Well since 'they' knew about 9/11...

Why did they let it happen??

Some people say it's so the government could infringe upon our freedoms, passing the Patriot Act, developing a nosy Homeland Security Dept, shifting more power balance to the Feds, etc. But I don't think that's enough of a reason to let 2 planes fly into the economic heart of the world as well as your very own Pentagon.

So what is the reason? Were there businessmen in the WTC that needed to be eliminated? Was there something going on in the twin towers that was deemed a threat to Bush and/or his administration? What about the Pentagon? Why would the United States government allow such an event to transpire?

They might have had threat assesments - but maybe just maybe its time to realise that there are actually some people who would want to hurt the US - we have lived with the IRA for too many years to suspect too much UK govt intervention - but Im afraid terrorists do exist and they do cross boundarys. The Bogey men are out there - and sometimes preemptive action is needed. That very sad time the call might have come to late - I hope there is never another time.

Well, I think the controlling and taking away more of our rights was certainly part of the equation involved, but many more factors were present also. Remember, this also gives Bush an effective scapegoat to use to justify wars on foreign soil which give him more power and though hurting the nation financially, actually help him and his affiliates financially.

Actually, a good read on this would be the thread just started by SeekerOf about the think tank and that thing I think called PNAC? Anyways, it pretty much sums up most of the points involved in the 9.11 conspiracy. Scary, tomorrow is 9.11's aniiversery.

One reason was to stir up public paranoia and war fury so they would have a rabid American public eager to go to war and eliminate the "perps". America was apehtetic and strongly against entry into world war 1. The sinking of the Lusitania changed our former screw the Euro war attitudes. America was apethetic to the war in Europe during world war 2, and wanted nothing to do with it. pearl harbor changed that.

We invaded Vietnam. American public pissed off, and the 60s were very turbulent politically because of it. It ruined political careers. The public was angry. The US govornment knew then that in order to have a hitchless war with a complacent public, the public had to believe that the threat could hit our shores.

Thus, 9/11. Worse than anything like it in US history. The potential for more people to die on that day than Antietam was enough to stir huge emotional reaction. The public was so enraged I heard crazy #ers around me saying we better nuke them. It got the desired reaction. People were begging the govornment to go bomb the evil doers.

It also made America look more justified in its war against terror, so few people would question it. Even the opposition to the Iraq war was weak. It stirred up support and allowed also rights to be infringed on.

It didnt cost the gov much. Only a tint piece of the Pentagon destroyed. the WTC was but one set of buildings in thier eyes. it was to them an acceptable loss, because they stood to gain even more. So they wrote them off, along with 3000 people as collateral damage.

Most assuredly there was complicity in the attacks from several in the criminal Bush administration. The extent to which they allowed this national security failure is seen in the amount of stonewalling over 9/11 Congressional Enquiries.

Also, George W Bush privately (but heard publicly) cited 9/11 as the third horse in the trifecta he needed to complete the preconditions for the PNAC plan to invade Iraq.

Don't post that you haven't heard of PNAC, it can make you look silly.

Do an ATS Search on PNAC. I have been pointing to it for months.

There have been 40+ threads on it over a couple of years.

I find the pic with GW reading the book in the classroom very telling. Its upside down btw....

Bush stayed in the classroom after being told by Andrew Card about the second plane hitting WTC.

That was the action plan determined by the 'president' and 'Commander-In-Chief', so as 'not to upset the children'. Just one of the thousands of lies applied by this admin to cover up their precise role.

The upside down book in the picture is just faked, that has been covered off on about 10 topics at ATS.

Ok I have to say this - whilst I am interested in a lot of conspiracys - the 9/11 one just doesnt hold water for me. Sometimes you seem to sink back into the 1930s - no one is the big bad but you guys. Well the Cold War seemed to scare wnough people for a while. After it ended (and yes I know all the MIC/NWO theories) you seemed to go back to believeing just nobody could perpatrate an attack on US soil. But domestic terrorism happened - so why is it so hard to believe that some other group - lets face it Lybia was a big enough threat that it was bombed - could ever attack the US ?.

A side note and seriously not intended as a slur - perhaps this belief of such a large populous made you open to such an attack ? - Bin Laden knew weaknesses in the american psyche - the belief in the invulvnerability - so why fall prey again - it caused you to weaken your anti terrorist services at a time when many were making theirs stronger.

Im happy to discus this further with anyone who wants to U2U me or tackle me in Forum.

And I will reference another comment of mine in another thread - we will stand side by side - I believe - though reviled by many GWB did actually ask us for help regarding external terrorist threats given our very extensive experience.

the question isnt if America could be attacked. It could. I never felt this country invulnerable then or now.

The mater is not about what happened, but what FAILED to happen. They KNEW before it ever happened. The actions and locations of our leaders, couple with the amazing lack of communication, response, and pilots being told to stand down, ordinary proceedures that happen quite frequently were suddenly ignored.

No, America never was invulnerable. the attacks could have been carried out.

The qestion is just how easily they happened. Not a single plane challenged, Rumsfled giving a terro briefing in the pentagon, claiming we will get hit with terrorism soon (right before the first plane hit).

The offical story holds no water, hell, it hardly can hold any air.

What didnt happen ?

Oh the dog didnt bark theory - hmm try Omagh, Brighton, Lockerbie. Getting it wrong is like playing black jack - ever played that ? - for me to lose at cards isnt a conspiracy - its called chance.

Let me put it another way - for claritys sake
During the cold war there were many ways for the soviets to attack europe - as to what you did - was a war game. Lack of response in military terms does NOT equal deliberate inaction or equally contrived inaction. Rather it presents a scenario of possible reaction to a threat. When looking for a smoking gun - an air of scepticism is needed.

Lack of military response alone isnt what Im pointing at,but a collection of failures.

1. Not one, but several Air traffic control stations failure to report the hijackings?
2. Failure of FAA to scramble jets.
3. Failure of president to re act properly. hes not an ordinary Joe allowed to make mistakes. hes the leader of the "Free #ing world".
4. Across the board ignoral of standard operating proceedures during that day
5. Abscence or suspicious localtions of leaders
6. Asscroft switching to chartered Jets a week before
7. Failure of secret service to whisk prez to safety (if they really didnt know, the president would have disappeared from that school really quick
8. Rumsfelds "prophetic revelations in the Pentagon basement.
9. Jets were avaiable, yet not scrambled until the last minute from bases that were within realistic distances
10. Misinformation. Turning off a planes transponder signal doesnt make it invisible. Thats what radar is for.

Remeber, you speak of the cold war. This wasnt highly trained Russian ops doing the dirty deed. This was a rag tag bunch of underground religious nuts.

The total collective of the failures of that day point to complacency.

Originally posted by earthtone
Also you have to highlight the fact that The american government had planned their war in Afghanistan a couple of months before 9/11. 9/11 was a very good reason for them to go to war. . .

a couple of months? It had been published about by 1998.

Also you have to highlight the fact that The american government had planned their war in Afghanistan a couple of months before 9/11. 9/11 was a very good reason for them to go to war. . .

But why the Trade Centers?!? If the whole premise was for economic gain, why attack the cornerstone of the world's economic power structure? Why not crash the plane into the Statue of Liberty or a baseball stadium or just some random building or the White House? Why take out both (plus the 3rd '7WTC') towers, AND the pentagon? Was the pentagon attack necessary? I just don't understand the building selection.

Originally posted by Sanders
But why the Trade Centers?!? If the whole premise was for economic gain, why attack the cornerstone of the world's economic power structure? Why not crash the plane into the Statue of Liberty or a baseball stadium or just some random building or the White House? Why take out both (plus the 3rd '7WTC') towers, AND the pentagon? Was the pentagon attack necessary? I just don't understand the building selection.

One word: "symbolism"
The "effect"/result that this incident/tragic occurance must have on the public is the same "effect"/result that the tragedy that befell Pearl Harbor had/gave on the public and public opinion.
The masses must be "cohersed" into believing that the 9/11 occurances were of such a tragic magnitude that "minor issues" and "safeguards" would go unnoticed.

regards
seekerof

regards
seekerof

www.globalresearch.ca...

www.newamericancentury.org...

"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century," September 2000. A Report of the Project for the New American Century.


"Two years ago a project set up by the men who now surround George W Bush said what America needed was 'a new Pearl Harbor'. Its published aims have come alarmingly true, writes John Pilger"

"In the Los Angeles Times, the military analyst William Arkin describes a secret army set up by Donald Rumsfeld, similar to those run by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger and which Congress outlawed. This 'super-intelligence support activity' will bring together the 'CIA and military covert action, information warfare, and deception'. According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld, the new organisation, known by its Orwellian moniker as the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group, or P2OG, will provoke terrorist attacks which would then require 'counter-attack' by the United States on countries 'harbouring the terrorists'."

www.cooperativeresearch.org...

Anyone heard of this P2OG?

www.disinfopedia.org...

www.commondreams.org...


this link has hundreds of good links:
www.tvnewslies.org...

This will probably go along with alot of what Peace posted:

"The War On Terrorism is Bogus"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

regards
seekerof

It wasn't just symbalism to attack the WTC...there were entire financial transactions and credit histories erased. There is a German company that has been putting together hardrives from the buildings and has found a flury of transactions right before the planes hit totaling hundreds of millions of dollars - so far....
Money..its always been money...its always been money...its always been money

[There is no friend anywhere - Lao Tse]