Arabs and Osama
First Time in History
The Fires
The Twin Towers
World Trade Cener 7
The Free Fall Fallacy
Molten Steel Explained
Sounds of Explosions
The Firemans Quotes
Civil Engineers Quotes
Peer Reviewed Paper
Professor Steven E Jones
Massive Conspriracy
The Real Conspiracy
Government Planning
The 911 Zogby Poll
Debunking 911 Links

Real Conspiracy Theory

What a real conspiracy looks like. Real conspiracies have very few players and even then, they are usually exposed. Enron, Watergate, Iran/Contra and the rest have few people involved and someone always comes out to blow the whistle.

The evidence for a conspiracy to use 9/11 to invade Iraq is significant.  While there is not one shred of evidence the government blew up the World Trade Center, there is evidence that they used the tragedy to remove Saddam Hussein using poor WMD evidence.


One conspiracy theorist said "What about the Contras? Aren't they a large organization?" As if ALL the groups which made up the Contras had to know the whole plan. That's like including the troops in an investigation into the manipulation of intelligence before the war. It makes little sense and only hurts their argument. Because Iran/Contra was exposed making the point that large conspiracies are uncovered. It seems the irony from the truth movement continues unabated. This conspiracy investigator can't even investigate a well known conspiracy which happened decades ago.

This site has been attacked for not having any info on the administrations possible crimes, having too little info (Which I agreed with and corrected) and now for having any info. It seems one of the arguments for controlled demolition is that I created this page for credibility. Let me repeat, if you think the columns weren't pulled in over time because I have or don't have a page on Bush's possible manipulation of intel then you are no different than a Bush supporter who denies the evidence below.

Below is a short list of people who blew the whistle on the misuse of pre-war intelligence and pre-9/11 incompetence.

Thomas Packard, acting FBI director:  Summer before 9/11, Ashcroft told him he didn’t want to hear anything more about terrorist threats.

Yet, Pickard testified to the 9/11 commission that when he tried to brief Ashcroft just a week later, on July 12, about the terror threat inside the United States, he got the brush-off.

"Mr. Ashcroft told you that he did not want to hear about this anymore," Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste asked on April 13. "Is that correct?"

"That is correct," Pickard replied.

Testifying under oath the same day, Ashcroft categorically denied the allegation, saying, "I did never speak to him saying that I didn't want to hear about terrorism."

However, another senior FBI official tells NBC News he vividly recalls Pickard returning from the meeting that day furious that Ashcroft had cut short the terrorism briefing. This official, now retired, has talked to the 9/11 commission.


Ashcroft's actions corroborate the FBI version...

"In addition, FBI counterterrorism chief Dale Watson "told us that he almost fell out of his chair" when Ashcroft outlined his budget priorities in May 2001, because the list made no mention of counterterrorism, the commission reported earlier Tuesday,"


The above has been used by conspiracy theorists to say "Why else would Ashcroft not want to to hear about terrorism. Because he's in on it!" But there is a more logical reason which there is evidence for. The administration may not have wanted to spend time or money on things like terrorism. We know they wanted to give tax cuts and big money to defense contractors for Star Wars technology. Remember that? The major point is that is negligence no matter what the reason. This is also lying to congress. Someone lied, be it Ashcroft or the 3 FBI agents. This is worthy of an investigation.

Larry Johnson, former counter terrorism agent with the CIA:  Rumsfeld set up a special office to link Iraq and Al Qaeda cherry picking Intel;  evidence is sent back saying, “That’s garbage, that’s misleading, that misrepresents,”  then they would take the same brief to the vice president or one even worse.

"LARRY JOHNSON: They would brief their findings to the community and the community would come back and say, wait a second, you don't know what you're talking about, that's garbage, that's misleading, that misrepresents."

"ENSOR: The spies call it cherry picking. Choosing scraps of intelligence to prove a worst-case scenario. July 23rd, a senior British intelligence official briefs Prime Minister Tony Blair on his recent discussions in Washington. According to notes of the Downing Street briefing, the mi6 chief reported that President Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action. The intelligence and facts, he said, were being fixed around the policy. The White House declined interview requests for this report. President Bush addressed the memo at a news conference with Blair."


"Pillar's critique is one of the most severe indictments of White House actions by a former Bush official since Richard C. Clarke, a former National Security Council staff member, went public with his criticism of the administration's handling of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and its failure to deal with the terrorist threat beforehand.

It is also the first time that such a senior intelligence officer has so directly and publicly condemned the administration's handling of intelligence.

Pillar, retired after 28 years at the CIA, was an influential behind-the-scenes player and was considered the agency's leading counterterrorism analyst. By the end of his career, he was responsible for coordinating assessments on Iraq from all 15 agencies in the intelligence community. He is now a professor in security studies at Georgetown University.


Rand Baers,  National Security Council:  Resigns White House post and works against Bush. He said Cheney pushed CIA  "Cheney said,  “Everybody knows Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, tell us what you know, what’s your best stuff?..”


Downing Street Memo says Bush wanted to remove Saddam though military action. “Evidence fixed around the policy”


Rice, Rove, Karen Hughes, Cheney have weekly closed door meetings on how to convince the American people.

The White House Iraq Group (aka, White House Information Group or WHIG) was the marketing arm of the White House whose purpose was to sell the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the public. The task force was set up in August 2002 by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and chaired by Karl Rove to coordinate all the executive branch elements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. One example of the WHIG's functions and influence is the "escalation of rhetoric about the danger that Iraq posed to the U.S., including the introduction of the term 'mushroom cloud'"[1]


John McLaughlin, CIA deputy director:  “We did not clear that particular [Niger] speech”… Tenet’s “slam dunk” does not mean what the media thinks it means.

Tenet: 'Slam Dunk' Misused


George Tenet- At The Center Of The Storm, Former CIA Director

Michael Scheuer: Intel did not matter. We were going to war / Tenet researched 10 years worth of documents and found no connection to Al Qaeda. Tenet tells Bush / Administration yet administration continues to suggest connection.

SCHEUER: Mr. Tenet to his credit had us go back through CIA files and we went back for almost ten years, reviewed nearly 20,000 documents, which came to 65,000 pages or more. It could find no connection in the terms of a state sponsor relationship with Iraq.


Who is ‘Joe T’ and why was he the point man for analyzing nuclear weapon intel?

Some of the CIA's briefings on Iraq begin to rely on one analyst, an engineer with limited nuclear weapons experience known only as Joe T. He believed he found the smoking gun. Saddam was buying high strength aluminum tubes that Joe T. insists are meant for centrifuges to enrich uranium.


Gregory Thielmann,  State Dept intelligence: More and more people said intel on tubes was that they were no good for a nuclear weapon. Official leak saying “Mushroom Cloud” misrepresents the intelligence community disagreement.  Administration continues “No doubt” he has WMD.  Tenet defends erroneous evidence while others in the CIA voice doubts.  State department issues strong and lengthy dissent. Niger uranium purchase “Highly Dubious.”   "Intelligence agencies, get your talking points”

CIA intel notes critical gaps in the evidence because of questionable reliability of many sources,

For the first time before a modern war, Bush did not ask for National Intelligence Estimate. Congress demands it. N.I.E. said Saddam not a threat.

White House Iraq group gives only evidence which supports policy while down playing dissent.

Last minute dispute over Niger speech.

Tenet and Powell argue about intel.


Carl Ford,  Asst Sec of State, Intelligence: “This is all we got? And we’re making these firm judgments?

Powell not told about Curveball. Curveball was never debriefed by the CIA.

Curveball was the designation for a claimed "Iraqi chemical engineer" who the United States claimed had served as an informant. Curveball would be the attributed source of pivotal information concerning weapons of mass destruction leading up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.


Col. Laurence Wilkerson: Evidence brought to the UN “It was anything but an intelligence document. It was a Chinese menu where you can pick and choose what you want”

A day before Powell’s UN speech, a CIA skeptic had warned Curveball is a lair.  A superior sends an E-mail reply saying “This war’s going to happen regardless, the powers that be probably aren’t interested whether Curve ball knows what he’s talking about.”

Powell’s speech riddled with misleading allegations. Not outright lies but worded in such a way as to mislead.

The CIA had evidence that Curveball was a shameless fabricator months before Secretary of State Colin Powell cited the Iraqi's reports before the United Nations. But in the Feb. 4, 2003, e-mail—written a day before Powell's U.N. appearance—the senior CIA official sharply rebuked one of those skeptical analysts. "Keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say and that the Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about," the CIA official wrote.


Scott Ritter, ex UNSCUM weapon inspector:  The evidence for war is not there. He goes on just about every TV station trying to stop the war.

'No threat'

Mr Ritter accused the US Government of deliberately setting new standards of disarmament criteria to maintain UN sanctions and justify continued bombing raids.

He also said Iraq "did co-operate to a very significant degree with the UN inspection process" and blamed the US and the UK for the breakdown.

Mr Ritter essentially repeated those views during his trip to Baghdad last year.

He said the US seemed "on the verge of an historic mistake".

"My government is making a case for war against Iraq that is built upon fear and ignorance," he added.

"The truth of the matter is that Iraq today is not a threat to its neighbours and is not acting in a manner which threatens anyone outside of its own borders."


Richard Clarke: Bush wanted to connect Iraq and 9/11. Invading Iraq for 9/11 is like China attacking us and we invade Mexico.

RICHARD CLARKE: It would have been irresponsible for the president not to come in and say, "Dick, I don't want you to assume it was al-Qaida. I'd like you to look at every possibility, and I'd like you to look at every possibility to see if maybe it was al-Qaida with somebody else," in a very calm way, with all possibilities open. That's not what happened.

What happened was the president, with his finger in my face, saying, "Iraq, a memo on Iraq and al-Qaida, a memo on Iraq and the attacks." Very vigorous, very intimidating, and in a way that left all of us with the same impression, that he wanted that answer. Well, we couldn't give him that answer because it wasn't true.


General Wesley Clark: People in the Pentagon told him Bush was going to war no matter what.

"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan." Clark adds, "I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned."


New Memo said Bush was going to war no matter what.


Those are just some of the people who have come out saying there was incompetence before 9/11 and a rush to war regardless of what the Intel said.

Many republicans view this evidence (Not all but too many. Liberals do it too but for other issues) and make rationalizations. They cherry pick quotes just as conspiracy theorists do in order to dismiss this evidence. They will character assassinate the people on this list one by one like conspiracy theorists attack the NIST and Popular Mechanics. "The NIST is paid by the government!" "Popular Mechanics is a shill rag!" "Clarke was selling a book!" "General Clark was running for president!" so on... The evidence is often taken apart and viewed separately. "No steel building has ever collapsed by fire before!", not taking into account the airliner impact or the removed fireproofing. "Clarke was selling a book!" not taking into account all the other people in the pentagon, FBI and others who said the same thing Clarke did. And just as the conspiracy theorists rely almost exclusively on what the conspiracy talking points are, the republicans almost exclusively rely on what the party talking points are.

I want to make this clear... I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE if the administration cherry picked intel to go to war. But I know for sure it deserves an investigation because  evidence points to them cherry picking intel to rush to war. I also can conclude from evidence that Ashcroft lied to congress about his incompetence on counter terrorism before 9/11. Not having any money in the budget for it is evidence I can't ignore. More evidence below...

We know the PNAC wanted to invade Iraq before 911. Was 9/11 the perfect excuse?

Some PNAC members
Name Department Title Remarks
Elliott Abrams National Security Council Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center
Richard Armitage Department of State (2001-2005) Deputy Secretary of State  
John R. Bolton Department of State U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Previously served as Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs in the first administration of GWB.
Richard Cheney Bush Administration Vice President PNAC Founder
Seth Cropsey Voice of America Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau  
Paula Dobriansky Department of State Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs  
Francis Fukuyama President's Council on Bioethics Council Member Professor of International Political Economy at Johns Hopkins University
Bruce Jackson U.S. Committee on NATO President  
Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. Embassy Baghdad, Iraq U.S.Ambassador to Iraq Previously served as U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan from November 2003 to June 2005
Lewis Libby Bush Administration Chief of Staff for the Vice President Indicted by Grand Jury on charges of Obstruction of Justice, False Statements and Perjury and resigned October 28, 2005.
Peter W. Rodman Department of Defense Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security  
Donald Rumsfeld Department of Defense Secretary of Defense PNAC founder and previously Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences Developer of Tamiflu
Randy Scheunemann U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional Democracies, International Republican Institute Member Founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.
Paul Wolfowitz World Bank President Deputy Secretary of Defense, 2001-2005
Dov S. Zakheim Department of Defense Comptroller Former V.P. of System Planning Corp.
Robert B. Zoellick Department of State Deputy Secretary of State Office of the United States Trade Representative (2001-2005);

Conspiracy theorists say this is proof that the administration needed to create a "Pearl Harbor". But if they did blow up the towers, why would they go to such great lengths to point to Bin Laden? Why not fix evidence to point to Saddam? Conspiracy theorists say they needed terrorism to perpetuate an endless war. To take away our freedoms to fight this war. But Bin Laden wasn't the only way to do it. "They" could have planted evidence suggesting Bin Laden was working for Saddam. Why not? Remember, if they are setting up Bin Laden then why not set up Saddam at the same time? He wasn't "a few Arabs in the desert."  He had an army and millions from oil profits.  Why allow people to say "Saddam wasn't the one to attack us"?  There would have been far fewer players if they placed a nuclear device in the towers’  basements and took out lower Manhattan. The government could have blamed Saddam's fictitious WMD for the device and Bin Laden for the delivery.  We would have reason to invade Iraq the next day. Conspiracy theorists would have us believe they chose a plan which involves thousands over smaller,  more controllable plans.

From a reader:

WHY would the government do it? I don’t mean Iraq , oil etc I mean why would they do it in this way ? just to help a pal with his insurance?
Why use a plane at all . Why crash your own airline industry and every other countries { Swissair etc}, damage your financial markets { just when you are going to need some war funds} destroy very very
valuable property, panic the WORLD, kill your own citizens etc. Could all this not be achieved by a ‘foiled’ plot. Terrorists were 15 minutes from the murder of thousands… a president would certainly come out better
having stopped an attack than permitted one.  Or if you needed a big attack why not just the anthrax that came after. Everyone panicking over any white powder. Far far easier to plant Anthrax or similar in the towers or Disneyland, have a panic, then capture your suspects who blow themselves up or whatever you want.
If you were going to do this, would you do it this way?’ There are cheaper, better, easier and safer ways to get into a war.. Also why pick Osama as the fall guy if the target is Hussein. Why not just pick Saddam and ‘plant’ evidence to show it was him all along, thereby never needing to go to Afghanistan at all .After all if you can plan the attack why not the culprit.. no need to go scratching for evidence of a link to Iraq AFTER the attack , set it up before.
Funny how the authorities are both all powerful, all seeing, all knowing, and completely incompetent at the same time...
The good old Pearl Harbor theory always struck me the same way . Why destroy your fleet just as you are planning war. Discover the jap carriers 500 miles out while on manouevers’ and the impact on public opinion would be similar to a attack.
Why sink your whole fleet ?  Especially if you could sink theirs .. take a few years off the war if they lost 6 carriers day 1 !!


Home | Osama Bin Laden | First time in history | Free Fall | The Fire | The Twin Towers | Impacts | Fires and Fire Proofing | Columns and Trusses Towers Collapse | WTC 7 | WTC 7 South Side | WTC 7 Photos | Squelching "Squibs" | Rethinking Thermite | Explosions | Firemen Quotes
Civil Engineers Quotes | Prof. Steven Jones | Massive Conspiracy | Zogby | Real Conspiracy | Government Planning | Molten Steel
Peer-reviewed Papers | Iron Burns!!! | Madrid/Windsor Tower |
Conspiracy Theorist Hall of Fame | Fire Gallery 1 | Fire Gallery 2 | Fire Gallery 3
General Fires Gallery