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.