic World', but I go there a lot. I was discussing 9/11 with some Iranian friends in Esfahan in August this year, and the overwhelming view there is that the USA was targeted by OBL on 9/11 mainly because of the continued stationing of US troops in The Holy Land of Islam, Saudi Arabia, close to Mecca and Medina.

This presence was/is an outrage, an open affront to OBL's rather fundamentalist form of Jihadist Wahabism. The 'west' is a competing ideology seen as threatening to themselves, intrinsically evil: the promotion of liberal values and refusing to accept Islam as the sole revelation and truth of God, communicated by the Prophet Mohammed.

(leave aside the irrelevance that OBL did not personally think up the 9/11 op, did not personally plan or organize it BUT helped to finance it and gave it his blessing.)

I never met anyone in the whole region who believes the US government or agencies had anything to do with it. They know Al Qaida too well, and know what they are capable of. Maybe they are all deceived. Maybe they are just wiser, and closer to the source. Though I have met a few people in Pakistan who think the Jews masterminded it all, because it fits their virulent anti-semitic world-view belief-system that the Jews are responsible for all evil on Earth.

(In WW2 the SS successfully recruited Moslems in The Balkans to assist with the extermination of the Jews, ending up with an entire SS division

www.fantompowa.net...

so this attitude has a long history.)

Osama and others have frequently broadcast that if the USA accepts Islam, then the war will cease with immediate effect. Until that time, however, it will continue. I do not think most Americans understand how real and how serious this is. IMHO to continuously bang on about how the US Govt masterminded 9/11 and to ignore this very real issue, is to bury your head in the sand to a truly astounding degree. Only someone who has no personal experience of the Islamic world could possibly labor under such misconceptions.


Maybe the US Govt did have foreknowledge of 9/11. There were plenty of clues. Maybe the actual day was known, and passive assistance was given to pursue some nefarious agenda. There are plenty of allegations, manipulation of facts and misinformation from 'truthers' (sorry guys but that's how it comes over) but very little compelling evidence.

We need to be reminded that the USG's response to the 9/11 attacks, after weeks of requests for the extradition of OBL, was the invasion of Afghanistan, which has no known oil reserves.

The Iraq thing came much later, on a different pretext. This as we can see has boosted AQ recruitment worldwide and made no difference to the oil: it's still there in the ground, mostly not coming out, and if AQ ends up running the place that's where it's likely to stay. In contrast to the stability & discipline of the Saddam years, when the oil flowed.

Whether you think this is all some kind of grand design, that the US administration knew what the results would be, or subscribe to the neocon-as-ignorant-and-incompetent thesis which this poster personally finds a lot more plausible, will depend on how deep your belief system requires you to bury yourself in ever more complex and labyrinthine conspiracy-fantasies.



:up

thanks for posting your experiences in the ME, that really helps frame the issue a little more

It's always important to get as many perspectives as you can with such a complex event and situation

Originally posted by bovarcher
I never met anyone in the whole region who believes the US government or agencies had anything to do with it. They know Al Qaida too well, and know what they are capable of. Maybe they are all deceived. Maybe they are just wiser, and closer to the source.

Maybe because they dont sit around comparing the official story with what really happened, like scientists, researchers and other highly credible people have in the US? Most people know the official 9/11 story is a fairy tale because they have questioned it and found it to be untrue.

Originally posted by bovarcher
Maybe the US Govt did have foreknowledge of 9/11. There were plenty of clues. Maybe the actual day was known, and passive assistance was given to pursue some nefarious agenda. There are plenty of allegations, manipulation of facts and misinformation from 'truthers' (sorry guys but that's how it comes over) but very little compelling evidence.

There is plenty of very compelling evidence, and its not manipulated. But you didnt really check did you? Like most skeptics, you think you know what happened without checking into it yourself. The truth is horrible, but you are not helping anyone but the criminals by choosing to ignore what really happened on 9/11.

Originally posted by bovarcher
Whether you think this is all some kind of grand design, that the US administration knew what the results would be, or subscribe to the neocon-as-ignorant-and-incompetent thesis which this poster personally finds a lot more plausible, will depend on how deep your belief system requires you to bury yourself in ever more complex and labyrinthine conspiracy-fantasies.

Nope, not ignorant and not incompetent at all. They have gotten exactly what they wanted, what their think tank planned for even before the Iraq war. Things are going exactly according to the plan outlined in the Project for the New American Century, and the event they called the "new pearl harbor" has been executed successfully.





[edit on 13-11-2007 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Copernicus


Your evidence does not help your argument about what Cheney's supposedly stand down order to help the hijackers succeed. YOU have yet to provide any evidence that Cheney order a stand down. What I have seen on these videos YOU provided is that the orders still stand. What does Mineta mean by orders still stand? WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Even the quotation in the context says the "orders still stand?"