Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

9/11 conspiracy Theories

Rate this topic


miz astrid

Recommended Posts

* flight schools – We know the terrorists trained at flight schools like the one in Venice Florida. They represented that they were interested in becoming commercial pilots. I’ve not heard any evidence that someone at the flight schools knew anything about their plans. What else is there to learn about this topic?

There is reason to believe that these flight schools (and probably some of the 19 alleged hijackers) were involved in drug trafficking. I would like to see the results of the investigation of the government in that matter. They did dig up a lot of documents from the flight schools.

* WTC remaining – It has been more than 8 years since the attack and I’ve been to the site a number of times. All of the WTC remains have been cleared and taken to a landfill. They are putting up new structures at the site, as they should be. 8 years later, what could one possibly find in the landfill that would shed any additional light on what we already know?

I don't mean the site itself. I mean the remainings. According to one study the dust contained traces of nano thermate, a modern type of explosive.

* mobile phone calls (esp. flight 77) – What isn’t clear about these?

The alleged call made by Barbara Olsen was a lie. This was proven in court during the Moussaoui trial. The duration of that call was 0 sec (no connection). The court documents are publicly available. This was also mentioned somewhere in the news, but I have to dig it up.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/...saoui/exhibits/

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/...ts/P200054.html

* flight data recorder (Pentagon) – Didn’t the terrorists know how to turn off the recorders? Also, this plane was almost completely destroyed. It doesn’t seem out of the ordinary for the recorders to not have survived or been severely damaged.

The flight recorder was not deactivated. The flight recorder in the Pentagon was recovered.

The flight recorders of the planes that hit the WTC were destroyed (according to the government, although there are workers on the site who went on record that they saw the flight recorders, but that is another story).

The data of the flight recorder was made public. A group of flight engineers privately investigated the contents of the recordings. I didn't study their findings closely, but one of their findings was that the doors to the cockpits were never opened during the flight (the status of the door is recorded in the flight recorder). They also analyzed the flight path, but I would have to look that up again. See http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

* witness reports of the air controllers – What about them?

They weren't made public and the tape with the recordings was destroyed despite FAA orders to keep those records.

* possible criminal negligence of people in charge (air defense, early warnings etc.) Nobody knew that the terrorists were on a suicide mission until the 2nd plane hit the WTC. I’m not sure what you think should have been done, but the idea of shooting down one or more planes full of civilian passengers on 9/11 is a fantasy. It is something that might be done now, but on 9/11/01 the true depths of the terrorists’ insanity wasn’t widely known.

Well, the whole idea would be to reform current structures in the intelligence agencies to be better prepared for future incidents. Some FBI agents did come forward and said that they were blocked in their investigation or their results were ignored. Privately they joined together in the so called "NSWC", "National Security Whistleblowers Coalition".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This all just works on open questions. Look at this entire thread.

A conspiracy zealot will NEVER give a definitive answer to anything. He believes one cannot "know" anything for sure. He does not trust video, audio, eyewitnesses, his own eyes or logic. The method of thought is, "If I don't know one thing for certain, then every possibility is automatically valid... without question, and forever." He will trust, as truth, what he can imagine abstractly-- but he will question indefinitely and irrationally all things concrete.

Watch:

To anyone who questions who planned the 9/11 attacks --
What is the smallest possible number of human beings who are alive and aware (read: "know") of the "real story" of the 9/11 tower and pentagon attacks?

You won't get a definitive answer to this question. They will not commit to a minimum number and stand by it.

If you're lucky you'll get *any* minimum number out of them (but they'll make clear that they're just guessing, "it could be more, it could be less"). Nevertheless, from there (if you have the energy), you can then turn the tables and question THEIR conspiracy?

What follows is an infinite amount of open questions you may leave on their doorstep, which they cannot answer with certainty, thus "proving" that they're hiding something and that the opposite of what they believe must be the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was an official investigation, it produced a report.

New information since then has come out.

This information needs to be looked at by a new official investigation.

There will always be new information, about every old investigation in the world. That's because the world is a more complex place than any record or report some committee can produce of it.

What there isn't, however, is evidence that anyone else was behind those attacks, except the organization that report blamed. When you can present evidence of someone else's guilt, you and your questions will be taken seriously by a lot of serious people.

Until then, these silly questions will be relegated to the dark corners of the Internet, where reason and logic are in short supply, and people scream and shout thinking their unanswered questions are evidence of wrongdoing, and reason for more rational and therefor more capable people to act. If you want answers, look for them yourself, let the FBI answer its own questions.

If you really think you're better equipped to determine what the truth is, and what should be done to find it, you should be more effective at searching for answers than the people who made the mistake to move on as if they resolved the issue, anyway, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What there isn't, however, is evidence that anyone else was behind those attacks, except the organization that report blamed. When you can present evidence of someone else's guilt, you and your questions will be taken seriously by a lot of serious people.

Please define "evidence".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody knew that the terrorists were on a suicide mission until the 2nd plane hit the WTC. I’m not sure what you think should have been done, but the idea of shooting down one or more planes full of civilian passengers on 9/11 is a fantasy. It is something that might be done now, but on 9/11/01 the true depths of the terrorists’ insanity wasn’t widely known.

I was off work that morning. Took my oldest to school, then got back in the car and the first plane hit. Second one hit while we watched it on TV. Pentagon was hit.

When some focus moved to DC, there seemed to be an expansion of what was happening. My good friend of many years was working in DC. He was stationed there in the US Air Force. His job has always been classified, and I know that. I called his house, he didn't have a cell phone, just to leave a message, and, to my surprise, he answered.

He was working that morning, but, to paraphase what he said, they sent us home because the last plane was coming to us at the NSA. Was the first time I heard him refer to the NSA, National Security Agency, and I really didn't know what more to say to him after that. Was happy that he was safe and there wasn't a known end to what was happening. But soon afte it was a concern of mine how "they" would know that their NSA location was THE target. If the final target of the last jet wasn't known, it's almost unreasonable to send everyone out to head home on the streets not knowing where the jet was going to crash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Direct observation, or an outward sign from which a conclusion can be inferred in accordance with the rules of logic.

Ok, now you have let's say 6 accounts of people who say A and 4 accounts of people who say B. What is the proper way to solve this issue?

A rational process, each side has to present their pieces of evidence within a court of law in order to check their validity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, now you have let's say 6 accounts of people who say A and 4 accounts of people who say B. What is the proper way to solve this issue?

A rational process, each side has to present their pieces of evidence within a court of law in order to check their validity.

And who is on trial here, the US Government? Perhaps the victims of 9/11? With the exception of 1 or 2 co-conspirators, the direct perpetrators of the act are all dead, so who do we put on trial?

I have yet to see presented by you or anyone else even a single piece of evidence that is convincing enough to create the need for any further investigation of 9/11. What happened on that day has been more than adequately explored and these continuing attempts to manufacture controversy where there is none border on paranoia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, now you have let's say 6 accounts of people who say A and 4 accounts of people who say B. What is the proper way to solve this issue?

A rational process, each side has to present their pieces of evidence within a court of law in order to check their validity.

Courts of law are for trying the accused, based on a rational process of evaluating evidence. However, deciding who the accused are , to be put on trial, is another rational process, and it is also done based on evidence, at the proposal of people who have earned their positions as prosecutors in an objective justice system, and by the decision of a judge.

You don't have the authority to propose someone be tried, you don't have any evidence, you don't even have the names of any suspects. Until I just explained it to you, you didn't even seem to know what a court of law is. You just want one, because you have questions. All I can do is repeat: questions are not a reason for any action whatsoever, let alone for a court of law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, deciding who the accused are , to be put on trial, is another rational process, and it is also done based on evidence, at the proposal of people who have earned their positions as prosecutors in an objective justice system, and by the decision of a judge.

Well, one might want to question whether there is an objective justice system for all currently. And are the positions always earned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have yet to see presented by you or anyone else even a single piece of evidence that is convincing enough to create the need for any further investigation of 9/11. What happened on that day has been more than adequately explored and these continuing attempts to manufacture controversy where there is none border on paranoia.

Aha, so you want one single piece that is so convincing that puts all evidence to the contrary into question? So it's ok if some of the witnesses lied, if some of the documents are wrong or if the official story cannot be proven, as long as we don't have this special kind of evidence that blows everything away?

As I have stated above we have concrete evidence that witnesses lied and that part of the official story is a lie (flight 77). If you don't think that is reason enough please describe how your single piece of evidence would need to look like in order to create the need for any further investigation of 9/11.

You don't have the authority to propose someone be tried, you don't have any evidence, you don't even have the names of any suspects. Until I just explained it to you, you didn't even seem to know what a court of law is. You just want one, because you have questions. All I can do is repeat: questions are not a reason for any action whatsoever, let alone for a court of law.

Aha, so no trial. What about FOIA requests? Or do the same standards apply to them? If yes, how is it possible to uncover government corruption at all? Or do you think that government corruption is a paranoid idea as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aha, so no trial. What about FOIA requests? Or do the same standards apply to them? If yes, how is it possible to uncover government corruption at all? Or do you think that government corruption is a paranoid idea as well?

The United States does have a Freedom of Information Act in place. What about it? Request away. But of course there is a rational standard for evaluating your request, you're not gonna get access to a layout of America's nuclear arsenal, or a list of Iranian double agents employed by the CIA.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United States does have a Freedom of Information Act in place. What about it? Request away. But of course there is a rational standard for evaluating your request, you're not gonna get access to a layout of America's nuclear arsenal, or a list of Iranian double agents employed by the CIA.

Or videos showing flight 77.

Or documents concerning the evacuation of Saudis and members of the Bin Laden family right after 9/11.

Or any part of the CIA investigation of 9/11.

Or documents about the foreknowledge of the CIA/FBI.

Or documents about the VISAs that the hijackers received, despite warnings.

Or documents about the money connection to Pakistan.

Or, or or...

Where is the line?

A FOIA is useless if much of what is connected to 9/11 is declared a secret.

In addition FOIA requests take years, so even if FOIA worked, a research on base of FOIA might take a decade because one thing leads to another.

...nor will you get the proof we never landed on the moon, since we actually did. They cannot fulfill a request for non-existent information.

How about proof of the official story? There should be proof *somewhere* if the official story true, shouldn't it? Why not release the dozens of Pentagon videos which show flight 77 or its crash? Do you think that the only camera near the Pentagon is the camera at the parking lot? :)

Edited by Clawg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or videos showing flight 77.

Or documents concerning the evacuation of Saudis and members of the Bin Laden family right after 9/11.

Or any part of the CIA investigation of 9/11.

Or documents about the foreknowledge of the CIA/FBI.

Or documents about the VISAs that the hijackers received, despite warnings.

Or documents about the money connection to Pakistan.

Or, or or...

Did you ask for these? On what basis was your request denied?

Do you have proof that these these things exist, and are not being released?

How about proof of the official story?

There is proof of the official story. We've all seen those planes hit on live TV, there are documents and pictures of those Al Qaeda members boarding the planes, and there are witness reports as well as audio of them hijacking the planes. There is conclusive evidence that they hijacked and crashed those planes.

Why not release the dozens of Pentagon videos which show flight 77 or its crash?

Why not tell us how you know they exist. I'll answer that for you: you have no idea. You're not thinking, you're not drawing conclusions based on evidence, you're making things up and letting your imagination run with them, while ignoring actual evidence right in front of you, pretending that it doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does it mean if it's true that the U.S. Government was involved in orchestrating the 9/11 attacks?

It means things are much worse than we thought. Who here doesn't think the U.S. Government has been corrupt for a very long time?

And oh - yeah - Homeland Security. What a joke. We saw how well that worked on Dec. 25, 2009. The only reason there wasn't a terrible tragedy was the attacker was inept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wrote this in the Iran thread, AllMenAreIslands, but I might as well answer it here:

So now I'm looking into the whole 9/11 thing anew, especially as there seems no end to the wars in sight and following stricter controls on individuals' freedoms being put in place after the Christmas Day attack. I'm thinking that alot of the stuff that is used as justification for further erosion to individuals' rights in the name of national security is concocted. The real goal is eroding individuals' rights & freedoms. Any means to achieve that end is being used. It's a bait & switch, or a magic act. You're distracted with some terrible event here, so that you are more amenable to temporary intrusions & inconveniences.

You are comaring the 9/11 story to two things:

1. AGW. My answer is simple: I've never seen substantial evidence of AGW theory, therefor I never believed it, not for a second, neither did any of the people I respect, look up to, trust. etc.. As far as the 9/11 events, I've seen more evidence supporting the truth of that story than any even in history. So have others I trust. It's nothing like AGW, to the point that if, let's speculate about the impossible here, it turned out to have been orchastrated by the government, my trust in the very basics of Reason and Purpose would shatter, and I'd be best off just ending the misery with a gunshot to the head.

2. You're saying it was a magic act, a bait and switch. Prove that a massive magic act can be carried out in the middle of Manhattan, in a place where tens of thousands go to work, without any visible preparation. Then it would be worth considering your comparison. Until then my retort is no, it wasn't like a magic act, it was more like an apple: real.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "magic" is not the issue of planes flying into buildings, but rather the entire episode of the attack being simply a pretext to justify further erosions of freedom and rights.

Well, if you've seen "more evidence" to support the official 9/11 story, Jake, then perhaps you are able to answer the following:

1. Why did the US air defense system fail to follow standard procedures?

2. Why were no air force deployed immediately after the first plane crashed into one tower to patrol the skies over American soil?

3. What is the meaning of the ties between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family?

4. Whose fraud investigations were disrupted by the attack and who benefited from the attack i.e., follow the money)? I am reminded of the various attacks on the moneylenders in centuries past, when debts got out of control, the ruling elite would simply kill those to whom money was owed. Could the same have been a convenient additional factor here?

5. What happened to airplane black boxes, designed to survive all manner of events and which were seen at the site, only to disappear & never be mentioned again? Such evidence has always formed part of the investigation in private matters - why not here? The whereabouts of those boxes IS a matter of national security; keeping them hidden or hiding the fact that they were destroyed does not foster confidence in the government.

6. Where are air traffic controller tapes? They weren't under attack or subject to a fire.

7. Why was Ground Zero a.k.a. the crime scene disposed of before a proper investigation could be carried out? Did anyone check for evidence of explosives? While it's a horrific thought, it must have occurred to someone to run the tests. Compare footage of ordinary buildings that were dismantled using controlled explosions in city centers, with the 9/11 footage. See any similarities? It's at least worth looking into, wouldn't you say, if only to rule it out definitively. I'm not prepared to take the word of politicians whose very livelihoods put them in a conflict of interest.

8. Why was any investigation at all delayed for months? Why did the families of victims have to wait for months to get answers and yet... the perpetrator was immediately known.

9. How was it determined nevertheless so quickly that "Iraq" was involved? I'm not disputing the animosity held by Muslims/Islamic nations - but there are lots of such nations. Even a regular detective in a mid-size city precinct knows that a serial killer will have copycats, as well as people willing to take credit for something they didn't do. How did they settle on Iraq?

Those are just for starters.

Whenever witnesses are ignored or silenced with threats, and evidence appears to have been scuttled, ignored or destroyed, big red flags goes up for me. I'm not prepared to swallow the official version. My point with comparing to AGW is - the official government version in respect of AGW led to carbon dioxide being declared a pollutant. The entire world has just narrowly escaped (for now) being taxed out of existence on the pretext of saving the planet.

Why should your life hang in the balance on this issue, Jake? The possibility that the government did orchestrate makes sense to me given there is no longer respect for human rights, or human freedom, in America or the rest of the world on an official level. As far as those in power are concerned, the populations both at home and abroad exist simply as means to ends.

Edited by AllMenAreIslands
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "magic" is not the issue of planes flying into buildings, but rather the entire episode of the attack being simply a pretext to justify further erosions of freedom and rights.

I am becoming increasingly doubtful that we have received the full story from the government about 9-11, or many other events, including the recent attempted "underwear bombing" on Christmas. It's not that I think the WTC was destroyed by virtue of any "magic trick" or plotted by George W Bush, or demolition charges were somehow secretly planted inside when no one was looking, or that one of the more silly stories that one of the planes launched a missile or something like that. I find it very hard to believe the government carried out the attack, I do think it was jihadists acting on their own, with support from KSM and OBL, I just think the government is lying about the full story, or the real story, or that behind the scenes, there is something more to it, if nothing else, just negligence.

It is documented that the government was involved with these jihadists throughout the 80's and 90's, knew who they were, knew what they were trying to do, and I think the plausibility here is that they let this happen, at worst by specific design, or at best by criminal negligence in order to engage in false-flag propaganda and expand police state power in the name of "security." That they have the American people cowering in fear over the ever-continuing threat of these evildoers out there which provides the necessary excuse to demand that people sacrifice their liberties to be safe.

Just turn on Fox or CNN or any other mainstream outlet and you can't go 5 minutes without hearing about how we must all sacrifice our freedoms in order to achieve some sort of perceived "balance between liberty and security." "Sure there's an invasive scan here and a warrantless search there, but hey, there are hobgoblins out there!" That we must all submit to new security measures, that we must all submit to being scanned, that we must stand still whilst dog handlers allow their bomb-sniffing dogs to search us, that we must submit to more invasive warrantless searches, everybody likes the new searches, don't you dare complain, all true patriots love the new searches, we have to prohibit people from being able to go to the bathroom on planes, because of course if you're a suicide bomber going to blow up a plane, not going to the bathroom is going to stop you, we have to interrogate people with brilliant questions like "did you pack your own bags?!" becuase of course terrorists never pack their own bags, and the are totally incapable of saying "yes" to that question, that is definitely how you catch them, that we must now have El Al-style security and be interrogated by federal agents before being allowed to fly, where are you going, why are you going there, where did you come from, what are you doing, what is your business, no don't ask why, we're asking the questions here, and god forbid you try to go anywhere without your papers.

And now there are already calls that we must bomb Yemen, now we need to give billions of looted tax-dollars to the Yemeni government, who suddenly really loves America, so that they can take care of these bad people out there, so pay your taxes and support perpetual war for perpetual peace, or you're not patriotic.

And of course the terrorists start with wanting to blow up the highly secured areas like airports and airplanes. If they were real smart, why wouldn't they blow up a shopping mall or a packed building? Why try to go through airport security? Well, god forbid they ever do attempt to blow up some other place, because then we have to accept those zones being federalized with more security. It starts at the airports, then you have to consent to being searched and interrogated and put through security elsewhere in public places. Of course, there is no constitutional reason to allow any of this, it started at the airports that way, as the Supreme Court pretty much said the Constitution doesn't apply at the borders, and airports = borders, and anyone who flies consents to being searched by the federal government. Why not immunized as well? If vaccines are given out at some airports, why not require manditory immunization for anyone who wants to fly due to a "pandemic" being declared and at some point in the future it turns into being "consenting" to be immunized just because you fly.

And so we fail to catch the actually guilty people, but just collectively punish everyone else. A terrorist with a shoe-bomb? Take off your shoes. A terrorist with toothpaste? Hand over your Crest with whitening. A terrorist with a goin-grenade? Now you must submit to being felt-up by our gropers and scanned by our ooglers. God forbid a terrorist tries to kamikaze a plane with a rectal grenade, then what? All passengers proceed to gate 6A for your pre-flight proctology exam and rectal cavity search. When does it end? Of course, according to leaked TSA documents, Heads of State and top government officials are exempt from many of these measures. The looting and enslaving class is always exempt from the looting and enslaving.

I recently read a book called "Liberty In Eclipse: The Rise of the Homeland Security State" by author William Norman Grigg, and there is some fascinating things in here that I never knew, or would never have known about this country. For example, I never knew there were a set of executive orders which allow the president to seize control of all media outlets, and all that is necessary is the president declare "emergency, emergency!" There is also the declassified "Operation Northwoods," a Dept of Defense memorandum outlining the government's plan for massive, breathtaking deception, staging false-flag terror attacks against American targets in order to justify war with Cuba. (This has been declassified and released, you can see it on the National Archives' own website here: 1 2 3 4 5.)

There is also the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, in which it was revealed that some of the participants were members of Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood, and bin Laden's Afghan Mujahadeen, as well as paid CIA operatives, FBI informants, and Egyptian Secret Service: Abdel-Rahman, the so-called "blind sheikh" who worked as a CIA asset in Islamic Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood, which were on the CIA payroll, (he was allowed into the US in 1990 despite being on a "terror watchlist" because the man at the Sudanese consulate who was issuing visas was on lunch break and the man who had taken over for him was a CIA operative,) former Special Forces Captain Ali A. Mohammed, who was a member of Islamic Jihad and trained bin Laden's men in Afghanistan, and Egyptian Intelligence agent / paid FBI informant Emad Salem, who secretly recorded hours of phone conversations with his FBI handlers, and was told to go ahead with the WTC bombing because the FBI promised him they would render the bomb inert before it would go off. He testified for the government about WTC and also about Abdel-Rahman's plot to hijack 12 airplanes and fly them into buildings in New York and was placed in the witness relocation program. As for the bomb, of course, it did go off and Ali Mohammed pleaded guilty for "considerations" regarding the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and promplty disappeared. The US is protecting him to this day.

He describes several different events including 9/11, many of which we may never know the full truth about, but we can learn from observing the responses and government involvement and he calls it "security theater" which is basically the same false-flag episodes over and over.

been orchastrated by the government, my trust in the very basics of Reason and Purpose would shatter, and I'd be best off just ending the misery with a gunshot to the head.

2. You're saying it was a magic act, a bait and switch. Prove that a massive magic act can be carried out in the middle of Manhattan, in a place where tens of thousands go to work, without any visible preparation. Then it would be worth considering your comparison. Until then my retort is no, it wasn't like a magic act, it was more like an apple: real.

I don't see why you should blow your head off, Jake. It isn't about being magical, I believe these events are real terrorism, I believe these events are huge disasters, I believe 9/11 was fully carried out by Muslim fanatical fascists, really horrendusly evil religious zealots quite intent on killing and destroying Americans, I believe there are some real evil people that need to be dealt with by our government, and that appeasing them or trying to make peace with them would be a mistake. But I am beginning to understand the curious patterns of behavior, time and again, that some or most in our government display at inciting preventable catastrophes, and then capitalizing on them to enhance their power to do exactly the same things that resulted in disaster. Don't you think there is something to this whole cycle of attacks, calls for war, expanding of arbitrary state power, calls for less liberty in the name of "security," it's almost as if the automatic response is freedom-reduction as a form of grieving... over and over again thurought recent history? False-flag terrorism is one of the oldest intelligence tricks in the book. If the same government that is so invested in so many other lies, including AGW, I can't possibly believe that some of these people actually believe in "free health care," or Keynesian financial "stimulus," or an altruistic social policies, or altruistic interventionist foreign policy, or climate change, or central banking, or a myriad of other things, but just use it as a pretext to consolidate power and loot wealth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Why did the US air defense system fail to follow standard procedures?

I don't even know what the standard procedure was.

Another thing I don't know is why it is relevant. You should've explained, if you want to talk about it. As it is, this just looks like the beginning of a long pointless list to me, and I'm not gonna keep reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew posted this in the "Nuke Iran" thread, but it is also relevant to this discussion.

I find it funny that anybody could take the 9/11 truth movement seriously. Their entire premise is based on the belief that the government somehow was in cahoots with, or was directly involved in, the flying of airplanes into one of the country's most important landmarks, in the middle of its most important city, right in the middle of rush hour ... and the only people who could figure out this grand scheme were a bunch of braindead college students with iMacs. Considering all the immense failures of the Bush administration, and their inability to perform even simple acts of policy with any amount of rational thought, I find little credibility in the claim that they could be so successful at pulling off such an enormous feat with such precision.

I agree completely. And I would add that a conspiracy this large would be virtually impossible to keep secret in a government that can't keep much of anything from the public. Before I give even the slightest bit of credence to the 9/11 Truth crowd, I want to hear an explanation of how it is even remotely possible to hide the federal government's supposed involvement in this attack (which would have required the participation of dozens of people).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely. And I would add that a conspiracy this large would be virtually impossible to keep secret in a government that can't keep much of anything from the public. Before I give even the slightest bit of credence to the 9/11 Truth crowd, I want to hear an explanation of how it is even remotely possible to hide the federal government's supposed involvement in this attack (which would have required the participation of dozens of people).

Not to take any side, but obviously, if there was some americans involved, they were a private organization and not the federal government.

I dont see GW Bush leading such a thing. IMHO GW Bush was a person who was told what to do and what to say.

It is just my impression. He does not seem to be very bright. I remember some photos of 9/11, him reading to a class, with the book upside-down.

If you analyze the possibility that there were some americans involved, who were acting to advance US interests, you can see important motives for 911 to happen. The US needed/wanted a military control on Iraq and Afg. (otherwise the US today will be a hostage of the OPEC?).

Maybe some people concluded than the benefit of 9/11 (for the US interests) were bigger than the cost.

http://911review.com/motive/empire.html

(I'm not posting the link to support the idea of PNAC participation, only to show a pre-911 analysis showing the "benefits" of such an event)

Strategically, 9/11 was a disaster if the intention of the attacker was to reduce the american military presence in the middle-east.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strategically, 9/11 was a disaster if the intention of the attacker was to reduce the american military presence in the middle-east.

Actually, from what I've read, heard, and seen, the American response to 9/11 is precisely what was intended by the attackers. Osama Bin Laden made the claim countless times that he wanted Americans to be on "his soil" so that he could target us easier. He anticipated the American response, and that it would, in a way, cause us to act self-destructively. Sadly, I think his predictions have been somewhat accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, from what I've read, heard, and seen, the American response to 9/11 is precisely what was intended by the attackers. Osama Bin Laden made the claim countless times that he wanted Americans to be on "his soil" so that he could target us easier. He anticipated the American response, and that it would, in a way, cause us to act self-destructively. Sadly, I think his predictions have been somewhat accurate.

Heard and seen, huh? So you have a tape of him saying any of this dated before the Afghan invasion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...