Ahmadinejad : "Most people" believe US behind 9/11

Duiske

The US delegation left the UN meeting after Ahmadinejad suggested that most people believe the 9/11 attacks were the work of people inside the US administration.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the United Nations on Thursday most people believe the U.S. government was responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001, prompting the U.S. delegation to leave the room in protest.

In his speech to the General Assembly, Ahmadinejad said it was mostly U.S. government officials who believed the Islamist militant group al Qaeda was behind the suicide hijacking attacks that brought down New York's World Trade Center and hit the Pentagon.

Another theory, he said, was "that some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy, and its grips on the Middle East, in order to save the Zionist regime." Ahmadinejad usually refers to Israel as the "Zionist regime."

"The majority of the American people as well as most nations and politicians around the world agree with this view," Ahmadinejad told the 192-nation assembly, calling on the United Nations to establish "an independent fact-finding group" to look into the events of September 11.

The U.S. and several European delegations left shortly after Ahmadinejad made the remarks.

Mark Kornblau, spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, reacted before Ahmadinejad finished speaking.

"Rather than representing the aspirations and goodwill of the Iranian people, Mr. Ahmadinejad has yet again chosen to spout vile conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic slurs that are as abhorrent and delusional as they are predictable," he said.

Ahmadinejad raised a third theory about the attacks, saying: "It was carried out by a terrorist group, but that the American government supported and took advantage of the situation. Apparently this viewpoint has fewer proponents."

He said the main evidence for that theory was "a few passports found in the huge volume of rubble and a video of an individual whose place of domicile was unknown but it was announced that he had been involved in oil deals with some American officials."

"It was also covered up and said that due to the explosion and fire no trace of suicide attackers was found," he added.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68M55W20100923

I don't believe myself that the US planned and carried out the attacks, but i do feel that certain people within the intelligence services knew an attack was imminent and for whatever reason did very little to stop it.

numbnutz

And so it begins again.....
Cant wait to see how the worldwide media,in particular the American media, take a hold of this one and spin against them ...again.Check out Geraldo for Fox news on youtube when Ahmadinejad was speaking at a University ,Its truly hilarious.if you can take thier brand of reporting seriously.
He is only repeating what a lot of people think when you step back and take all the facts in about 911..if you have the time.I find it funny that Iran gets blamed time and time again for threats to stability in the middle east.Is Israel not a factor in this too?Dont they have nuclear weapons?They are not even signed up to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.But thats ok I suppose:D
Tony Blair said on The Late Late that invading Iran is on the table so to speak and him being Israels salesman you can be sure the plan is already well revised by now.
The right to nuclear power is not for anybody to decide except for those who want it is it not?To say that Iran are likely to use them when they get them is boardering on the absurd no matter what we are told by Blair the Israelis or the Americans.

humanji

US and Iran: two bickering children trying to embarrass the other. That's all this is. I'd say Ahmadinejad couldn't give a toss who was behind 9/11. He just wants to show up the US in any way he can.

bonkey

numbnutz wrote: »

To say that Iran are likely to use them when they get them is boardering on the absurd no matter what we are told by Blair the Israelis or the Americans.

I've never heard Blair or the Americans suggest that Iran are likely to use them.

joebucks

bonkey wrote: »

I've never heard Blair or the Americans suggest that Iran are likely to use them.

Check out Blair on the late late.

meglome

Each and every time we look at the details not one person can show US involvement. Not once did the little details add up to any CT. Not once have we even got a consistent CT.

fontanalis

Ahmadinejad: "all of my regime believe we are BFF's with the big sky fairy"

Go away you nutter.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

Each and every time we look at the details not one person can show US involvement.

In your opinion

meglome wrote: »

Not once did the little details add up to any CT.

In your opinion

meglome wrote: »

Not once have we even got a consistent CT.

In your opinion.

Yitzhak Rabin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In your opinion.

Well what, in your opinion, is a comprehensive and evidence based alternative to the official 9/11 account?

Brown Bomber

yekahs wrote: »

Well what, in your opinion, is a comprehensive and evidence based alternative to the official 9/11 account?

I'm open to parts of the official version being the reality. Especially the motive in the 911 Commission Report, ie US support of Israel. It would've been advantageous for the US to let it happen too. More motive for an let it happen / inside job though tbh OIL - Oil, Israel, and Logistics. Having said that it is hardly conclusive, nor is any CT on 911. I've an open mind to be honest.

Yitzhak Rabin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm open to parts of the official version being the reality. Especially the motive in the 911 Commission Report, ie US support of Israel. It would've been advantageous for the US to let it happen too. More motive for an let it happen / inside job though tbh OIL - Oil, Israel, and Logistics. Having said that it is hardly conclusive, nor is any CT on 911. I've an open mind to be honest.

From what I've seen so far, the narrative of the 9/11 comission is true.

Now it is possible, that the US knew it was going to happen, or even covertly encouraged it in a CIA black ops.

The only circumstantial evidence I have seen to back that up though is the "5 dancing Israelis" which has never been fully explained. Those Israeli spies had prior knowledge that it was going to happen. So if they knew, why did they not tip off the US? If they did tip off the US, then why didn't the US act on it.

However, all the stuff about missiles, explosives, thermite etc. All nonsense, imo. In fact, its exactly the kind of thing you would want associated with 9/11 CTs if the truth was actually that they knew it would happen and did nothing.

amacachi

yekahs wrote: »

The only circumstantial evidence I have seen to back that up though is the "5 dancing Israelis" which has never been fully explained. Those Israeli spies had prior knowledge that it was going to happen. So if they knew, why did they not tip off the US? If they did tip off the US, then why didn't the US act on it.

Why would the Israelis want to prevent mass American hatred of the Islamic world?

iPlop

yekahs wrote: »

From what I've seen so far, the narrative of the 9/11 comission is true.

Now it is possible, that the US knew it was going to happen, or even covertly encouraged it in a CIA black ops.

The only circumstantial evidence I have seen to back that up though is the "5 dancing Israelis" which has never been fully explained. Those Israeli spies had prior knowledge that it was going to happen. So if they knew, why did they not tip off the US? If they did tip off the US, then why didn't the US act on it.

However, all the stuff about missiles, explosives, thermite etc. All nonsense, imo. In fact, its exactly the kind of thing you would want associated with 9/11 CTs if the truth was actually that they knew it would happen and did nothing.

Just a question.How can you dismiss thermite ,when it was found in the dust and analysed as military spec??BTW I don't believe missiles hit the WTC ,But why did the towers turn to dust? first time ever for any building! Just dust and metal nothing else! strange?Laser guided planes maybe?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19lofrMsbZA

meglome

Septic Leper wrote: »

Just a question.How can you dismiss thermite ,when it was found in the dust and analysed as military spec??BTW I don't believe missiles hit the WTC ,But why did the towers turn to dust? first time ever for any building! Just dust and metal nothing else! strange?Laser guided planes maybe?

Thermite is made up of material that would be found in the WTC buildings. The samples taken were not directly from the site and were taken some days after the fact. I have also not seen anywhere that can show this supposed nano thermite actually exists. Nor how the material could have been placed in the full buildings without anyone seeing or without going off immediately in the crashes and fires. Or showing how thermite would actually cut the columns, in the experiments I've seen they couldn't do it.

The towers were full of dry wall (plaster board) and had concrete floors which was mostly pulped in the collapses. No surprise as far as i can see. But to say that dust and metal was all that was found is not so.

iPlop

meglome wrote: »

Thermite is made up of material that would be found in the WTC buildings. The samples taken were not directly from the site and were taken some days after the fact. I have also not seen anywhere that can show this supposed nano thermite actually exists. Nor how the material could have been placed in the full buildings without anyone seeing or without going off immediately in the crashes and fires.

The towers were full of dry wall (plaster board) and had concrete floors which was mostly pulped in the collapses. No surprise as far as i can see. But to say that dust and metal was all that was found is not so.

look at this website

http://www.drjudywood.com

Septic Leper

Septic Leper wrote: »

first time ever for any building!

You know what else it'd be the first time for?
A controlled demolition of a building by thermite....

Septic Leper wrote: »

look at this website

http://www.drjudywood.com

Also the first time with space lasers....

iPlop

King Mob wrote: »

You know what else it'd be the first time for?
A controlled demolition of a building by thermite....


Also the first time with space lasers....

There is laser guided bombs in operation ,your just making it sound out of this world by calling them "space lasers" not very helpful! BTW I can see where your coming from! But is the whole 9/11 thing not make you think?

bonkey

Septic Leper wrote: »

There is laser guided bombs in operation ,your just making it sound out of this world by calling them "space lasers" not very helpful!

I believe he's referring to Dr. Wood's assertion that the "dustification" of the towers was evidence that they were actually destroyed by orbital directed-energy weapons.

Septic Leper

Septic Leper wrote: »

There is laser guided bombs in operation ,your just making it sound out of this world by calling them "space lasers" not very helpful!

She has a section entitled "Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW)".
"Directed energy weapons" as in lasers.
"Star Wars" as in the space based missile defence platform.
That's a far cry from laser guidance.

I've heard of this crank lady before, she claims that the twin towers where destroyed by space lasers.
I'm not the one making sound crazy...

Septic Leper wrote: »

BTW I can see where your coming from!

So if it's a problem for it to be "the first to fall like that" (which isn't exactly true either BTW) why then is it not a problem for it to be first to be destroyed by thermite (which, if the CTs are right, is true)?

Septic Leper wrote: »

But is the whole 9/11 thing not make you think?

It did. But the complete lack of anything of substance from the CT, means I'm yet to be convinced.
I agree totally with meglome, any claim that's been help up to scrutiny have always crumbled and failed to show what the CTers claim.

iPlop

King Mob wrote: »

It did. But the complete lack of anything of substance from the CT, means I'm yet to be convinced.
I agree totally with meglome, any claim that's been help up to scrutiny have always crumbled and failed to show what the CTers claim.

I have to disagree! sorry for mis-interpretation of space lasers ,I thought you were taking the p1ss.Can we continue this discussion tomorrow? I have a long day in work!

Septic Leper

Septic Leper wrote: »

I have to disagree! sorry for mis-interpretation of space lasers ,I thought you were taking the p1ss.

I was doing both.

Septic Leper wrote: »

Can we continue this discussion tomorrow? I have a long day in work!

No you must answer immediately. :pac:

iPlop

King Mob wrote: »

I was doing both.



No you must answer immediately. :pac:

I believe you! I do,I DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

bonkey

Septic Leper wrote: »

Just a question.How can you dismiss thermite ,when it was found in the dust and analysed as military spec??

Here's why I dismiss it...

The original claim was that the buildings were demolished with explosives. It was then pointed out that there were significant telltales of explosives missing....most notably airborne and ground-carried shockwaves.

This led to the whimsical notion of "hush-a-splosive", which in turn led to the more-real-world-grounded idea of thermite. Thermite isn't an explosive, but could be used to cut through steel. There's a lot of problems with the idea of thermite being used, but it was an interesting step.

Part of the problem, of course, was that thermite, not being explosive, would take too long and would be too bulky.

Then terms like thermate, and nano-thermite, and all sorts of other exotic (and sometimes speculative) variations came onto the scene....stuff that wasn't explosive, but was smaller, and would work faster, and so on.

At this point, we should recap.

Its "obvious" that the building (or buildings) was (or were) brought down via controlled demolition, because it looks just like that. However, to explain how it bears all the hallmarks of controlled demolition, we've done away with the notion of explosives, and replaced them with a substance that not only has never been known to have been used in a controlled demolition, but which is "military", which means we don't really know a hell of a lot about it at all.

Put differently...the building(s) show all the hallmarks of having been collapsed in a manner that we have absolutely nothing to compare with.

Spot the problem?

Leaving aside this (massive) logical flaw, and the entire history of how the theory was derived in the first place, lets move on to the assertion that (military grade) thermite was found.

The first evidence-based claims showed the presence of iron oxide and aluminium - the hallmarks of thermite....as well as being massively common materials. The iron oxide, incidentally, was the more common "rust" variety, and not the less-common version typically used in thermite, on account of it being massively more efficient.

The follow-on evidence-based claims were more interesting. They showed what to all intents and purposes looked like anti-rust paint, stuck to some rust. Chemical analysis was consistent with anti-rust paint, stuck to some rust....as well as being consistent with something capable of combustion, possibly thermitic in nature. Combustion tests showed that it burned....in oxygen. The combustion was not carried out in an oxygen-free environment to show that it was thermitic. The energy of the combustion was not measured. The rate of combustion was appallingly slow....at least in terms of how fast one would need to convey energy in a controlled manner to perform a controlled sequence of cuts to perform a controlled demolition. The question as to how such combustible material could be safely used in an area with an uncontrolled fire to carry out controlled demolition wasn't even addressed.

Ultimately, though, its not entirely relevant how flawed the evidence is. The fundamental problem still remains. Controlled demolition uses explosives because the speed of the shockwave allows controlled cuts to be made in what is effectively zero time. There isn't even a hypothetical model of therm*te which could perform controlled cuts in comparable time...even if we ignore the issues of cutting vertical beams, and the stuff not igniting in the vicinity of uncontrolled fires, and so on and so forth.

We've been presented with a video on youtube (at least once, in some thread) of a small amount of what is allegedly thermite going off with a bang, and cutting its way through a thin metal rod in a small amount of time. Fantastic. So for a massively thick piece of steel, we're going to need a massively bigger bang.....which brings us back full circle to asking where were the shockwaves?

bonkey

bonkey wrote: »

There isn't even a hypothetical model of therm*te which could perform controlled cuts in comparable time...even if we ignore the issues of cutting vertical beams, and the stuff not igniting in the vicinity of uncontrolled fires, and so on and so forth.

Actually there was such a model linked by diogenes a good while back. It would have allowed the thermite(or whatever) to cut a beam horizontally, while protecting it from outside fires I think.
However it didn't solve the problem of thermite being hard to get going. Also the apparatus used would have been huge and not concealable.

iPlop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

Bombs at the very start;)good night!

Septic Leper

Septic Leper wrote: »

Bombs at the very start;)good night!

And as we all know bombs are the only thing that go "bang!".

Also another first time thing if the CTs are to be believed BTW. No controlled demolition of a building has ever involved explosives going off one at a time, at random times and well before the actual collapse.

iPlop

bonkey wrote: »

Here's why I dismiss it...

The original claim was that the buildings were demolished with explosives. It was then pointed out that there were significant telltales of explosives missing....most notably airborne and ground-carried shockwaves.

This led to the whimsical notion of "hush-a-splosive", which in turn led to the more-real-world-grounded idea of thermite. Thermite isn't an explosive, but could be used to cut through steel. There's a lot of problems with the idea of thermite being used, but it was an interesting step.

Part of the problem, of course, was that thermite, not being explosive, would take too long and would be too bulky.

Then terms like thermate, and nano-thermite, and all sorts of other exotic (and sometimes speculative) variations came onto the scene....stuff that wasn't explosive, but was smaller, and would work faster, and so on.

At this point, we should recap.

Its "obvious" that the building (or buildings) was (or were) brought down via controlled demolition, because it looks just like that. However, to explain how it bears all the hallmarks of controlled demolition, we've done away with the notion of explosives, and replaced them with a substance that not only has never been known to have been used in a controlled demolition, but which is "military", which means we don't really know a hell of a lot about it at all.

Put differently...the building(s) show all the hallmarks of having been collapsed in a manner that we have absolutely nothing to compare with.

Spot the problem?

Leaving aside this (massive) logical flaw, and the entire history of how the theory was derived in the first place, lets move on to the assertion that (military grade) thermite was found.

The first evidence-based claims showed the presence of iron oxide and aluminium - the hallmarks of thermite....as well as being massively common materials. The iron oxide, incidentally, was the more common "rust" variety, and not the less-common version typically used in thermite, on account of it being massively more efficient.

The follow-on evidence-based claims were more interesting. They showed what to all intents and purposes looked like anti-rust paint, stuck to some rust. Chemical analysis was consistent with anti-rust paint, stuck to some rust....as well as being consistent with something capable of combustion, possibly thermitic in nature. Combustion tests showed that it burned....in oxygen. The combustion was not carried out in an oxygen-free environment to show that it was thermitic. The energy of the combustion was not measured. The rate of combustion was appallingly slow....at least in terms of how fast one would need to convey energy in a controlled manner to perform a controlled sequence of cuts to perform a controlled demolition. The question as to how such combustible material could be safely used in an area with an uncontrolled fire to carry out controlled demolition wasn't even addressed.

Ultimately, though, its not entirely relevant how flawed the evidence is. The fundamental problem still remains. Controlled demolition uses explosives because the speed of the shockwave allows controlled cuts to be made in what is effectively zero time. There isn't even a hypothetical model of therm*te which could perform controlled cuts in comparable time...even if we ignore the issues of cutting vertical beams, and the stuff not igniting in the vicinity of uncontrolled fires, and so on and so forth.

We've been presented with a video on youtube (at least once, in some thread) of a small amount of what is allegedly thermite going off with a bang, and cutting its way through a thin metal rod in a small amount of time. Fantastic. So for a massively thick piece of steel, we're going to need a massively bigger bang.....which brings us back full circle to asking where were the shockwaves?

At least you can see the collapse was not ordinary by any means! Have you travelled to NYC ,I have been there on lots of occasions ,people say no other buildings were damaged ,I refute that having been there in 2001 ,there was lots of damage to surrounding buildings.Just been there in March and all the buildings are repaired! I love that city!

Septic Leper

Septic Leper wrote: »

At least you can see the collapse was not ordinary by any means!

Well yea, not many other skyscrapers have had jetliners flown into them at high speed.
That's not exactly ordinary...

iPlop

King Mob wrote: »

Well yea, not many other skyscrapers have had jetliners flown into them at high speed.
That's not exactly ordinary...

great stuff !:rolleyes:

Jeboa Safari

numbnutz wrote: »

The right to nuclear power is not for anybody to decide except for those who want it is it not?To say that Iran are likely to use them when they get them is boardering on the absurd no matter what we are told by Blair the Israelis or the Americans.

Do you think it would be a good thing if Iran got nuclear weapons?

Septic Leper

Septic Leper wrote: »

great stuff !:rolleyes:

So how could the collapse of the towers ever be considered "ordinary" when the very causes and scenario are inherently extra-ordinary?

nyarlothothep

maybe the planes did in fact result in the collapse of the towers, but maybe the US government let the incident happen, maybe they chose to ignore it, and outsourced the task to a contractor, in this case Bin Laden, who was either working for them or was their creation. Perhaps the CIA created the persona of Bin Laden, through a sequence of carefully orchestrated events/missions which would in time turn him against the states and result in him carrying out a terrorist attack that would play right in the hands of the US government.

Galway K9

I believe it to be true. Too many coincidences and suspecions for the theory. Go IRAN!

bonkey

King Mob wrote: »

Actually there was such a model linked by diogenes a good while back. It would have allowed the thermite(or whatever) to cut a beam horizontally, while protecting it from outside fires I think.
However it didn't solve the problem of thermite being hard to get going. Also the apparatus used would have been huge and not concealable.

The model linked to by Diogenes showed how thermite might make a horizontal cut...and (as you say) protect it from fire.

It doesn't show how thermite could be used to cut in a controlled and quick enough manner to be used in controlled demolition, where cuts need to be performed either in parallel or sequence, and fast enough that the cut is completed before the load being carried has a chance to really come into play.

This is ultimately why explosives are used. Modern explosives have have effectively zero ignition delay, and zero cut-time. They can be perfectly sequenced, and the cuts occur so quickly, the load-bearing aspects don't come into play.

Septic Leper wrote:

At least you can see the collapse was not ordinary by any means! Have you travelled to NYC ,I have been there on lots of occasions ,people say no other buildings were damaged

I don't know who says no other buildings were damaged, but anyone who does is, frankly, catastrophically ill informed.

As for the collapse not being ordinary...again, I don't know anyone who claims any of the three collapses were.

As pointed out, the combination of high-speed airliner impact, and ensuing uncontrollable fire is not ordinary. In the case of WTC7, the design flaw which NIST found to be the ultimate cause of collapse was not ordinary.

Getting back to the topic at hand...I always find it refreshing to see the notional leader of a despotic regime held up as someone we should pay attention to. In general, I find national leaders unworthy of attention.

profitius

Its great its getting so much attention!

profitius

Alex Jones said it would happen months before it did. How much more proof is needed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8Hk1-BpXO8

profitius

profitius wrote: »

Alex Jones said it would happen months before it did. How much more proof is needed?

Proof that Alex Jones was in on it?

TalkieWalkie

King Mob wrote: »

Proof that Alex Jones was in on it?

So you are suggesting the was prior knowledge ?, somewhere

iPlop

Originally Posted by Septic Leper
At least you can see the collapse was not ordinary by any means! Have you travelled to NYC ,I have been there on lots of occasions ,people say no other buildings were damaged



what I said was:


"I have been there on lots of occasions ,people say no other buildings were damaged ,I refute that having been there in 2001 ,there was lots of damage to surrounding buildings.Just been there in March and all the buildings are repaired! I love that city"

!

TalkieWalkie

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

So you are suggesting the was prior knowledge ?, somewhere

No. Just asking why people think he might have had it, yet wasn't in on it.

TalkieWalkie

I for one will agree that there was substantial damage to surrounding buildings.

Parts of the towers were being blown from their place with tremendous pressure at great speed.

Years after 2001, didn't they find bones from folk who perished on 9/11 on the rooftop of another building ?

Those parts didn't fly there, they were accelerated by something, and it wasn't a collapsing building.

Septic Leper wrote: »

Originally Posted by Septic Leper
At least you can see the collapse was not ordinary by any means! Have you travelled to NYC ,I have been there on lots of occasions ,people say no other buildings were damaged



I never said it in that context Bonkey!

Having been there many times ,during and after 9/11 this is what I said:

"I have been there on lots of occasions ,people say no other buildings were damaged ,I refute that having been there in 2001 ,there was lots of damage to surrounding buildings.Just been there in March and all the buildings are repaired! I love that city"

!

TalkieWalkie

King Mob wrote: »

No. Just asking why people think he might have had it, yet wasn't in on it.

He's good on knowing how the elites think. He did predict it, so ya can't knock him for that. It should be acknowledged really.

TalkieWalkie

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

He's good on knowing how the elites think. He did predict it, so ya can't knock him for that. It should be acknowledged really.

Well no, he said that there was going to be more terrorism on American.
Which has happened before and which he no doubt assumes are all the work of the jews/lizards/whatever he's deluded into believing.

However he had no details of when or where or how. Not exactly a prediction.
For example if I said there was going to be a murder of someone, somewhere at some point in the future, does that mean I've predicted it?

joebucks

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

He's good on knowing how the elites think. He did predict it, so ya can't knock him for that. It should be acknowledged really.

Bill Cooper announced it first and then AJ repeated it claiming to be the originator of the theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy4EyBstOsA

anyone ever come across Mike Ruppert ex-CIA whole claims to no real reaon behind 9/11? if so are his vids on youtube worth watching?

TalkieWalkie

Damn you profitius, I assumed your YT clip showed AJ predicting 9/11.

My mistake lads.

Comment withdrawn.

vincentdunne

Great forum for reading.
Just when I think I am feeling a bit mad, I find out who really are. Too much time on you hands, guys.

Augmerson

I saw the report of this on Sky News. They made out that the entire assembly of the UN walked out. Hmmm.

I've always thought that there was a conspiracy with 9/11, but more like a conspiracy of negligence. They were aware of the plans of the terrorists and let the whole thing happen so they could use it as carte blanche to do whatever they wanted in Iraq and Afghanistan. They reshaped the Middle East over night. There is only one country outside their reach in the whole region now, Iran. Every other country in the region is either a pawn or a puppet of the US. Bush was looking for a pretext to invade Iraq in the opening months of him becoming US President and the 9/11 attacks gave them that oppurtunity, plus to committ a whole bunch of other draconian measures like the Patriot Act.

It must have been like all their Christmas's came at once.

TalkieWalkie

vincentdunne wrote: »

Great forum for reading.
Just when I think I am feeling a bit mad, I find out who really are. Too much time on you hands, guys.

Carry on, nothing to see here. Next time you're feeling a bit "mad" drop back in for some reassurance. You my friend, are completely "normal", exactly how you are groomed to be.

meglome

nyarlothothep wrote: »

...but maybe the US government let the incident happen, maybe they chose to ignore it, and outsourced the task to a contractor, in this case Bin Laden, who was either working for them or was their creation. Perhaps the CIA created the persona of Bin Laden, through a sequence of carefully orchestrated events/missions which would in time turn him against the states and result in him carrying out a terrorist attack that would play right in the hands of the US government.

They admit they knew some of the hijackers were in the country so some of this could be true. But on balance since the intelligence agency's in the states had a long standing record of not sharing info with each other (hence Homeland Security after 911) it's more likely they just didn't talk to one another as usual. And some of the obstruction of the investigation is very likely to be people covering their asses so they don't look stupid and inept.

Joshua Jones

meglome wrote: »

And some of the obstruction of the investigation is very likely to be people covering their asses so they don't look stupid and inept.

What, like a cover-up :eek:

meglome

Joshua Jones wrote: »

What, like a cover-up :eek:

Sure just not the vast one portrayed in most of the CT's.