Why? - 9/11

humanji

So, in the interests of keeping this forum active until Casey re-regs, I thought I'd make a few “Why?” threads to bring out the inner conspiracist in all of us. I'll start with one and if people want, we can start more.

The point of these "Why?" threads will be to think of the reasons and motives behind these dark deeds and who knows we might even have a bit of fun too (not bloody likely! :P ). Consider the main topic as a true conspiracy. It's our job to try and figure out the who's, the what's and the why's of it. Don't bother with the "well it's not a conspiracy at all" malarkey. In this thread, there is a conspiracy!!! It doesn’t matter how off the wall your ideas may be, we’ll go through them all (although, please try and stay away from the Lizard People, they’re watching!)



So here's the topic:

*Cue dramatic music*

[FONT=&quot]9/11. Ok, dramatic music isn’t really needed since it’s in the thread title, but it doesn’t matter. Who do you think was behind the 9/11 attacks on the United States? What were there reasons and what did they have to gain? And remember, it’s you’re job to come up with a reasonable theory or support a stated one. Evidence and logic are not necessary!!! If you’re using Google, then you’re trying too hard.[/FONT]

humanji

My theories:


Many believe that the US government were behind it. Some say that they funded the entire event so that they can have more control over its people.

Well, my theory is that it was a government-funded attack, just not by the US government. I honestly don’t believe that there’s any point in trying to create some sort of 1984 state, since there’s too many people who simply won’t let that happen, as well as the fact that it’ll only benefit those in control in the future, not the present, so George W. and Co would have nothing to gain.

I’m thinking it’s old-fashioned greed that’s the cause. So who else can gain something? Well, one thought would be Israel. The US buys a hell of a lot of weapons on them, and their weapons industry was in a state of decline and their government coffers had seen better days. So by funding Bin Laden (who I doubt was a mere patsy) to send some of his boys on a one way trip, the US were certain to go to war and would need to buy a hell of a lot of weapons!

Or if not Israel, maybe the EU. It’s no secret that the heads of the EU would like to create a kind of United States Of Europe. They want to be the next big super-power and the best way to do that is to de-stabilise their competitors. By funding Bin Laden, they managed to create a state of panic in the US and to divide its people. Its armies have been stretched thin. The economy is close to collapse. Basically, they’re f*cked.


With this, the EU will be the dominant power in the West and will have to turn its attention to the Middle East and Far East. But the US, in its current state of paranoia is quite likely to invade another middle-eastern country. The other Arab nations will likely band together and it will be left to the EU to step into the middle of things and calm things down, to which both sides will be very grateful

This will leave only the Far East, or to be specific, China. I haven’t thought that part through yet, though.


So what think ye? Have I got something? Or do you think someone else was behind it?

Nick_oliveri

The whys escape me. Its ridiculous i know, but thats the way she goes. People get roped into this arguement either because they have seen to many inconsistancies or they cant stand the "stupidity". Some things are a clencher for me. Like the fat Bin Laden or the Wtc7 problem.

Its the little things that the CT'rs can rope you in with. But thankfully im not so much woo, paranoid and arguementative(?) as i used to be (see earlier 9/11 thread if you cba).

Tbh, i think nobody gives a fcuk anymore really about it, most that you see in conspiracy/sleptic forums cant let it go. In a scale of giving a feck, im about 4, ive lurked so many fora and so much time has passed that the event has nearly lost all meaning. Its come to the stage where i cant even see the point of the attack, be it official story or conspiracy theory. Maybe thats why some people continue to fight about it.

It will fizzle out like the Oklahoma bombings did. New subject, new catistrophic incident, new threat and new Osama/evil one.

As for the superpower/NAU whatever. It will never work. Conformity(one law and government for many countries) on such a scale would require some severe propaganda or incident. Like 9/11 times 1000

Diogenes

humanji wrote: »

My theories:


Many believe that the US government were behind it. Some say that they funded the entire event so that they can have more control over its people.

Well, my theory is that it was a government-funded attack, just not by the US government. I honestly don’t believe that there’s any point in trying to create some sort of 1984 state, since there’s too many people who simply won’t let that happen, as well as the fact that it’ll only benefit those in control in the future, not the present, so George W. and Co would have nothing to gain.

I’m thinking it’s old-fashioned greed that’s the cause. So who else can gain something? Well, one thought would be Israel. The US buys a hell of a lot of weapons on them, and their weapons industry was in a state of decline and their government coffers had seen better days. So by funding Bin Laden (who I doubt was a mere patsy) to send some of his boys on a one way trip, the US were certain to go to war and would need to buy a hell of a lot of weapons!

Or if not Israel, maybe the EU. It’s no secret that the heads of the EU would like to create a kind of United States Of Europe. They want to be the next big super-power and the best way to do that is to de-stabilise their competitors. By funding Bin Laden, they managed to create a state of panic in the US and to divide its people. Its armies have been stretched thin. The economy is close to collapse. Basically, they’re f*cked.


With this, the EU will be the dominant power in the West and will have to turn its attention to the Middle East and Far East. But the US, in its current state of paranoia is quite likely to invade another middle-eastern country. The other Arab nations will likely band together and it will be left to the EU to step into the middle of things and calm things down, to which both sides will be very grateful

This will leave only the Far East, or to be specific, China. I haven’t thought that part through yet, though.


So what think ye? Have I got something? Or do you think someone else was behind it?

I'd really suggest that before you engage in some wild speculation, that you invest a small amount of time and energy exploring whether or not radical Islam was responsible. This book and this documentary series are excellent jumping off points to understand the history, development, and ideology behind Radical Islamic Terrorist groups, and the roles both the West and Muslim States have played, directly and indirectly influencing them.

It boggles the mind how people seem to develop a brick wall and refuse to accept or believe that Extremist Muslims couldn't or didn't carry out the sept 11th attacks, because either they were incapable, or lacked motive. A cursory glance at recent world history shows them to be ruthless determined soldiers with an indifference towards civilian casualties, and who have struck across the globe for decades now, in acts of ruthless barbarianism. Driven by extremist religious ideology, and a list of legitimate and illegitimate political grievances. Christ, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's nephew orchestrated the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.

The ability to swallow complex conspiracy theories displays a base ignorance of the actualities of how the world works.

For example humanji, and I hope you don't mind this you said;

humanji wrote:

Well, one thought would be Israel. The US buys a hell of a lot of weapons on them, and their weapons industry was in a state of decline and their government coffers had seen better days.

When in fact the US subsidies the Israeli Military providing up to $2.4 Billion dollars in defense aid to Israeli a year. The US doesn't buy weapons from Israeli, it gives them weapons Source: BBC In fact US military aid to Israeli will total over $14 billion this decade. It's a valid bone of contention among Palestinian and other Arab states about US policy in the Middle East, how can they be commited to the Israeli peace process when they're giving billions in military aid to one side in the war?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

because they're american, and anyone who doesn't like america hates freedom.

Diogenes

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Some things are a clencher for me. Like the fat Bin Laden or the Wtc7 problem.

Nick, please tell me you don't buy that fat bin laden woo?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

fat bin laden? wut?

whiterebel

A cursory glance at recent world history shows them to be ruthless determined soldiers with an indifference towards civilian casualties, and who have struck across the globe for decades now, in acts of ruthless barbarianism.


Apologies for picking out one part of your post, but that describes the British and American empire building down to a tee for a lot of people, too.

Mahatma coat

again with yer Facts, shur ya could prove anything with facts.

yes there were radical Islamic extremists, yes they flew planes into some tall buildings in the US. did they act as individuals or did they Conspire as a group to comit these acts. remember that these terrorists were Jubilant freedom fighters durin the 80's as they fought the Russian 'enemy' with support n trainin from the CIA. so is the CIA responsible for creatin the nasty extremists what crashed inta the towers.

as for the why, WAR, people on both sides benefit imensley from a war the Bush family and the saudi's make a killin off the oil, the VICE PRESIDENT's OWN Company provide all the services etc to the troops. Jihad fits nicely into the scheme of things for the other side, martyrdom, terror, Death to the infidel n all that ****e. consumers buying security items in the west, more faithful in the ranks on the islamic side

humanji

Diogenes wrote: »

I'd really suggest that before you engage in some wild speculation, that you invest a small amount of time and energy exploring whether or not radical Islam was responsible.

The whole point of the thread is to try and come up with conspiracy theories. I'm not trying to get people to invest 10 years in researching possibilities, just to exercise the creative grey cells and to create a bit of life on the forum. And to kill time, if nothing else.

Diogenes

Mordances with wolves wrote: »

fat bin laden? wut?

Truthers claim that the video of Bin Laden were he discusses Sept 11th is a fake, because Bin Laden is too fat, and is therefore an actor. Whats more like, bad compression downconverting from PAL to NSTC (ie coming in and seeing your mum is watching Corrie at 16:9 instead of 4:3), or the US government hired an actor to play Bin Laden, and just messed up the casting?

whiterebel wrote:

Apologies for picking out one part of your post, but that describes the British and American empire building down to a tee for a lot of people, too.

I'm not into a defense of US and British military behaviour in Iraq or Afghanistan. However instances were civilians are killed are viewed as outrages and receive condemnation. For example consider the photos at Abu Grabib, once published, the army acted (one would prefer that they never allowed it happen in the first place.

Could the US government behead innocent journalists, and post video on the web? Attach a suicide belt to a mentally handicapped woman, and detonate her in a busy market? How about specifically targeting places to achieve maximum civilian causalities? Yet Muslim extremists consider all of the above as acceptable and legitimate tactics.

Mahatma Coat wrote:

again with yer Facts, shur ya could prove anything with facts.

Yes, yes you could. The difference between you and I, is I prefer facts, and you like conjecture and speculation. I hope one day you learn to value the difference.

yes there were radical Islamic extremists, yes they flew planes into some tall buildings in the US. did they act as individuals or did they Conspire as a group to comit these acts. remember that these terrorists were Jubilant freedom fighters durin the 80's as they fought the Russian 'enemy' with support n trainin from the CIA. so is the CIA responsible for creatin the nasty extremists what crashed inta the towers.

See, I'm going to use one of those annoying facts things again. The CIA's involvement in Afghanistan has long been overhyped. The CIA had limited involvement through the Mujahideen. Their funding mainly came from wealthy Saudi families (Like Bin Laden, who's path to radicalisation started on trips to Afghanistan during the war) The Mujahideen's training mainly came from Pakistan, the ISI, who did receive help and funding from the CIA

as for the why, WAR, people on both sides benefit imensley from a war the Bush family and the saudi's make a killin off the oil, the VICE PRESIDENT's OWN Company provide all the services etc to the troops. Jihad fits nicely into the scheme of things for the other side, martyrdom, terror, Death to the infidel n all that ****e. consumers buying security items in the west, more faithful in the ranks on the islamic side

So if I have this clear the current war is not being fought over a series of complex geo-political issue, like natural resources, political and religious ideological differences, instead two radically opposed ideologies, got together and conspired this whole mess up?

Honestly what is it about these people who make up bizarre conspiracy theories, of byzantine complexity, that boils down to a hopeless simplistic view of how the world actually works. I suspect actually they don't want to understand issues like history, politics, religion, and economics, and feel more comfortable that there is some sinister single group taking care of it all.

whiterebel

"I'm not into a defense of US and British military behaviour in Iraq or Afghanistan. However instances were civilians are killed are viewed as outrages and receive condemnation. For example consider the photos at Abu Grabib, once published, the army acted (one would prefer that they never allowed it happen in the first place.

Could the US government behead innocent journalists, and post video on the web? Attach a suicide belt to a mentally handicapped woman, and detonate her in a busy market? How about specifically targeting places to achieve maximum civilian causalities? Yet Muslim extremists consider all of the above as acceptable and legitimate tactics. "



Or use modern day Napalm (MK77) and White Phosphorous, both outlawed in warfare by the Geneva Convention? Or pick up who they consider to be suspects off a street and spirit them away for torture and probable death under "extraordinary rendition". Or supply Saddam Hussein with Biological and chemical weapons for use against their one time allies the Iranians, and the Kurds. Or encouraging The Shah of Iran to act more agressively against Demonstrators against his brutal regime. Strangely similar set of principles if you ask me.

oscarBravo

Mahatma coat wrote: »

yes there were radical Islamic extremists, yes they flew planes into some tall buildings in the US. did they act as individuals or did they Conspire as a group to comit these acts.

Hell of a coincidence that they happened to decide to do it on the same day.

Diogenes

whiterebel wrote: »

Or use modern day Napalm (MK77) and White Phosphorous, both outlawed in warfare by the Geneva Convention? Or pick up who they consider to be suspects off a street and spirit them away for torture and probable death under "extraordinary rendition". Or supply Saddam Hussein with Biological and chemical weapons for use against their one time allies the Iranians, and the Kurds. Or encouraging The Shah of Iran to act more agressively against Demonstrators against his brutal regime. Strangely similar set of principles if you ask me.

whiterebel, if you're trying to goad someone you suspect is a Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter fanboy, I would suggest you're figuratively wasting your breath. One needs only to look at the Danish Cartoon controversy (My personal favourite poster seen on a London Street was "Behead those who insult the peace of Islam") to see what freedoms would exist for you if the World was ruled by Sharia Law (a stated aim of Al Qaeda like terrorist organisations).

There is little doubt that the US and British troops have behaved reprehensibly at times, and their governments have supported appalling regimes (you could have suggested Pinochet instead of the Shah). But lets take a look at the regime that replaced it, in the Islamic state of Iran.

Morality Police arrest and torture homosexual, and "immoral" women. Students are arrested and tortured, death by stoning is still a common punishment. If I was in Iran, my ability to post this on the internet would be severely limited, and even if I was able to I could be arrested. Women's rights are severely curtailed.

whiterebel, if you want to play tit for tat, about reprehensible regimes, and war crimes, fine but I'm under no illusion that the US and British are noble warriors, led by honourable men, but again and again, if you compare their behaviour to Islamic fundamentalists, I can assure you I know who regime I'd infinitely prefer to be under.

humanji wrote:

The whole point of the thread is to try and come up with conspiracy theories. I'm not trying to get people to invest 10 years in researching possibilities, just to exercise the creative grey cells and to create a bit of life on the forum. And to kill time, if nothing else.

I'd suggest you spend some time exploring the rise of radical Islam, and the part the West played in it. People overlook the Chechnya war, the rise of the Taliban, and so many other factors, in their dash for conspiracy theories. Jason Burke's book which I linked to earlier is a great start.

Sea Sharp

Americans did it to get more control over the worlds oil supplies. Simple as that.
That said though, would you all rather the wars hadn't happened and there had been a global recession, far worse than now, instead? Remember the Iraqi oil-brouse thing? Basically the introduction of the euro meant the middle east could have ****ed over the western economies had they wanted to.

Personally I don't even care anymore. :rolleyes: They got awawy with it, job well done.

Diogenes

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

Americans did it to get more control over the worlds oil supplies. Simple as that.
That said though, would you all rather the wars hadn't happened and there had been a global recession, far worse than now, instead? Remember the Iraqi oil-brouse thing? Basically the introduction of the euro meant the middle east could have ****ed over the western economies had they wanted to.

Personally I don't even care anymore. :rolleyes: They got awawy with it, job well done.

Churchill once said “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

While I agree US and British governments behave in a reprehensible manner, would you rather that the world's natural resources were in the hands of fundamental islamic extremists?

Sea Sharp

While I agree US and British governments behave in a reprehensible manner, would you rather that the world's natural resources were in the hands of fundamental islamic extremists?

Nope, american control is definately the best option. Purely for economic stability.
Even though the 3,000 or so dead in 9-11 is regrettable, think of the suicide rates, increase in lawlessness, crime, murder, poverty that would have resulted from another 1929 recession.
I'm not denying that 9-11 was an attrocious crime, but at the end of the day it was the lesser of two evils. Nobody likes to accept it, but that's the way the real world works.

Diogenes

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

Nope, american control is definately the best option. Purely for economic stability.
Even though the 3,000 or so dead in 9-11 is regrettable, think of the suicide rates, increase in lawlessness, crime, murder, poverty that would have resulted from another 1929 recession.
I'm not denying that 9-11 was an attrocious crime, but at the end of the day it was the lesser of two evils. Nobody likes to accept it, but that's the way the real world works.

I'm sorry but you are wrong. The World was heading for a minor recession pre 911 thanks to the dot com bubble burst. The 911 eleven attacks allowed serious forestalling of the the bubble burst.

armour87

Sorry to hijack the thread but can I ask a very simple question to those of you in the know on this issue and throw the theories out the window.

Has anyone ever taken responsibility for the attacks?

Sea Sharp

I'm sorry but you are wrong. The World was heading for a minor recession pre 911 thanks to the dot com bubble burst. The 911 eleven attacks allowed serious forestalling of the the bubble burst.

i'm referring to the petro-dollar vs petro-euro predicament. If middle eastern countries stoped trading oil in dollars, and started trading in euros. The dollar would have been de-valued (it'd have been a lot worse than what is currently happening). And major recession in the US has global consequences, as we're seeing at the moment.

Mahatma coat

Diogenes wrote: »

Churchill once said “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

Good government shouldnt interfere, thats another good quote

While I agree US and British governments behave in a reprehensible manner, would you rather that the world's natural resources were in the hands of fundamental islamic extremists?

the way I'd see it the resources in question belong to the Islamists, so therefore they should be in their hands. I would be fairly sure that if we had left well enough alone we wouldnt be paying $100 a barrel for oil and there would be a lot less martyrs

Diogenes

armour87 wrote: »

Sorry to hijack the thread but can I ask a very simple question to those of you in the know on this issue and throw the theories out the window.

Has anyone ever taken responsibility for the attacks?

Yes Bin Laden has claimed responsibility and martyrdom videos from hijackers like Mohammed Atta, have been sent to the world's media.

Mahatma Coat wrote:

Good government shouldnt interfere, thats another good quote

No it's a glib and trite quote. Should government not interfere when an unfit mother neglects her children? Should the governments of Burma and China not interfere and let their people starve?

the way I'd see it the resources in question belong to the Islamists, so therefore they should be in their hands. I would be fairly sure that if we had left well enough alone we wouldnt be paying $100 a barrel for oil and there would be a lot less martyrs

Again a gross oversimplification. There are moderate muslims and extremist muslims, just like there are moderate christians and there are extremist christians, who murder abortionists, and believe the world was created in 7 days, and insist this is taught in our schools. Your inability to differentiate between secular muslims who find suicide bombing and "martyrdom missions" as abhorrent as the rest of humanity is obvious and naive. There is a struggle within the muslim world just as there is a struggle between the west and extremist muslims.

Sea Sharp

Diogenes, out of curiosity, who do you think was behind the attacks & why?

Diogenes

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

Diogenes, out of curiosity, who do you think was behind the attacks & why?

Muslim extremists who believe they are fighting a jihad against the great Satan.

Who do you believe was behind the attacks and why?

Sea Sharp

Whoever it is that GWB answers to. So as to control important resources.

Diogenes

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

Whoever it is that GWB answers to. So as to control important resources.

But that doesn't make sense, Iraq oil production is nowhere near what it was under Saddam, and the Natural gas pipeline that was mooted through Afghanistan cannot be built because of regional instability.

If they wanted control over natural resources, why don't they just negotiate with Saddam and the Taliban.

If you think GWB carried out 911, how do you think he did it?

Mahatma coat

Diogenes wrote: »

But that doesn't make sense, Iraq oil production is nowhere near what it was under Saddam, and the Natural gas pipeline that was mooted through Afghanistan cannot be built because of regional instability.

makes no sense eh? oil wa $25 a barrel before the war, its now $120 and the amount being produced has dropped dramatically. ya dont think some of the oil interests might be profiteering?

If they wanted control over natural resources, why don't they just negotiate with Saddam and the Taliban.

didnt you answer this yerself a few posts back

If you think GWB carried out 911, how do you think he did it?

maybe not GWB but what about GHWB

DublinWriter

Diogenes wrote: »

While I agree US and British governments behave in a reprehensible manner, would you rather that the world's natural resources were in the hands of fundamental islamic extremists?

Since when was Saddam Husein a 'fudamental islamic extremist'?

lol

whiterebel

Diogenes wrote: »

whiterebel, if you're trying to goad someone you suspect is a Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter fanboy, I would suggest you're figuratively wasting your breath. One needs only to look at the Danish Cartoon controversy (My personal favourite poster seen on a London Street was "Behead those who insult the peace of Islam") to see what freedoms would exist for you if the World was ruled by Sharia Law (a stated aim of Al Qaeda like terrorist organisations).

Ok, I was with you right up to "whiterebel" then it completely disintegrated.
Anyone reading your post would have thought that the only ones perpetrating atrocities are Muslims. I was trying to establish some balance here. I fthat doesn't suit, I'm very, very sorry (Said in a Father Jack way, just so there's no mistake)
I would have thought by this stage the Imperialists would understand there is a price to be paid for their actions. France, Britain, and now America have suffered in various ways as a result of their playing with other countries rights.
I also cannot understand how Governements that have been proven to lie to suit their own ends are still expected to be believed without question.

If countries like the US, UK and Russia didn't get involved trying to shape other countries such as Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq would the popular support for the hardliners not die away? Bit like the Northern Island conundrum down though the years. Why did the Western Powers not invest in technology other than oil down though the years?They knew 40 years ago that stocks wouldn't last for ever, but does it stop us producing 4 and 5 litre gas-guzzlers? Perhaps if the Middle Eastern nations knew we weren't quite so dependent, they wouldn't he in quite the position they are to have us by the b*lls, and might even stop Oil rich nations being targeted.

With regard to Afghanistan and the oil/Gas pipeline, the US did negotiate for 8 years with the Taliban, in fact GW even had them in Texas for lunch......
However, from what I can see, they learned nothing from Vietnam or the Russian experience and thought they would flatten Afghanistan, then stroll in, and set up a puppet government and get that pipeline built. Iraq next, 4th largest oilfield in the world, base of operations in the Gulf, right next door to old friend/enemy Iran.

Sorry, should also have made reference to the different laws/religins. Who are we to prsume that the people who live under Sharia law or whatever don't like it? We presumed the Russians would love "Demoacracy" too, only it seems they don't.

toiletduck

To understand the motivations behind 9/11 we must go back decades.....

Antarctica 1947 - The last battle of World War II takes place in secret above the icy southern pole. The combatants are Nazi UFO's facing off against the Americans and the British. A stalemate ensues and a ceasefire is announced, the Nazi's are allowed the far side of the moon and a portion of Antarctica.

14 May 1948 - Adolf Hitler reads the news reports of the creation of the state of Israel, he swears revenge in a fiery radio broadcast to the dwindled Nazi population to whom he is still Furher. He mentions that as per the treaty signed with the Allies, they are forbidden from exposing their existence to the world "we shall find agents of chaos to rein fire on the jews." He dies shortly there after but the leadership vow to continue his last wish. Much promise is seen in the humilated and downtrodden Palestinians.

Over the next few decades, Nazi agents the world over indirectly help with the shaping of what we now know as Islamic terrorism. 9/11 was planned, funded and implemented by the remianing Nazis. Their aim: to draw America into a bloody and brutal occupation of a Middle Eastern country. After the Americans would inevitably withdraw, the American populace would want nothing more to do with that region and military support and aid to Israel would cease. The newly created extremist dominated country left by the yanks would be blooded enough to seize the opportunity and once and for all destroy Israel............

Kernel

America is $45 trillion dollars in debt, it will be unable to sustain it's ageing population in our lifetimes - economists have said this will be impossible - that the US would have needed to increase it's tax rate to 75% several years ago just to achieve this. The economy is therefore in very serious trouble. Recently, China and India have been hugely increasing their oil consumption. Supply and demand, the price goes up - big time. Oil is the cornerstone of western economies, it affects everything. Afghanistan has huge gas reserves, Iraq huge oil reserves. The US needs to control these finite resources to stave off the rot.

How do you sell a war/invasions of sovereign nations to the world/american public for simple old fashioned economic necessity? The equivalent of robbing a bank to pay the mortgage (only worse). You create a false flag operation, drum up anger against people or nations, spin the propoganda and away you go. I mean, there was absolutely no reason to go into Iraq at all otherwise, so logically it was the oil.

The question which many have a problem with is whether 9/11 happened due to a terrorist attack or whether it was sanctioned/sponsored/allowed to occur, by the US administration - the vast majority of whom seem to be oil men, or have profiteered massively from the 'war on terror' - a war which can never be won by conventional warfare.

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

makes no sense eh? oil wa $25 a barrel before the war, its now $120 and the amount being produced has dropped dramatically. ya dont think some of the oil interests might be profiteering?

Undoubtedly, but don't you think the world's economy is also suffering.

Is that why you think someone doing all this? Greed? How many ivory backscratchers do you think the NWO need?

didnt you answer this yerself a few posts back

I think if you examine the facts you'll see that the US government was happily engaging with talks with the Taliban over the pipeline for many years, and sept 11th destroyed any chance of negotiation.

maybe not GWB but what about GHWB

Again I have to ask, where is your proof?

Dublin Writer wrote:

Since when was Saddam Husein a 'fudamental islamic extremist'?

lol

Did I say he was, ever?

Saddam was careful to ensure various religious and tribal factions were controlled under his regime.

whiterebel wrote:

Ok, I was with you right up to "whiterebel" then it completely disintegrated.
Anyone reading your post would have thought that the only ones perpetrating atrocities are Muslims.

Ahem;

There is little doubt that the US and British troops have behaved reprehensibly at times, and their governments have supported appalling regimes (you could have suggested Pinochet instead of the Shah

In fact I clearly state several times that I don't believe that the US and British military and their governments don't have an unblemished record. It's not my problem if you have a reading comprehension issue.

I was trying to establish some balance here. I fthat doesn't suit, I'm very, very sorry (Said in a Father Jack way, just so there's no mistake)
I would have thought by this stage the Imperialists would understand there is a price to be paid for their actions. France, Britain, and now America have suffered in various ways as a result of their playing with other countries rights.

And the point of this non sequitur is?

Much as I hate to drag you off the wild tangent you are on, but my point is this; The OP suggested that the parties that carried out the Sept 11th atrocities could potentially be either Israeli, the EU, or China (I should point out that he suggested all three without a shred of evidence, and made several basic factual errors when discussing potential motives). I pointed out that why wasn't the OP considering whether muslim extremists carried out the attack for their own ends. You then inserted some rambling non sequitur about the behaviour of the US and UK governments, without explaining the significance of your point.

You do have a point don't you?

I also cannot understand how Governements that have been proven to lie to suit their own ends are still expected to be believed without question.

Did I say that I did or that I believe governments "without question?"

No one has presented any credible facts that actually call into question the events of Sept 11th, they've made wild assertions without supporting them.

If countries like the US, UK and Russia didn't get involved trying to shape other countries such as Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq would the popular support for the hardliners not die away? Bit like the Northern Island conundrum down though the years. Why did the Western Powers not invest in technology other than oil down though the years?They knew 40 years ago that stocks wouldn't last for ever, but does it stop us producing 4 and 5 litre gas-guzzlers? Perhaps if the Middle Eastern nations knew we weren't quite so dependent, they wouldn't he in quite the position they are to have us by the b*lls, and might even stop Oil rich nations being targeted.

Again, your point is?

With regard to Afghanistan and the oil/Gas pipeline, the US did negotiate for 8 years with the Taliban, in fact GW even had them in Texas for lunch......
However, from what I can see, they learned nothing from Vietnam or the Russian experience and thought they would flatten Afghanistan, then stroll in, and set up a puppet government and get that pipeline built. Iraq next, 4th largest oilfield in the world, base of operations in the Gulf, right next door to old friend/enemy Iran.

The discussion is about who committed sept 11th and why, if you want to rant about botched US foreign policy, I'd suggest the politics forum.

Sorry, should also have made reference to the different laws/religins. Who are we to prsume that the people who live under Sharia law or whatever don't like it? We presumed the Russians would love "Demoacracy" too, only it seems they don't.

You are a mass of bloody non sequitur's white rebel, aren't you?

The OP listed off a group of potential perpetrators of the sept 11th attacks, I simply asked, why he didn't consider the likelyhood that a group with a proven track record of terrorist atrocities, who had motive, and the capability to carry out the attacks. Particularly since the overwhelming majority of evidence points to a small highly motivated group of muslim extremists carrying out the attack.

You seem to think that if you sling enough mud at everyone else it will muddy the waters.

toiletduck wrote:

To understand the motivations behind 9/11 we must go back decades.....

Antarctica 1947 - The last battle of World War II takes place in secret above the icy southern pole. The combatants are Nazi UFO's facing off against the Americans and the British. A stalemate ensues and a ceasefire is announced, the Nazi's are allowed the far side of the moon and a portion of Antarctica.

14 May 1948 - Adolf Hitler reads the news reports of the creation of the state of Israel, he swears revenge in a fiery radio broadcast to the dwindled Nazi population to whom he is still Furher. He mentions that as per the treaty signed with the Allies, they are forbidden from exposing their existence to the world "we shall find agents of chaos to rein fire on the jews." He dies shortly there after but the leadership vow to continue his last wish. Much promise is seen in the humilated and downtrodden Palestinians.

Over the next few decades, Nazi agents the world over indirectly help with the shaping of what we now know as Islamic terrorism. 9/11 was planned, funded and implemented by the remianing Nazis. Their aim: to draw America into a bloody and brutal occupation of a Middle Eastern country. After the Americans would inevitably withdraw, the American populace would want nothing more to do with that region and military support and aid to Israel would cease. The newly created extremist dominated country left by the yanks would be blooded enough to seize the opportunity and once and for all destroy Israel............

I don't suppose you have anything resembling a fact to back up this towering pile of nonsense?

toiletduck

Diogenes wrote: »

I don't suppose you have anything resembling a fact to back up this towering pile of nonsense?

Easy up... Did I misread the OP?

humanji wrote:

Consider the main topic as a true conspiracy.
..................
we might even have a bit of fun too

Was just bored this morning and came up with it Though it does link together some of the more hilarious CT's I've came across.

Mahatma coat

Ah but didnt the Lizzzzards take the Spaceship back off the Nazis early on in the 50's as it was time for them to launch back to their home world, which coincidentaly has a 60 degree orbit to earth so they only had a brief launch window.



Diogenes, tis al well and good to be Skeptical about everything, but you dont seem to have a position of yer own, more a case of 'well I'm smarter than you cos I believe this Official story' ye must be cranks.

give us your version of events then in one clear post.

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Diogenes, tis al well and good to be Skeptical about everything, but you dont seem to have a position of yer own, more a case of 'well I'm smarter than you cos I believe this Official story' ye must be cranks.

Whut? I've made my point that the vast majority of conspiracy theories about 911 are incoherent, irrational, and don't make sense, and the rest are either misrepresentation of the facts, or wild suppositions.

give us your version of events then in one clear post.

19 fanatical jihadists flew planes into three buildings, they were not agents of Mossad, GWB, or the NWO, but muslim religious extremists tied to the loose coalition we call Al Qaeda. The WTC 1&2 collapsed due to damage caused by the initial impact, and subsequent fires. WTC 7 collapsed, after it suffered massive damage from the collapsing towers, and had massive fires raging uncontrolled inside for hours. The passengers of flight 93, alerted by contact by loved ones, learnt of the terrorists intent, and attacked their hijackers, and were killed in the subsequent crash. The Pentagon was hit by flight 77.

All of the above is provable and true, and backed by eye witness accounts, intelligence reports, and scientific studies such as the NIST report.

beerbaron

Diogenes wrote: »

19 fanatical jihadists flew planes into three buildings, they were not agents of Mossad, GWB, or the NWO, but muslim religious extremists tied to the loose coalition we call Al Qaeda. The WTC 1&2 collapsed due to damage caused by the initial impact, and subsequent fires.

Giving them a spot in the guinness book of records as the only reinforced steel building to collapse due to fire

But they didnt collapse in the direction of least resistence (at the site of the impact) they collapsed from the basement and lower levels, as though the supports were cut ?

WTC 7 collapsed, after it suffered massive damage from the collapsing towers, and had massive fires raging uncontrolled inside for hours.

WTC7 collapsed in an identical fashion to 1 and 2, collapsed from the basement

The passengers of flight 93, alerted by contact by loved ones, learnt of the terrorists intent, and attacked their hijackers, and were killed in the subsequent crash. a plane crash with no wreckage / bodies ?
The Pentagon was hit by flight 77 theres no evidence (video or otherwise) to clearly say what hit the pentagon

All of the above is provable and true, and backed by eye witness accounts, intelligence reports, and scientific studies such as the NIST report.

More please.......

Diogenes

beerbaron wrote: »

More please.......

firstly please learn to use the quote function better.

Giving them a spot in the guinness book of records as the only reinforced steel building to collapse due to fire

And damage from an airplane being flown into them at high speed. You seem to be ignoring that bit. But please bring up something like the Windsor building in Madrid, we can have a hoot with that if you like.

Very few building have massive jetliners crash into them, and very few building fires are fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel. But hey ignore those difficult things like facts shall well?

But they didnt collapse in the direction of least resistence (at the site of the impact) they collapsed from the basement and lower levels, as though the supports were cut ?

Absurd. patiently false, nonsense. Any video clearly shows the impact zones as the collapse initiation point.

North tower
http://youtube.com/watch?v=oCSXco-bPNo

South tower
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFz9TZUyIZk&NR=1

Clearly collapsing at the impact zones, how you can think the collapse started at the basement, simply boggles the mind.

WTC7 collapsed in an identical fashion to 1 and 2, collapsed from the basement

No it did not. To Quote firechief DiNigro

"“The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged building[WTC7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in seri-ous doubt.”"


in fact have some more quotes from firemen on the ground that day

1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110081.PDF

2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110447.PDF

3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the com-mand post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now peo-ple were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

4. All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110018.PDF

5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

6. The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF

7. Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110207.PDF

8. At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110222.PDF

9. Chief Cruthers told me that they had formed another command post up on Chambers Street. At this point there were a couple of floors burning on Seven World Trade Center. Chief McNally wanted to try and put that fire out, and he was trying to coordinate with the command post up on Chambers Street. This is after searching for a while. He had me running back and forth trying to get companies to go into Seven World Trade Center. His radio didn't seem to be working right either because he had me relaying information back and forth and Chief Cruthers had me --

Q. So everything was face-to-face? Nothing was by radio?

A. Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Captain Michael Donovan
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110205.PDF

10. Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports02.pdf page 48.

11. At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings.
–M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports03.pdf page 49

[Note: the fires in 7 were probably not mainly due to damage from the south tower, but from the north.]
12. So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.

Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that build-ing and lit it on fire?

A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block. –Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110413.PDF

13. "We were down about a block from the base of the World Trade Center towers about an hour ago. And there was a great deal of concern at that time, the firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse, building number five was in danger of collapsing. And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."
–CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.wmv

14. Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's go-ing on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved.

Now you're trapped in the rubble and the guys who are there are fighting the worst high-rise fire in the history of New York or history of the world, probably, I don't know, 40, story building fully involved, I guess that was probably the worst.

I was, needless to say, scared to death that something else was going to fall on us, that this building was going to come down and we were all going to die, after surviving the worst of it. [Note: I deleted the link this account, and searching the net for the text doesn’t turn up anything. This sounds like an account from north tower stairwell B sur-vivor. Anyone who knows for sure, let me know.]

15. And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110261.PDF

16. The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connors http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 69

17. "There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.
We're kind of caught in traffic and people and things, and everything's going on. We hear over the fire portable, "Eve-rybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse." Mark Steffens starts yelling, "Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse." I turned around, and I piped up real loud and said, "Stay in the frigging car. Roll the windows up. It's pancake collapsing. We'll be fine. The debris will quit and the cloud will come through. Just stay in the car." We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake. We had a dust cloud but nothing like it was before. –Paramedic Louis Cook http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110103.PDF

Building 7 fire makes rescuer of NT stairwell victim’s route impassable (just before collapse):
I remember it was bad and I'm going to get to a point where we came back that way on the way up. We couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling.
...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot.
So as I’m going back, that fire that was on my right is now on my left. I’m backtracking and that fire is really going and on the hike towards there, we put down our masks, which at this point started to realize maybe it would have been good thing if we had this mask on the way back, but then again between the fire and about halfway when I was on the way back, I got a radio call from the guys that we left and it was Johnny Colon the chauffeur of 43, who was effecting a different rescue. He was carrying somebody out.
He had called me and said “Hey Jerry don’t try and get back out the way you went in which was big heads up move because he said that building was rolling on top of the building that we were passing. That building was on fire and likely to collapse more too.
Between Picciotto asking me are you sure we can get out this way because it really didn’t look good with that fire and my guy telling me that you better not because of the area we crawled in was unattainable now too. ...we started going back the other way.
Q: Would that be towards West Street?
A: That would have been back towards what I know is the Winter Garden....[west]
–Firefighter Gerard Suden http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110022.PDF

18. I remember Chief Hayden saying to me, "We have a six-story building over there, a seven-story building, fully involved." At that time he said, "7 has got fire on several floors." He said, "We've got a ten-story over there, another ten-story over there, a six-story over there, a 13-story over there." He just looked at me and said, "**** 'em all. Let 'em burn." He said, "Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers. We've got people trapped. We've got to get them out." –Lieutenant William Ryan http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110117.PDF

19. I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.' –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110055.PDF

20. We were champing at the bit," says WCBS-TV reporter Vince DeMentri of his decision to sneak behind police barricades and report from 7 World Trade Center a half-hour before it collapsed. "I knew the story was in there." But after he and his cameraman slipped past officers, they lost all sense of direction. "From outside this zone, you could figure out where everything was," he says. "But inside, it was all destruction and blown-out buildings, and we had no clue. I walked into one building, but I had no idea where I was. The windows were all blown out. Computers, desks, furniture, and people's possessions were strewn all over." He found a picture of a little girl lying in the rubble. Then he realized that No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him. "I looked up Barclay Street," he says. "There was nobody out. No bodies, no injured. Nobody. There were mounds of burning debris. It was like open-ing a broiler." http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/features/5183/index.html

21. They are worried that number 7 is burning and they are talking about not ceasing operations.
–Deputy Commissioner Frank Gribbon http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110167.PDF

22. There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire. –Assistant Commissioner James Drury http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110098.PDF

23. We assisted some FDNY personnel who were beginning to attempt to fight the fire at 7 WTC. We assisted in dragging hose they needed to bring water into the building. –Kenneth Kohlmann PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 26

24. My first thoughts when I came down a little further into the site, south of Chambers Street, was, "Where am I?" I didn't recognize it. Obviously, the towers were gone. The only thing that remained standing was a section of the Vista Hotel. Building 7 was on fire. That was ready to come down. –Charlie Vitchers, Ground Zero Superintendent http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/profiles/profiles_vitchers_t.html

beerbaron perhaps you'd like to explain how you wire a building for demolition, then set it on fire for 5 hours, and expect the det cord and charges to remain intact.

Also the collapse started from the penthouse, not the basement.

a plane crash with no wreckage / bodies ?

Oh for ****s sake. This again? This is a misappropriation of a quote of the Shanksville County Coroner, used by that scumbag Dylan Avery in loose change. I suggest you watch the BBC program the conspiracy files, on 911, and watch how Dylan is challenged that the coroner was using a simile. There's even an interview with the Coroner.

http://911myths.com/html/flight_93_photos.html

For a collection of debris photos.

Here's a list of witnesses to the crash

Bob Blair was completing a routine drive to Shade Creek just after 10 a.m. Tuesday, when he saw a huge silver plane fly past him just above the treetops and crash into the woods along Lambertsville Road.

Blair, of Stoystown, a driver with Jim Barron Trucking of Somerset, was traveling in a coal truck along with Doug Miller of Somerset, when they saw the plane spiraling to the ground and then explode on the outskirts of Lambertsville.

“I saw the plane flying upside down overhead and crash into the nearby trees. My buddy, Doug, and I grabbed our fire extinguishers and ran to the scene,” said Blair. Source


"It was low enough, I thought you could probably count the rivets. You could see more of the roof of the plane than you could the belly. It was on its side. There was a great explosion and you could see the flames. It was a massive, massive explosion. Flames and then smoke and then a massive, massive mushroom cloud." Source


Then Peterson said he saw a fireball, heard an explosion and saw a mushroom cloud of smoke rise into the sky.

Peterson rushed to the scene on an all-terrain vehicle and when he arrived he saw bits and pieces of an airliner spread over a large area of an abandoned strip-mine in Stonycreek Township.

"There was a crater in the ground that was really burning," Peterson said. Strewn about were pieces of clothing hanging from trees and parts of the Boeing 757, but nothing bigger than a couple of feet long, he said. Many of the items were burning. Source


The ensuing firestorm lasted five or 10 minutes and reached several hundred yards into the sky, said Joe Wilt, 63, who also lives a quarter-mile from the crash site. "Jetliner Was Diverted Toward Washington Before Crash in Pa." The Washington Post September 12, 2001


"I just watched with my mouth open as this yellow mushroom cloud rose up just like an atomic bomb over the hill where I like to go hunting," said 72- year-old John Walsh

Barefoot and in his bathrobe, he drove up the dirt road to rescue anyone he could find. There would be nothing he could do.

Debris, including photographs and other papers that survived the fireball, was strewn over a wide area. Residents have spent days collecting it. Source


"When the plane hit, it sounded like something just fell on the roof. Everybody sort of panicked," she said. "I went to the window and saw all this smoke coming up and I just pointed and screamed."-Source


Charles Sturtz, 53, who lives just over the hillside from the crash site, said a fireball 200 feet high shot up over the hill. He got to the crash scene even before the firefighters. Source


Tim Lensbouer, 300 yards away: "I heard it for 10 or 15 seconds and it sounded like it was going full bore." [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/12/01]


Rob Kimmel, several miles from the crash site: He sees it fly overhead, banking hard to the right. It is 200 feet or less off the ground as it crests a hill to the southeast. "I saw the top of the plane, not the bottom." [Among the Heroes, by Jere Longman, p. 210-211]


Tom Fritz, about a quarter-mile from the crash site: He hears a sound that "wasn't quite right" and looks up in the sky. "It dropped all of a sudden, like a stone," going "so fast that you couldn't even make out what color it was." [St. Petersburg Times, 9/12/01]


Terry Butler "It dropped out of the clouds." The plane rose slightly, trying to gain altitude, then "it just went flip to the right and then straight down." [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/12/01]

Terry Butler: He sees the plane come out of the clouds, low to the ground. "It was moving like you wouldn't believe. Next thing I knew it makes a heck of a sharp, right-hand turn." It banks to the right and appears to be trying to climb to clear one of the ridges, but it continues to turn to the right and then veers behind a ridge. About a second later it crashes. [St. Petersburg Times, 9/12/01]


Lee Purbaugh, 300 yards away: "There was an incredibly loud rumbling sound and there it was, right there, right above my head – maybe 50 feet up.... I saw it rock from side to side then, suddenly, it dipped and dived, nose first, with a huge explosion, into the ground. I knew immediately that no one could possibly have survived." [Independent, 8/13/02]


Linda Shepley: She hears a loud bang and sees the plane bank to the side. [ABC News, 9/11/01] She sees the plane wobbling right and left, at a low altitude of roughly 2,500 feet, when suddenly the right wing dips straight down, and the plane plunges into the earth. [Philadelphia Daily News, 11/15/01]


Kelly Leverknight in Stony Creek Township of Shanksville: "There was no smoke, it just went straight down. I saw the belly of the plane." It sounds like it is flying low, and it's heading east. [Daily American, 9/12/01, St. Petersburg Times, 9/12/01]


A witness told WTAE-TV's Paul Van Osdol that she saw the plane overhead. It made a high-pitched, screeching sound. The plane then made a sharp, 90-degree downward turn and crashed. Source


Tim Thornsberg, working in a nearby strip mine: "It came in low over the trees and started wobbling. Then it just rolled over and was flying upside down for a few seconds ... and then it kind of stalled and did a nose dive over the trees." [WPIX Channel 11, 9/13/01]


Paula Pluta of Stonycreek Township was watching a television rerun of “Little House on the Prairie” when the plane went down about 1,500 yards from her home along Lambertsville Road at Little Prairie Lane.

“I looked out the window and saw the plane nose-dive right into the ground,” she said, barefoot and shaken just 45 minutes after the crash.

The explosion buckled her garage doors and blasted open a latched window on her home, she said.

“It was just a streak of silver. Then a fireball shot up as high as the clouds. There was no way anybody could have survived. I called 911 right away.

“There was no way anything was left,” Pluta added. “There was just charred pieces of metal and a big hole. The plane didn’t slide into the crash. It went straight into the ground. Wings out. Nose down.”

here's Wally Miller the Summerset County Coroner's account of personally identifying 12 bodies

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010929somerset0929p3.asp

here's recovery workers talking about the makeshift morgue
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_12950.html

In fact 1500 body parts were collected in total by agencies such as
8 Police Departments • 7 EMS Services • 8 Fire Departments • 10 Emergency Management Agencies • NTSB • ATF • FBI • CISM • Red Cross • United Airlines

Are you honestly saying all these people are in on the conspiracy beerbaron?

The Pentagon was hit by flight 77 theres no evidence (video or otherwise) to clearly say what hit the pentagon

Oh phuluuze! AA77 flew over an eight lane highway during morning rush hour so low it clipped and knocked over lightpoles.

I can't be bothered doing another C&P so here's a link to an xcel file which lists witnesses

The following agencies worked at the pentagon crash scene

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police

Some arrived within minutes of the crash. Do you think all these people are part of the conspiracy , that something other than flight 77 hit the pentagon?

Sea Sharp

You're turning this into all the other 9-11 black hole thread. Lets just assume that people have allready looked into it and made their decision. The OP had a good idea. "Who and why", that's all that is to be discussed here.

I for one feel confident that it was a false flag operation. I don't know every last detail about the day and some propositions by people that share my opinion are wrong.

Diogenes

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

I for one feel confident that it was a false flag operation. I don't know every last detail about the day and some propositions by people that share my opinion are wrong.

You could share what evidence gives you this confidence.

Sea Sharp

The name Al Quaeda was first devised in a New York court-room in 2001 so as to be able to say that somebody was part of an organised criminal organisation and try them under laws directed at the mafia. The notion of an organized terrorist organisation throughout the world is a delusion. Yes there are resistants in Iraq, but they were not there before 9-11.
Were not several of the highjackers later proven to be alive and well in Saudi Arabia.
The fact that there was a terrorist drill happening on September 11 which prevented the military from taking action STINKS of foul play. There are other things but to be honest, I just don't care anymore.
If you want to take a fairy-tale look of the world with 'good' vs 'evil' go ahead. I prefer to look at reality. 10% of humans are psychopathic. These are the people that are likely to do things which could be considered 'evil', and the personality profile of a lot of the current American government fits this. ( I do not for a second beleive that either the Iraq war or the Afghanistan war was about bringing freedom and prosperity to the citizens of relative countries. And I think that the American leaders tried to give the impression that the wars were about this. I think they were lying. It's just not reality and you need to take your head out of your ass if you think that this is the case)

Diogenes

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

The name Al Quaeda was first devised in a New York court-room in 2001 so as to be able to say that somebody was part of an organised criminal organisation and try them under laws directed at the mafia.

Half true. Ahmed Ajaj was arrested in 1993 in New York in 1993 with a terrorist training manual entitled Al Qaeda.

But you are right the notion of a coherent organised structure stems from the US trying to use anti mafia laws to charge terrorists.

The notion of an organized terrorist organisation throughout the world is a delusion.

Somewhat true, what there are a a loose collection of terrorist organisations, and cells, who do not work under one leader, but share similar ideology, and goals.

Yes there are resistants in Iraq, but they were not there before 9-11.

True, who was there to resist.

Were not several of the highjackers later proven to be alive and well in Saudi Arabia.

No they were not.

GaNjaHaN, people have been claiming that the hijackers have been found alive. I'll bet you can cannot find a single reputable source that supports this claim. You'll find conspiracy theorists use the same false reports such as the Atta is a alive from 2001 on the BBC site.

If there was any truth to this claim surely the Conspiracy theorists should just travel to Saudi Arabia, and interview one of the hijackers? But not one documentary, not one CT book has done this in nearly a decade. Surely the CTers know that such an interview would garner them an instant pulitizer prize, and international fame, blowing the whole "Offical Story" away.

The fact that there was a terrorist drill happening on September 11 which prevented the military from taking action STINKS of foul play.

Two points. What military terrorist drill are you referring to?

Because the training drill was schedule to start after the hijacking and the confusion was over in a single sentence.

In the background, however, you can make out the sound of Jeremy Powell, then 31, a burly, amiable technical sergeant, fielding the phone call that will be the military's first notification that something is wrong. On the line is Boston Center, the civilian air-traffic-control facility that handles that region's high-flying airliners.
08:37:52
BOSTON CENTER: Hi. Boston Center T.M.U. [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.
POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?
BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.

Powell's question—"Is this real-world or exercise?"—is heard nearly verbatim over and over on the tapes as troops funnel onto the ops floor and are briefed about the hijacking. Powell, like almost everyone in the room, first assumes the phone call is from the simulations team on hand to send "inputs"—simulated scenarios—into play for the day's training exercise.
Boston's request for fighter jets is not as prescient as it might seem. Standard hijack protocol calls for fighters to be launched—"scrambled"—merely to establish a presence in the air. The pilots are trained to trail the hijacked plane at a distance of about five miles, out of sight, following it until, presumably, it lands. If necessary, they can show themselves, flying up close to establish visual contact, and, if the situation demands, maneuver to force the plane to land.

For the neads crew, 9/11 was not a story of four hijacked airplanes, but one of a heated chase after more than a dozen potential hijackings—some real, some phantom—that emerged from the turbulence of misinformation that spiked in the first 100 minutes of the attack and continued well into the afternoon and evening. At one point, in the span of a single mad minute, one hears Nasypany struggling to parse reports of four separate hijackings at once. What emerges from the barrage of what Nasypany dubs "bad poop" flying at his troops from all directions is a picture of remarkable composure. Snap decisions more often than not turn out to be the right ones as commanders kick-start the dormant military machine. It is the fog and friction of war live—the authentic military history of 9/11.
"The real story is actually better than the one we told," a norad general admitted to 9/11-commission staffers when confronted with evidence from the tapes that contradicted his original testimony. And so it seems.
Subpoenaed by the commission during its investigation, the recordings have never been played publicly beyond a handful of sound bites presented during the commission's hearings. Last September, as part of my research for the film United 93, on which I was an associate producer, I requested copies from the Pentagon. I was played snippets, but told my chances of hearing the full recordings were nonexistent. So it was a surprise, to say the least, when a military public-affairs officer e-mailed me, a full seven months later, saying she'd been cleared, finally, to provide them.

Both quotes are from this a vanity fair piece, which actually allows you to listen to the audio from NEADs

There are other things but to be honest, I just don't care anymore.

So you think it was a mass conspiracy to murder thousand of people, but hey you're "meh" about it.

If you want to take a fairy-tale look of the world with 'good' vs 'evil' go ahead.

Again accusing me of having a blinkered simplistic worldview. I've said over and over on this thread that I don't for a second believe that the US and British administrations are white knights charging for freedom.

I prefer to look at reality. 10% of humans are psychopathic. These are the people that are likely to do things which could be considered 'evil', and the personality profile of a lot of the current American government fits this.

You prefer to look at reality, and then breathtaking suggest that one in ten people are psychopathic, without a shred of evidence. Do you even know what that word means?

( I do not for a second beleive that either the Iraq war or the Afghanistan war was about bringing freedom and prosperity to the citizens of relative countries. And I think that the American leaders tried to give the impression that the wars were about this. I think they were lying. It's just not reality and you need to take your head out of your ass if you think that this is the case)

Y'know I'm heartly getting fed up with CTers thinking that everyone who challenges them, must love the British and American leaders. I marched against the Iraq war. I actually object to 911 CTers because there are enough genuine and real objectionable things the US administration have carried out, without inventing bull**** "false flag" nonsense, which muddies the waters about the real stuff they are doing.

Honestly, you think I need to take my head out of my ass, when you're doing a brilliant impression of ostrich in your own rectum.

nacho libre

It's far more likely a select few let it happen. This is of course impossible to prove so it's a far safer option to those who may have known.
To actually organise and excute such a sophisticated operation would be far more problematic as it would mean alot of people would have to be killed upon its completion. this is the major problems i have with accepting many conspiracy theories - the most outstanding example being the jfk assassination.

Although, all that said, it would be naive to believe government agencies don't ever carry out black ops, which when successful will of course mean an absence of evidence leading back to the real culprits. Which is good for those who stress the need for facts.

the head of mossad, in 1950, was asked what had he learned after the Lavon affair, he said: "Next time we will ensure we don't get caught". If he
was right that means mossad has probably executed many plots where there is little direct evidence to indicate they were involved. so, in conclusion
an absence of concrete evidence to support your position does not automatically mean you are wrong in your supposition. Obviously a successful black op means supposition is all you will likely ever have - which is again great for those who need to believe their leaders err rather than sometimes act with deliberate malice to futher a geopolitical aim.

anyone viewing this thread who works for an intelligence agency knows what i'm talking about. i'm talking about you toiletduck:pac:

Diogenes

nacho libre wrote: »

It's far more likely a select few let it happen. This is of course impossible to prove so it's a far safer option to those who may have known.
To actually organise and excute such a sophisticated operation would be far more problematic as it would mean alot of people would have to be killed upon its completion. this is the major problems i have with accepting many conspiracy theories - the most outstanding example being the jfk assassination.

Although, all that said, it would be naive to believe government agencies don't ever carry out black ops, which when successful will of course mean an absence of evidence leading back to the real culprits. Which is good for those who stress the need for facts.

the head of mossad, in 1950, was asked what had he learned after the Lavon affair, he said: "Next time we will ensure we don't get caught". If he
was right that means mossad has probably executed many plots where there is little direct evidence to indicate they were involved. so, in conclusion
an absence of concrete evidence to support your position does not automatically mean you are wrong in your supposition. Obviously a successful black op means supposition is all you will likely ever have - which is again great for those who need to believe their leaders err rather than sometimes act with deliberate malice to futher a geopolitical aim.

anyone viewing this thread who works for an intelligence agency knows what i'm talking about. i'm talking about you toiletduck:pac:

You mention Nixon and thats a good point, Watergate was a tiny conspiracy that fell under it's own weight, yet when one or two talked the entire conspiracy collapsed, taking with it the president of the united states, and leading to jail time for some of his senior staff.

Now in terms of 911 the scale and scope of the investigation this means thats 1000's of FBI agents, independent investigators, journalists, doctors, lawyers, family members are either complicit with these lies, or fooled by them.

Which is it?

Sea Sharp

No they were not.

GaNjaHaN, people have been claiming that the hijackers have been found alive. I'll bet you can cannot find a single reputable source that supports this claim. You'll find conspiracy theorists use the same false reports such as the Atta is a alive from 2001 on the BBC site.

Look at : http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers_flt_11.html
That's not really a good link though because its sources have been changed.

Two points. What military terrorist drill are you referring to?

Because the training drill was schedule to start after the hijacking and the confusion was over in a single sentence.

from: http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_facts.html

On the morning of September 11th, 2001, Dick Cheney was running several war games in the north eastern portion of the United States. These drills included many hijacking scenarios, where commercial jets were hijacked and flown into buildings. At the same time Cheney had arranged for a drill involving a bio attack on NY. This resulted in FEMA setting up a command post on pier 29 in New York on September 10th.
Some of these drill were scheduled for later in the year but Dick Cheney rescheduled them and made sure that they all took place on the same day. This was unprecedented.
And he ordered Norad to stand down....

So you think it was a mass conspiracy to murder thousand of people, but hey you're "meh" about it.

Ironically, I was in factmrefering to getting dragged into big complicated multi-post arguments like this. You have to 'back up your claims' go searching for links dealing with a topic that is, in fairness, too vast with too many alternative theorys. It's become like arguing about religion. You just end up going in circles.

Quote:
If you want to take a fairy-tale look of the world with 'good' vs 'evil' go ahead.

Again accusing me of having a blinkered simplistic worldview. I've said over and over on this thread that I don't for a second believe that the US and British administrations are white knights charging for freedom.

Well the US media, and the official story, made the wars into a hollywood movie syle battle of good vs evil. The Americans playing the role of 'good' the nasty terrorists playing the role of 'evil'.
Looking at the situation at large, the notion of invading a country so as to get at a terrorist organisation is absurd. It is completely ridiculous. 100s of billions of dollars so as to catch Osamma bin Laden, and protect America from WMD. And the US government were able to foresee this. The intelegence blunder about WMD was a load of rubbish. The american intelegence agencies are actually quite 'intelegent'.
I specifically remember in the weeks before Afghanistan (don't have a reference for this, but I remember hearing it on Sky News, and I couldn't beleive it.). The Taliban were trying to initiate talks so as to negotiate handing over Osamma bin Laden, to which the US responded "We don't negotiate with terrorists". I don't think Afghanistan was about catching Osamma bin Laden and all his imaginary cave complexes with imaginary thousands of Al Quaeda operatives.

You prefer to look at reality, and then breathtaking suggest that one in ten people are psychopathic, without a shred of evidence. Do you even know what that word means?

Taken from :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

It is estimated that approximately 1% of the general population are psychopaths.

Sorry, I well over-exagerated that number.

Read:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2001/10/4188.shtml

Similar things have been said about others in the administration.
Basically, I beleive that these people would be more than willing to carry out a black-op operation if they thought they could get away with it.
It is definately in the US's interest to have puppet governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a black-op operation, followed by appropriate propeganda was a really good way of seeing it become a reality.
Look at the overall situation the US was in, and still is in to a degree. The US economy imports more than it exports.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/tradedeficit/tables/trade.htm
The reason the US got into such a situation in the first place was because of the dollar. The dollar was essentially a world currency to a certain extent. The introduction of the euro meant that for the first time there was a currency that posed a serious threat to the dollars upper-hand position. Saddam, started trading in euros, Iraq was invaded shortly after that.
If every nation suddenly cashed in their dollars for euros, the dollar would crash to unimabinably low levels. It has been suggested that such a blow would see America deteriorate into a third world country over a few decades. This is the serious threat that America was faced with. Instead, they said that they were dealing with a threat as serious, only it was islamic terrorists.
This, and increased oil consumption from Eastern countries such as India and China, meant that the US absolutely has to get control oil-producing countries, to ensure the influence of the dollar, and because of necessity to keep the rest of the world dealing in dollars.
That's the situation the US was in at the start of this decade. And I feel the need to stress how essential Iraq and Afghanistan was for America.
9-11 was the event that 'changed everything' and all of a sudden America is invading countries which, by coincedence, they need to control for reasons other than 'freedom' and 'prosperity' of the people....
9-11 was easy to get away with.
People really really underestimate the power of propeganda. It has continued to evolve into the 21st century. It is the case that the media in the US is indirectly government owned. And propeganda has come a long way. People beleive what they are told. They would have felt confident that they could get away with 911, and they have.

Diogenes

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

Look at : http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers_flt_11.html
That's not really a good link though because its sources have been changed.

No it's an excellent link because it completely proves my point, all the sources in the article, show either broken links or links to articles published in the chaotic immediate aftermath of the attacks.

In over 7 years the CTers have not been able to offer a single credible source to support their claims that the hijackers are still alive.

from: http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_facts.html

Not to expose your own utter base ignorance of the US chain of command but the function of the vice president is to break a senate deadlock, and to ensure a steady line of succession. He doesn't get to schedule war games. Perhaps if you researched this on more credible websites you'd know this.

Ironically, I was refering to getting dragged into big complicated multi-post arguments like this. You have to 'back up your claims' go searching for links dealing with a topic that is, in fairness, too vast with too many alternative theorys. It's become like arguing about religion. You just end up going in circles.

It's actually the oppositie I have facts, you have personal incredubility and paranoia. If you want to have a debate about facts bring them.

I noticed you ignored by NEAds vanity fair piece which actualy included audio from the day, why?

Well the US media, and the official story, made the wars into a hollywood movie syle battle of good vs evil. The Americans playing the role of 'good' the nasty terrorists playing the role of 'evil'.

Again a wide generalisation you are refering to fox news. Would you consider Jon Stewart's the daily show as bastion of support for the bush regieme now would you?

Looking at the situation at large, the notion of invading a country so as to get at a terrorist organisation is absurd.
I specifically remember in the weeks before Afghanistan (don't have a reference for this, but I remember hearing it on Sky News, and I couldn't beleive it.). The Taliban were trying to initiate talks so as to negotiate handing over Osamma bin Laden, to which the US responded "We don't negotiate with terrorists".

The accepted and believable story is that the taliban were stalling for time. .This is a duplicious and erradtic regieme, who murder women and people for playing music, you're putting value on their word?

Taken from :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

Sorry, I well over-exagerated that number. [/quote]

So to be clear you massively over stated the number and use as your source a self publishing dictionary.

Read:

Similar things have been said about others in the administration.

On portland indymedia? Lets be clear your claim that a serious amount of the Bush administration are psychopathic. You offer as evidence a post on portland indymedia. The indymedia network is a self publishing website with non existant fact checking, the portland branch is infamously rabidly anti bush, and dogmatic.

Basically, I beleive that these people would be more than willing to carry out a black-op operation if they thought they could get away with it.
It is definately in the US's interest to have military control over oil and gas reserves in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a black-op operation was really the only way they could do it.

So you're guessing then? Why not stage a coup? Or populare uprising, there are dozens of easier ways of sorting out justification for an invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. For example, why weren't any of the Hijackers Iraqi or Afgani?

Look at the overall situation the US was in, and still is in to a degree. The US economy imports more than it exports.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/tradedeficit/tables/trade.htm The reason the US got into such a situation in the first place was because of the dollar. The dollar was essentially a world currency to a certain extent.

The Dollar is the world currency.

The introduction of the euro meant that for the first time there was a currency that could compete with it. Saddam, started trading in euros, he was invaded shortly after. If every nation suddenly cashed in their dollars for euros, the US dollar would crash to unimabinably low levels. Such a blow would see America deteriorate into a third world country over time.
Basically, this, and increased competition from Eastern countries, meant that the US absolutely has to get control oil-producing countries, to ensure the influence and necessity for the rest of the world to use keep using the dollar.
That's the situation the US was in at the start of this decade. And I feel the need to stress how essential Iraq and Afghanistan was for America.
9-11 was the event that 'changed everything' and all of a sudden America is invading countries which, by coincedence, they need to control for reasons other than 'freedom' and 'prosperity' of the people....
And in fairness, it was in fact easy to get away with.
People really really underestimate the power of propeganda. It has continued to evolve into the 21st century. It has come to the stage where the media in the US is indirectly government owned. And propeganda has come a long way. They would have felt confident that they could get away with it. And they have.

sorry you're offering nothing beyond speculation and false facts

nacho libre

Diogenes wrote: »

You mention Nixon and thats a good point, Watergate was a tiny conspiracy that fell under it's own weight, yet when one or two talked the entire conspiracy collapsed, taking with it the president of the united states, and leading to jail time for some of his senior staff.

Now in terms of 911 the scale and scope of the investigation this means thats 1000's of FBI agents, independent investigators, journalists, doctors, lawyers, family members are either complicit with these lies, or fooled by them.

Which is it?

Perhaps i was vague but that's precisely the point i was making in my previous about 9-11; how could you ensure the silence of so many people- which would have to be involved in the execution of such a plot? Operation northwood was not sanctioned for this very reason. When the Army Generals went to McNamara and Kennedy they refused to sanction the plot.


What i'm speculating on is if only a few could have got wind of the plot, and for their own reasons didn't pass on the knowledge, there is less of a risk that someone might speak out in this scenario.

For every Watergate there are likely many cases where the truth about black ops/conspiracies never emerge.
The truth does not always out because, obviously, if a black op is successful there will be an absence of incriminating evidence.
The head of mossad comments, i cited from from the 1950's, attest to this.

Sea Sharp

In over 7 years the CTers have not been able to offer a single credible source to support their claims that the hijackers are still alive.

Ok, that's a fair point. But what do you make of the passport being found in the wreckage? It doesn't suggest that any of the hijackers are still alive, but still what do you think of that? Propeganda?

Not to expose your own utter base ignorance of the US chain of command but the function of the vice president is to break a senate deadlock, and to ensure a steady line of succession. He doesn't get to schedule war games. Perhaps if you researched this on more credible websites you'd know this.

Well, are you saying this keeping in mind this interview, when you say that?
Because I assumed it was legitimate.
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES
Public Hearing
Friday, May 23, 2003
Hart Senate Office Building
Room 216
Washington, DC

Both quotes are from this a vanity fair piece, which actually allows you to listen to the audio from NEADs

That doesn't seem to be recordings of the main people in charge.

Again a wide generalisation you are refering to fox news. Would you consider Jon Stewart's the daily show as bastion of support for the bush regieme now would you?

No, I'm referring to the fact that all the media stations accepted that there were WMD in Iraq and Osamma bin Laden would be caught in Afghanistan. And bear in mind that all GW Bushes speaches are propeganda. Even Donald Rumsfeld's speeches being showed on TV was people being exposed to propeganda. And have you noticed how all the main American media stations try to sell the notion of invading Iran lately.
And John Stewart's the daily show just accuses the bush administration of being unintelegent. He never makes jokes about black-ops.

The accepted and believable story is that the taliban were stalling for time. .This is a duplicious and erradtic regieme, who murder women and people for playing music, you're putting value on their word?

Well I don't think they wanted to be obliterated. Bear in mind the Taliban actually had good relations with the American government before 9-11. The US had recently given them money for their fight against the heroin trade. They were only harbouring Osamma Bin Laden, but he had no control over them. The taliban wouldn't have been in regular contact with him.

So to be clear you massively over stated the number and use as your source a self publishing dictionary.

Read:


Quote:
Similar things have been said about others in the administration.

On portland indymedia? Lets be clear your claim that a serious amount of the Bush administration are psychopathic. You offer as evidence a post on portland indymedia. The indymedia network is a self publishing website with non existant fact checking, the portland branch is infamously rabidly anti bush, and dogmatic.

Look, I'm only trying to suggest that George W Bush has a much differnt personality than is portrayed to us on the media.
I do not beleive that he really is an honest, born again christian who wants to bring freedom on democracy to the middle east.
He strikes me as being sly, a bit sly. Everything he says on the TV was written for him. I don't think he's a 'good' person.

So you're guessing then? Why not stage a coup? Or populare uprising, there are dozens of easier ways of sorting out justification for an invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. For example, why weren't any of the Hijackers Iraqi or Afgani?

Well, the Americans didn't have influence in Afghanistan, but they did in Saudi Arabia. For the sake of organising hijackers.
Iraq, well imagine if right after 9-11, Bin Laden had been in Iraq. There would be media statements made by Saddam. Iraq was a westernised country. They would have made it clear that they would hand over Bin Laden so as to prevent a war with the strongest military army in te world.
The Taliban could not do that.
9-11 really only initiated the Afghanistan war. Fear of terrorists and WMD is what started the second war.

sorry you're offering nothing beyond speculation and false facts

Well, what do you think would happen if there was to be a global 'ditch on the dollar'. Is it only wild specilation if I were to say that that would be pretty bad for Americaa. And is it impossible for other countries to switch to other oil-trading currencies? They will if it suits them. And a steeply falling dollar value is good motivation.

Mahatma coat

Ah lads why does it always go this way, we start off a thread with every intention of fleshin out some of the stranger theories only to find some wet blanket clingin to his narrow little view of reality and demanding that everyone conform to that view.


this is the conspiracy THEORIES forum

so any further theories from anyone.

I heard that about the oil Buorse before alright, apparently Iraq and Iran were gonna switch to the Euro, also the Gas Pipeline across Afghanistan was probably gonna be awarded to a french company at the time.

econimic protectionism is a good reason for the war

Diogenes

nacho libre wrote: »

Perhaps i was vague but that's precisely the point i was making in my previous about 9-11; how could you ensure the silence of so many people- which would have to be involved in the execution of such a plot? Operation northwood was not sanctioned for this very reason. When the Army Generals went to McNamara and Kennedy they refused to sanction the plot.

Arguing that the 911 conspirators wouldn't have involved a great deal of people, doesn't mean that they couldn't. Who would have wired the building for example.

What i'm speculating on is if only a few could have got wind of the plot, and for their own reasons didn't pass on the knowledge, there is less of a risk that someone might speak out in this scenario.

Again how would this have been carried out without the involvement of air traffic controllers, building staff, security personal and federal employees etc...

For every Watergate there are likely many cases where the truth about black ops/conspiracies never emerge.
The truth does not always out because, obviously, if a black op is successful there will be an absence of incriminating evidence.
The head of mossad comments, i cited from from the 1950's, attest to this.

Utterly absurd. Watergate failed even though only a handful of people were involved. You're citing absence of evidence as proof something happens. I've never seen the truth fairy, but money turned up under my pillow every time I lost a truth. Which is more likely my parents put it there, or a magical fairy did. I have no proof of either.

Are you familiar with Occam's razor?

Diogenes

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

Ok, that's a fair point. But what do you make of the passport being found in the wreckage? It doesn't suggest that any of the hijackers are still alive, but still what do you think of that? Propeganda?

Personal effects of dozens of passengers were recovered from all crash sites. Why it is implausible that personal effects from a hijacker could be found?

So to be clear, you're reduced from claiming some of the hijackers are alive to its suspicious a passport was found. Thats one of your smoking guns? Pathetic.

Well, are you saying this keeping in mind this interview, when you say that?
Because I assumed it was legitimate.
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES
Public Hearing
Friday, May 23, 2003
Hart Senate Office Building
Room 216
Washington, DC

Firstly this is a dodge, you claimed that Cheney was in charge of war games, now you're on to "a shoot down order"

Which is it? Cheney was in charge of war games that impeded the intercepts of the hijackers

As to Mineta. It's been shown that his timeline is actually false.

That doesn't seem to be recordings of the main people in charge.

THIS IS PATHETIC. You claim that the "wargames" run by "cheney" prevented the military from taking action. you are then PRESENTED with the ACTUAL AUDIO FILES of the PEOPLE, DIRECTLY IN CHARGE of arranging intercepts, and THERE IS NO CONFUSION, NONE WHATS SO EVER.

No, I'm referring to the fact that all the media stations accepted that there were WMD in Iraq and Osamma bin Laden would be caught in Afghanistan.

Lie. Many tv stations and newspapers challenged these assertions.

And bear in mind that all GW Bushes speaches are propeganda. Even Donald Rumsfeld's speeches being showed on TV was people being exposed to propeganda. And have you noticed how all the main American media stations try to sell the notion of invading Iran lately.

An incredibly overly simplistic reading of the situation.

And John Stewart's the daily show just accuses the bush administration of being unintelegent. He never makes jokes about black-ops.

He's made a mockery of 911 conspiracy theories for a start

Well I don't think they wanted to be obliterated. Bear in mind the Taliban actually had good relations with the American government before 9-11. The US had recently given them money for their fight against the heroin trade. They were only harbouring Osamma Bin Laden, but he had no control over them. The taliban wouldn't have been in regular contact with him.

You're wandering inanely off topic here. You claimed that the Taliban would have handed over Osama remember? You're now contradicting yourself.

Look, I'm only trying to suggest that George W Bush has a much differnt personality than is portrayed to us on the media.
I do not beleive that he really is an honest, born again christian who wants to bring freedom on democracy to the middle east.
He strikes me as being sly, a bit sly. Everything he says on the TV was written for him. I don't think he's a 'good' person.

Politician is duplicitous shock horror! Hey get this I hear that far from being a texas good ole boy, he actually went to yale... :eek:

Well, the Americans didn't have influence in Afghanistan, but they did in Saudi Arabia. For the sake of organising hijackers.
Iraq, well imagine if right after 9-11, Bin Laden had been in Iraq. There would be media statements made by Saddam. Iraq was a westernised country. They would have made it clear that they would hand over Bin Laden so as to prevent a war with the strongest military army in te world.
The Taliban could not do that.
9-11 really only initiated the Afghanistan war. Fear of terrorists and WMD is what started the second war.

You don't have anything as concrete as a fact here do you.

Let me get this straight you claim that the hijackers are alive, but the US needed to recruit them in Saudi Arabia? Do you have a coherent rational for this at all?

Well, what do you think would happen if there was to be a global 'ditch on the dollar'. Is it only wild specilation if I were to say that that would be pretty bad for Americaa. And is it impossible for other countries to switch to other oil-trading currencies? They will if it suits them. And a steeply falling dollar value is good motivation.

Again you offer speculation and hyperbola as a replacement for facts.

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Ah lads why does it always go this way, we start off a thread with every intention of fleshin out some of the stranger theories only to find some wet blanket clingin to his narrow little view of reality and demanding that everyone conform to that view.


this is the conspiracy THEORIES forum

so any further theories from anyone.

Yes why deal with actualities and facts when wild speculation and spurious claims are far better. :rolleyes: