Lets Fight!!!!

Ok so who wants to take this on....

Simple game, I am going to state a theory or something I think is true and dare anyone to try and prove me wrong in any amount of posts but make sense and backup what you have to say, and I encourage anyone else wanting to state something bring it on. It simple and fun, and it all starts right now.



I Think that the U.S. Goverment is behind the 9/11 attacks.

My proof, the Iraq invasion, given reason to attack Sadam Hussien and rid him from power also, a way for the USA to show off its colors and make sure everyone knows we still hold a big stick and walk lightly.

Site of Information and action-
www.americanfreepress.net...
also-
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by ragster
My proof, the Iraq invasion, given reason to attack Sadam Hussien and rid him from power also, a way for the USA to show off its colors and make sure everyone knows we still hold a big stick and walk lightly.

Your proof is actually an idea of a possible motive or set of motives. Proof would require some sort of evidence.

I would say that makes your statement incorrect with that current wording, don't you agree.

Oooh, And The Fight Is On!

I dunno man, I think Zedd gets to call *spank!* on that one.

What else you got?

Iam not going to take this guys idea, but here is alot of good possible evidence that can backup the possibility of my statement-

tvnewslies.org...

But on my own, I believe that Buliding 7 falling down had something more that just natural effects, I would believe that this building of all of them would be more stable, and unable to be collasped so easily with out being set up.

Also another site giving a proposition of pulling buildings down-
www.rense.com...

www.geocities.com...

So you stated an opinion. I said there is no actual proof and therefore your statement is incorrect, and then you completely ignore what I said and continue on to Building 7?

Personally, I don't care but it does show that you are not really that into this game you've created.

ps) I proved you wrong in one post.

Oh Come On!

Originally posted by zenlover28
www.geocities.com...

Dude, just posting links is weak. :bash:

I think you can do better than that.

Originally posted by ragster
My proof, the Iraq invasion, given reason to attack Sadam Hussien and rid him from power also, a way for the USA to show off its colors and make sure everyone knows we still hold a big stick and walk lightly.

The invasion of Iraq is some of the weakest 'proof' of the U.S. government planning and orchestrating the 9-11 attacks. Common sense would say if you want to invade Iraq then set Saddam up, not Osama Bin Laden.

I think that's all I need to say right there. My source was provided in the other post, not that you actually need a source to figure that out.

Majic I prefer to be called Dudette. Thank you very much.

The Fairer Sex

Originally posted by zenlover28
Majic I prefer to be called Dudette. Thank you very much.

I stand corrected.

And I love it when you post commentary.

9/11 last stand

The events of 9/11 I believe happened all too coincidently and therefore I standout to keep proving my statement that the government had something to do with it. I am giving three main points (hits) and a conclusion (smackdown) on what I feel and believe.

9/11 has been a huge discussion on ATS and other sites all over the internet, and the most talked about part of 9/11 is the conspiracies and tricks of the government, this will always be so, even when John F. Kennedy was killed there was speculation the government had something to do with, but this is no speculation this is pure truth and evidence of what happened that day.

1. 9/11 is the most widely talked about conspiracy within a government ever stated in history and it is constantly growing, in this event I give that the evidence at hand must backed up with sufficient evidence to prove that 9/11 actually did happen in a course of helped actions and premeditated help by the government.

www.msnbc.msn.com...
-

WASHINGTON - The FBI missed at least five opportunities before the Sept. 11 attacks to uncover vital intelligence information about the terrorists, and the bureau didn’t aggressively pursue the information it did have, the Justice Department’s inspector general says in a newly released critique of government missteps.
The IG faulted the FBI for not knowing about the presence of two of the Sept. 11 terrorists in the United States and for not following up on an agent’s theory that Osama bin Laden was sending students to U.S. flight training schools. The agent’s theory turned out to be precisely what bin Laden did.
“The way the FBI handled these matters was a significant failure that hindered the FBI’s chances of being able to detect and prevent the Sept. 11 attacks,” Inspector General Glenn Fine said.

a. We all know that the government has had pre-intelligence conformations of an attack on the U.S.A and from that you can see that the government could have very well played off on those conformations for a more stable and believable 9/11 attacks.

www.wanttoknow.info...

1996–2001: Federal authorities are aware for years before 9/11 that suspected terrorists with ties to Osama bin Laden are receiving flight training at schools in the US and abroad. One convicted terrorist confesses that his planned role in a terror attack was to crash a plane into CIA headquarters. [Washington Post, 9/23/01, CBS, 5/30/02, more]

1998–2000: On three occasions, spies in Afghanistan report bin Laden's location. Each time, the president approves an attack. Each time, the CIA Director says the attack can’t go forward. [New York Times, 12/30/01, more]

2000–2001: 15 of the 19 hijackers fail to fill in visa documents properly in Saudi Arabia. Only six are interviewed. All 15 should have been denied entry to the US. [Washington Post, 10/22/02, ABC, 10/23/02] Two top Republican senators say if State Department personnel had merely followed the law, 9/11 would not have happened. [AP, 12/18/02, more]

2000–2001: The military conducts exercises simulating hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets causing mass casualties. One target is the World Trade Center (WTC), another the Pentagon. Yet after 9/11, over and over the White House and security officials say they’re shocked that terrorists hijacked airliners and crashed them into landmark buildings. [USA Today, 4/19/04, Military District of Washington, 11/3/00, New York Times, 10/3/01, more]

Jan 2001: After the Nov 2000 elections, US intelligence agencies are told to “back off” investigating the bin Ladens and Saudi royals. There have always been constraints on investigating Saudi Arabians. [BBC, 11/6/01, more]

Spring 2001: A series of military and governmental policy documents is released that seek to legitimise the use of US military force in the pursuit of oil and gas. One advocates presidential subterfuge and hiding the reasons for warfare “as a necessity for mobilizing public support.” [Sydney Morning Herald, 12/26/02, more]

May 2001: For the third time, US security chiefs reject Sudan’s offer of thick files on bin Laden and al-Qaeda. A senior CIA source calls it “the worst single intelligence failure in the business.” [Guardian, 9/30/01, more]

June-Aug 2001: German intelligence warns the CIA that Middle Eastern terrorists are training for hijackings and targeting American interests. Russian President Vladimir Putin alerts the US of suicide pilots training for attacks on US targets. In late July, a Taliban emissary warns the US that bin Laden is planning a huge attack on American soil. In August, Israel warns of an imminent Al Qaeda attack. [Fox News, 5/17/02, Independent, 9/7/02, more]

July 4-14, 2001: Bin Laden may have received kidney treatment from Canadian-trained Dr. Callaway at the American Hospital in Dubai. Dr. Callaway declines to comment. During his stay, bin Laden is alleged to have been visited by one or two CIA agents. [Guardian, 11/1/01, Sydney Morning Herald, 10/31/01, London Times 11/1/01, UPI, 11/1/01, more]

July 26, 2001: Attorney General Ashcroft stops flying commercial airlines due to a threat assessment. [CBS, 7/26/01] In May 2002, Ashcroft walks out of his office rather than answer questions about it. [AP, 5/16/02, more]

Aug 6, 2001: President Bush receives an intelligence briefing warning that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners. Titled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US,” the briefing specifically mentions the WTC. Yet Bush later claims it “said nothing about an attack on America.” [Washington Post, 4/12/04, Briefing, 8/6/01, more]

Aug 27, 2001: An FBI supervisor says he’s trying to keep a hijacker from “flying a plane into the WTC.” [Senate Report (Hill #2), 10/17/02] Headquarters chastises him for notifying the CIA. [Time, 5/21/02] The FBI Director later states, "There was nothing the agency could have done to prevent the attacks." [Senate (Breitweiser), 9/18/02, more]

Sep 10, 2001: “Newsweek has learned a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns." [Newsweek, 9/24/01, more]

[edit on 14-7-2006 by ragster]

[edit on 14-7-2006 by ragster]

2. The events of 9/11 always hold a large significant matter at that the government was being controlled by certain political parties and for that to keep in mind which party would best suit the United States for years to come it would only be necessary to have a case come up where the current political office could show there colors for their country.

911proof.com...

Newsman Keith Olbermann, listed numerous instances in which the administration had issued terror alerts based on scant intelligence in order to rally people around the flag when the administration was suffering in the polls. This implies — as an initial matter only — that the administration will play fast and loose with the facts in order to instill fear for political purposes.

911proof.com... -stated

U.S. congressman Ron Paul stated, “the government "is determined to have martial law", and that the government is hoping to get the people "fearful enough that they will accept the man on the white horse"

a. In this event also the help of internal hands could have been used to help equip these terrorists from other countries, as proving this would be hard due the wide hand the government has on media, we can just see where is has been done in the past.
911proof.com... -

And the New York Times has documented that Iranians working for the C.I.A. in the 1950's posed as Communists and staged bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected president (see also this essay).

And, as confirmed by a former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence, NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security."

a. Also the events of 9/11 incurred the U.S. people to feel good about their choices to attack Iraq and at the events of killing many innocent people and now turning to Iran, we could very well see another if not many attacks on the U.S.

3. The events that led up to the attacks on there after having video conformation of the attack on the pentagon and sufficient evidence to believe it could have been staged with enough of the right people on the inside. Also the events of world trade 7 falling down after the two main world trade center fall.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

OLBERMANN: A second commercial suggests that no plane flew into the Pentagon. As ever, when the subject of 9/11 comes up, we‘re fortunate to turn to the most respected authority on the subject, the author of “Why America Slept” and before that the book that overwhelms almost every aspect of the various JFK assassination conspiracy theories, “Case Closed,” Gerald Posner. Good evening, sir.
GERALD POSNER, SCHOLAR: Good to be with you, Keith.
OLBERMANN: What are these ads and who is responsible for them?
POSNER: These ads are sort of straight out of “X-Files.” They are the types of things that warm the cockles of Oliver Stone‘s heart. Who is responsible for them is a multi-millionaire, a fellow, James Walter out of Santa Barbara, California. He is worth about $7 million. Mostly inherited from his family. He had a building construction company in Tampa, Florida. And he has been a social activist in the past, good causes, things like voter registration, prison reform. But this time he‘s gone off the far end.
We‘re talking about ads that in essence are saying, World Trade Center 7, a building two blocks away from the World Trade Center Towers, really wasn‘t destroyed by the damage from the planes that went into the other two towers that day. But somehow, the owner of that building must have thought, gee, you know what? I don‘t have enough people filling that building. I have too many vacancies and sent in a secret team to plant explosives and bring it down on 9/11 with nobody noticing and the government should be investigating that.
And the plane we all thought went into the Pentagon with all those people that died onboard, that‘s just a bit of fiction made up. This is really pretty far down the field. One of his own friends recently described James Walter as an eccentric sweetheart. I can‘t speak to the sweetheart part but eccentric would be a mild term to describe these ads.

1. As of now you see the conspiracy is in a turmoil of sorts and still to the belief the very possible idea that these two events on 9/11 could have been staged.

a. First sub point event, how much time will it take the government to set up and launch a cruise missile?

2. The BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile was most likely launched from submarine and therefore able to reach the pentagon in sufficient time, also the launch preparation time for a Cruise Missile can be cut down to 30 minutes of the call for launch.

a. Given the time from when the attacks of the trade centers were done, the government had enough time to stage a plane attack on the pentagon. Between 8:45 and 9:40 there was enough time given for a Cruise missile launch from a submarine.

www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/policy/vision/vis98/vis-p09.htm

Description: SLAM-Expanded Response (ER) is Naval Aviation's follow-on to the SLAM Stand-off Outside Area Defense (SOAD) weapon. It is a day/night, adverse-weather, precision-strike weapon with over-the-horizon range. SLAM is based on the highly successful and reliable Harpoon anti-ship missile, with a Global Positioning System-aided Inertial Navigation System (GPS/INS) for mid-course guidance, and a Maverick Imaging Infrared sensor and a Walleye data link for precise, "man-in-the-loop" terminal guidance. SLAM-ER, an evolutionary upgrade of SLAM, provides the Navy and Marine Corps with a major improvement in precision strike capability. A modified Tomahawk warhead improves lethality and penetration. New planar wings double the range and allow terrain-following flight. Mission planning time has been reduced to less than 30 minutes, and targeting has been improved via a "freeze frame" command that reduces pilot workload.

3. Event- Analyzing the building of world trade center could the power of the two trade centers make it fall down?

www.physics.byu.edu...

As you observed (link above), WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and nearly-straight-down symmetrically -- even though fires were randomly scattered in the building. WTC 7 fell about seven hours after the Towers collapsed, even though no major persistent fires were visible (considerable dark smoke was seen). There were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside WTC 7 as well as huge trusses, arranged non-symmetrically, along with some fifty-seven perimeter columns, as indicated in the diagram below (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; NIST, 2005).

Diagram showing steel-column arrangement in WTC 7, view looking down on the roof. Circled columns were possibly damaged due to debris from WTC 1 collapse, some 350 feet away (NIST, 2005) so the damage was clearly non-symmetrical, and evidently, none of the core columns was severed by falling debris. WTC 7 was never hit by a plane.

A near-symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous “pulling” of many of the support columns (see below, particularly discussion of Bazant & Zhou paper). The likelihood of complete and nearly-symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since non-symmetrical failure is so much more likely. If one or a few columns had failed, one might expect a portion of the building to crumble while leaving much of the building standing. For example, major portions of WTC 5 remained standing on 9/11 despite very significant impact damage and severe fires.

a. In this site all possible analytical points were taken and stood upon, though there is a very strong evaluation here, and there is no way this building could have been damaged enough by the world trade center collapse to make this building collapse also.




[edit on 14-7-2006 by ragster]

So thats all I got, hope anyone can stand up to it, or at least maybe just maybe smack it down....

its all good either way, hit me!!!!

Originally posted by ragster

a. We all know that the government has had pre-intelligence conformations of an attack on the U.S.A and from that you can see that the government could have very well played off on those conformations for a more stable and believable 9/11 attacks.

I can't argue with that and I won't. However, you need to understand that this in no way 'proves' the government orchestrated and implemented 9-11. The workings to go to Iraq were being set in motion by Clinton which is why he and ol' Hil probably support the effort so much. You need to understand that Iraq was not just a Bush and company effort. It was being set into motion pre-Bush administration. And, we would be there now regardless of 9-11.

www.ccmep.org...

www.cnn.com...

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Originally posted by ragster
2. The events of 9/11 always hold a large significant matter at that the government was being controlled by certain political parties and for that to keep in mind which party would best suit the United States for years to come it would only be necessary to have a case come up where the current political office could show there colors for their country.

If so, then explain to me how Bush got into office, had time to appoint his officials, brainwash the entire U.S. government and plan and orchestrate 9-11? And how did the previous Democratic administration not have an inkling that this was going on?

Newsman Keith Olbermann, listed numerous instances in which the administration had issued terror alerts based on scant intelligence in order to rally people around the flag when the administration was suffering in the polls. This implies — as an initial matter only — that the administration will play fast and loose with the facts in order to instill fear for political purposes.

Hmmm...well when you have the majority of the country calling for these exact measures that is usually what will happen. You know the people do run the government right? Post 9-11 people were all about measures to be taken to keep this from happening again. The government answered our calls.

U.S. congressman Ron Paul stated, “the government "is determined to have martial law", and that the government is hoping to get the people "fearful enough that they will accept the man on the white horse"

Oh dear, well quoting a Libertarian whose motive is to take down the government probably isn't the best 'proof' of anything. Where is this martial law he speaks of? I see not the slightest iota of martial law in this country. Rhetoric.

In this event also the help of internal hands could have been used to help equip these terrorists from other countries, as proving this would be hard due the wide hand the government has on media, we can just see where is has been done in the past.

Again, what you seem to be forgetting is that Bush and Company were only in office 9 months pre 9-11 and the majority of people highly supported him...even Democrats. So, what is this proof of again?

The events that led up to the attacks on there after having video conformation of the attack on the pentagon and sufficient evidence to believe it could have been staged with enough of the right people on the inside. Also the events of world trade 7 falling down after the two main world trade center fall.

Ummm Building 7 encountered some fire and structural after the attack and after the fall of the towers...not to mention a huge seismic wave that was sent across the city after the fall. The fireman pulled from it because it was obvious it was going to fall because of it's current weakened state.

Originally posted by ragster
1. As of now you see the conspiracy is in a turmoil of sorts and still to the belief the very possible idea that these two events on 9/11 could have been staged.

Actually, no. You have provided no such proof of anything you have claimed.

First sub point event, how much time will it take the government to set up and launch a cruise missile?

What are you presenting to prove it was a missile? If it was the size of the hole in the Pentagon then what factors are you using to determine it wasn't a 757? Because you know that it has happened before, right? When a Bomber hit the Pentagon in the 1940's the hole was too small for the impact of it. Guess why? Ummm again another duh, the wings came off at the time of the impact.

As for the Towers, i'm not an engineer...I could go to other websites and hijack info from them on it. However, i'll let someone with real knowledge of all that debunk you on these factors you have mentioned. And, really i'm out of time to get into it, so i'll hope that someone else will do it for me.

That was incredible Zen, I loved that, seriuosly I do not know where even to begin, over the course of what you have said, it has been a tremendous research ability on your part, I really comend on this I will try my best to prove my statements.



The only true I can hold is written on paper and prepared in my mind, with the building 7 and the cruise missle, all seeming as possibilities, I have given all the information I can on what information is given from the Goverment.
On presidents bushes job as President, and as a republican, is strong, but for brain washing the goverment to do, I dont it, my belief is he may have not even known about this, and if there was an inside job, it was done by republican but not many would know about it, it would have to be secret, or this would not of happened, but all in all the gov, is holding alot of information about what happened, just as we know. But for your sake, your statements I do believe. But for mine I seem to question the possibilty, and keeping in mind the benefit of teh doubt.

Hey, I understand that you have your opinions about it. Did you check out the link I provided to you earlier? I think you could have your questions answered from that. And the amount of people that it would have taken to pull something like this off....there is no way it would remain secret.

hahaha you are exactly right, hahaha, I'm just scared though about that, and how the goverment can do that if they truly wanted, the really is not that much difference in a corrupt goverment and our own, we just dont show it. Ya know, but its all cool.

Originally posted by zenlover28

Originally posted by ragster
2. The events of 9/11 always hold a large significant matter at that the government was being controlled by certain political parties and for that to keep in mind which party would best suit the United States for years to come it would only be necessary to have a case come up where the current political office could show there colors for their country.

If so, then explain to me how Bush got into office, had time to appoint his officials, brainwash the entire U.S. government and plan and orchestrate 9-11?

This is the simple part of this whole thing. Just like to 04 election the 00 election was also rigged, and yes if I really wanted to show proof i could just google 2000 election rigged, fruad, and other words and you get alot of info on both 00 and 04 elections.

Originally posted by zenlover28
And how did the previous Democratic administration not have an inkling that this was going on?

They could have known, Janet Reno told FBI and others to back off of going after Bin Laden when they were getting close to him. Our boy John O'Neil died on 9/11 his 1st day at the WTC as chief security officer. He was onto Bin Lade and was told to back off.

Most of the victims of the September 11 attack seemed tragically random -- they were just going to work. Not John O'Neill. Until last August, he'd been the FBI's top expert on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, a lead investigator of the USS Cole and African embassy bombings. Leaving the Bureau in frustration, he'd taken a job he thought of as retirement: World Trade Center security chief. But when he died it became clear: His own life contained as many mysteries as his enemy's.